# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  What do you think about the latest publication on the Eurogenes blog?

## Ack

Is the presence of the genetic component 'CHG' in the steppe a consensus? There seems to be a consensus that CHG is a relevant part of the steppe mixture, but in some media - such as Eurogenes - it still generates controversy. What do you think?


Note: my intention is not to attack anyone in particular, just to probe opinions

Link: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/0...iente-lux.html

----------


## bicicleur

what is the controversy?

----------


## Stuvanè

> Is the presence of the genetic component 'CHG' in the steppe a consensus? There seems to be a consensus that CHG is a relevant part of the steppe mixture, but in some media - such as Eurogenes - it still generates controversy. What do you think?
> 
> 
> Note: my intention is not to attack anyone in particular, just to probe opinions
> 
> Link: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/0...iente-lux.html


Fear - I'd say "terror" - of not being "northern" enough ;)

Sent from my SM-J730F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

----------


## Ack

Could you explain it better? Thanks.

----------


## bicicleur

> Fear - I'd say "terror" - of not being "northern" enough ;)
> 
> Sent from my SM-J730F using Eupedia Forum mobile app


what's wrong with it?
what's your explanation?
you both comment as if you know better
so, share me your knowledge

----------


## Jovialis

40%-50% CHG in Yamnaya is a fact based on David Anthony's reference from Lazaridis.

----------


## Jovialis

> 40%-50% CHG in Yamnaya is a fact based on David Anthony's reference from Lazaridis.


I suspect their much of their phenotypic traits are a result of admixture with CHG. Especially if the EHG looked more like other Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers, like the dark-skinned Cheddar man. The light skin mutation emerged in the middle east.

----------


## Ack

I did not understand your participation in the publication. I asked a question, but instead of answering it, you were hostile to it from the start. Then you said that we were both being arrogant? Be less passive aggressive and contribute by discussing the topic.

----------


## Ack

> what's wrong with it?
> what's your explanation?
> you both comment as if you know better
> so, share me your knowledge


 I did not understand your participation in the publication. I asked a question, but instead of answering it, you were hostile to it from the start. Then you said that we were both being arrogant? Be less passive aggressive and contribute by discussing the topic.

----------


## Ack

> 40%-50% CHG in Yamnaya is a fact based on David Anthony's reference from Lazaridis.


From what I know based on the scientific articles you are right, but then why does the Eurogenes blog do everything to soften the genetic influence 'CHG' in the steppe?

----------


## Stuvanè

> what's wrong with it?
> what's your explanation?
> you both comment as if you know better
> so, share me your knowledge


Anyone with a minimum of practice here, knows very well that some blogs are heavily oriented with their agenda. Eurogenes - which will also have its merits and no one disputes them - still remains one of those. 
Their site can be controlled and remains available in its entirety to be sieved and understood or interpreted: CHG is a component that directly or indirectly is mainly linked to populations that currently do not enjoy great favors in the world imagination. Caucasians, Mediterranean, Levantines. I can understand that for those who have made hyperboreas their reason for living, being offered around 50% autosomal of Caucasian / Middle Eastern derivation is not particularly welcome.

We will make it right 

Sent from my SM-J730F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

----------


## Angela

> Anyone with a minimum of practice here, knows very well that some blogs are heavily oriented with their agenda. Eurogenes - which will also have its merits and no one disputes them - still remains one of those. 
> Their site can be controlled and remains available in its entirety to be sieved and understood or interpreted: CHG is a component that directly or indirectly is mainly linked to populations that currently do not enjoy great favors in the world imagination. Caucasians, Mediterranean, Levantines. I can understand that for those who have made hyperboreas their reason for living, being offered around 50% autosomal of Caucasian / Middle Eastern derivation is not particularly welcome.
> 
> We will make it right 
> 
> Sent from my SM-J730F using Eupedia Forum mobile app


Very good explanation for what has been obvious for years.

----------


## bicicleur

all of you, explain me what is wrong with the blog
we all agree steppe has a large amount of CHG
I don't see that disputed in the blog

so tell me what is wrong with this blog, apart from being Eurogenes which you all obviously dislike
still, you seem to read all these blogs, which I don't

----------


## bicicleur

if you want to know my view on the subject, here it is :

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...?highlight=chg

steppe ancestry and CHG were formed at the same time, on a cline between Dzudzuana ancestry and ANE

and this is how steppe ancestry moved north from the Caucasus to the Samara area :

https://indo-european.eu/2019/08/don...naya-ancestry/

----------


## Ack

> all of you, explain me what is wrong with the blog
> we all agree steppe has a large amount of CHG
> I don't see that disputed in the blog
> 
> so tell me what is wrong with this blog, apart from being Eurogenes which you all obviously dislike
> still, you seem to read all these blogs, which I don't


Do you really read the blog posts and the blog author's comments on the posts? It seems not.

----------


## halfalp

> Do you really read the blog posts and the blog author's comments on the posts? It seems not.


Probably instead of searching peer validation, give us some concrete exemples so we can have our own jugement about the exemples in question.

----------


## bicicleur

> Do you really read the blog posts and the blog author's comments on the posts? It seems not.


no, I don't read Eurogenes, I just read this one in diagonal because you seem so interested
for the third time, I ask you to point out what is wrong with it

you seem to be looking around here for friends that share the same dislike of Eurogenes and Davidski 
well, there are some here

----------


## Jovialis

The Eurogenes "fix" to the "calculator effect", only makes more biased results:




> *On the so-called "Calculator Effect"*
> 
> 
> The genome blogger Polako recently announced a calculator effect (May 2012) affecting admixture estimates:
> 
>  However, many people are getting skewed results, despite doing everything right. For instance, users from the UK often come out much more continental European than they should. Some of them actually believe that this is because they're genetically more Norman or Saxon than the average Brit. Nope, the real reason is what I call the "calculator effect". *This is when the algorithm produces different results for people who are part of the original ADMIXTURE runs that set up the allele frequencies used by the calculators, than those who aren't, even though both sets of users are of exactly the same origin, and should expect basically identical results.
> 
> *This, however, was described by myself many months prior, in Novemeber 2011, following up on observations made during my first analysis of Yunusbayev et al. Armenians in September 2011. It has been listed in the Technical Stuff at the bottom of this blog ever since.
> 
> ...

