search this blog

Friday, January 30, 2015

Half of our ancestry comes from the Pontic-Caspian steppe


Here's the latest teaser for the new David Reich et al. paper on the ethnogenesis of present-day Europeans. It's part of an abstract for a seminar to be held by Professor Reich at Jesus College, Oxford, on February 9. Interestingly, it argues that migrations from the steppe resulted in a ~50% population turnover across northern Europe from the late Neolithic onwards, which is very much in agreement with recent discussions on the topic at Eurogenes (for instance, see here).

By ~6,000-5,000 years ago, a resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry had occurred throughout much of Europe, but in Russia, the Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding eastern European hunter-gatherers, but also from a population of Near Eastern ancestry. Western and Eastern Europe came into contact ~4,500 years ago, as the Late Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced ~3/4 of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery. This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least ~3,000 years ago, and comprises about half the ancestry of today’s northern Europeans. These results support the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe, and show the power of genome-wide ancient DNA studies to document human migrations.

Source: Ancient DNA documents three ancestral populations for present-­day Europeans


Update 11/02/2015: Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (Haak et al. 2015 preprint).


Haak et al., Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, bioRxiv, Posted February 10, 2015, doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/013433

646 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 646   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

It's obvious that the people buried in the Andronovo Kurgans came from Eastern Europe.

As per the paper, their mtDNA mix becomes progressively less Eastern European with time, but they retain their strongly European character for thousands of years.

This is very important and useful, because it means that when the Andronovo and Scytho-Siberian genomes are sequenced, they'll cluster with Eastern Europeans. :)

The full paper appears to be here for those of you who haven't read it yet, which seems like most of you actually.

hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf

Ryukendo K said...

@ Davidski
Everywhere else on the plot, craniometric affinities confirm what we have from aDNA--that mesos and neol HGs were on one side, while neol agris were on the other. I see no reason why we must make a special exception for just one place in the plot, when all the rest of the points for that period follow the rules?

The Baltic region also has an incomplete neolithic package, retaining hunter-gathering-fishing in a way not seen elsewhere, not even in the TRB. If archaeology counts for anything, it counts for a diffusionist scenario here, as opposed to a migrationist neolithic elsewhere.

You know as well as I do that the high H is a late, post-neolithic phenomenon.

The point is, that the Baltic region being exceptionally high in WHG is not surprising, considering that there is evidence the area had the greatest WHG penetrance until recent times.

To attribute all of the high WHG in the baltic to CW or Yamnaya is disingenuous. I highly doubt '50% Yamnaya' can be used to subsume a 75% figure in the baltics, which is the figure you used for your estimates.

Let's see.

postneo said...

@krefter
"http://www.academia.edu/765506/THE_ORIGIN_AND_SPREAD_OF_THE_WAR_CHARIOT"

Interesting reading. I think there was linkage btw Yamna and Andronovo. According to the theses here the eastward survival of "Yamna like" andronovo was due to tin trade with BMAC, IVC and Elam.

But I think the buck stops there as far as language, and genes go. Especially with the increased use of iron. perhaps some priests crossed over.

Its not clear if the R1a had z93 ?
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0683-0

It does not make a very strong case for the Sintashta chariot being a war chariot not a prestiege or convenience item. It simply cites association/resemblance with Hittites chariots since direct evidence is lacking.

page 66 is interesting where it talks about south asia. The pottery linkage is weak. BMAC is not south asia proper a vast distance needs to be crossed. Mallory and others have admitted about the difficulties in making linkages. Just look at the map in the paper itself.

In all the rig veda only one probable passage is found resembling Andronovo funerary ritual. Is this an early or late hymn ?

Davidski said...

rk,

Who said that all of the high WHG in the Baltics came from CWC and Yamnaya?

What I'm saying is that present-day Eastern Europeans will come out well over 50% CWC/Yamnaya in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, which will be confirmed with high resolution uniparental data, such as complete mtDNA genomes from Yamnaya kurgans.

This is more than a reasonable statement considering many things, such as the high mtDNA affinity between modern Ukrainians and Yamnaya/Catacomb samples and the high frequencies of R1a-M417 in Kurgan and related ancient remains.

This isn't even worth debating.

Kurti said...

Considering the y and mtDNA we have my personal opinion about the early Andronovo people is they will turn out as 35% ANE 15% WHG and 50% ENF.

And the Scythians probably as 35% ANE, 15% WHG, ENF and 5% East Eurasian.

Or in outdated admixture calculations. 45% West Asian, 35% North European and 15% Mediterranean.

Davidski said...

You watch, they'll cluster with the HGDP Russians from Kargopol and the Erzya from near the Volga.

Kurti said...

@David

I will read through the paper but something tells me that the wording of the paper is not exactly the same as you are giving us because I am pretty sure I have red somewhere else that their mtDNA was becoming less West Eurasian yet remaining pretty "European" on aDNA. Note "European" is used by many authors supervicially and synonymously for any West Eurasian ancestry. Don't forget North Caucasians are techniqually and physically considered as European in vast majority of papers. Most of these papers make a "European vs East Asian" distinction of it. I would love to see them compare Scythian DNA to West Asian and European DNA.

And why aren't they publishing the data anyways?

Unknown said...

Krefter
Maybe im the dim one then, coz I'm still not quite getting u
So you're saying that the specific subclades of T and U are *only* found in europe ; and not in central-South Asia ? ; and they appear in Europe (ie "core Europe") first prior to appearing in Andronovo ?

You further say that andronivans are basically the same as modern europeans ; yet the paper you reference clearly states that even into the metal ages they retain eastern lineages ; which are otherwise not found weat beyond Ukraine ; and you furthermore call Z93 "Euripean " (!?)

Ryukendo K said...

@ Davidski

The point is, the logic you guys have been using to construct the plot is that E.Eur = CW, CW = 75% Yamnaya, so E.Euro = 75% Yamnaya. I always found this highly dubious.

If East Euros are ~100% CW and CW are only ~60% Yamnaya, then E.Euros are only 60% Yamnaya and Yamnaya would be further east, just like I said. Because East Euros are so WHG, this will result in quite a big movement for Yamnaya, making the C+S.Asia situation a bit less disconcerting.

I highly doubt the figure will exceed 65%, and the maximum similarity is probably not in Baltics, but in Poles and others further south.

Unknown said...

Agree RK
Then maybe we should really only take heed of analyses which have gone throgh the rigor of peer review

Kurti said...

@David

what makes you believe Scythians from Central Asia will cluster with Russians from Kargopol, if not even Yamna samples were like Europeans in genetic sense. And when even Thracian individuals turned out genetically halfway "West Asian"?

In all of Iranic speakers, even the West Eurasian traces in Uzbeks is 2/3 "West Asian " and "1/3" North European. Or in Krygyz 1/2 West Asian and 1/2 North European. So what makes you think they will turn out anything like Russians than? I didn't know that Russians are genetically half way "West Asian".

Unknown said...

Kurti
The other aspect to the chariot debate is commonsense
Where is a complex machine that a chariot must have been in the bronze age be invented ?
The near East - west Central Asia ; or the Ural Mountains '? One regions has hundreds of years of complexity , surplus, societal differentiation ; the other is a newly created mining colony
Nuff said

Nirjhar007 said...

@Mike Thomas
''I'm willing to speculate that Z93 expanded from BMA C. From there it spread further north to the steppe, east to the tarim and south to the Indus.''
Let me give another point I don't think that Z-93 was spread by BMAC As Z-93 was already there in the steppes with Pre-Scythian type Iranian nomads being there from ancient times interacting with West Eurasians and when BMAC invaded due to the pressure of 4.2 kyo event which made cultures like Sintastha,Andronovo,Arkaim possible it createda confusion for modern scholars.

Davidski said...

rk,

Where did you get the idea that CWC are 60% Yamnaya? The two figures most often quoted here are 73% and 75%. They're based on reports from the ASHG talk.

And no one ever said that Eastern Euros are precisely 60% Yamnaya. We don't know what they'll turn out exactly, but keep in mind that not all Eastern Europeans are the same. Some will turn out to be more CWC/Yamnaya and others less, and some will probably come close to looking like 100% CWC and thus over 70% Yamnaya.

If so, that's not to mean that they are indeed of 100% CWC and 70+ % Yamnaya descent. But as I just said, there's really no point debating that Eastern Euros north of the Balkans will come out looking well over 50% Yamnaya, and the vast majority of this affinity will appear to be direct Yamnaya ancestry.

Kurti,

Those Andronovo and Scytho-Siberian Kurgans are located in south Siberia, not Central Asia.

Back in the day there was a lot of movement on the steppe between Eastern Europe and south Siberia because it's a straight open trail, so it's not surprising that the Kurgan nomads are essentially Eastern Europeans.

There's really nothing to suggest their genomes won't be anything but Eastern European with some Siberian admixture, hence my prediction that they'll cluster with north Russians and Volga Finns.

Mike,

Read the post above. Chad's and Krefter's estimates based on my admix analysis match those from Harvard scholars that are about to be published in a peer reviewed journal.

You gonna cry now? Go on, have a cry, you'll feel better.

Nirjhar007 said...

David,
''As per the paper, their mtDNA mix becomes progressively less Eastern European with time, but they retain their strongly European character for thousands of years.''
**face splash**
THEY were just Iraian pre-Scythian R1a carrying nomads like most of the steppes with Anthropological, Archaeological roots in Asia.
Their Mtdna is irrelevant as it was a result of those nomads interactions with west eurasians with the Cultures Emerging like of Arkaim,Sintastha which was Due to The BMAC Aryans interactions with those nomads to establish them.
Andronovo had STRONG BMAC influence.
And again at the end their Y-DNA which matters was by every means Asian.

Unknown said...

David
"Read the post above. Chad's and Krefter's estimates based on my admix analysis match those from Harvard scholars that are about to be published in a peer reviewed journal.

You gonna cry now? Go on, have a cry, you'll feel better."

I'm actually laughing. :)
I wasn't saying yr figures are wrong

Ryukendo K said...

@ David

The previous comment was a brainfart, got confused with all the points. Sorry.

What I was actually saying, is if CW is 75% Yamnaya, and E.Euros are somewhat above the 'approx 50% Yamnaya' figure, then there is no way for Corded Ware to place among present day E.euros.

I highly doubt any E.Euro will turn out to be anywhere close to 75% Yamnaya, even if they are >50%. Aka I am disputing the point that present day E.Euro are ~100% CW. Judging from the transition from 75% to 'approx 50%', CW will place outside of present day E.Euro.

In which direction are the CW likely to be shifted vis-a-vis present day e.euros? Not the WHG direction. Aka present day E.Euro are like WHG-shifted versions of Corded Ware, Which fits perfectly with what we know about the archaeology of the area, as forest neol extended quite a dist around the baltic into Poland, and that pop was what the CW had to overprint in Eastern Europe.

As this shifts CW southeast of where we had it on the plot, it also shifts Yamnaya southeast, which is what I've been saying.

Simon_W said...

As for now I'm quite confident that Yamnaya was a mix of R1a carrying pre-Proto-Indo-European speaking EHG with R1b carrying Kartvelian speaking pseudo-Armenians.

But even if one finds this still too speculative, the new genetic findings by the Reich lab at least seem to suggest a surprisingly profound impact of steppe related groups to the European heartland. It has become very fashionable to archeologists to deny such an impact. The role of steppe derived groups in the demise of the flourishing Copper Age cultures of Southeastern Europe has become very controversial. And archeologists repeatedly negated the role of large scale migrations in the appearance of the Corded Ware culture. Some have stressed the many differences between Yamnaya and Corded Ware. Others, while acknowledging the east-west spread of Corded Ware material culture, have pointed out that the Corded Ware burial customs already developped centuries earlier, and slowly, over a wide area, without a discernible center of spread. According to Furholt this speaks against the role of migration in the rise of the Corded Ware and instead favours local continuity together with far ranging communication networks.

But to me it's clear that hard genetic evidence trumps archeological arguments like these.

Unknown said...

Maybe ; maybe
I think we still have a lot more data to see
And we are focussing on one corner of europe ; largely because that's where we "think** IE came from
But I suspect reichs paper will be less straightforward than some believe

Unknown said...

There been confusion
David and Krefter are talking about different mtDNA papers

Kurti said...

@David

Which region is closer to the homeland of Scythians. Uzbekistan, Krygystan /Kazakhstan or East Siberia.

I think you need some "lesson" in geography :)

technically speaking North Kazakhstan is part of Siberia too. Central Asia.

David the only significant genetic replacement which took place in Siberia was that during Turkic expansion but again what makes you think that the Slavic expansion into the Eurasian Steppes played not any significant role? I go that far and claim one of the major genetic replacements there was due to the Slavic expansion.

Krefter said...

