# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe

## motzart

5000 B.C. R1b1 in Spain. I think this is rewriting everything. All of the Yamnaya R1b. 

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf

----------


## Angela

So, Yamnaya is indeed R1b and R1a is probably forest steppe. No wonder they waffled and said that Corded Ware was 75% of a population "related" to Yamnaya. Not only that, but Yamnaya is R1b M-269. The Samara hunter gatherer is earlier R1b. That's more of a surprise.

What's really interesting is that at the same time they have found an R1b1 among early Neolithic samples from Spain. If M-269 is on the steppe then is "modern" European R1b Yamnaya derived and the R1b1 from Spain was a dead end?

Did R1b really have that big a range, or did the earliest clades just straddle the whole Caucasus area, and so some of it got picked up in the Neolithic migrations?

A related question is what's the source of the "Near Eastern" ancestry?

I better get back to reading. Just wanted to give everybody a head's up, although Motzart beat me to it.

----------


## motzart

The R1b in the Yamnaya is all Z2103, not ancestral to Western European R1b. That means R1b spread into Europe PRIOR the existence of the Yamnaya. So many people were right and yet so wrong, credit to Maciamo for getting the routes and the geography right, but he was so far off on the dates.

----------


## Fire Haired14

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

I don't know people are discussing this already on other threads, but whatever I think it's start to start a thread dedicated to it. I'v skimmed through it and I can already see there are a lot of surprising Y DNA. Such as R1b1 from Neolithic Spain, R*(xdeep R1b and R1a clades) from Neolithic Germany, all Mesolithic Russians had R1a and R1b, all Y DNA from Yamna is R1b-L23(mostly Z2103 not western L51), derived I2a1b clades all over Neolithic Europe, and T1a from Neolithic Europe. 

I have not looked at the Y SNP calls of samples yet. It appears the origin of R1b-L11 and R1a-Z282 the most popular paternal lineages in Europe today, are begging to be resolved with ancient Y DNA.

I like seeing my own lineage and the lineage of over 50% of modern west Europeans R1b-P312 in Bell Beaker Germany 4,5000YBP. 

A big congrats to Maciamo and others for predicting R1b-M269 existed in Yamna some 5-10 years ago. It must feel good to finally be confirmed by ancient Y DNA, after debating for so long.

----------


## Sile

I always wondered why ....If R1a and R1b are the same age , why is western european heavily R1b and eastern europe R1a .........clearly R1b was settling europe and r1a was lollying around in the steppe.

what about T1a in Karsdorf...........now that a turnup

----------


## motzart

As an I2a1 individual I think its high time you all went back to Siberia. You've quite overstayed your welcome.

----------


## LeBrok

Thanks, looks like we are going to have some fun now. I read it tomorrow.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Here are all the Y DNA results from the study organized.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...zn0kOU91Q/edit

R1b1* in Mesolithic Karelia and Neolithic Spain, R1a1* in Mesolithic Samara, and R in Neolithic Germany. Pretty amazing.

----------


## LeBrok

I couldn't resist, so I stayed longer to check the paper. Massive amount of information to consume, I must say. Guys were working hard, but I'm a little disappointed I must say. I was afraid that all the Yamnaya samples might be from one place, and I was a prophet unfortunately. All sample are from Samara region which is located North of Caspian Sea. It is pretty much North East corner of Yamnaya horizon. This doesn't help to have a gemeral picture of Yamnaya genetics. Just a little sliver of a vast culture.
My next complaint is about not testing Neolithic farmer population south of Yamnaya. We know these farmers had direct and meaningful genetic effect on Yamnaya, so it baffles me why there is not even one sample from Cucuteni and Varna, or South of Caucasus?
I hope that this paper will be more interesting that the first impression. I'm going to bed.
See you tomorrow.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Thanks, looks like we are going to have some fun now. I read it tomorrow.


It looks like me and you being Euro R1bs trace our paternal lineage to the bronze age Russian steppe. Something like 40% of Europeans, 20% of west Asians, and 30% of Indians probably trace their father line back to the bronze age Russian steppe. They're the most successful fathers in history.