----------


## Angela

> The Eurogenes "fix" to the "calculator effect", only makes more biased results:


Are some people, including Eurogenes, still bringing up this red herring?

Dienekes made mincemeat out of this argument long ago. I remember when he published this, and I remember people on various sites discussing it and admitting that he was correct. (Not Eurogenes, of course. He just ignored it.) 

Now the usual suspects have resurrected it hoping everyone has forgotten? Whether one agreed with all his conclusions or not, Dienekes' mastery of statistics was always obvious, as was the fact that Eurogenes just applies other people's programs.

Not that you really needed advanced degrees in statistics to understand Dienekes' exposition. One just needs some reasoning ability.

Anyway, thanks for republishing it, Jovialis.

----------


## Jovialis

> Are some people, including Eurogenes, still bringing up this red herring?


That's exactly what he did when I posted my Ancient Rome Test based on Dodecad K12b:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post637802

----------


## Angela

> That's exactly what he did when I posted my Ancient Rome Test based on Dodecad K12b:
> 
> https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post637802


What a completely dishonest, unscrupulous man he is. I don't think he knows the meaning of the word integrity. A couple of days ago I went to his site after seeing some comments on this thread, and it was clear he was at it again with his tinkering with the data. A poster named Henrique Pais clearly showed how he cherry picks populations to get the results he wants from the algorithms. 

Not that it was any news to me, nor should it be any news to anyone who has been paying attention. I can just imagine his pms. Oh me, I'm such a victim. People are bullying me, trying to destroy my reputation when I've only ever been trying to do good work, and the worst are those people at eupedia, that joke of a site, who just hate me because I show they're not Indo-European like me and other Poles.

As if I've ever given the slightest indication that I would prefer to be more Indo-European.

Don't expect an honest debate from him; you won't get it.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Is the presence of the genetic component 'CHG' in the steppe a consensus? There seems to be a consensus that CHG is a relevant part of the steppe mixture, but in some media - such as Eurogenes - it still generates controversy. What do you think?
> 
> 
> Note: my intention is not to attack anyone in particular, just to probe opinions
> 
> Link: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/0...iente-lux.html


I don't think the point of Davidski in Eurogenes is that it is not CHG. His belief is that "the" CHG we all talk about had is not directly ancestral to the related and broadly CHG admixture in the Pontic-Caspian Eneolithic and Bronze Age, but rather that a proto-CHG divided between a northern and a southern group, and part of that northern CHG migrated to the steppe and mixed there with EHG at a very early date in the steppe on the piedmont of the Caucasus, probably still in the 6th millennium B.C. or even before that. 

In any case, that CHG-like people were very closely related to "the" CHG we all know, so I don't see any reason to object using CHG as a proxy population until we have an unmixed Northern Caucasus CHG in the archaogenetic record. And that northern vs. southern divide probably didn't date to any time before the Mesolithic, therefore by the Eneolithic the CHG in the Pontic-Caspian Eneolithic and the CHG in the South Caucasus wouldn't be very drifted and different.

Incidentally, I did such a hypothetical experiment by "simulating" the G25 coordinates of the CHG in the Eneolithic Steppe_Piedmont and Eneolithic Khvalynsk samples. The results were unsurprising: plotting the coordinates of that "hypothetical Northern CHG" on a West Eurasian PCA chart, the hypothetical Northern_CHG plots very close to the Kotias/Satsurblia CHG we all know, though it does not overlap it.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I suspect their much of their phenotypic traits are a result of admixture with CHG. Especially if the EHG looked more like other Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers, like the dark-skinned Cheddar man. The light skin mutation emerged in the middle east.


The EHG had relatively light skin, so they were not like the WHG. Only about 1/4 to 1/3 of their ancestry was WHG-like.

----------


## Angela

This is not directed at you, Ygorcs, but imo this is all "much ado about nothing."

Who cares if it went onto the steppe in the 6th millennium BC or the 4th millennium BC? Does that change the genomics of it? Who cares if there are some minute differences between the "CHG" on the steppe and that in the Middle East?

It's just stupid semantics or making claims he can't possibly prove just so he doesn't have to admit that the "steppe" people have a lot of ancestry very similar to that in Near Easterners. It's like his idiotic insistence that the ancestry in steppe people was "NEVER IN IRAN". 

What, doesn't he get paid unless he proves that? It's sickening but typical of him.

----------


## Ygorcs

> This is not directed at you, Ygorcs, but imo this is all "much ado about nothing."
> 
> Who cares if it went onto the steppe in the 6th millennium BC or the 4th millennium BC? Does that change the genomics of it? Who cares if there are some minute differences between the "CHG" on the steppe and that in the Middle East?
> 
> It's just stupid semantics or making claims he can't possibly prove just so he doesn't have to admit that the "steppe" people have a lot of ancestry very similar to that in Near Easterners. It's like his idiotic insistence that the ancestry in steppe people was "NEVER IN IRAN". 
> 
> What, doesn't he get paid unless he proves that? It's sickening but typical of him.