"If East Euros are ~100% CW and CW are only ~60% Yamnaya, then E.Euros are only 60% Yamnaya and Yamnaya would be further east, just like I said. Because East Euros are so WHG, this will result in quite a big movement for Yamnaya, making the C+S.Asia situation a bit less disconcerting."

This has been discussed before.

Yamna+EEF=xEast Euros

Yamna+EEF+SHG/BHG=East Euros.

By BHG I mean Baltic hunter gatherers, who haven't been sampled yet. Considering EHG was over 50% WHG, and SHG was over 80%, BHG was probably something like 70-75%.

This is why east Euros have less ENF than Yamna.

There has been a mystery since Laz why north Euros have so much excess hunter gatherer ancestry, but aren't hunter gatherers. BHG is why.

Ryukendo K said...

@ Krefter
That comment was the result of a brainfart. Read my next comment, which directly targets our estimates.

I think its pretty clear the info we have now torpedoes the idea that because CW = 75% Yamnaya, E.Euro = 100% CW, therefore E.Euro = 75% Yamnaya and CW is in the middle of E.Euros in PCA, which is impt as this is one of the pillars on which we base our estimates.

In other words, because CW is not in the same place as E.Euro everything will have to be shifted SE. The question is by what amount, as we don't know what 'approx 50%' translates to for E.Euros. Whatever it is, I highly doubt 'approx 50%' spans 25% to 75%.

I'm going to go on and propose that substantial presence of Hap I in IE-speaking pops loosely tracks those populations which have more WHG than Yamnaya, which will have very little I. AKA IE pops with I have more WHG than Yamnaya, and IE pops without I have less. In fact, I would bet that even Corded Ware had lower I than pops today, and lower WHG than some pops in E.Euro.

Chad, I know you are gonna post that map again, but the reason why that spot exists is because of the kurds, which isn't surprising as Anatolia and some parts of the Cauc have pretty high I and seems to have old, non-IE WHG in contrast to the rest of the middle east and C.Asia.

If you tell me that Iranians have 25% I, thats the result of an 2004 study that used only 10 SNPs on tens of Iranians. The most recent study, 2012 if I rmb correctly, tested ~1000 Iranians with >100 SNPs and found <1% I, which brings them in line with the rest of C.Asia as having R1a, R1b and J2 but no I.

Off memory, so approx figures.

Unknown said...

@Nirjhar007
"We discussed this before that Andronovo was BMAC dependent WITH Arkaim and FYI the predominant physical type of Andronovo people was indeed the so-called Pamir-Ferghana type"

Andronovans just like people of Arkaim were dolichocephalic, and they have nothing common with brachycephalic Pamir-Ferghana type. Anthropology of Arkaim http://s959.photobucket.com/user/aiwn-13/media/arkaim-bolshekaragansky1.jpg.html , read also this http://www.academia.edu/4739976/The_Mediterraneans_of_southern_Siberia_and_Kazakhstan_Indo-European_migrations_and_the_origin_of_the_Scythians_A_multivariate_craniometric_analysis_2008_ ,and this http://www.academia.edu/4739993/Craniometric_evidence_of_the_early_Caucasoid_migrations_to_Siberia_and_Central_Asia_with_reference_to_the_Indo-European_problem_2009_

Krefter said...

Nirj,

The fact you don't say "Likely", "possible", "The evidence suggests", etc., but instead state things as fact, suggest to me you're biased.

You've already made your conclusion, everything related to Indians is Asian. Now you're trying to fit the evidence around that.

You deny you're ethnocentrism and deny you think this is a competition with Euros, even though we all know that's what you think.

I don't think you're a bad person for thinking like this, it makes you normal. I'm very ethnocentric or at least used to be. Everyone is ethnocentric, until they learn it doesn't make their people inferior if they didn't do all the great things in history.

Nirjhar007 said...

@GC
I have given prominent data from prominent academics that can't be refuted.
Eastern Mediterranean type populations presence in CWC,Yamnaya,Andronovo is proven.....
Also read this research for more related data-
''Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental Nonmetric Traits''
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ach/article/view/18453

Nirjhar007 said...

Hi Krefter,
''You've already made your conclusion, everything related to Indians is Asian. Now you're trying to fit the evidence around that. ''
That is your own dogmatic denial towards my practical reasoning and questionings.
''You deny you're ethnocentrism and deny you think this is a competition with Euros, even though we all know that's what you think.''
Goodness i don't see anything as a fight or Superior vs. inferior but i want a change that the Kurgan theory needs and soon will get it....
''I don't think you're a bad person for thinking like this, it makes you normal. I'm very ethnocentric or at least used to be. Everyone is ethnocentric, until they learn it doesn't make their people inferior if they didn't do all the great things in history.''
No Krefter i'm a Factocentrist.

Kristiina said...

Kurti, should we rather say that the (only) significant genetic replacement which took place in Central Asia was the Turkic expansion from South Siberia/Altai/Mongolia to the southwest.

However, it seems to be limited to Turkic speaking groups such as Kalmyks, Uygurs, Uzbeks, Kyrgys, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Turkmens. For example Tajiks have clearly much less Turkic ancestry. http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/07/30/005850.DC1/005850-1.pdf

Kurti said...

@Kristina
Yes Tajiks are an exception. but they also received a bit of it.

Matt said...

Mike Thomas: Basically ; I suspect this will be found over the near future
- multiple sources for European ANE
- pre-Yamnaya presence of R1a in EE
- west Asian highland route for R1b (the dominant lineage of Europe )


SimonW: As for now I'm quite confident that Yamnaya was a mix of R1a carrying pre-Proto-Indo-European speaking EHG with R1b carrying Kartvelian speaking pseudo-Armenians.

These both seem reasonably likely to me (although I wouldn't bet much on them when everything changes so fast). I have less confidence about whether the pseudo-Armenians (if that's what they truly were) were speaking Kartvelian languages and EHG speaking anything Indo-European though, and not sure how it'll ever be possible to properly test. Genetics will only show genetic change with 100% confidence.

In terms of "neatness", it seems to me like it would be ideal and neat if R1b comes from one population with descent from R carrying ANE and R1a from another. Yamnaya (and EHG) seems likely to provide one for R1a (where the R1a marker may have gradually become unstuck from the autosomal cluster it was originally grouped with through serial effects), so perhaps "something else ANE rich" provides a population for R1b?

Speculatively, both of these (R1a and R1b) enter Europe via different routes and spread in the Atlantic Bronze Age vs Corded Ware zones respectively (spread of R1b more an elite lineage in Middle Neolithic West Europeans, R1a more of a population replacement with Corded Ware). Then later in history marriage alliances by some mtdna H heavy group (probably of Southwest or Central European origin) which marries its daughters tactically homogenizes Europe more into a more single cultural zone (and to some degree genetically homogenises as well), while males mostly more stay put (patrilocal system), largely replacing to a great extent many previous mtdna lineages.

But then history is what it is, and the dna will tell.

Davidski said...

Kurti,

Who said anything about east Siberia?

Have you actually read the Keyser et al. paper? If you have, it seems you don't understand any of it, not even the maps.

Unknown said...

@Nirjhar007
"I have given prominent data from prominent academics that can't be refuted.
Eastern Mediterranean type populations presence in CWC,Yamnaya,Andronovo is proven"

You have given weak data, not prominent. I remember how you said that there were some mythical "Iranid type" in mesolitic East Europe. That is a lie. You don't know nothing about anthropology, that's why you have said that CWC,Yamnaya,Andronovo had Pamir-Ferghana type, now you are saying that this cultures had Eastern Mediterranean type. You gave me the data of 1960, lol now 2015. I mean, I need cranial index, facial index, not thier conclusions. About Khudaverdyan's work...It's pseudo-mediterraneans, I gave you the link of Kozintsev's work. People of Taklamakan Desert also would issued for mediterraneans (such researchers like Khudaverdyan), if not their pigmentation.

postneo said...

we have 2 extreme models here for

1) Davidski and Krefter's intrusive "nazi" panzer chariot and R1a z93 suddenly appearing in south asia after 1600 BC, completely wiping out all languages and IVC genetic legacy including substrate words. This is identified by a few potsherds in late BMAC.

2) Nirjhar's BMAC colonizers of the Steppe.

To support 1) you would need a z93 majority population in andronovo and a complete lack of it in south asia before 1600 BC. So far Andronovo has looked more western. Can anyone please cite examples of kurgan burials that are specifically z93.

Unknown said...

Krefter
You still haven't xlarified your confusing statements about the supposedly unequivocal mtDNA of andronovo

Unknown said...

Cont. Krefter
U claimed that
"specific subclades of T and U are *only* found in europe ; and not in central-South Asia ? ; and they appear in Europe (ie "core Europe") first prior to appearing in Andronovo ?

You further say that andronivans are basically the same as modern europeans ; yet the paper you reference clearly states that even into the metal ages they retain eastern lineages ; which are otherwise not found weat beyond Ukraine ; and you furthermore call Z93 "Euripean "

Davidski said...

Mike,

Read the paper again.

The authors argue that the Kurgan people most likely came from Europe, and their mtDNA became increasingly Asian as they mixed with Asians.

You sound really desperate when you twist things like this.

Unknown said...

You're referring to the Keyser paper; and yes that what it suggests ; although I think we should stick to stating that the DNA became less "west Eurasian " rather than less indo-european; coz the two are not synonymous

Now krefter's paper was looking at mtDNA through the ages in the forest zone near the Ob, etc rivers. Somewhat paradoxically , this region had more East eurasian lineages ; and received input of Western U and T lineages during the bronze age ; whilst not eradicating the previous groups . I say paradoxically because these groups were located more North -western to Keyser's Siberian "" Andronovo-Scythians""

In the ukraine paper ( part of the same book); we also have clear evidence of eastern and western lineages ; the former increase again in the Iron Age whilst the latter increased during the bronze

Now Krefter is hanging his hat on the fact that R1a is "European" for proof of the kurgan hypothesis ; as well as making dubious assertions that evenZ93 is specifically european . As well as the supposed blond blue-eyedness noted in the Keyser paper .

Davidski said...

There was an influx of R1a (including Z93) from the European steppe into Asia as far as the Altai and South Siberia during the Bronze Age. We now have several studies clearly pointing to this, and many more are on the way.

How long do you think you can hold out with your theories until you're left with no arguments whatsoever? I'll give you 18 months, because you sound quite desperate.

Unknown said...

No David
Haven't I repeatedly stated that I am not contesting that there was a shift toward ANE in Eastern Europe (and North); and toward R1a ?

Haven't I also said that , as current phylogeny stands ; the (at least most recent phase ) of r1a expansion looks steppic?

I have little problem with the idea that there was some flow from the steppe to NE Europe and Central Asia.

But I do have a problem with the 1 dimensionality of analyses ; and its a focus on what constitutes only half of the IE world .

Moreover I highlighted the selectivity of kreftet's analysis

Moreover ; I think reichs paper will support what im saying about more complex; non-linear interactions

Now ; forgive me for tooting my own horn; but this sounds like sound scholarship rather than denialism(?!)

Davidski said...

Mike, my money is on you bleating like a wounded animal when that Reich paper comes out. But by all means, prove me wrong.

Unknown said...

As long as you're there to hold my hand; I'll be fine

Krefter said...

I'll feed off of your dead carcass.

:)

Marnie said...

No basis on which to make the assertion that Half of European Ancestry comes from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe in the last 4,500 thousand years:

http://linearpopulationmodel.blogspot.com/2015/02/no-basis-for-assertion-that-half-of_1.html

Matt said...

Davidski: It's obvious that the people buried in the Andronovo Kurgans came from Eastern Europe.

I'm not following exactly what this discussion / argument is about, Andronovo looks like a large horizon covering an area akin from the Caucasus to Pakistan, and straddling two or three different ecozones (taiga, desert and grassland).

Where Andronovo overlaps Russia (as in Krasnoyarsk as in Kayser) and in other thinly populated regions connected to these regions (where they'd hardly mix with other people), they probably were akin to Russians in their genetics, etc? Elsewhere perhaps less so, where Andronovo overlaps desert and rubs up against BMAC and is influenced by it (forgetting Nirjhar's imaginations of "BMAC Aryans")?

Unknown said...

David and Krefter
Well I look forward to seein the actual sampled populations and periods . I'm worried by your blasé atitude to sampling ; stating that we only need samples form Hungary , on the one hand; and Siberia in the other ; and nothing in between- esp the Baltic region, Poland and Ukraine ; northeast Balkans (not that I'm stating these are the sources of ane ).

Matt:
Exactly
Again (they) with the sweeping, reductionist narratives

Davidski said...

The argument is about whether the Andronovo and Scytho-Siberian samples from south Siberian Kurgans from Keyser et al. were of overwhelmingly European origin, as argued by the authors of the study. It's obvious to me that they were.