----------


## epoch

The ADMIXTURE graph is very odd. Maybe I don't understand well how ADMIXTURE works but at K=20 *all* WHG seems to disappear from current day European population and looks like being replaced by Yamnaya/EHG ancestry. That, we can *proof* is wrong. You see, all LN cultures that followed Corded Ware, in other words that followed the Yamnaya invasion, had substantial amount of the WHG (it's the grey part, which make up 100% of Swedish HG and also La Brana). So how could part not pop up in current day Europeans?

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...1/013433-1.pdf


EDIT: Furthermore, Stuttgart is very odd in K=20. She has mostly EHG/Yamnaya admixture and a tad Caucasian.

----------


## Maleth

> They're the most successful fathers in history.


 :Thinking: I wonder if the mothers have anything to do with it? procreating can be fun, the hard work comes later probably assigned to the female species in many different forms

----------


## Maciamo

> 5000 B.C. R1b1 in Spain. I think this is rewriting everything. All of the Yamnaya R1b.


R1b1* could either be R1b-P25 or R1b-V88. Both are unrelated to Yamnaya. It was tested for V35 and V69, but not for V88.

If it is R1b-P25 then it would certainly be a remnant of the Mesolithic population. Nowadays R1b-P25 makes up about 1% of the male lineages in western Europe.

If it is R1b-V88, it would have come from North African Neolithic cattle herders, as I explained many times on the forum and in my Genetic history of Iberia.

----------


## Maciamo

> The ADMIXTURE graph is very odd. Maybe I don't understand well how ADMIXTURE works but at K=20 *all* WHG seems to disappear from current day European population and looks like being replaced by Yamnaya/EHG ancestry. That, we can *proof* is wrong. You see, all LN cultures that followed Corded Ware, in other words that followed the Yamnaya invasion, had substantial amount of the WHG (it's the grey part, which make up 100% of Swedish HG and also La Brana). So how could part not pop up in current day Europeans?
> 
> http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...1/013433-1.pdf
> 
> 
> EDIT: Furthermore, Stuttgart is very odd in K=20. She has mostly EHG/Yamnaya admixture and a tad Caucasian.


Keep in mind that only a few individuals were tested and they may not be representative of the whole population of a region at the time. Actually if Yamna people moved to central Europe, chances are that many of them remained ethnically separate from the conquered population, a bit like the Indo-Aryans did in India with the caste system. After all both were Bronze Age Indo-Europeans with a similar language and religion, so they must have also shared similar practices with conquered populations. This means that R1b or R1a "upper castes" from the Corded Ware or Unetice may have been pure Yamna. It's only after several millennia of intermixing with indigenous populations that the modern European admixtures appeared. Apparently the elite remained ethnically distinct in central Europe until the Urnfield period (1300-1200 BCE), when some sort of major cultural upheaval took place (e.g. IE funerary practices introduced cremation for the first time).

----------


## Maciamo

I had a quick look at the paper and I am glad to see that a *T1a* individual was found in the LBK culture, confirming what I had said for years : the Near Eastern Neolithic farmers were predominantly G2a but with J1 and T1a minorities (+ R1b-V88 in North Africa and Iberia).

The biggest surprise so far is that 4 out of 6 Yamna men tested belonged to the Balkano-Anatolian *R1b-Z2103* (the other two were P297 and L23). This may simply be because they are all from the Volga-Ural region. They would therefore have been among the last to move to the Balkans. In contrast, western Yamna people from southern Ukraine would have been the first to move out of the steppe, and that should in theory be where the ancestors of modern Western Europeans came from.

Here is a table showing the mtDNA of the six R1b Yamna men.

*Sample
*
*Y-haplogroup
*
*Mt-haplogroup
*
*Location
*

I0370
R1b-Z2103
H13a1a1
Ishkinovka, Orenburg

I0429
R1b-Z2103
T2c1a2
Lopatino, Samara

I0438
R1b-Z2103
U5a1a1
Luzhki, Samara

I0439
R1b-P297
U5a1a1
Lopatino, Samara

I0443
R1b-L23
W3a1a
Lopatino, Samara

I0444
R1b-Z2103
H6a1b
Kutuluk, Samara




Female Yamna samples belonged to H2b, K1b2a, U4a1 and W6c.

I had specifically associated H6, U4a1, U5a1a1, W3 and W6 as being of Indo-European origin.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Anyone notice Yamna, Corded ware, Bell Beaker, and Unetice are clustering on PCAs exactly where I and others at Eurogenes expeted? Also, notice WHG is needed to explain modern Europeans not Yamna+EEF, which is also what we have been saying for months.