Hahaha good point about his unhealthy insistence on CHG "never in Iran, never, ever!" Why should it matter so much? I mean, it's not like the Piedmont Steppe just north of the North Caucasus is very far away from the Northern Iranian coast on the shores of the Caspian Sea. That area is almost, God forbid!, West Asian!  :Smiling:  Quite on the contrary, it's really, really close to northern Iran and Azerbaijan, especially if people knew how to navigate that closed ocean, which is very probably, given that many of those tribes once lived mainly as fishers and hunters. I also don't get Davidski's insistence on separating the CHG south of the Caucasus from the CHG north of it, the structure was probably not any higher than the internal structure between distinct EHG and WHG groups. I do get that he may be trying to say what I also believe, which is that the timing of the initial formation of the typical "steppe admixture" and the most likely timing of the early PIE language indicate a language being born _in the_ steppe, not brought to the steppe... but he seems to be trying to make that CHG+EHG merge as early as possible. I think we can only say that it probably happened before the mid 5th millennium B.C., which is already old enough.

----------


## ThirdTerm

> Therefore, it's possible that herding was adopted by the ancestors of the Yamnaya people as a result of their sporadic contacts with populations living on the western edge of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
> 
> Eneolithic steppe is currently represented by just three samples in the ancient DNA record, and all of these individuals are from sites on the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe (two from Progress 2 and one from Vonyuchka 1).
> 
> As a result, it might be tempting to argue that cultural, if not genetic, impulses from the Caucasus did play an important role in the formation of the Yamnaya and related peoples. However, it's important to note that the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe was the southern periphery of Eneolithic steppe territory.




Since none of these Maykop individuals carried haplogroup R1b1a2, which is typical among Yamnaya steppe herders, this blogger may be right to argue that cultural influences from the south of the Pontic-Caspian steppe played an important role in the formation of the Yamnaya culture. Some Yamnaya individuals were buried in Maykop graves and it is certain that there was a cultural overlap between the two cultures. Even if there were a genetic overlap between the two peoples through intermarriages, its impact would have been marginal.


Sample Site Age, BP Culture mtDNA Y-DNA 

AY2001.A0101.TF1.1 Aygurskiy 2 5271.5 Steppe Maykop T2e 
AY2003.A0101.TF1.1 Aygurskiy 2 5455.5 Steppe Maykop H2a1 
MK3003.A0101 Marinskaya 3 4476.5 Catacomb U4a2 
MK5012.A0101 Marinskaya 5 4663.5 Catacomb U5a1b1e ?
RK4002.B0101 Rasshevatskiy 4 4610.0 Catacomb U4d3 R1b1a2
RK4001.A0101 Rasshevatskiy 4 4277.0 Catacomb U5a1i R1b1a2
SA6003.B0101 Sharakhalsun 6 4292.5 Catacomb U2e3a R1b1a2
I6278 Shepsi 5200.0 Dolmen BA T1a2 ..
I6281 Shepsi 5200.0 Dolmen BA U2e1 ..
I2051 Marchenkova Gora, D13 3260.0 Dolmen LBA H6a1a2a J
I2055 Unakozovskaya 6533.0 Eneolithic Caucasus R1a J
I2056 Unakozovskaya 6477.5 Eneolithic Caucasus R1a J2a
I1722 Unakozovskaya 6403.5 Eneolithic Caucasus R1a 
PG2001 Progress 2 6207.0 Eneolithic steppe I3a R1b1
PG2004 Progress 2 6090.0 Eneolithic steppe H2 R1b1
VJ1001 Vonyuchka 1 6242.0 Eneolithic steppe T2a1b 
ARM001.A0101 Kaps 5329.5 Kura-Araxes R1a1 
ARM002.A0101; ARM003 Kaps 5148.0 Kura-Araxes K3 G2b
VEK006.A0101 Velikent 4850.0 Kura-Araxes U4a2 
VEK007.A0101; VEK009 Velikent 4850.0 Kura-Araxes U4a2 J1
VEK008.A0101 Velikent 4850.0 Kura-Araxes U4a2 ?
MK5008.B0101 Marinskaya 5 5185.5 Late Maykop T1a2 ?
MK5004 Marinskaya 5 5171.0 Late Maykop T2al L
MK5001 Marinskaya 5 5141.5 Late Maykop K1a4 L
SIJ003.A0101 Sinyukha 5174.0 Late Maykop U4c1 
SIJ002.A0101 Sinyukha 5173.5 Late Maykop U4c1 L
SIJ001.A01(SA6002.A01) Sinyukha 5125.5 Late Maykop U4c1 
KBD001 Kabardinka 4036.5 Late North Caucasus I4a R1b1a2
KBD002.A0101 Kabardinka 4057.0 Late North Caucasus W1+119 
NV3001 Nevinnomiskiy 3 3970.5 Lola R1b Q1a2
I1720 Baksanenok 5300.0 Maykop HV ?
MK5007.B0101 Marinskaya 5 5455.0 Maykop U5a1b1 
OSS001.A0101 Nogir 3 5570.0 Maykop J2a1 
I6268 Klady 5564.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya R1a J2a1
I6267 Klady 5438.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya T2c1 
I6270 Klady 5434.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya U1b ?
I6266 Klady 5200.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya X2f J2a1
I6272 Dlinnaya Polyana 5200.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya U1b1 G2a2a
KDC001.A0101 Kudachurt 3823.5 MBA North Caucasus X2i J2b
KDC002.A0101 Kudachurt 3734.5 MBA North Caucasus HV1a1 
BU2001.A0101 Beliy Ugol 2 4674.0 North Caucasus R1b1a2a2
GW1001.A0101 Goryachevodskiy 2 4726.0 North Caucasus U2e1b R1b1a2a2
I1723 Goryachevodskiy 2 4702.0 North Caucasus U5b2a1a R1b1a1a2a
LYG001.A0101 Lysogorskaya 6 4672.0 North Caucasus H13a1a2 R1b1a2
MK5009.A0101 Marinskaya 5 4710.0 North Caucasus R1a1a R1b1a2
PG2002.A0101 Progress 2 4362.5 North Caucasus U1a1a3 
RK1003.C0101 Rasshevatskiy 1 4750.5 North Caucasus R1a1a 
SA6001.A0101 Sharakhalsun 6 5444.0 Steppe Maykop U7b 
SA6004 Sharakhalsun 6 5170.5 Steppe Maykop U7b Q1a2
IV3002.A0101 Ipatovo 3 5206.5 Steppe Maykop outlier X1'2'3 ?
SA6013.B0101 Sharakhalsun 6 5180.0 Steppe Maykop outlier I5b R1
RK1007.A0101 Rasshevatskiy 1 5123.0 Yamnaya Caucasus T2a1 
RK1001.C0101 Rasshevatskiy 1 4726.0 Yamnaya Caucasus U5a1d R1b1a2
SA6010.A0101 Sharakhalsun 6 4731.5 Yamnaya Caucasus U5a1g ?
ZO2002.C0101 Zolotarevka 2 4850.0 Yamnaya Caucasus [email protected]