As for the rest of the Andronovo horizon, which formed after the expansion of the Kurgan people from the steppe, it's an open question what their genetic structure was like since we don't have any of their DNA. But they were probably much less European than the steppe nomads, and indeed over time they might have lost all of their genome-wide European admixture.

Unknown said...

Finally your getting it David - each subregion likely had its own dynamic
I was not arguing against the findings in the Keyser paper; although i highlight further resolution of their r1a is to be seen (something the Keyser team is apparently undertaking ). But overall affinities pointed to, both, EE and South-central Asia . So I'm not sure why ur emphasising only one at the expense of the other

Notwithstanding , my main debate was about a different andronovo paper (Vicheslav et al) - that discussed by Krefter . Intriguingly , that population appeared ''more eastern" despite their relatively Western location cf those sample by Keyser


Marnie said...

"The argument is about whether the Andronovo and Scytho-Siberian samples from south Siberian Kurgans from Keyser et al. were of overwhelmingly European origin, as argued by the authors of the study. It's obvious to me that they were."

It's irrelevant.

If Siberian "Kurgan" people mentioned in the Keyser paper back migrated into Eastern Europe, they would be back migrating into closely related populations. (See Varzari et al and Jankova-Ajanovska et al).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23341985

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.06.013

Anyway, I think it improbably that there was a significant Kurgan Siberian back migration into Europe in the Bronze Age.

Davidski said...

No one is saying that the Andronovo people migrated or back migrated to Europe.

What I'm saying is that there were population movements of Kurgan people from the Yamnaya both west and east, and Andronovo was the result of a Kurgan push into Siberia and Central Asia.

Actually, some distant descendents of Andronovo did migrate back to Europe as Scythians, but they didn't make much of an impact on European genetic structure.

Btw Marnie, you need to cut out that crap about Wolfgang posting here as me, because someone might eventually notice and you'll get in trouble. You really should see a mental professional. That's not an insult, just friendly advice.

Kurti said...

@Davidski

Instead ignoring die hard facts on hand on trying to explain them with not very convincing stories of "huge West Asian migration into Central Asia" which no one heard off.

Just admit that your claim that Scyrtho_Siberian burials will turn out as some kind of Russians just doesn't make sense.

What on the words Krygzstan, Uzbekistan is the closest to, and even part of the Andronovo sphere, and therefore the West Eurasian DNA in those countries must be Scythian, is so hard to understand?
And you also completely ignore all of my other arguments. How the heck can Scythian burials turn out as some kind of Russian if even Yamna was already different from modern East Euros?

You are just trying too hard to smash through the agenda my friend.

Fact of the matter is West Eurasian DNA in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan is 2/3 to 1/2 West Asian like. And I don't know of any significant migration post Sintashta, from West Asia into the region which might have caused it. But sure as hell I know that their was a huge genetic turnover in this region with from the hands of Altaic speakers and second from the hand of Slavs in form of Russians as example.

Kurti said...

And also I wrote earlier. European is far too unspecific for me. European can mean anything from pred. ENF like South Italians to pred ENF/ANE like North Caucasians. I have seen MANY papers doing that. First I want to see what they mean specifically with European, because I have no doubt that an ~40% West Asian 35% North European and 15% Mediterranean like individual would be considered as European by any means since it would cluster between Russians and North Caucasians. "European" is far too lose for my taste and I think if they were anything like East Europeans the paper would mention it and not use broad terms like "European".

Davidski said...

Why don't you actually read the paper and try to understand it? I think this would save us a lot of time.

"European" in the context of that paper is Polish, Czech, Ukrainian and so on.

Nirjhar007 said...

@GC
''You have given weak data, not prominent. I remember how you said that there were some mythical "Iranid type" in mesolitic East Europe.''
i DON'T remember saying such thing can you please refer?
'' You don't know nothing about anthropology, that's why you have said that CWC,Yamnaya,Andronovo had Pamir-Ferghana type, now you are saying that this cultures had Eastern Mediterranean type''
No you don't you know why? because the Indo-Afghan type is a part of the Eastern Mediterranean type!
''. You gave me the data of 1960, lol now 2015. I mean, I need cranial index, facial index, not thier conclusions. About Khudaverdyan's work...It's pseudo-mediterraneans, I gave you the link of Kozintsev's work. People of Taklamakan Desert also would issued for mediterraneans (such researchers like Khudaverdyan), if not their pigmentation.''
No not 60's they were all modern if i'm not wrong and please also read this book which i have, then you will get the depth knowledge between the relations-
J.V. Day, Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence (2001)

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
'' Andronovo was the result of a Kurgan push into Siberia and Central Asia.''
lol.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Postneo
''To support 1) you would need a z93 majority population in andronovo and a complete lack of it in south asia before 1600 BC. So far Andronovo has looked more western. Can anyone please cite examples of kurgan burials that are specifically z93.''
It seems an impossible scenario concerning EVEN the AIT scenario:) anyway David should Enlight us i guess......

Unknown said...

As I said , boys ; the andronovo mummies are being looked at again by Keyser et al
They'll hooefully breakdown which subcldes they were

Nirjhar007 said...

Yeah lets see what R1a-Subclades we get! BTW when the Yamnaya Paper is releasing any news Mike?

Krefter said...

I'm going to email Keyser and see if we can get any leaks. Maybe they've done autosomal analysis. Even better would be the tarim mummies.

Nirjhar007 said...

Okay! but try to leak the Y-DNA please:).

Unknown said...

Indont know about the yamnaya paper
I believe david and others had previously emailed reich

Nirjhar007 said...

Its really now crossing the limits of what we call teasing really.

capra internetensis said...

@postneo

The burial hymn is indeed generally considered a very late hymn.

Some of the chariot references quoted are clearly cosmological symbolism, e.g. the twelve spokes are the twelve months of the year.

The hypothesis of a late Indo-Aryan migration from Andronovo via BMAC is surely weak archaeologically, but there is no need to exaggerate. There are plenty of Indic words without IE etymologies which could be of Harappan origin (it is generally assumed that some are). It is even possible that one of the South Asian isolates (like Burushaski) is a Harappan remnant, though that seems unlikely. How many of the great Bronze Age civilizations have passed their languages down to us? Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Egyptian (liturgical Coptic aside), Hittite, and so many others have utterly vanished - often replaced by the languages of barbarous nomads. OTOH Zhou Chinese (relatively young) has survived and thrived (probably going back to Shang and maybe further, but that's debatable). Languages get replaced, even those of great and populous cultures.

The great majority of the modern Indian gene pool is assumed to be indigenous - it is mainly one particularly successful patrilineage that is attributed to the immigrants.

Indian culture and religion is taken to be syncretic. The idea is that the Aryans came into the region in the wake of economic and political collapse - and Possehl's suggests that the Harappan ideology in particular would have been discredited - bringing not only their horses and chariots (perhaps not terribly important in the grand scheme) but also compelling new religious practices.

I do not know whether this hypothesis is right or wrong, but it is not so improbable as you make it sound. The spread of Indo-Aryan languages would be more straightforward if they were already present in the Harappan period, but that just gives us a new set of difficulties in accounting for other branches. Which may or may not be solvable.

@Mike Thomas

Fortified towns full of artisans with access to lots of horses couldn't come up with chariots? That's no more convincing than the argument that because the earliest known chariot remains were in Sintashta the chariot must have been invented there.

postneo said...

I remember reading the Keyser paper a while back. The samples are too far north to have any relevance to BMAC, Iran and IVC.

It just reinforces that a big chunk of mordern Europeans were more east shifted in the past.

A model suggests itself on the split of z283 and z93.

Its the caspian. z283 arose in people who went north of caspian. z93 in people who went or stayed in the south. the caspian reinforced drift and prevented subsequent mixing.

Unknown said...

Well anything possible
I'm just going on likelihood ; given specialisation and differentiation. And I'm not sure how many "artisans" there were in the sintashta settlements .
Anyhow; as I said ; there are pictorial depictions of chariots in the third millenium in near East ; the models found in Sintashta date to 1600 BC.

Unknown said...

@Nirjhar007
"No you don't you know why? because the Indo-Afghan type is a part of the Eastern Mediterranean type!"
Nope, East Mediterranean subtype (often call the Caspian subtype)it's part of the Mediterranean RACE and it's dolichocephalic, while the Indo-Afghan and Pamir-Ferghana subtypes are brachycephalic. Like I said before, you don't know much about anthropology.

Davidski said...

Mike,

It's interesting how you managed to turn 2000-1850 B.C. into 1600 B.C., and wagons pulled by donkeys into chariots.

Unknown said...

The typological dating were specifically c. 1600 BC; later than I recalled

Unknown said...

As for wagons pulled by donkeys; that's perhaps one interpretation, ie yours and Anthony 's . Maybe it right ; maybe not
I'm not a chariot expert

postneo said...

@capra

"The spread of Indo-Aryan languages would be more straightforward if they were already present in the Harappan period"

Harappan civ was too big to be have just one language and culture. there must have been priests who understood and transacted with parallel cults, myths understanding their equivalence and impact. This is evident in some of the surviving examples today. Its not a question of simplistic demotion and promotion but something far more complex .. a different topic ....

The horse sacrifice/butchering is the only significant aspect that links steppe cultures and vedic. But I think it was a borrowing of kingly rituals from the north west made possible by a continuum of shared languages and cults. The horse was not common even after any purported indo-aryan invasion.









Nirjhar007 said...

@GC
''Nope, East Mediterranean subtype (often call the Caspian subtype)it's part of the Mediterranean RACE and it's dolichocephalic, while the Indo-Afghan and Pamir-Ferghana subtypes are brachycephalic. Like I said before, you don't know much about anthropology.''
No! Indians belongs to the Eastern Mediterranean RACE and for example the predominant physical type of Andronovo people which was the so-called Pamir-Ferghana type according to Kuzmina and Mallory as you see here-
http://books.google.it/books?id=x5J9rn8p2-IC&pg=PA370&lpg=PA370&dq=Gorgan+grey+ware&source=bl&ots=VNYmM0aeiw&sig=Yx6d_rJ4Yku7Nj4okH0IWkRcpEc&hl=it&sa=X&ei=awcJUfaHI4nesgb8yoHYBA&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=pamir-fergana&f=false
is more massive than the eastern Mediterranean typical of the farmers of South Central Asia and India, but was included by G.F. Debets in the Indo-Afghan type, which belongs to the 'Indo-Mediterranean race' as we find here-http://dodona.proboards.com/thread/7174
Also skulls of the Andronovo cemetery at Muminabad on the Zeravshan are also assigned to the typical Eastern Mediterranean type!

Nirjhar007 said...

More....
If you read this book co-authored by Masson of whom you know of-
http://books.google.it/books?id=GXzycd3dT9kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=central+asia+history+civilizations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_0sJUdvBCKmA4gSDuYGIDA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=eastern%20Mediterranean&f=false
We find that the settlers on the Yenisey and in eastern and central Kazakhstan represent the so-called Andronovo variant of the proto-European race, in the lands along the Volga and western Kazakhstan we find a dolicocephalic Europoid population of the so-called eastern Mediterranean type! once again.
Now this distinction recalls the one made by Herodotus (I.201; I.215; IV.11) between eastern Massagetae (where massa- is an Iranian word for 'large, great') and Scythians, who later went to the West, invading the Pontic region.
the fact that at least some Scythians/Sakas were actually of eastern Mediterranean type is supported by a recent research by Khodzhayov, whose results are so described:
''This article gives an analysis of a Sakaean cranial series from the Eastern Pamirs. The predominant trait combination aligns these groups with the Eastern Mediterraneans. The crania are generally robust by Mediterranean standards; dolichocrany combines with high vault, high, narrow face. This trait combination evidences affinities with the peoples of southern Turkmenistan, northern Tadzhikistan, and central Iran. Somewhat less common is a gracile variant with a low vault, narrow, low face – a trait complex displayed by the peoples of Namazga, Sapallitepa, Zaman-baba, and the Chust cultures of Western Central Asia and of the Turing-Hissar culture of northeastern Iran. The combination of robustness, dolichocrany, high, broad face, typical of the pastoralist tribes of the Bishkent culture of southern Tadzhikistan does not occur in the Pamirs. Markedly Caucasoid features along with a very low cranial index points to Near Eastern, Middle Eastern, and South Asian affinities.''
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011008000925
So again origin pointing to a Asian origin.
All are in harmony that Andronovans etc were just Pre-Scythian Indo-Iranians of SC Asia-Iranian origin who inhabited the Steppes interacting with Yamnaya near by populations.

Davidski said...

Mediterranean race?

Buahahaha...

Nirjhar007 said...

Shocked?

Unknown said...

Birj buddy; I think those concepts of sub-races are a little old school (?!)

Nirjhar007 said...

Who is Birj?

Unknown said...

(sorry . iPhone typing )

Nirjhar007 said...