----------


## epoch

> Keep in mind that only a few individuals were tested and they may not be representative of the whole population of a region at the time. Actually if Yamna people moved to central Europe, chances are that many of them remained ethnically separate from the conquered population, a bit like the Indo-Aryans did in India with the caste system. After all both were Bronze Age Indo-Europeans with a similar language and religion, so they must have also shared similar practices with conquered populations. This means that R1b or R1a "upper castes" from the Corded Ware or Unetice may have been pure Yamna. It's only after several millennia of intermixing with indigenous populations that the modern European admixtures appeared. Apparently the elite remained ethnically distinct in central Europe until the Urnfield period (1300-1200 BCE), when some sort of major cultural upheaval took place (e.g. IE funerary practices introduced cremation for the first time).


But that's not the issue I refer to. The issue is that *current day*, modern, Europeans show *no WHG at all* in K=20, when WHG become a separate instance (Grey). All modern examples only show dark blue, which is a large part of Yamnaya and half of EHG. I simply don't get that and it defies what the article said, that European are half EEF/WHG mix combined with half Yamnaya. 

Where is my grey in the Basques, the English and ze Germans?

----------


## Maciamo

> Anyone notice Yamna, Corded ware, Bell Beaker, and Unetice are clustering on PCAs exactly where I and others at Eurogenes expeted? Also, notice WHG is needed to explain modern Europeans not Yamna+EEF, which is also what we have been saying for months.


Did you predict that Yamna and Corded Ware would cluster closest to the Mordovians ? It makes sense since the Mordovians have one of the highest incidence of red hair and I always sustained that genes of red hair were brought by R1b people (and blond hair by R1a people).

Unetice clusters especially well with Ukrainians, Hungarians and Czechs. That's the supposed geographic route followed by R1b Yamna tribes from Ukraine to central Europe.

----------


## Maciamo

> But that's not the issue I refer to. The issue is that *current day*, modern, Europeans show *no WHG at all* in K=20, when WHG become a separate instance (Grey). All modern examples only show dark blue, which is a large part of Yamnaya and half of EHG. I simply don't get that and it defies what the article said, that European are half EEF/WHG mix combined with half Yamnaya. 
> 
> Where is my grey in the Basques, the English and ze Germans?


Unless there is a mistake in the K=20 data, it means that all the WHG (like in Motala and La Brana) has now become extinct in modern Europeans (who are a mix of Yamna and EEF).

What is odd is that from K=16 to K=19 Yamna looks half EHG (deep blue) and half Caucasian-Gedrosian (greyish green), but in K=20 Yamna suddenly becomes 80% EHG (sometimes with some WHG) and only 20% Caucasian-Gedrosian.

----------


## Aberdeen

These are very strange results. I certainly wasn't expecting the Samara results to be all R1b. And yet they seem to be the wrong subclade to be ancestral to most of the R1b in western Europe. Some very strange conclusions by the authors, I would say.

----------


## epoch

> Unless there is a mistake in the K=20 data, it means that all the WHG (like in Motala and La Brana) has now become extinct in modern Europeans (who are a mix of Yamna and EEF).


Exactly. However, all cultures *following* Corded Ware do show WHG admixture. The article even clearly states that a resurge happened. Also it states that modern Europeans could be explained as half Neolithic with a WHG resurge and half Yamnaya. So did that part of WHG go extinct in the Bronze or Iron age? 

Even stranger is the fact that Swedish HG show no affinity *at all* to EHG nor to American Indians. However, we know some had quite some ANE admixture. But Loschbourg actually *does* have a tad EHG as well as a tad EEF. The latter would probably mean that a part of EEF actually is connected to Loschbourg. Let's assume that WHG contributed locally to the newly arrived farmers that would make sense. Stuttgart is far closer to Luxembourg than to North Spain or Sweden. It could even explain how Stuttgart got a part EHG. But where did the Caucasus part of Stuttgart come from?

There is a blogpost at Fennoscandia where it's explained that La Brana actually left quite some traces to Basques and Sardianians. Why doesn't that show up in K=20 here? 

http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2014...ardinians.html




> What is odd is that from K=16 to K=19 Yamna looks half EHG (deep blue) and half Caucasian-Gedrosian (greyish green), but in K=20 Yamna suddenly becomes 80% EHG (sometimes with some WHG) and only 20% Caucasian-Gedrosian.