----------


## bicicleur

> Since none of these Maykop individuals carried haplogroup R1b1a1, which is typical among Yamnaya steppe herders, this blogger may be right to argue that cultural influences from the south of the Pontic-Caspian steppe played an important role in the formation of the Yamnaya culture. Some Yamnaya individuals were buried in Maykop graves and it is certain that there was a cultural overlap between the two cultures. Even if there were a genetic overlap between the two peoples through intermarriages, its impact would have been marginal.


indeed, the genetic impact of Maykop to steppe is restricted to those 2 outliers

----------


## bicicleur

> This is not directed at you, Ygorcs, but imo this is all "much ado about nothing."
> 
> Who cares if it went onto the steppe in the 6th millennium BC or the 4th millennium BC? Does that change the genomics of it? Who cares if there are some minute differences between the "CHG" on the steppe and that in the Middle East?
> 
> It's just stupid semantics or making claims he can't possibly prove just so he doesn't have to admit that the "steppe" people have a lot of ancestry very similar to that in Near Easterners. It's like his idiotic insistence that the ancestry in steppe people was "NEVER IN IRAN". 
> 
> What, doesn't he get paid unless he proves that? It's sickening but typical of him.


for anyone who is interested in archeogenomics the how and when of the formation of CHG and steppe admixture should be a topic

I explained before, I even started a thread on the subject, IMO CHG and steppe were formed at the same time 15 - 14 ka on both sides of the Caucasus
that means that the formation of CHG was induced as much by admixture from the north as the formation of steppe was induced by admixture coming from Transcaucasia

EHG is more or less on a cline between WHG and ANE

and CHG and steppe are both on a cline between Dzudzuana and a EHG/ANE mixture

can anyone check that?

----------


## Alan

What I think about the latest publication is what I think about most of his publications. I take it with a grain of salt.

----------


## Alan

> It's just stupid semantics or making claims he can't possibly prove just so he doesn't have to admit that the "steppe" people have a lot of ancestry very similar to that in Near Easterners. It's like his idiotic insistence that the ancestry in steppe people was "NEVER IN IRAN".


That is actually what he is trying to prove over and over again. That the CHG in the Yamnaya has ideally did not come from the Caucasus or at least had no connection to the Iranian Plateau. Since I was away I looked from time to time into his blog (once per month maybe) and it has always been about this. Disproving any connection from Yamnaya to anything south of it, especially the South Caucasus or the Iranian Plateau.

----------


## Jovialis

> for anyone who is interested in archeogenomics the how and when of the formation of CHG and steppe admixture should be a topic
> 
> I explained before, I even started a thread on the subject, IMO CHG and steppe were formed at the same time 15 - 14 ka on both sides of the Caucasus
> that means that the formation of CHG was induced as much by admixture from the north as the formation of steppe was induced by admixture coming from Transcaucasia
> 
> EHG is more or less on a cline between WHG and ANE
> 
> and CHG and steppe are both on a cline between Dzudzuana and a EHG/ANE mixture
> *
> can anyone check that?*


Here is the wikipedia page, on ANE, it seems to have a pretty comprehensive breakdown. Though I would need to verify if the sources actually say what is written:




> *Groups derived from the Ancient North Eurasians*
> 
> *Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer* (EHG) is a lineage derived predominantly (75%) from ANE.[2] It is represented by two individuals from Karelia, one of Y-haplogroup R1a-M417, dated c. 8.4 kya, the other of Y-haplogroup J, dated c. 7.2 kya; and one individual from Samara, of Y-haplogroup R1b-P297, dated c. 7.6 kya. This lineage is closely related to the ANE sample from Afontova Gora, dated c. 18 kya. After the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, the WHG and EHG lineages merged in Eastern Europe, accounting for early presence of ANE-derived ancestry in Mesolithic Europe. Evidence suggests that as Ancient North Eurasians migrated West from Eastern Siberia, they absorbed Western Hunter-Gatherers and other West Eurasian populations as well.[8]
> 
>  
> 
> *Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer* (CHG) is represented by the Satsurblia individual dated ~13 kya (from the Satsurblia cave in Georgia), and carried 36% ANE-derived admixture.[9] While the rest of their ancestry is derived from the Dzudzuana cave individual dated ~26 kya, which lacked ANE-admixture,[9] Dzudzuana affinity in the Caucasus decreased with the arrival of ANE at ~13 kya Satsurblia.[9]
> 
>  
> ...