Mike, i consider materialistic evidence as more prominent specially in case of the lack of aDNA from Important Asian Archaeological cultures combined with Archaeotextual evidence of which Aryans gave a great courtesy to us to understand their history and with Archaeological-Cultural correspondence it is completely convincing to suggest that the Indo-Iranians were the Neolithic folks from Asia with the PIE also.
What we see in case of Kurgan is the Case of Creationism which lacks the link of casuality that the Asian Archaeological Sites have with the Indo-Iranians.
PIE I think evolved from the Zarzian-Zagros horizon and Spread in the SC Asia quite early, Towards Europe-Anatolia it started to Went Around ~4000 BC With Cultures like of Maykop and Yamnaya.
The steppes were always the shelter of Pops like Scythian type Nomads as Evident in History and Pre-History they have nothing to do With Aryans who were of The Sedentary and Farming Sphere evident from their Texts and other related studies.
If you have objections just shoot....

Kristiina said...

For all it is worth, the ancient Andronovo mtDNa is the following:
Bronze Age: U4, Z1, T1, U2e, T4, H6, K2b, U5a1, U5a1, U4*
Iron Age: T3, T3, I4, G2a, C, H, F1b, H, H5a, C, HV, H, N9a, T1

I checked the origin of Andronovo mtDNA against this new Siberian mtDNA paper (Derenko 2014) + other comparisons with the following results:
Bronze Age (excluding East Asian haplotypes)
U4: difficult to assign but may have come from Volga and/or existed in Siberia before the Andronovo period as it was frequent already in Mesolithic cultures;
T1: found in ancient Yamna remains in central Ukraine and the Middle Volga; but, on the other hand, T1 subtype constitutes roughly half of modern Iranian hg T pool;
U2e: difficult to assign but may be local; U2e is relatively old in Siberia (e.g. U2e1 corresponds to 16.3-19.4 kya); according to Keyser, the haplotype was found in 1 Estonian and 1 Uygur;
T4: looks European (Roma, Byelorussian, Hungarian, Greek)
H6: according to Derenko 2014, probably European; e.g. H6a1 is found in Corded Ware remains
K2b: a rare K haplogroup; may be European, because it is said that ”within predominantly European clusters … These include a single lineage from Iraq within K2b1; a sequence shared between an Anatolian and an Indian” (http://mai68.org/spip/IMG/pdf/ncomms3543-s1.pdf).
U5a1: looks European (found e.g. in the Balkans, Hungary, Austria and around the Baltic Sea)
U5a1: probably Nortwestern European
U4*: may have arrived from Volga-Ural
The potential Yamna mtDNA: T1, (T4), H6, (K2b), U5a1, i.e. 5/10.

Iron Age (excluding East Asian haplotypes)
T3 & T3: a relatively rare haplotype; first haplotype is found in Sardinians and the other one is not found in modern populations
I4: looks Scandinavian, but according to Derenko 2014 ”Siberian lineages clearly nest within haplogroup I4a – for which an origin cannot be estimated at present.”;
H&H: too frequent
H5a: probably of European origin
HV: difficult to say, is Western Mediterranean in Europe
H: found in 1 Estonian
T1: was not found in existing populations; may come from Yamna
The potential Yamna mtDNA: (T3?), H5a (HV?), T1, i.e. 3-5/14

In any case, it is obvious that this Krasnoyarsk mtDNA does not come from north South Asia, but several haplotypes are typical of Volga Ural and the Baltic Sea area. When you look at Fig 3 (http://www.hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf), you see that Ukraine and Southern Russia are not very well represented; the West Eurasian matches are distributed in three areas 1. Balkans- Austria-Hungary, 2. The Baltic Sea area; 3 Volga-Ural. Of course, it is possible that Yamna mtDNA has shifted west from its earlier location and there has been a replacement of Yamna mtDNA for example by Russian mtDNA.

Nirjhar007 said...

Thank you for that extensive analysis and effort Kristiina:).

Kristiina said...

You are welcome! :-) Nevertheless, this area is quite small and pretty northern. If I remember correctly, (north) South Asian mtDNA has been found in ancient Kazakhstan kurgans and in Xinjiang and H CRS, T1 and T* could come from Iran/Central Asia area as well.

Nirjhar007 said...

Well i guess all we need now is the Yamnaya aDNA of those 9 people which i think is not going to be enough to solve the PIE question Genetics wise as the Asian part will be missing BUT at least shall hint some crucial facts on Indo-Europeans of Europe, nevertheless its gonna be awesome!.....

Ryukendo K said...

So much of the emotional sting in this debate is due to spurious emotional affiliations we extend to those 'ancestors'.

Whatever the proportion of our genomes we received from them, those IEs would probably be full of sneering contempt for their so-called 'descendants', should they time-travel. They would probably regard us as nothing but bastard spawn of women who they had raped and whose societies they had dominated, to say nothing of our desk-bound lifestyles, veneration of peace, and sitting in front of our coms reading this. They would probably think things like the Ave Maria or Ahimsa were the most pathetic things they have ever heard of, and when they hear about recent military history it would probably make them even more ashamed of their most direct descendants in Asia and Europe.

On the other hand, they would probably chum it up nicely with the feral male coalitions of ISIS in Syria and pashtun tribal elders in the Taliban, and the don't-give-a-fuckery of Boko Haram, and would return to their times gushing with admiration for these, lol. Priesthood and Warrrior domination ftw.

Well, the world left all that stuff behind. Especially now that Taliban and ISIS have gotten their asses handed to them on a silver platter by people who are supposedly less badass. Also, why don't we embrace Ahimsa and Ave Maria? Why don't we celebrate Tagore and Penderecki? Those people are more European and more Indian and Indo-Europeans ever will be, and their achievements will last longer and impress more people than 'I'm descended from Indo-Europeans!!!!' ever will.

For an individual to derive so much self-satisfaction from a distant connection with people who would probably be embarrassed to meet him is so lame. Ethnocentrism is stupid.

Nirjhar007 said...

Your notion on PIE people is laughable and dogmatic, how you can be so naive Ryukendo?

Krefter said...

ryuk,

You're putting all ancient IEs under one category, which isn't accurate.

Not everyone around today is some-type of coward.

Also, ethnocentricm and pride are not one and the same.

Nirjhar007 said...

Exactly Krefter Exactly BTW what about the email? any replies???

Krefter said...

Nirj,

She hasn't responded yet. If there's no response in the next 12 hours, she probably never will.

Nirjhar007 said...

Whats with those Researchers!!! what they think they are superior than us???.

Unknown said...

As a researcher, I can definitely say that we are bound by issues of non-disclosure until publication/acceptance in journals. Many people likely already know the results for the nine Yamnaya aDNA but are waiting for the actual release of results from the lab to speak publically. Not an issue of arrogance IMHO.

Kurti said...

tripple post sorry, my keyboard went crazy.

@David
My Friend you are thinking far too simplistic if you believe the Scythian samples would turn out anything specifically Ukrainian, Russian like if modern East Europeans are even "only" 50% related to cultures such as Yamna which lies IN BETWEEN, Andronovo and East Europeans. Except of course you believe modern East Europeans are more descend of Andronovo than Yamna or CW. Also the fact that even many Thracian samples, which are probably the closest to ancient Iranic tribes, turned out halfway Caucasus_Gedrosia makes it really hard for me to believe this story.

But I have just one question remaining since I don't think we will get anywhere because you simply ignore the West Asian portion in modern Central Asians.

I am asking for your opinion now.

A theoretical "Scythian sample group with 35% "North European", ~45% "Caucasus_Gedrosia" and ~15% "Mediterranean".

in comparison to some North Caucasians.
with ~20% North European, 52% Caucasus_Gedrosia , 23% Mediterranean/Southwest Asian.

Ukrainian
63% North European, 8% Caucasus_Gedrosia, 27% Mediterranean/Southwest Asian.


Now answer me, would you think the "theoretical Scythian" sample above could it be considered as East European by scientist or would it be not. Would you consider a sample turning out this way as East European or would you not? And is it possible that such a sample could be classified as "Ukrainian, Russian like", or not? Don't you think it is reasonable to believe, a culture such as Andronovo or Yamna, somewhere between the North Caucasus, Ukraine and Central Asia would also genetically turn out more inbetween these three than further West?

You be the judge.

postneo said...

@capra

Apart from the burial hymn, chariots and even horses are from later vedic (please correct me !). Possible interpretation: the language predates steppe influence.

So far evidence is for borrowing of horse related cults/ritual but no horse related technology.
the vedic chariot is not a war chariot. The epic chariots are more west asian in their manner of use.

Cults have curious trajectories.

The Romans picking up the cults of jesus and the cross from subjects best described as a "percutee's perscutee/competitor". It traversed hebrew, greek and several IE languages before getting canonized in different forms.
It was not accompanied by guilds of say carpenters or fishermen but it did spawn institutions later like the church.

Unknown said...

Kristina
Thank you ! For that breakdown of mtDNA

Not to belabor the point - but did you (anyone) find it odd the presence of "eastern" mtDNA lines (A,C, D,Z) in the sample population from the Baraba forest zone ?

Davidski said...

Kurti,

I think you'll find that Yamnaya will turn out less Near Eastern than most present-day Europeans. And East Europeans will come out more than 50% Yamnaya.

The 50% figure is for northern Europeans, all the way from the Atlantic to the Volga, not Eastern Europeans.

Anonymous said...

50% sounds a bit too high for me when even paternal markers associated with the indo-european migration constitute only in eastern europe 50% . We can surely assume that the invading indo-european tribes were mostly males who took local women so 50% sounds unrealistic and is at best only realistic for poland,lithuania, ukraine and russia. I think that it is more realistic to assume that northern europeans are genetically 50% similar to yamna people because of shared older genetic components which already existed in northern europe before the immigration of indo-european tribes.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"simply not possible. The admixture rates that David is advocating across Northern Europe, the Balkans, in central Asia Would not have been able to be met by the base population present in the yamnaya Homeland"

My theory about northern Europe doesn't require massive numbers from the east.

There was a region of HG survival in northern Europe beyond the range of the LBK farmers. I think that in various places in that region the local HGs picked up domesticated animals from the LBK farmers and created a hybrid HG/Herder culture (Ertobolle, Funnelbeaker etc) in the west.

At the same time something similar was happening in the east (Globular Amphora) except in that case imo it was people who already had domesticated animals adapting to the forest zone.

Eventually the eastern half became dominant creating a single culture zone (Corded Ware).

In my theory there were small numbers of natives in the west and center combined with small (but larger) numbers from the east and the population explosion came *after* the migration and transition to this hybrid forest herder culture.

.

"Moreover , this "European" DNA could have already been in Siberia since it's earliest colonisation ; making what you claim as european something more like a North eurasian genetic continuum"

I think at least some of that is very likely i.e. that there was a northern Eurasian (and therefore partly European) genetic continuum descended from the mammoth steppe and it only become mostly European because most of it in Eurasia was swamped by later expansions from the East.

.

@Davidski

"You can't claim that there was population continuity in northeastern Europe based on that type of data, when we know for a fact that people there have similar levels of EEF ancestry to other northern Europeans, most belong to Neolithic mtDNA haplogroup H, and about 50% of them carry R1a-M417 which expanded after the Neolithic.

Seriously, what's the point of this?"

Personally speaking I'm into places where classical writers are shown to be right or where mythology can be shown to have had some connection to actual events.

In this case does the R1 & I1 combination in far northern Europe represent the sort of alliance/amalgamation between two separate groups that might tie in to the theory that the Aesir and Vanir in norse mythology are an amalgamation of two different pantheons (with Frey and Freya being the old fertility pair).

(I think Gimbutas was wrong on this btw. I think it was a pair but the male half was more erased by the IE than the female half.)

Also although physical anthropology isn't very PC I think Caesar viewing Vascones, Gauls and Belgae into separate populations means they looked different which probably means they derived from different mixtures which probably means different routes.

I think the reason might be the northern forest route led to an R1 & HG mixture while the central Danubian route was more R1 & farmers hence the Gaul/Belgae physical difference. If true that would leave the Vascones to be explained.

(My guess would be something to do with Atlantic Megalith and it's connection to NW Africa.)

Unknown said...

"We can surely assume that the invading indo-european tribes were mostly males who took local women, so..."

It amazes how much unsubstantiated BS gets thrown around here

But correct me if I'm wrong Skilur. Have you seen any actual palaeoanthropological, gender, isotope and DNS studies proving this fact ? Or are u basic it on yours and others picture-book understanding of prehistory ?

Unknown said...

Grey
Possibly
I agree there was population decline in much of central -East Central Europe inthe latest Neolithic phase . This mihgt have created a "lebensraum". But as I argued earlier; the steppe in the copper - early Bronze Age space was spacious. In fact I maintain the impetus behind it's growth from backwater, small scale little forager communities was a process of secondary colonisation from the forest steppe - ie the Cucuteni phase .
But small population sizes in northern Europe must have something to do with the near uniform R1a dominance ; as well as the **apparent ** large ANE shift

Krefter said...