Yes, a thing that also happens in the ADMIXTURE runs of the first Lazardis paper. That's why I wonder if I really understand how this works.

----------


## Aberdeen

If we look at how much Y DNA there is in eastern and central Europe that isn't R1a or R1b, and think about the survival of non-IE languages into the historic period, the idea of such massive population replacement by Indo-Europeans doesn't make sense to me. And if we're talking about massive migrations out of the steppe, why is R1b so much more prevalent in western Europe than in eastern Europe, and why different subclades than found at Samara.

I think the authors of this paper have proven two things; that R1b had a very wide spread distribution across Europe more than 7000 years ago and that it's possible to reach some really erroneous conclusions using PCA charts.

Still not one Iberian BB Y DNA result.

----------


## Goga

Yes, great results. Never expected such a confirmation of my theories. No R1a in Yamnaya, so there's still no evidence that R1a-Z93 in Iranic folks is from Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian Steppes in general. I knew it, but didn't expect that they would find Anatolian (Armenian, West Iranic) R1b in Yamnaya. R1b in Yamnaya is Anatolia, which again is a great indication that Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov is right about his Armenian hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis . The latest results are victory for Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich *Ivanov* & Tamaz V. *Gamkrelidze*! It's true that Indo-Europeans in Europe came from Yamnaya. But folks from NorthWest Asia (from Maykop) Indo-Europized the Yamnaya folks in the Steppes. I was telling this all the time. Indo-Europeanization occured in stages. Best news for me is that R1a-Z93 has nothing to do with the Yamnaya. And this fact is making my thoughts even stronger!

----------


## Tone

> Yes, great results. Never expected such a confirmation of my theories. No R1a in Yamnaya, so there's still no evidence that R1a-Z93 in Iranic folks is from Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian Steppes in general. I knew it, but didn't expect that they would find Anatolian (Armenian, West Iranic) R1b in Yamnaya. R1b in Yamnaya is Anatolia, which again is a great indication that Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov is right about his Armenian hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis . The latest results are victory for Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich *Ivanov* & Tamaz V. *Gamkrelidze*! It's true that Indo-Europeans in Europe came from Yamnaya. But folks from NorthWest Asia (from Maykop) Indo-Europized the Yamnaya folks in the Steppes. I was telling this all the time. Indo-Europeanization occured in stages. Best news for me is that R1a-Z93 has nothing to do with the Yamnaya. And this fact is making my thoughts even stronger!


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R1B in the Mesolithic Samara HG disprove the theory of an Armenian homeland for IE? The Yamnaya have the Ydna of hunter gatherers and it seems they invaded the Armenian highlands and not the other way around? I don't profess to know anything. Just asking questions.

----------


## Goga

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R1B in the Mesolithic Samara HG disprove the theory of an Armenian homeland for IE? The Yamnaya have the Ydna of hunter gatherers and it seems they invaded the Armenian highlands and not the other way around? I don't profess to know anything. Just asking questions.


No, they found R1b-*Z2103* in Yamnaya, and R1b-Z2103 is *native* to Anatolia area (very common among Armenians and West Iranic people)

----------


## Robert6

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R1B in the Mesolithic Samara HG disprove the theory of an Armenian homeland for IE? The Yamnaya have the Ydna of hunter gatherers and it seems they invaded the Armenian highlands and not the other way around? I don't profess to know anything. Just asking questions.


The Hunter R1b1a in Samara region show that Yamna was Kurganized(Indo-Europeanized) culture, 
Leila-Tepe had Kurgans before the Yamna.

----------


## Maciamo

> No, they found R1b-*Z2103* in Yamnaya, and R1b-Z2103 is *native* to Anatolia area (very common among Armenians and West Iranic people)


No, R1b-Z2103 is found in Anatolia, Greece and the Balkans today, but that doesn't mean it appeared there. Not anymore than R1b-L51 appeared in Western Europe.

----------


## Maciamo

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R1B in the Mesolithic Samara HG disprove the theory of an Armenian homeland for IE? The Yamnaya have the Ydna of hunter gatherers and it seems they invaded the Armenian highlands and not the other way around? I don't profess to know anything. Just asking questions.