----------


## Alan

> Here is the wikipedia page, on ANE, it seems to have a pretty comprehensive breakdown. Though I would need to verify if the sources actually say what is written:


The Wikipedia article isn't very correct though. EHG is more like 40-50% ANE.
I doubt the other 50% in Iran_Neo is real Dzudzuana. More like a relative pop. And before the appearancr of this Dzudzuana sample CHG was modeled like 70% ANE like. Makes me wonder that Dzudzuana has shared ancestry with Mal'ta.
In fact I believe this Dzudzuana individual might be best represented by Haplogroup IJ.
In fact I always thought Basal Eurasian is best represented by yDNA G (E and F represent pre Basal pre Dzudzuana Eurasians before the split.)

----------


## bicicleur

> The Wikipedia article isn't very correct though. EHG is more like 40-50% ANE.
> I doubt the other 50% in Iran_Neo is real Dzudzuana. More like a relative pop. And before the appearancr of this Dzudzuana sample CHG was modeled like 70% ANE like. Makes me wonder that Dzudzuana has shared ancestry with Mal'ta.
> In fact I believe this Dzudzuana individual might be best represented by Haplogroup IJ.
> In fact I always thought Basal Eurasian is best represented by yDNA G (E and F represent pre Basal pre Dzudzuana Eurasians before the split.)


I think Dzudzuana = haplogroup IJ + Basal Eurasian,
and Basal Eurasian was brought by haplogroups G and H2.

Furthermore, haplogroup I2 (the Villabruna cluster, mesolithic western Europe) = haplogroup IJ + some drift.

This is speculation of course, but it fits with the modelling in the Laziridis Dzudzuana paper.

----------


## Jovialis

> The Wikipedia article isn't very correct though. EHG is more like 40-50% ANE.
> I doubt the other 50% in Iran_Neo is real Dzudzuana. More like a relative pop. And before the appearancr of this Dzudzuana sample CHG was modeled like 70% ANE like. Makes me wonder that Dzudzuana has shared ancestry with Mal'ta.
> In fact I believe this Dzudzuana individual might be best represented by Haplogroup IJ.
> In fact I always thought Basal Eurasian is best represented by yDNA G (E and F represent pre Basal pre Dzudzuana Eurasians before the split.)


Here is the reference that the wiki page cites, for EHG being 75% ANE:




> Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG) derive ~3/4 of their ancestry from the ANE (Supplementary Information, section 11);
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/

----------


## etrusco

[QUOTE=bicicleur;598244]I think Dzudzuana = haplogroup IJ + Basal Eurasian,
and Basal Eurasian was brought by haplogroups G and H2.

Furthermore, haplogroup I2 (the Villabruna cluster, mesolithic western Europe) = haplogroup IJ + some drift.

But Dzudzuana itself is made up of a Villabruna like population ( very old WHG) and Basal Eurasian . IIRC Dzudzuana is 72% Villabruna and 28% Basal. 

So the steppe eneolithic cluster ( EHG+CHG) could very well be something like 50% WHG. Even if the WHG in CHG and EHG are of a different time. WHG in EGH is clearly younger and likely is Mesolithic WHG ( Villabruna proper).

----------


## bicicleur

[QUOTE=etrusco;598248]


> I think Dzudzuana = haplogroup IJ + Basal Eurasian,
> and Basal Eurasian was brought by haplogroups G and H2.
> Furthermore, haplogroup I2 (the Villabruna cluster, mesolithic western Europe) = haplogroup IJ + some drift.
> But Dzudzuana itself is made up of a Villabruna like population ( very old WHG) and Basal Eurasian . IIRC Dzudzuana is 72% Villabruna and 28% Basal. 
> So the steppe eneolithic cluster ( EHG+CHG) could very well be something like 50% WHG. Even if the WHG in CHG and EHG are of a different time. WHG in EGH is clearly younger and likely is Mesolithic WHG ( Villabruna proper).


please check

Attachment 11846

supplements p32 : modelling CHG



tree.jpg
main tree :
IMO common west Eurasian = haplo IJ
Villabruna = haplo I2, common west Eurasian + drift

and EHG = 75 % ANE
ANE = Mal'ta in the tree = haplo QR during LGM

----------


## Ygorcs

> I explained before, I even started a thread on the subject, IMO CHG and steppe were formed at the same time 15 - 14 ka on both sides of the Caucasus
> that means that the formation of CHG was induced as much by admixture from the north as the formation of steppe was induced by admixture coming from Transcaucasia
> 
> EHG is more or less on a cline between WHG and ANE
> 
> and CHG and steppe are both on a cline between Dzudzuana and a EHG/ANE mixture
> 
> can anyone check that?


But where would that 15-14 ka Steppe Admixture be located? Steppe Admixture, with its typical combination of a lot of EH with some significant proportion of CHG, can only be found in the aDNA ataset from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe from the 5th millennium B.C. I think it's probable that it was already found at least in the vicinity of the North Caucasus before that, but, if it had been formed a lot before the 5000-4300 B.C. period, then it was very restricted to the North Caucasus piedmont area before the Neolithic. I say that because all the HG aDNA samples from the Ukrainian and Russian steppe are overwhelmingly EHG and/or CHG, and there's a sudden increase in the CHG admixture when Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog and Eneolithic Steppe Piedmont (Progress/Vonyuchka) appear in the 5th millennium B.C. Before that, the CHG in Ukraine and Russia seems to have been very, very minor, and in Ukraine there was a lot of WHG that disappeared after the Neolithic except in the Dereivka samples (which also saw a significant increase in the CHG component)... so I think the data are telling us that some major changes happened between the Neolithic and the Eneolithic in the entire Pontic-Caspian zone.