Kurti,

Central Asians and even Siberians are not simply ANE/East Asian+EHG+Yam, there's also recent south and west Asian admixture.

It is impossible to distinguish Sycthian-Andronovo mtDNA and Yamna mtDNA(Not counting east Asian lineages). You're diminishing the relation between bronze-Iron age north-central Asian IEs with Yamna.

Unknown said...

Grey-
"think at least some of that is very likely i.e. that there was a northern Eurasian (and therefore partly European) genetic continuum descended from the mammoth steppe and it only become mostly European because most of it in Eurasia was .."

Apparently too difficult to fathom for others .

"R1/I alliancrs"

Grey it's wholly pseudoscientific to rely on myths from 3000 years after the fact as if toncaoturebsone sort of living memory. Moreover, ancient tribes did not have Dna testing kits to identify who was what . There was no "genetic wars".

Anonymous said...

@ Mike Thomas
"It amazes how much unsubstantiated BS gets thrown around here

But correct me if I'm wrong Skilur. Have you seen any actual palaeoanthropological, gender, isotope and DNS studies proving this fact ? Or are u basic it on yours and others picture-book understanding of prehistory ?"

in most migrations or invasions males constituted the majority and especially the strictly patriarchal indo-europeans can not be genetically traced by mtdna because they dont cared about the origin of their wives and only cared about the paternal lineage so it is very good that they also tested y-dna and not just mtdna. Most early migrations/invasions of indo-europeans were actually a result of warbands of young men who wanted to get land, cattle wives.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"Where is a complex machine that a chariot must have been in the bronze age be invented ?"

It does seem most likely that an ox-drawn cart would have been invented in some long standing farming culture.

On the other hand turning an ox-drawn cart into a) an ox-drawn mobile home and b) a much lighter horse drawn version for racing and war sounds like the sort of thing that might have been done by a pastoralist horse culture on the steppe.

Unknown said...

Skilur

The evidence for these migrations are tenuous at best. They were formulated in the early 20th century; and regurgitated due to a lack of scholarly rigour. Ur understanding of the matter reflects the same

Grey
The idea of a Warrior culture in Botai, Sintashta, or what have u is questionable. instead of making unsubstantiated seeping statements, you need to look at each site individually. Some like Botai are communities who specialises in breeding horses for food, milk etc. sintashta was a regional muetallurgical centre

On the other hand ; we have clear evidence for watfare, entertainment and war games in the near East and adjacent areas .

The same situation with Rome and the European barbarians. The Germani etc might have been a foot taller ; but the technology and tactics of Rome were superior. All technological innovations flowed South to North ; apart from much later when certain aspects of Hunnic cavalry were adapted

Krefter said...

Everyone,

I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over and over and over agian. These are some things to remember while discussing here. I add more as I remember more.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YShbhF8gPu4sygMAKbzfe2-dwlvRwWdtd68We71Y9H4/edit?usp=sharing

Krefter said...

Mike,

Germans were not very tall. I read a study once on height in the Germanic world starting in Roman times, and they were about 5'7.5 on average(Till modern times) and the average Roman was about 5'6.5. There was a very small difference, if any.

"All technological innovations flowed South to North ; apart from much later when certain aspects of Hunnic cavalry were adapted"

What about Iberia? What about Italy before the Iron age? Recently it has been west-east. If it wasn't for medieval west Europeans, east Europeans would almost be as primitive as Siberians.

Davidski said...

Skilur,

Uniparental marker data are very much in agreement with the inferences from genome-wide DNA.

Just add up the frequencies of R1a-M417 + all of the young Yamnaya-like mtDNA lineages that dominate Eastern Europe today, and you'll get a figure of well over 50%.

Grey said...

@Mike Thoma

"it's wholly pseudoscientific to rely on myths"

I'm not relying on them. I 'm relying on the dna and then based on the dna wondering if the R1 / I1 thing in the far north might relate to two separate populations who amalgamated.

Unknown said...

Depends on what u mean by EE
Certainly SEE was more "advanced" than WE until recently.
Anyhow iberia and italy are "South "

Sure; granted - the idea of the tall blonde barbarian is an ethnographic stereotype

And thanks for ur link - I'll read and reply

Davidski said...

Krefter,

Here's a quote about medieval Poland. I don't think any part of Siberia was like this at the time.

“As for the Meszko’s state, (…) it is opulent of food, meat, honey [or mead -XCentury note] and arable land. Fees he receives are trade weights [coins or gold/silver ore, received from the subordinate people – XCentury note]. They go for the wages for his men. Every month everyone of them receives a specified amount. He has 3000 armoured men, divided into squadrons, and a hundred of those is as much as ten of hundreds of other warriors. He gives clothing, horses, weapons and whatever they need, to this men”.

https://xcentury.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/abraham-ben-jacob-the-13th-warrior

Anonymous said...

@ Davidski
"Uniparental marker data are very much in agreement with the inferences from genome-wide DNA.

Just add up the frequencies of R1a-M417 + all of the young Yamnaya-like mtDNA lineages that dominate Eastern Europe today, and you'll get a figure of well over 50%."

for eastern europe this is realistic and there is no doubt that indo-europeans had a huge genetic impact there but not for any country west of poland and south of ukraine. Much of the mtdna lineages can also be just older lineages of pre-indoeuropean people which were shared with indo-europeans but had a different origin. Germans have 20% r1a and when we assume that more males took part in migrations than females than it is impossible that germans or even more western europeans with less r1a have 50% yamna/steppe ancestry. The impact of patriarchal indoeuropeans must be bigger on the paternal side than on the maternal side so i can not believe that (except eastern europeans) northern europeans have 50 % yamna ancestry.

Either r1a was not the only lineage of proto-indoeuropean people or more indoeuropean females migrated to western and northern europe than indoeuropean males but this would not make any sense . So i am very sceptical about this statement that all northern europeans have 50% yamna/steppe ancestry

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"The idea of a Warrior culture in Botai, Sintashta, or what have u is questionable."

Could well be. I have no strong opinion on chariots my point was simply that once someone had invented a sturdy practical cart for sturdy practical reasons someone else turning that into something that into a much lighter version that could be raced for fun racing could be done elsewhere.

.

"All technological innovations flowed South to North"

Well I wonder about that. I think it would be true for practical reasons related to farming and climate *if* metal deposits were found everywhere in useful amounts.

But they're not.

So I wonder if a lot of innovation during the various metal ages instead of going

south -> north

went

copper sources -> elsewhere
bronze sources -> elsewhere
iron sources -> elsewhere

Grey said...

@Skilur

"Germans have 20% r1a and when we assume that more males took part in migrations than females than it is impossible that germans or even more western europeans with less r1a have 50% yamna/steppe ancestry."

I think the currently most likely explanation is R1a were steppe and R1b forest steppe (very roughly) and R1a gradually pushed R1b west.

Unknown said...

It's different for different metals
Bronze needs copper , tin etc
These have limited distribution . But those seeking them out could have come from afar ; and who had the technology to mine it, produce , etc
Iron on the other hand was ubiquitous

Ryukendo K said...

@ Krefter

Says a guy who depicts himself wearing a celtic warrior band from 2000+ y.ago in his profile pic? :)

Lol well that wasn't the point was it. I'm pointing out the psychological subtext here, and how ridiculous both pride and ethnocentrism is when the culture's gone and no one can claim any connection in the ethnic sense. And the air here is absolutely choked with this subtext. Ever wonder why this place is so male?

Peace.



@ Nrijhar, on the other hand I strongly suspect your idea of the IEs are 'as non-European as possible! Whatever my sources!'.


@ All
On another note, we should do more estimates based on the new figures.

I strongly suspect the level of Yamnaya ancestry was estimated by the relative level of ANE. The biggest unknown at this stage is what '~50% in Northern Europe' means. The 50% Armenian thing is still true as Nick said, and any estimate with ~38% ENF and >7% ANE will fit this criteria.

1) If northern europe is conventional, aka scand + NE Europe, these areas have approx 16-18% ANE on average. Doubling this results in 32-36% ANE for Yamnaya. With ~38% ENF, result in <30% WHG.

2) If Northern Europe incl. Germany and British isles, the figures don't change much, dial ANE down to 32% and WHG up.

3) If Northern Europe refers to everywhere north of Pyrenees and Alps, this incl pops like Bulgarians and French which are approx 12% ANE. Say we take 15% as the average of all. Then we get 30% ANE, ~38% ENF, 32% WHG.

So we have a range.

In any case, WHG and ANE appear to be much more balanced. Lastly, I think the authors would be much less sure about the ~50% figure in the main text than the abstract would suggest, because people like finnish have close to the max amt of ANE found in Europe, despite having <7% R1a and other indications of IE ancestry, which should indicate that using ANE to gauge is not a good idea in all cases, esp for the pops around the finnish. Or maybe this is why the estimate is ~50%, not higher.

Anonymous said...

@Grey
"I think the currently most likely explanation is R1a were steppe and R1b forest steppe (very roughly) and R1a gradually pushed R1b west."

slavs were not steppe people at least in historical times and orginated from the forest steppe and forest regions of estern europe. Linguistically they are more related to germanic people than to indoeuropean steppe people but slavs are dominated by r1a and not by r1b. The same is also true for baltic people who were not steppe people and have much more r1a than r1b.

Davidski said...

Well, Reich's talk is next Monday, and since it's in Oxford, you can bet that the people there will want to know how much Yamnaya ancestry the British have. A couple of people who regularly post online will probably be there, so we'll know what the story is soon after the talk.

Davidski said...

rk,

Finns aren't Indo-Europeans and, as you point out, they don't carry much Y-DNA R compared to Indo-Europeans.

So we can speculate that most of their Yamnaya-like ancestry is due to indirect gene flow from their Indo-European neighbours, and also their Uralic ancestors, who probably shared a border with early Indo-Europeans.

But obviously the same argument is more difficult to make for Indo-Europeans who carry high frequencies of R1a and Yamnaya-like mtDNA.

Matt said...

At 50% Armenian, Yamnaya would be around 38-39% ENF.

SE England seems about 40% ENF as well, so the intriguing part of that would be that if England is perhaps 50% Yamnaya, then the other "Middle Neolithic" side of the equation (if that's our idealised model pop that mixes with Yamnaya to lead to them) would have to be pretty close to 40% ENF as well (almost the distance Sardinian->Gok again)...

Davidski said...

Matt,

It sounds like the ANE-rich population that mixed with the EHG to create the Yamnaya was already mixed itself, and probably had more ANE than present-day Armenians.

If so, this would give room of the non-Yamnaya ancestors of the English to be more ENF than they are, and thus for the English to be around 50% Yamnaya, although probably less than that IMO, with Scandinavians being the most Yamnaya-like in western Europe, at maybe just over 50%.

Kurti said...

@Krefter

Could you please elaborate when and by who this "recent" West Asian. admixture was brought to Central Asia? Do you know of any major post Sintashta event, which could have shifted the genetic make up of Central Asia towards West Asians?

If not why are you trying to get rid of this problem by simply claiming something which never happened? Contrary if anything a Turkic and later Soviet expansion should have shifted the genetic make up more towards East Asia and Europe. There are hundreds of thousand Russian mixed Kazakhs, Uzbeks Krygyz around the world.

Krefter said...

Would anyone else agree Scandinavia(and proto-Germans?) in terms of bronze age IEs in Europe are unique.

Are they more connected to Celts or Balto-Slavs(Corded ware)? The Nordic bronze age culture seems to be proto-Germanic. Are they more R1a-Z282 or R1b-L11? How did the pre-IE lineages I1 and I2a2 become so popular?

They have R1a-Z282 and R1b-L11 lineages specific to themselves. Their unique paternal gene pool makes me think those lineages arrived in bronze age times, and gene flow has mostly been Scandinavia-Europe not Europe-Scandinavia.

Corded ware probably brought R1a-Z282. Who brought R1b-L11? It would probably have to be a bronze age people connected to west but not east Europe. Bell Beaker? Y DNA results from Laz will probably tell us who the best candidates are.

Kurti said...

@David

OK since you didn't bother to answer any of my question.

Let us wait and see for the Yamna, and hopefully the full Andronovo results, because I honestly must laugh if I hear people say, that a "component" so uniformly and in significant propotion found in all Indo_Iranian speakers, must be the "result" of an us unknown post Sintashta "West Asian" migration to Central Asia.

Krefter said...

Scandinavians not scoring high in Baltic and east Euro(In K15) might be because of recent drift in east Europe, Davidski what do you think? Although if Swedes share are more related and share more drift with Irish than Poles(similar ANE K8 scores), maybe Scandinavians have more western-related ancestry than CWC.