It is possible that R1b-P297 was found all around the Caspian Sea in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, both north and south of the Caucasus.

----------


## Maciamo

> Yes, great results. Never expected such a confirmation of my theories. No R1a in Yamnaya, so there's still no evidence that R1a-Z93 in Iranic folks is from Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian Steppes in general. I knew it, but didn't expect that they would find Anatolian (Armenian, West Iranic) R1b in Yamnaya. R1b in Yamnaya is Anatolia, which again is a great indication that Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov is right about his Armenian hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis . The latest results are victory for Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich *Ivanov* & Tamaz V. *Gamkrelidze*! It's true that Indo-Europeans in Europe came from Yamnaya. But folks from NorthWest Asia (from Maykop) Indo-Europized the Yamnaya folks in the Steppes. I was telling this all the time. Indo-Europeanization occured in stages. Best news for me is that R1a-Z93 has nothing to do with the Yamnaya. And this fact is making my thoughts even stronger!


R1a-Z93 arose in the Abashevo culture immediately north of Yamna, which spread east and evolved into the Sintashta culture, which in turn expanded to Central Asia with the Andronovo culture. The Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't solely descended from Yamna, but also from the R1a people of the forest-steppe (Corded Ware + Abashevo). Or are you denying that Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian people are Indo-Europeans ?

----------


## Goga

> No, R1b-Z2103 is found in Anatolia, Greece and the Balkans today, but that doesn't mean it appeared there. Not anymore than R1b-L51 appeared in Western Europe.


Caucaso-Gedrosian component among R1b (Yamnaya & Anatolian folks) is not from the Balkans, or is it? *R1b-Z2103 is full of Caucaso-Gedrosian component*, what means it's NATIVE to Anatolia!

----------


## Goga

> It is possible that R1b-P297 was found all around the Caspian Sea in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, both north and south of the Caucasus.


But it is not really relevant here. If it's relevant that you folks are measuring with *double standards*. We can also say that the *original R1a* is from West Asia, since R1a-M420, oldest clades have been found in West Asia and even ancestral clades to R1a-M17 have been found in West Asia. Maciamo, you telling me all the time that only the RECENT sublaced of R1a* are relevant to Indo-European question. Same can be said about R1b*. We have even got an African R1b. What is relevant is the *modern clades of R1b*. And now we have found direct links and evidences between Anatolia (Maykop) and Yamnaya. There is an Anatolian R1b in Yamnaya, there's an Anatolian *auDNA* (Caucaso-Gedrosian) in Yamnaya. *What do we have need more?* Case solved!

----------


## Goga

> R1a-Z93 arose in the Abashevo culture immediately north of Yamna, which spread east and evolved into the Sintashta culture, which in turn expanded to Central Asia with the Andronovo culture. The Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't solely descended from Yamna, but also from the R1a people of the forest-steppe (Corded Ware + Abashevo). Or are you denying that Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian people are Indo-Europeans ?


There's no evidence at ALL that R1a-Z93 arose in Abashevo. It can be from BMAC or the Iranian Plateau (area between Zagros and BMAC). Balto-Slavic people are NOT the same as Iranic people. True, that Balto-Slaic, Indic and Iranic languages are Satem, but there's no proof that they share direct common ancestors. 1) Iranic people belong to a very different R1a subclade which is absent in Europe. Balto-Slavic people are Z280, while Iranic people are Z93. People found acentral clades of Z93 in West Asia and *NOT* in Europe. 2) (West) Iranic people live not far from the Armenian people and also in a R1b-Z2103 rich region, maybe Iranic people picked up their language from *R1b-Z2103* folks, ha ? Maybe R1b-Z2103 folks picked Indo-European language from *R1a-S224* just south of the Caspian Sea.

----------


## Alan

Seems like most R1b is Z2103 after all. This is the Western Asian variant. But there was also a l25 (modern European variant).
One R1a found in the forrest zone.
But still thats not enough data to take any conclusions because it is said that all the R1b were from one single Samarra valley.


One thing however is true. *Maciamo was right with his theory aft all* 

If we look at the Neolithic m343 in Spain, we can come to the conclusion that R1b reached Europe with a dual source.
First from North Mesopotamia to Maykop and from Maykopt to the Steppes. A second one directly from Mesopotamia to Spain?
This fits Maciamos theory that R1b was in the southern Steppe region of Yamna while R1a more in the Forrest Region.