See what my models show for the available G25 samples from Ukraine: https://imgur.com/a/CWeVy3X

----------


## bicicleur

> But where would that 15-14 ka Steppe Admixture be located? Steppe Admixture, with its typical combination of a lot of EH with some significant proportion of CHG, can only be found in the aDNA ataset from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe from the 5th millennium B.C. I think it's probable that it was already found at least in the vicinity of the North Caucasus before that, but, if it had been formed a lot before the 5000-4300 B.C. period, then it was very restricted to the North Caucasus piedmont area before the Neolithic. I say that because all the HG aDNA samples from the Ukrainian and Russian steppe are overwhelmingly EHG and/or CHG, and there's a sudden increase in the CHG admixture when Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog and Eneolithic Steppe Piedmont (Progress/Vonyuchka) appear in the 5th millennium B.C. Before that, the CHG in Ukraine and Russia seems to have been very, very minor, and in Ukraine there was a lot of WHG that disappeared after the Neolithic except in the Dereivka samples (which also saw a significant increase in the CHG component)... so I think the data are telling us that some major changes happened between the Neolithic and the Eneolithic in the entire Pontic-Caspian zone.
> 
> See what my models show for the available G25 samples from Ukraine: https://imgur.com/a/CWeVy3X


indeed, it would have been restricted to Ciskaukasia untill ca 8,2 ka when hunter-fishers started moving up the lower Volga area eventualy reaching the Samara bend ca 6.6 ka
the majority of these fisher-hunters were R1b, and I suspect R1b-V1636

the oldest DNA from Ciskaukasia we have is from the Wang paper, with R1b-V1636
there is appearantly a new paper behind a paywall : New paper (behind paywall) by David Anthony, Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard
check this out : https://indo-european.eu/2019/08/don...naya-ancestry/ (take his conclusions with a pinch of salt) 
and this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvaly...lture#Genetics

it makes sense to me

----------


## Ygorcs

> Here is the reference that the wiki page cites, for EHG being 75% ANE:


In G25 all models I tried also give ~75% ANE to EHG.

----------


## Ygorcs

> indeed, it would have been restricted to Ciskaukasia untill ca 8,2 ka when hunter-fishers started moving up the lower Volga area eventualy reaching the Samara bend ca 6.6 ka
> the majority of these fisher-hunters were R1b, and I suspect R1b-V1636
> 
> the oldest DNA from Ciskaukasia we have is from the Wang paper, with R1b-V1636
> there is appearantly a new paper behind a paywall : New paper (behind paywall) by David Anthony, Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard
> check this out : https://indo-european.eu/2019/08/don...naya-ancestry/ (take his conclusions with a pinch of salt) 
> and this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvaly...lture#Genetics
> 
> it makes sense to me


If that were the case, then that could explain why I always get some % of Vonyuchka_Eneolithic or Progress_Eneolithic in nearly all the samples from Chalcolithic and EBA West Asia and Turan, as part of the best fitting model for them using all the available average population DNA samples from before the Bronze Age. The Vonyucha/Progress-like admixture from just north of the Caucasus may have already spilled southward (maybe via Dagestan and modern Azerbaijan) to Transcaucasia and beyond even before the end of the Copper Age (maybe that's why Anatolian was so divergent?).

----------


## bicicleur

> If that were the case, then that could explain why I always get some % of Vonyuchka_Eneolithic or Progress_Eneolithic in nearly all the samples from Chalcolithic and EBA West Asia and Turan, as part of the best fitting model for them using all the available average population DNA samples from before the Bronze Age. The Vonyucha/Progress-like admixture from just north of the Caucasus may have already spilled southward (maybe via Dagestan and modern Azerbaijan) to Transcaucasia and beyond even before the end of the Copper Age (maybe that's why Anatolian was so divergent?).


the Progress/Vonyuchka are R1b-V1636. They split from R1b-P297 ca 15,7 ka.
R1b-P297 went upstream the Volga basin and R1b-V1636 went south to Ciskaukasia where they admixed with the Dzudzuana creating steppe.
The Dzudzuana in Transcaucasia admixed with R1b-V1636 creating CHG.
CHG and steppe should be more or less on a cline between ANE/EHG and Dzudzuana

----------


## bicicleur

> If that were the case, then that could explain why I always get some % of Vonyuchka_Eneolithic or Progress_Eneolithic in nearly all the samples from Chalcolithic and EBA West Asia and Turan, as part of the best fitting model for them using all the available average population DNA samples from before the Bronze Age. The Vonyucha/Progress-like admixture from just north of the Caucasus may have already spilled southward (maybe via Dagestan and modern Azerbaijan) to Transcaucasia and beyond even before the end of the Copper Age (maybe that's why Anatolian was so divergent?).


Yes, my opinion is tilting in the same direction, a small group related to the Khvalynsk (mainly R1b-V1636) must have crossed the Caucasus and have been succesfull enough to sustain and spread the Anatolian languages, but I have no clue how and when this happened. I'd say somewhere between 6,5 and 5 ka. 

Samara HG was probably R1b-P297* (according to Genetiker), Khvalynsk was probably a merger between the R1b-V1636 fisher-gatherers from Ciskaukasia with a few of the Samara HG. None of them were R1b-M269.
My guess is that the Khvalynsk spoke PIE and the Repin which arrived 5,95 ka in the Don-Volga area were the R1b-M269 tribe coming from the north. R1b-M269 was still a small tribe then, they were EHG but through admixing with the larger Khvalynsk tribes they got the Khvalynsk steppe DNA and IE language.