Chad said...

The Nordic Bronze is connected to the Beakers. I am descended from that group, on my male line. I am R1b-P311, from near Copenhagen. I am ordering the big-Y, to get my snp's under it.

On another note, The two percent drop in ANE from Hinxton to modern day is probably a result of admixture from Rome, France, Germany, and such. Even the Irish are 15-17% ANE, from those posting at Anthrogenica. The Beakers certainly had a lot of ANE, as those Irish totals show, as well as the Hinxton samples. I still don't think that my estimate of 30% introgression to the British, post-Celt, from the continent will be far from the truth.

Krefter said...

Everyone,

Reich and Laz IMO are too smart to think Yamna is the source of all Euro ANE. So, multiplying north Euro ANE by 2, isn't going to get Yamna ANE.

"A couple of people who regularly post online will probably be there, so we'll know what the story is soon after the talk."

Reich is probably going t give the speech we've heard a million times now. Yamna genetic shift bla bla bla.

Some posters are going to ask him about R1b origins in Europe. Hopefully they'll force out key info when it comes to autosomal genetics. If Reich still stays quite I'll order string arms from Oxford to beat the info out of Reich :)

Kurti said...

Oh you guys can bed your money that ANE will be around ~30%. Otherwise why talk about Yamna being the main source of ANE and it's frequency beeing diluted when moving towards West.

Kurti said...

OK everyone make his proposition about the figures.

I assume it will be ~30% ANE, ~45% ENF and 25% WHG.


My second thought is 30/50/20 ANE/ENF/WHG

30% WHG isn't impossible though but I doubt anything higher.

Unknown said...

@ Krefter
" Would anyone else agree Scandinavia(and proto-Germans?) in terms of bronze age IEs in Europe are unique."

I'd say there *were no IEs * in the Scandinavian Bronze Age . Controversial and contrary to common opinion , I know, but Scandinavia was germanicized much later . Certainly this is the growing trend of thought by current linguists . So the arrival of r1a and R1b in Scandinavia ; if indeed the BA; then was nothing to do with IE language . Hence (one small part of a larger) objection to the kurgan theory as it stands

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"It's different for different metals"

Yes, hence if metal deposits tended to become innovation centers then the innovation centers would bounce around during the metal ages.

"Iron on the other hand was ubiquitous"

but maybe not quite as ubiquitous in some places as it was around La Tene and Halstatt.

.

@Chad

"I still don't think that my estimate of 30% introgression to the British, post-Celt, from the continent will be far from the truth."

I think that component was there before - from Atlantic Megalith - but the end result is the same.

Grey said...

@Skillur

Fair point. None of the R1b theories seem to fit 100%.

Unknown said...

Grey,
If it was from the megalith era, the Hinxton Celts wouldn't be 2% more ANE than modern English people there.

Krefter said...

@Kurti,
"Oh you guys can bed your money that ANE will be around ~30%."

If Yamna was what you propose Corded ware won't fit in north-central Europe, and north Euros can't be 50% Yamna. You also have to remember late HGs from north and east Europe contributed ANE. Yamna was not an ANE super-man, like most have thought since Laz 2013. I was the only poster before Laz leaks that thought EHG was mostly WHG and that Yamna was not very very very ANE.

I'm too tired and have school, so I can't punish my brain with Yamna possibilities right now. I'm going to just stick with 25 ANE, 40 ENF, 35 WHG.

Grey said...

@Chad

Yes, the megalith people would need to have had less ANE and the initial population distribution would need to have been uneven e.g. weighted towards the SW where all the copper, tin, gold and silver used to be.

Marnie said...

It's fun to watch you guys stumbling around in the dark, playing at being Bronze Age archaeologists.

(Not you Mike, the only voice of reason here, it would seem.)

Krefter said...

If the oldest written IE language in Europe was 1000 years old, Mike would say IEs arrived 1300YBP. He's anti-IE for some reason. He isn't objective and is quite biasedly for anything non-Kurgan.

Chad said...

Grey,
The Megalith folks have nothing to do with this. Hinxton is 2400 years after that period. I'm talking about the drop in ANE since the Hinxton samples.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Roy
''As a researcher, I can definitely say that we are bound by issues of non-disclosure until publication/acceptance in journals. Many people likely already know the results for the nine Yamnaya aDNA but are waiting for the actual release of results from the lab to speak publically. Not an issue of arrogance IMHO.''
Thanks I understand:).
RK,
'' Nrijhar, on the other hand I strongly suspect your idea of the IEs are 'as non-European as possible! Whatever my sources!'.''
Obvious you were still sleepy while commenting that;).

Unknown said...

Krefter lol you're an interesting little chap
Are you trying to suggest that im some weird "race traitor"
Coz that's what is sounds like
I'm sorry if my justified methodological critique appears to be a critique on IE itself ; but again I think that's reflective of yr aptitude

I'm sorry ; I don't mean to be arrogant or insulting ; but a lot of you have a very primitive understanding of prehisotry
To you genetics trumps everything coz "it's undeniable scientific proof".
But I'm not sure u have even mastered that
Thus you're models rest on half a discipline ; instead of 4

Nirjhar007 said...

Hi Mike!,
''my statement was that PIE should date to c. 2500 BC; 3000BC earliest ''
What is the technical reason behind such date?

Unknown said...

and my statement was that PIE should date to c. 2500 BC; 3000BC earliest
And by that I mean the "tmrca" of modern IE languages.!

but it's spread to Nirthern and extreme west could have been much later than that; and not due to a sudden swamping from the steppe

Marnie said...

@Krefter

Let's just say I have my own thoughts about the origin of the languages of Europe, based in part on hearing spoken Albanian, Macedonian and a highly inflected dialect of Greek spoken by old people in Western Macedonia in Greece. As a language, Albanian has hardly been touched by linguists. It's one of the early branches off the IE tree. So I think it frankly presumptive and even foolish to be formulating a theory about an origin of IE languages on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe when one of the root IE languages (not on the Steppe) hasn't even been studied.

By the way, there are kurgan type mounds in the Balkans and other parts of Eastern Europe, so focusing only on Steppe and Altai mounds only in the Bronze Age and Neolithic reflects the brokenness and insularity of this incessant focus on Yamna as IE origin that you guys have.

Unknown said...

I'll explain later, Nirj; if u want
Busy currently

Nirjhar007 said...

Mike,
I will wait as it will be very interesting!

Krefter said...

Mike Thomas,

I don't see you as anti-IE, I just dis agree with your ideas, and don't like to be insulted.

I have a primitive *knowledge* on prehistory, but I'm not arrogant I'm trying to learn. Whenever I state things seemingly as fact picture a *my opinion* and *probably* before each statement. Genetics evidence is very real and foundational science.

I'm guessing you're a pre-DNA prehistory enthusiast-academic. I've noticed many of you have a big problem with DNA being used in prehistory research. Besides arrogant bloggers, academics, etc. and some inaccuracy I see no problem with genetics being used.

Krefter said...

Marnie,

IE in the Balkans is very interesting(especially pre-Slavic), and I agree people tend to ignore it. When people think of IE they think of Indo Iranian in Asia and Balto-Slavic, Germanic, and Celtic in Europe.

Yamna may be simplistic. Although genetics are supporting the idea Yamna-type IE people moved into northern and southwest Europe after the Neolithic.

Chad said...

We need samples from Cernavoda, Ezero, and Cotafeni. That would help to figure out a lot.

Krefter said...

@ryuk,

"Says a guy who depicts himself wearing a celtic warrior band from 2000+ y.ago in his profile pic? :)"

I don't see what's wrong with that.

Celts weren't too long ago. Most west Europeans are Celts who were absorbed into dominate foreign cultures. There was a such thing as widespread Celtic traditions in the Iron age, whether the people knew it or not. That's why I have a torc in my profile picture.

Iron age Celtic designs never died out in the British isles. So even in the middle ages west Europeans were using Iron age Celtic designs for Bibles, weapons, etc.

Marnie said...

"Although genetics are supporting the idea Yamna-type IE people moved into northern and southwest Europe after the Neolithic."

I doubt that genetics specifically support a direction for the obvious gene flow between the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (Yamna samples) and Northern and Southwest Europe.

Unknown said...

Krefter
Feel free to disagree . I'm not asking you to blindly follow my admittedly non mainstream theory
But by ur own admission; you're a nube
So the difference lies in the fact that; having believe in the kurgan hypothesis ; a decade of study of archaeology , linguistics and anthropology has overturned this. Moreover my study was not only on the relevant data directly pertaining to this topic ; but the broad theoretical underpinnings as well
Your belief on the KH, on the other hand; is based on ; at best; one modicum ; one that still requires much elaboration and discussion from peer reviews. Given the incipiency of this discipline; theories will be subject to flux
And u don't have to preach to me about the future of genetics - esp. If u knew my credentials

Grey said...

@Chad

You're saying population A moved to Britain and later mixed with a population B (continental) to produce population C (modern English).

I am saying the same thing except that I think population B was already there but the mixing didn't happen until later.

Anyway either way there's no way to prove it yet so time will tell.

Grey said...

"You're saying population A.."

should have been

"You're saying population A (Hinxton)..."

postneo said...

@skilur
"in most migrations or invasions males constituted the majority and especially the strictly patriarchal indo-europeans can not be genetically traced by mtdna because they dont cared about the origin of their wives -------"

I guess I should not respond to this but I see shades of this even by others, e.g. our ancestors were like ISIS etc..

migrations were not like video games. Subsistence cultures did not have petro dollars and population densities to support perpetual war.

The Keyser paper and even the Reich study implies that a good portion of european mtdna not just y dna was situated more gegraphically east. So women were migrating too. The western migrants were more successful in making it to the mordern age.

Unknown said...

Grey,
You're not understanding. Megalith people are not running around Britain around 1CE.. They don't matter! Hinxton celts are 2300 years after Beaker starts, 4000 years after megalithic stuff pops up. All that matters is Hinxton and beyond. That is where the change happens.

Krefter said...

Jean Manco's site made me aware of new(2015) PWC and TRb mtDNA samples. There's alot of farmer-like mtDNA in PWC. Davidski are you sure none of the PWC samples show signs of ENF ancestry?

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1660/20130373#T1


Marnie said...

@Chad,

Nice to see you've stopped trying to libel me on the message boards.

Apart from Hinxton, what other samples are there for England, Scotland and Ireland between the Neolithic and Iron Age?

Kristiina said...

”So we can speculate that most [Finnish] Yamnaya-like ancestry is due to INDIRECT gene flow from their Indo-European neighbours”

How come if Finland was part of the Corded Ware (http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Corded_Ware_culture.png)

And how come if the main Baltic yDNA clusters are the following:
Latvians: R1a 40%, N 38%, I 8%, R1b 12%
Lithuanians: R1a 38%, N 42%, I 13%, R1b 5%

N1c may have come to the area before, after or during the Corded Ware, but the fact remains that Finland is part of the Corded Ware and gene flow must be direct.

Unknown said...

Kristina
Which subcldes of I are they ?

Davidski said...

Mike,

I wasn't actually going to reply to Kristina's post. But since you're under the mistaken impression that she did make some good points, then I suppose there's a very slim chance that others did too, so I will reply.

The Corded Ware people probably didn't leave much of a mark on Finnish genetic structure, because it appears that they were largely replaced in the far north by hunter-gatherers. Open access...

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1791/20140819

This is possibly why Finns don't speak an Indo-European language today and R1a is not their main Y-chromosome haplogroup, unlike amongst most other Northeast Europeans. Moreover, Finnish mtDNA structure is relatively distinct from that of Indo-European Northern Europeans, and I'd say less Yamnaya-like. Wouldn't you say Krefter?

But of course Finland wasn't totally isolated since the Bronze Age, and as I already mentioned, the Uralic ancestors of the Finns probably lived very close to the Yamnaya people of the steppe. So it's no wonder that Finns can be modeled as significantly Yamnaya, even though in f3/f4 stats they do stick out somewhat, along with fellow Uralic and Turkic speakers, and even north Russians from former Uralic speaking areas. For instance, here's an f4 graph from Laz et al.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQN1RBR2N2QTlkOTg/view?usp=sharing

Btw, the south Baltic-specific N1c might well have arrived near the Baltic with the Corded Ware people. It might be a legacy of the mixing that went on between the early Indo-European steppe groups and eastern hunter-gatherers (EHG) of the forest steppe. However, the N1c in Finland mostly belongs to branches other than the south Baltic branch, and most of them are probably of Uralic origin.

Anonymous said...

@ postneo

i never said that no women migrated from eastern europe to northern and western europe but they were surely less numerous than the males and it sound strange that indo-european people should have a greater impact on the maternal side in western and northerm europe than on the paternal side but otherwise it is impossible to explain for me why northern europeans who have low frequencies of r1a like germans should have 50% yamna ancestry. In eastern europe 50% or even more is very realistic but not for any western european and even scandinavian population who have frequences of r1a between 5%-25%

Shaikorth said...