The paper says this is the proof that some of the Indo European languages reached Europe through Yamna. What makes me wonder if they are not able to explain the Indo European expansion as a whole with the Yamna expansion. Also it says the Anatolian Neolithic expansion lost strongly on weight ( I was never a fan of this theory anyways) but the possibility of the pastrolasit origin from North Mesopotamia/North West Iran and South Caucasus has risen once again.

So the question isn't if Yamna was Indo European (They were without a doubt), but if it's linguistic forefather came with their pastoralist ancestors or not.

----------


## Alan

> I always wondered why ....If R1a and R1b are the same age , why is western european heavily R1b and eastern europe R1a .........clearly R1b was settling europe and r1a was lollying around in the steppe.
> 
> what about T1a in Karsdorf...........now that a turnup



And even more interesting that this T1a was allmost as much Yamna like as CW is.

Makes me wonder if this was not a very early Yamna dude who has reached mainland Europe before the other.

----------


## Alan

> The ADMIXTURE graph is very odd. Maybe I don't understand well how ADMIXTURE works but at K=20 *all* WHG seems to disappear from current day European population and looks like being replaced by Yamnaya/EHG ancestry. That, we can *proof* is wrong. You see, all LN cultures that followed Corded Ware, in other words that followed the Yamnaya invasion, had substantial amount of the WHG (it's the grey part, which make up 100% of Swedish HG and also La Brana). So how could part not pop up in current day Europeans?
> 
> http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...1/013433-1.pdf
> 
> 
> EDIT: Furthermore, Stuttgart is very odd in K=20. She has mostly EHG/Yamnaya admixture and a tad Caucasian.



Wait what? When I look at the graphs. groups such as the Lithuanians with ~50% have suddenly only ~25% WHG while the rest gets eaten up by Yamna.

Doesn't seem to me so odd at all.

----------


## Silesian

> Caucaso-Gedrosian component among R1b (Yamnaya & Anatolian folks) is not from the Balkans, or is it? *R1b-Z2103 is full of Caucaso-Gedrosian component*, what means it's NATIVE to Anatolia!


Goga R1b Z2103 has different branches CTS 7822 some not found around Kurdish region unlike L584 and L277 and also remember earliest sample of basal R** is Malta somewhere in North are ancestors come from R1a R1b
http://www.nature.com/news/americas-...-roots-1.14213

[IMG][/QUOTE][/IMG]

----------


## Goga

> Goga R1b Z2103 has different branches CTS 7822 some not found around Kurdish region unlike L584 and L277 and also remember earliest sample of basal R** is Malta somewhere in North are ancestors come from R1a R1b
> http://www.nature.com/news/americas-...-roots-1.14213


I think it is from Azerbaijan (NorthWest Iran) where Leyla-Tepe is located. R1b-Z2103 could enter the Balkans through Greece from Western Turkey. My friend, I never said that R1b-Z2103 is from Kurdish region, I think it's from south of the Caspian Sea, Iranian Azerbaijan region...

----------


## Alan

From the data we have it appears like Yamna was 

closest to

1. Mordovians
2. Lezgins

----------


## Goga

> and also remember earliest sample of basal R** is Malta somewhere in North are ancestors come from R1a R1b


Yeah, R* has somewhere from the same region where also Q* is evolved, homeland of Y-DNA hg. P. But this happened a long, long time ago..

----------


## Alan

Goga there was a R1a among the Yamna in the forrest zone.

----------


## Goga

> From the data we have it appears like Yamna was 
> 
> closest to
> 
> 1. Mordovians
> 2. Lezgins/Russians


Lezgins are not ethnic Russians. Lezgians are North Caucasian people and live close to Azerbaijan (Caspian Sea), they are related to Adygea, Chechens, Dagestanians, Circassians etc. *Capital of the Republic of Adygea is called Maykop* !!!

----------


## Goga

> Goga there was a R1a among the Yamna in the forrest zone.


Yes, why not? But the question is, was it ancestral to R1a-Z93? There are many different R1a, like there're many different R1b. Before Makop/Yamnaya forest zone was *NEVER* Indo-European...