----------


## MOESAN

> I suspect their much of their phenotypic traits are a result of admixture with CHG. Especially if the EHG looked more like other Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers, like the dark-skinned Cheddar man. The light skin mutation emerged in the middle east.


We don't know exactly when and where the first mutation arise (more than one, do keep in mind). It could have arisen between S-E Europe and Anatolia as well or even rather than in Middle East.
Apparently one of the principal ones would have appeared first among Neolithic people, rather on the EEF/ANF side (Dzudzuana heritages rather than the ghost 'basal eurasian'???); concerning the second more important mutation, I don't know for sure. Maybe I forgot something?
After, the selection(s) of all kinds make the job.

----------


## MOESAN

Without criticizing Davidski's "work", as supporter or opponent (I haven't the skills, spite I find his approach is sometimes very "selective"), I think the point is not without importance: the dates of crossings between EHG and CHG can have some weight in the linguisitic/cultural debate about IEans, so History.
Otherwise, as say someones, EHG and CHG shared a lot of common far ancestry, as all of us, and after some (back)matings, the differences could have been gradual among some between groups North the Caucasus, since a long enough time. Maybe am I wrong.

----------


## halfalp

Discussing CHG or Light Skin with personal opinions do not make a slight sense either when trying to disprove someones opinion.

I think Davidski has mostly the idea that CHG is a long standing component of the Caucasus, coming from both North and South of it from long before the whole Chalcolithic Steppe Indo-European et caetera problem. Probably going along the idea that maybe Southern Steppe and Caucasus was populated by Dzudzuana-like population already in the Paleolithic and becoming CHG when they got some EHG input at some point in the Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic.

The idea of linking whole CHG with Iran_Neo or even the territory of Iran is speculative anyway. Why should it be from South and not from North? It's a component build up from a Southern one ( Dzudzuana ) and a Northern one ( ANE-EHG ) and we still dont know where it formed or the extent of its range.

However as someone that kind of read the comments section on eurogenes, i have multiple times stumble onto davidski saying " let's see for it with more datas ", especially with potential sources like Shulaveri-Shomu that could have contributed this ancestry to southern steppe. Meaning he is not that stubborn about his own hypothesis that some people would think.

Also, putting forwards what davidski said 10-5 years ago in a certain topic as a way to disprove is actual work, or some of its actual work, is wrong.

----------


## bicicleur

as I see it now, the light skin is likely coming from the Basal Eurasian, and it spread through Dzudzuana
but maybe ANE reinforced it

----------


## torzio

> as I see it now, the light skin is likely coming from the Basal Eurasian, and it spread through Dzudzuana
> but maybe ANE reinforced it


you do not think that skin colour is a change of pigmentation over time ( a long long time ) depending on where one lives?

Eskimo people have dark skin to protest themselves from the suns rays .............lighter skin is due to the body wanting to absorb more vitamin D via the sun ............

----------


## bicicleur

> you do not think that skin colour is a change of pigmentation over time ( a long long time ) depending on where one lives?
> 
> Eskimo people have dark skin to protest themselves from the suns rays .............lighter skin is due to the body wanting to absorb more vitamin D via the sun ............


it's a matter of genes, isn't it?
some genes will prosper through selection and adaptations to new environments or diets,
but that is a matter of several generations

----------


## hrvclv

It's all probably more complicated than that, and probably has much more to do with nutrition and environment than with any specific sub-population.

Light skin : Afontovagora 2, Satsturblia, Natufian I1072, Near East PPN Bon002, Ukraine Meso, Iran EN WC1, Kotias Meso, Norway Hummer Vik Meso, Serbia Meso, Sweden Meso, Latvia Meso, Kennewick man, etc...

Also, see the very "unpredictable" distribution of blond hair, scattered randomly among ancient samples, until it seems to finally aggregate around the Baltic, notably among GAC people, and derived. There's even a light-skinned, blond-haired, blue-eyed guy in North West Early Neolithic Anatolia (I1580)!

It's all there : https://genetiker.wordpress.com/pigmentation/

----------


## halfalp

I still bet at some point Denisova or Neanderthal will turn with fair features.

----------


## Salento

> I still bet at some point Denisova or Neanderthal will turn with fair features.


Pigmentation:

What
A unique Neanderthal version of the gene MC1R, associated with fair or red hair and lighter skin.

Why
A genetic variant that became widespread among modern humans because of the advantages it conferred in areas with less sunlight.

How
Interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post565357

----------


## halfalp

> Pigmentation:
> 
> What
> A unique Neanderthal version of the gene MC1R, associated with fair or red hair and lighter skin.
> 
> Why
> A genetic variant that became widespread among modern humans because of the advantages it conferred in areas with less sunlight.
> 
> How
> ...



Not sure to understand, is this confirmed in some previous studies that some Neanderthals had a unique version of the MC1R gene and that it made some of them fair?

----------


## MOESAN

> It's all probably more complicated than that, and probably has much more to do with nutrition and environment than with any specific sub-population.
> 
> Light skin : Afontovagora 2, Satsturblia, Natufian I1072, Near East PPN Bon002, Ukraine Meso, Iran EN WC1, Kotias Meso, Norway Hummer Vik Meso, Serbia Meso, Sweden Meso, Latvia Meso, Kennewick man, etc...
> 
> Also, see the very "unpredictable" distribution of blond hair, scattered randomly among ancient samples, until it seems to finally aggregate around the Baltic, notably among GAC people, and derived. There's even a light-skinned, blond-haired, blue-eyed guy in North West Early Neolithic Anatolia (I1580)!
> 
> It's all there : https://genetiker.wordpress.com/pigmentation/



I agree as a whole; but mutations are at first linked to individual(s) and then to pop (even if not general in it) and need exchanges and crossings to expand and to be selected. After that, yes, climate and diet can do the work, it's evident.
to others: 
our light skin mutated genes (Europeans) as the East-Asians one, have not been inherited from Neanderthal who had another mutation: it is not very new. ATW, all Neanderthals were not light skinned by force, according to places. 
Concerning the selection of light skin genes, I think the process has been more complicated than believed by someones. Perhaps the selection (beside a possible sexual one) was favoured or hindered by a polygenic problem implying at the same time more than a vital vs letal question ? 
&: apart: I have always thought that a late selection of light skin in North was curious for people living often warmly dressed against cold weather. It seems weather has been a bit warmer at some time there, but not 6 ky ago or sooner?...