David, the "South Baltic" N1c1 seems far too recent to be Corded Ware, that idea can be scrapped. It's most likely a recent founder effect caused by some successful N1c1 men in Balts.

Almost all Lithuanian N1c1 is M2783. Can't really be anything other than recent influence.

http://i1303.photobucket.com/albums/ag150/Alex_Chartorisky/SNP-N-TREE7_zps518e5995.jpg

Davidski said...

Skilur,

Western Europeans and Scandinavians do carry fair frequencies of mtDNA subclades that look like they date back to the late Neolithic steppe.

So as far as I can see, there are two possibilities:

1) The practice of female exogamy in northern and central Europe between Corded Ware people and Bell Beakers led to significant steppe admixture penetrating deep into western Europe.

and/or...

2) R1b was the marker of the earliest Indo-European dispersals from the steppe, associated with the Anatolian, Armenian, Italo-Celtic and other branches, while R1a mostly represents the Indo-European groups that left the steppe later or ended up staying in Eastern Europe.

See Figure 2 here...

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812

Davidski said...

Shaikorth,

The founder effect and expansion are recent, but that doesn't mean the south Baltic N1c isn't of Corded Ware origin. We'll soon find out. Maybe the Corded Ware samples from Germany carry N1c which has died out since then? Exciting times ahead.

Marnie said...

@Davidski

Mallory's paper, the one you just posted, is heavily based on wheel vocabulary.

Many linguists are not in agreement that IE wheel vocabulary is originally associated with wheeled transportation.

If so, the IE beginnings could be earlier than Mallory and Ringe suggest.

A paper based heavily on wheel vocabulary that contains in its abstract a dumb ass statement like: "The evidence is so strong that arguments in support of other hypotheses should be reexamined" should raise a few eyebrows.

Anonymous said...

@ Davidski

I see only two possibilities

1. this statement is simply wrong and the mtdna languages are older pan-european lineages who were not brought by indo-europeans

2. r1b was the paternal marker of some western european tribes but tocharians spoke a language closer related to celtic than to slavic and indo-iranian languages so this is also not a perfect explanation

I think it is very unlikely that indo-europeans just gave their women to pre-indoeuropeans and not took their women in the same or greater amount. This also sounds very strange for such patriarchal people who were coming as conquerors. If we compare the impact of later migrations and invasions we can see that it was always bigger on the paternal side than on the maternal side

It will be very interesting to see which y-dna haplogroups the yamna samples had. If they carried some european subclades of r1b than this could make sense and 50% could be possible but this would be a very big surprise and r1a seems to be the original lineage of all indoeuropeans which lost importance among western indo-europeans because they assimilated many local people and were just an elite there like turks in anatolia.

Shaikorth said...

Regarding N1c and CW, perhaps they'll find something, but we have to remember that South Baltic N1c1 is a branch of L550 which also post-dates CW, and has branches in Finland and Sweden that aren't found in Lithuania. L550* is very rare, but also found in Finland and Scotland, the latter probably a result of Finland->Scandinavia->Viking movement like most of the few British Isles N1c1's.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N/

Kristiina said...

”The Corded Ware people probably didn't leave much of a mark on Finnish genetic structure, because it appears that they were largely replaced in the far north by hunter-gatherers”.
My EEF is 33% (without any know foreign ancestry), so I do not think that there was any replacement of Corded Ware genes. Northern Finland was not part of the Corded Ware and the hunter gather ancestry has always been more frequent there.

”Moreover, Finnish mtDNA structure is relatively distinct from that of Indo-European Northern Europeans, and I'd say less Yamnaya-like”
I cannot see any fundamental difference but have a look yourself, table 3 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00429.x/full)
Finns have more U5b (c. 9% v. 3%) and W (10% v. 3-4%) and some Z (2.5%). Latvians and Lithuanians have a little bit more T (2.5% v. 7%). I would not say that these differences make Finns so very different. But, the only perhaps Yamna-related difference between Finns and IE-speaking Balts/Swedes can be observed in the higher frequency of T in the latter populations.

”However, the N1c in Finland mostly belongs to branches other than the south Baltic branch”.
My father’s line belongs to that CTS2929 with Baltic and Scandinavian branches and he is as Finnish as one can ever be.

Unknown said...

Again , people are throwing terms like "patrilocality" and "exogamy" like you've actually done propper social and physical anthropological analyses of the populatijns being discussed .
I again highlight that the apprentice patterns of y-dna vs mtDNA must also somehow be related to intra-genetic phenomena ; although undoubtedly social / sexual practices played a role too

Davidski said...

Mike,

Wow, what a dumb comment.

Here's a paper that looks at the subject of female exogamy between Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and Unetice groups.

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:12933

Skilur,

No, there are very specific H and U5 subhaplogroups present in Western Europe that look like they came from the steppe rather recently.

pnuadha said...

@david

Not long ago you asked how the CT culture could be connected to the spread of (IE related) R1a. Well, in anthony's latest paper he again claims that the third, a complex series of movements that dispersed a cluster of late PIE dialects westward, up the Danube and into the Carpathian Basin about 3100–2800 BCE with the Yamnaya-to-Hungary migration and, also about 3300 BCE, around the northern side of the Carpathians into southeastern Poland with the Usatovo/Tripolye C2 expansion, which could have carried IE dialects into the region that gave birth to the Corded Ware horizon (Furholt 2003).

Basically, the northern migration that may have established the first IE dialects in Poland could be Usatovo/Tripolye C2 derived. The idea is that this group helped to seed the IE languages that became associated with (some) of corded ware. In such a senario the IE influence on Corded Ware was largely non-yamnaya in its genetic input. Hence we have room for R1b in the yamnaya which wouldn't have been carried into CW. Maybe this Usatovo/CT group helped to spread, IE related, R1a or maybe the CW already had R1a did it all on it's 'own'. The point is that either of CW or CT had the manpower to fuel the massive spread of, IE related, R1a eastwards. Also, mallory has made the claim that after the decline of the CT culture the people had poured into the steppe...

pnuadha said...

Again , people are throwing terms like "patrilocality" and "exogamy" like you've actually done propper social and physical anthropological analyses of the populatijns being discussed .
I again highlight that the apprentice patterns of y-dna vs mtDNA must also somehow be related to intra-genetic phenomena ; although undoubtedly social / sexual practices played a role too


It is!!! A while back I posted a paper on the reduced diversity of ydna compared to mtdna which had nothing to do with the relative mating pool of men and women. i.e. even if an equal number of men and women reproduced we would still see less ydna diversity and more shifts in the ydna landscape.

Not long ago people thought that female lines would be the main source of hunter gathers continuity in europe. Actually it appears there we plenty of cases of farmer women mating with hunter gatherer men.

There's also the notion that advanced men tend to come to a new land and kill or outcompete the local men and marry the local women. Again, this was disproven when we found that neolithic farmers in sweden were nothing like the hunter gatherers who they had been living next to for nearly 1000 years. Again, gender wasn't nearly as much a factor as we thought.

Over and over we see mtdna moving long distances with ydna including the bronze age and even 'viking age'.

Davidski said...

Like I said before, this really doesn't work for the Tarim Basin, because the ancestors of the mummies there left the steppe very early, probably even before Yamnaya moved west.

Also, the Andronovo Kurgan and Bronze Age Altai mtDNA is clearly Yamnaya-like.

So at some point you'll have to give up on these ideas, probably when the new paper comes out and you finally see the Y-haplogroups from the Yamnaya kurgans.

Unknown said...

David

Trouble reading this evening ?

I don't doubt that some exogamy was occurred in CWC communities .
However ; I'm stating that this explanation is used far too frequently
Have u not noticed that not only the supposedly patriarchal Indo europeans shows greater differentiation in ydna vs mtDNA ? It is a global phenomenon which warrants further exolanation

Now; I think we can also extend analyses beyond the population level and look at individual sites ; to really understand the mating and family patterns ; thru combination of isotopes and DNA. Indeed such approached have already come into use

Don't be a glupoglowie

Unknown said...

Thanks Colin
Do u recall the paper ?

Unknown said...

It must have something to do with a younger relative age of Y-DNA ; faster mutation rates , greater effect of selection , etc

Davidski said...

By the way Colin, I'm doing some reading right now, and it seems like your worst nightmare is true; the eastern and northern Bell Beakers might well have got their ANE from the Corded Ware people.

Skip to page 142 and read very carefully from paragraph 2.

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:34042

The question now is, did they also get their R1b from Corded Ware. Were the Kromsdrof Bell Beakers some sort of hybrid group who's descendants moved west later?

Maybe we'll find out next Tuesday when Jean gives us her report on Reich's talk.

pnuadha said...

you got me! errr, well, no, not really :)

read page 138 which mentions the importance of hungry which was out of the CW horizon and also a destination for actual yamnaya.

I totally concede that CW could influence Eastern BB and also donate ANE via admixture. However, the CW was not the primary source for ANE in Western/Northwestern Europe. If the ANE moved as you say, CW to BB to Northwest Europe then Northwest Europe would have significantly less ANE than Germany or Poland. But they don't!!! So its not tenable to ignore hungary.

Were the Kromsdrof Bell Beakers some sort of hybrid group who's descendants moved west later?


those guys kromsdrof guys could have been. I don't get the point of this. Also, remember that desideri claimed that czech bell beakers ydna did not come from the west.

Maybe we'll find out next Tuesday when Jean gives us her report on Reich's talk.

I hope she is very charming

pnuadha said...

Thanks Colin
Do u recall the paper ?


Sorry, I don't.

Unknown said...

@ Colin

I think I found those papers...

BTW whats your account for ANE in north-western Europeans ?

Ryukendo K said...

@ David
So, finally some admission that HGs might be significant in NE Europe. Let me remind you that finns have 90% of the maximum values of ANE in Europe in the IE pops beside them, so unless 90% of the finnic genome is actually baltic--which is obviously untrue from haploid genetics--there is no getting around the fact that some, probably quite a significant fraction, of ANE is going to penetrate from EHG and SHG in the far NE.

We'll have to bear this in mind even with stats, as formal stats can estimate the proportion of similar ancestry, but cannot discriminate the source.

@ Krefter

What tools do you think the scientists have? Are they gonna be reading off ADMIXTURE charts?

The best tools they will have are formal stats, which can tell us the ANE proportion but not the source, so the phenomena that you guys have been using to argue for E.Euro = 75% Yamnaya, aka the ANE proportion, are very likely going to be the exact same ones they will use to argue that N.Euro = ~50% Yamnaya. Otherwise how do they come to a conclusion even?

If they are gonna hedge their bets, they are gonna use a Mike-Thomas-esque argument and hedge their entire conceptual model with countervailing args from social sciences. They are not gonna hedge the numbers, stats are what they are.

By the reckoning of 25% ANE, the closest pop to being 50% Yamnaya are the... Bulgarians. Then the French. Which made sense when NE.Euro were 75% Yamnaya, but now we know they aren't.

The previous estimates were based on tweets from Razib, who said 'CW localised to North-Central Europe', whatever that means. Now that we have the actual abstracct, Corded ware will not land in Eastern Europe because it is explicitly stated they are 75% Yamnaya, while N.Euros are approx 50% Yamnaya. N Euros are going to be a third closer to the edge of the triangle from Yamnaya than CW is from Yamnaya. We can tweak 'N.Euro' all we want, the previous estimates are not going to be correct.

By the way, the latest estimates place other populations at >66% Ymanaya with high-WHG Yamnaya, up to ~85% Yamnaya with the low-WHG estimates, too... such as the non-ENA portion of Kazakhs.

Which makes perfect sense, as you guys have been harping on and on about the fact that andronovo, and thus Indo-Iranians and Cent.Asian prior to Turks are so Yamnaya. There you go.

Nirjhar007 said...

Goodness some one just broke the record!!!

Ryukendo K said...

I probably gave both indophiles and europhiles aneurysms with that one.

@ Colin Welling
Do note that I was trying to troll people's sensibilities by comparing PIEs to ISIS and Boko Haram.

That's what a conqueror fetish is, really. Since no one can do what ISIS and BH do to others today, they make their ancestors do it to other's ancestors.

Nirjhar007 said...

@RK
''I probably gave both indophiles and europhiles aneurysms with that one.''
not sure who are they but Andronovo was Pre-Scythian and the story of their identity end there....

Davidski said...

k,

Finns probably got their slightly inflated ANE from the same source they got their inflated Siberian ENA. This source was probably Uralic, like their language.

But this is obviously not relevant for Indo-European speaking Europeans from around the Baltic.

Correct?

Ryukendo K said...

@Davidski

Probably true actually. But the key word is 'slightly'.

The closest Uralics to the finns have a quarter East Asian ancestry and less than a quarter ANE. Finns have 5% East Asian. So their Uralic ancestry explains at most a fifth of their ANE, and we still have 80% of their genome coming from Balts in your scenario.

The point I am raising is that the Motala counter-argument doesn't work, because we know there were EHGs right smack there, and EHGs had even higher ANE than Yamnaya. If it happened for the finns, why not for others?

Note that there is ENF directly from the near east in Yamnaya, not ENF from the mediterranean, and all indications are that this reaches a local minimum in the baltic.

The figures are probably less high than we thought.

Shaikorth said...

Rk, if I remember correctly the closest modern pops to Yamnaya were supposed to be Balts and Czechs. There are differences between those groups, and there are populations that would be genetically between them in the Human Origins dataset (some Ukrainians and Belorussians for instance). The fact that these were not mentioned by name while Czechs were, could indicate that the Baltic closeness to Yamnaya results partly from their homogenousness, which also elevates their f-test similarity to many other modern and extinct samples (from Chuvash to that Iron Age Hungarian and the Hinxton Celts) and elevates the similarity of, say, Kalash to MA-1 compared to all other S-C Asians. But the Czechs don't have this issue to consider so we can say Yamnaya is relatively "southern" compared to NE-Euros if they are closer to them than to Belorussians and Ukrainians. But is Yamnaya southern compared to Balkanites? If it's 50% EHG 50% "Armenian" that just might be unlikely.

re. Finland the lack of "West Asian" signature in many ADMIXTURE tests compared to I-E speaking Europeans (including North Russians) and Mordovians could suggest lesser Yamnaya ancestry, but I don't think anyone has seriously suggested European ANE everywhere comes from Yamnaya alone. When it comes to ENA, if it was around in EHG's or even the 3500bp Kola Peninsula remains (who mtDNA-wise cluster with Siberians) it predates Uralic languages in NE-Europe and is an useless marker of that linguistic spread (as it is for Hungarians and some Estonians), and also means most Europeans have traces of it hidden in various clusters formed by ADMIXTURE due to their Yamnaya portion. On the other hand, if there wasn't ENA in mesolithic EHG's (making them a simple WHG/ANE mix I guess), there is at least some old school anthroknowledge to be gained there, because then the distinctive "Siberian" look in their reconstructions would be caused by ANE and maybe gives some idea about what a pure ANE would look.

postneo said...

@skilur
"it sound strange that indo-european people should have a greater impact on the maternal side in western and northerm europe than on the paternal side but otherwise it is impossible to explain for me why northern europeans who have low frequencies of r1a like germans should have 50% yamna ancestry."

perhaps because mtdna tends to have larger spreads than ydna which remain more local and territorial for all human societies. We should give less weight to gimbutas like stereotypes for the kurgan folk.

Ryukendo K said...

@ Shaikorth

Thanks for your observations.

I do think that Yamnaya would be the closest to Europeans out of all modern populations.

But it would probably be a toss-up with non-ENA IIrs in N.C. Asia if they still existed. And similarity would be inflated due to EHG on top of Yamnaya in Europe. I don't think remnant HG ancestry is gonna be insig in NE Europe.

In any case, it seems Yamnaya are gonna be right in the middle of the gaping hole in PCA between E.Euro/Volga-Ural, NC Asians, and NCauc, so they're not gonna be close to anyone in an absolute sense.

I think lower WHG and higher ANE would drive them east, while the ENF % has not changed, so their NS position is the same.

Kristiina said...

My current view is that the Corded Ware language, whatever it was like, was spoken in Finland during the Corded Ware period together with the older languages of the area. Many people argue that the Finnish language was introduced after the Corded Ware period, but I can only connect that later introduction with the expansion of Savo N1c branch which may have caused the consolidation of the current form of the Finnish language with a strong Corded Ware legacy, but this Savo branch did not come very far, probably only from the Karelia area and their language was therefore closer to the Karelian Comb Ceramic language which probably retained many traits of the even older Mesolithic language.

Ryukendo K said...

@ Kriistina

Thank you for your views. I have always respected your incredibly high-res knowledge of archaeo, linguistics and Hap gen at the same time.

An off-topic issue: I was always very curious what your views were on Hap N?

@ Shaikorth
A question to you too: one thing that has always bugged me is how IBD and IBS affect ADMIXTURE estimates? Judging from the eqtns apart from the effects on haplotype freqs, it should not, but I'm not sure and might be totally wrong?

Marnie said...

@ryukendo kendow


"What tools do you think the scientists have? Are they gonna be reading off ADMIXTURE charts?"

"The best tools they will have are formal stats, which can tell us the ANE proportion but not the source, so the phenomena that you guys have been using to argue for E.Euro = 75% Yamnaya, aka the ANE proportion, are very likely going to be the exact same ones they will use to argue that N.Euro = ~50% Yamnaya. Otherwise how do they come to a conclusion even?"


Don't BS, ryuk. Admixture *is* based on a "formal" statistical method.

Other statistical methods, like PCA, f3/f4, Treemix, are simply other methods.

All methods are valid and should be used together.

One of the things I don't like about some of the methods like f3/4 is that they smear out the minor components, so you can't see them. These minor components have *information* in them that is lost or very difficult to recognize with some of these "formal" methods.

With Admixture, at high enough K value, you can see the minor components.

I'm not saying don't use "formal stats", just that these methods should be used in combination.

Ryukendo K said...

@ Marnie
Welcome back to the sane world.

What I mean is, they aren't going to base their central conclusions off of model-based algorithms. That lab has a history of producing papers based on interlinked tree models off D- and F-stats, not on model-based algorithms.

Papers that just rely on model-based algorithms, e.g. that paper that got Indian Admixture into Austratian Aborigines from just ADMIXTURE and TREEMIX, get skepticism not levied at the other papers, and rightly so.

I would appreciate your input on the question I asked Shaikorth.

Shaikorth said...

RK, greater in-group IBS sharing makes that group more likely to become a core for some cluster at some point in an unsupervised initial run. That's why it's very easy to create a Kalash cluster, and also why Basques and Lithuanians and Finns and even Irish readily can form European clusters but it's very hard to create a stable French or German cluster if those populations are included. It would probably only succeed if more homogenous European groups were left out.

IBD is a bit trickier, greater in-group IBD sharing usually indicates a group also more likely to form a signature cluster which doesn't appear in even other related populations. This becomes more of an issue when K's increase and Kalash are again a good example, they can both form the core in a S-C Asian cluster and a pure Kalash cluster in the same run depending on K's.

Marnie said...

"What I mean is, they aren't going to base their central conclusions off of model-based algorithms. That lab has a history of producing papers based on interlinked tree models off D- and F-stats, not on model-based algorithms."

I read the original D-statistics papers. Yes, some sort of established mathematical method has to be used to make these kinds of assertions. But if so, someone could develop a methods that is "formal", but that also doesn't smear out the low level substructure.

Sonic Reducer said...

Are there any plans for a similar study of Gumelnita- Karanovo (so) cultures? Possible homeland of Y I1 and MT V ?

Marnie said...

@ryukendo kendow

Regarding Shaikorths very interesting comments about IBS sharing and Admixture, above, to test the effect, you could do this:

Do a run with pops you know have high IBS sharing and which force particular Admixture components (pops like Lithuanians, Georgians, etc)

Then knock out the key pops that forced the components and do another run.

See what happens.

Repeat.

A type of sensitivity analysis?

By the way, I did catch your *sane world* comment. :)

Kristiina said...

Thank you Ryukendo!

”An off-topic issue: I was always very curious what your views were on Hap N?”

After Karafet 2014 paper, NO looks even more Southeast Asian than before. As for N, I do not know: it could be southwest Chinese or West Chinese or even Central Asian now that P189.2+ and N25315 Drozdowski have been discovered (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/N%20Russia%20%20DNA%20Project/). We definitely need more ancient yDNA N finds. That Hungarian N is very interesting, but I do not even know where it falls in the N tree. As for Uralic proto language constructions (that are usually obtained using common vocabulary of the northernmost groups such as Saami, Nenets and Khanty), they seem to be very much linked with the west Siberian microblade cultures whose y DNAs may have been different from N, for example I* and Q. I say this because N1c is not very old, and in all papers analyzing Arctic yDNA, the oldest is Q, then C and N is always said to be recent. In this respect, it is interesting that Siberian Kets are said to score high ANE, and, however, if you compare Nenets and Kets, you see that they share exactly the same component which is formed from Volga Ural pink (which also has East Asian in it) + extra East Asian. (http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/07/30/005850.DC1/005850-1.pdf).
In any case, I am very happy that Dodecad V3 admixture proportions show that I am 1.22% Southeast Asian. :-)

Unknown said...

@Kristiina - "N1c is not very old"

Do you have any ideas on why N1c is present in Equatorial Guinea Bantu?

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v21/n3/full/ejhg2012167a.html

Maju thinks it is from the Dutch but I have my doubts.

Kristiina said...

Maybe due to a Finnish sailor having a son with a local woman in the 19th century?

Shaikorth said...

Ebizur posted this regarding N1c1 (N1-Tat) on Anthrogenica some days ago:


"Estimate of TMRCA (N-M2028 + N-CTS3103/Z1954) by SNP counting method:
14.796875 SNPs x 268.5 years/SNP = 3972.9609375 years
Corrected: 6,093 years

Estimate of TMRCA (N-M2028 + N-CTS3103/Z1954) by Hallast et al. 2014:
4,600 years
Corrected: 7,055 years


It looks quite likely that the MRCA of an overwhelming majority of European N has lived at some time between 6,000 and 7,000 years ago.

Furthermore, according to YFull, N-M2028 and N-CTS3103/Z1954 share nine SNPs with each other that they do not share with N-Y9022, a more basal branch of N1c1. N-Y9022 has been found in at least one individual from Penza Oblast, Russia and another individual from the Komi Republic, Russia. "

Note that M2028 includes all Yakutian N1c1 and also the N1c1 found in Bhutan, but Y9022 means extant N1c1 with earliest divergence is from Eastern Europe and that clade places the MRCA of almost all European, Ob-Ugrian and Yakutian N to somewhat over 7000 years ago, location unknown. The L666 (old N1b) of Samoyedic speakers like Nganasans and Nenets of course diverged before that, so long ago that it has hard time fitting into proto-Uralic dating estimates of linguists and makes one wonder about even uniparentals' usefulness as trackers of such things.

Unknown said...

@ Kristiina - It could be I suppose.
Or German, or Chinese.

The other surprising one is Q-MEH2 in Tanzania Sandawe.

Marnie said...

@Kristina

"As for Uralic proto language constructions (that are usually obtained using common vocabulary of the northernmost groups such as Saami, Nenets and Khanty), they seem to be very much linked with the west Siberian microblade cultures whose y DNAs may have been different from N, for example I* and Q."

See this paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature13025.html

Anzick-1 belongs to the ydna Q-L54*(xM3) hg

Culture: Clovis

Dated: 10,705 +/-35 14C years BP (CAMS-80538)

or 12,707–12,556 calendar years BP

On Admixture, at high K values, Anzick-1 appears to share about 5% ancestry with Northeast Asians (Koryaks, for example).

At low K values, Anzick-1 shares ancestry at low level with Northern Europeans, especially populations like the Mari, Mordovinians and Estonians.

No one has yet directly been able to demonstrate a relationship between Baltic microblading, Northeast Asian microblading and Clovis, but they are definitely working on it.

Just wanted to make sure that your idea about Q and microblading doesn't get lost in the noise on this comment thread.

I think your idea "has legs".

Shaikorth said...

These admixture results certainly are not a smoking gun to link Native American and Far Eastern European microblade cultures, but Anzick-1 shows a somewhat specific kind of connection to the region in FTDNA MyOrigins too. It and most of the high quality ancient genomes have MyOrigins results.

Anzick-1:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aXmSO5lrFXE/VIlVY-qmuvI/AAAAAAAAfZQ/5ENElh9-HlI/s1600/Clovis-Anzick.PNG

Loschbour:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aZLNO0Oxi88/VIlVas0fR-I/AAAAAAAAfZs/wc5VUquQCOg/s1600/Loschbour.PNG

http://www.fi.id.au/2014/12/ethinic-makeup-of-ancients-ftdnas.html

Results like "100% Finland and Northern Siberia" can be found in Finland and "100% Eastern Europe" in Lithuania-South Russia range so they're just really Finnish and Balto-Slavic clusters.


North Russian average results are something like this:

Finland and Northern Siberia: 42%
Eastern Europe: 52%
Northeast Asian: 6%

and Volga-Ural peoples have much more complex results:
http://s017.radikal.ru/i406/1501/b7/f5723d208fd1.jpg

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 646   Newer› Newest»