----------


## Salento

> Not sure to understand, is this confirmed in some previous studies that some Neanderthals had a unique version of the gene and that it made some of them fair?


MRC1 - MC1R 

... MRC1 was sequenced using DNA from two Neanderthal specimens from Spain and Italy ...

... Modern humans display similar mutations of MC1R ...

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...and-phenotypes


I think: MRC1 is the Neanderthal version of the Modern Human MC1R

----------


## MOESAN

@Salento and others
Let's recall

_Ancient DNA has been used to show aspects of Neanderthal appearance. A fragment of the gene for the melanocortin 1 receptor (MRC1) was sequenced using DNA from two Neanderthal specimens from Spain and Italy: El Sidrón 1252 and Monte Lessini (Lalueza-Fox et al. 2007). MC1R is a receptor gene that controls the production of melanin, the protein responsible for pigmentation of the hair and skin. Neanderthals had a mutation in this receptor gene which changed an amino acid, making the resulting protein less efficient and likely creating a phenotype of red hair and pale skin. (The reconstruction below of a male Neanderthal by John Gurche features pale skin, but not red hair) .How do we know what this phenotype would have looked like? Modern humans display similar mutations of MC1R, and people who have two copies of this mutation have red hair and pale skin. However, no modern human has the exact mutation that Neanderthals had, which means that both Neanderthals and humans evolved this phenotype independent of each other.
_
_similar # identical
_MRC1 & MC1R are maybe the same thing in different languages? (as DNA and ADN in English and French)
But no, these mutations were not exactly the same ones, but had the same effect: red hair and lightER skin (not by force very light skin, maybe?: I saw some metis of the blend "white"-"negro" with red hair but not fully white skin surely because other genes or loci (darkening) were at work, inherited from SSA.

----------


## MOESAN

erratum: from wikipedia
I wrote : "MRC1 & MC1R are maybe the same thing in different languages? (as DNA and ADN in English and French)..."
I'm laughable! Here under the explanation: it seems they are 2 different things
Mannose receptor C-type 1 MC1R (one variant: there are too MC2R, MC3R, MC4R & MC5R) is a protein that in humansis encoded by theMRC1gene
# MelanoCortin 1 Receptor: MC1R

But no only me was wrong: MRCA could not be for *M*elano*C*ortin 1 *R*eceptor!!! it's typo in the paper report.

----------


## MOESAN

I'm tired! I crossed my writings:
put in order: for melanin, only MC1R (or MC2R etc...)
# MRC1: mannose receptor C 1
Sorry, too much pancakes this evening, and too much wine? I'm going to bed!

----------


## Duarte

> erratum: from wikipedia
> I wrote : "MRC1 & MC1R are maybe the same thing in different languages? (as DNA and ADN in English and French)..."
> I'm laughable! Here under the explanation: it seems they are 2 different things
> Mannose receptor C-type 1 MC1R (one variant: there are too MC2R, MC3R, MC4R & MC5R) is a protein that in humansis encoded by theMRC1gene
> # MelanoCortin 1 Receptor: MC1R
> 
> But no only me was wrong: MRCA could not be for *M*elano*C*ortin 1 *R*eceptor!!! it's typo in the paper report.


I do not have the MC1R variants related to red hair, 





But I have these ones modern variants that influence the final phenotype, according “yourDNAportal”.

----------


## Northener

> erratum: from wikipedia
> I wrote : "MRC1 & MC1R are maybe the same thing in different languages? (as DNA and ADN in English and French)..."
> I'm laughable! Here under the explanation: it seems they are 2 different things
> Mannose receptor C-type 1 MC1R (one variant: there are too MC2R, MC3R, MC4R & MC5R) is a protein that in humansis encoded by theMRC1gene
> # MelanoCortin 1 Receptor: MC1R
> 
> But no only me was wrong: MRCA could not be for *M*elano*C*ortin 1 *R*eceptor!!! it's typo in the paper report.


The example of the world wide more seldom red hair snp in MCR1 shows IMO these trait has most probably multiple sources.

This is from 23and Me:



My impression:

MC1R R51C is most 'Celtic' West European red hair type, connected with Indo-Europeans?

MC1R D294H is Isles and France/Belgium, Swiss, looks a bit LaTene.

MC1R R160W is typical NE European (high in Sweden/ Baltic), the parts of Europe with the highest HG level, we already found this along Moltala samples.

The last one is also my red hair variant (my HG level is that of Sweden/Poland).

----------


## MOESAN

Thnaks, Northerner, mijn beste vriend (Dutch ancient learner's tempered humor), I saw this maps (found on this forum, I suppose);
in Australia they found 7 variants associated with to hair on their Euro's, but with different penetrance (efficacity).
BTW the third variant on the above maps, rather high in percentage there, seem having produced less characterised red hair than the two "Western" ones. But I'm not sure these % reflect accutely the true input of these variants in the pops, because I think there has not been sufficient samples in everyplace to make it sure.
And I wonder what kind of mutation has Mordwins.
Goede slaap, slimme en leergierige vriend.

----------