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> So, Yamnaya is indeed R1b and R1a is probably forest steppe. No wonder they waffled and said that Corded Ware was 75% of a population "related" to Yamnaya. Not only that, but Yamnaya is R1b M-269. The Samara hunter gatherer is earlier R1b. That's more of a surprise.
> 
> What's really interesting is that at the same time they have found an R1b1 among early Neolithic samples from Spain. If M-269 is on the steppe then is "modern" European R1b Yamnaya derived and the R1b1 from Spain was a dead end?
> 
> Did R1b really have that big a range, or did the earliest clades just straddle the whole Caucasus area, and so some of it got picked up in the Neolithic migrations?
> 
> A related question is what's the source of the "Near Eastern" ancestry?
> 
> I better get back to reading. Just wanted to give everybody a head's up, although Motzart beat me to it.


I think part of the R1b story is related to copper miners / smiths so they may have had a much larger range as minority artisans along trade routes than they had as full populations.

In which case if there was any dramatic demographic impact along the Atlantic coast it may have been due to that region's relative under population at the time.

(Just one of my theories but personally I wonder if part of what we think of as "near eastern" actually comes from central Asia i.e. I wonder if there was a metal age demographic transition there as well.)

----------


## epoch

> Wait what? When I look at the graphs. groups such as the Lithuanians with ~50% have suddenly only ~25% WHG while the rest gets eaten up by Yamna.
> 
> Doesn't seem to me so odd at all.


But it doesn't seem to be eaten up by Yamna. It is clearly visible in Bell Beaker and other post Corded Ware cultures. Hell, it is even visible in Yamna itself! 

And the 25% you see there at the Lithuanians is EEF, which is orange, not WHG, which is grey.

EDIT: To be fair, if you zoom in, there is a tiny bit among two Lithuanians and one Ukranian and quite some in one single Unkranian sample.

----------


## Alan

> But it doesn't seem to be eaten up by Yamna. It is clearly visible in Bell Beaker and other post Corded Ware cultures. Hell, it is even visible in Yamna itself! 
> 
> And the 25% you see there at the Lithuanians is EEF, which is orange, not WHG, which is grey.



I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.

----------


## mihaitzateo

A very interesting folk belief in Romania is that the blacksmiths were mostly red-haired people.
If I do remember right,R1B was associated with bringing the metal working in Europe and is pretty likely they also brought red hair genes in Europe.
Maybe there were more waves of migrations from the steppes and R1B bearers,which came later than R1A brought a more advanced technology,like metal working.
And they conquered whole West Europe,including Italy.
You see a very strange thing in Italy, Italy has R1B as dominant paternal line,but in Sardinia,some I2 branch is the dominant branch.
So that place,being a more isolated place,kept from old I2 lines.
EDIT:
I doubt R1B people were carrying hunter gatherer admixture.
Their very advanced technical skills gave them much better possibilities to earn their living,than gathering or hunting.
Think they were making trade,raising cattle,practicing agriculture,raiding other people to earn their living.

----------


## Alan

Acoording to the table on page 26, Yamnaya are closest to: 

1-Mordovian 0.018
2-Lezgian/Russian 0.019
3- Czech/Belarusian/Estonian/Hungarian/Icelandic 0.020
4-Norwegian/English 0.021
5-Croatian/French/Lithuanian/Orcadian 0.022
6- Bulgarian 0.023
7- Greek/Turkish 0.026
8-Spanish 0.027
9- Sindhi/Bergamo 0.028
10- Armenian/Sicilian 0.030 
11- Basque 0.034

Unfortunately no other North Caucasians on the list for comparison. Some one wrote this somewhere else.



> Based on the data we have from West Eurasia K8, I think it would be fair to say that Iranians and Kurds would be placed between Lezgians and Turks.

----------


## Alan

> A very interesting folk belief in Romania is that the blacksmiths were mostly red-haired people.
> If I do remember right,R1B was associated with bringing the metal working in Europe and is pretty likely they also brought red hair genes in Europe.
> Maybe there were more waves of migrations from the steppes and R1B bearers,which came later than R1A brought a more advanced technology,like metal working.
> And they conquered whole West Europe,including Italy.
> You see a very strange thing in Italy, Italy has R1B as dominant paternal line,but in Sardinia,some I2 branch is the dominant branch.
> So that place,being a more isolated place,kept from old I2 lines.
> EDIT:
> I doubt R1B people were carrying hunter gatherer admixture.
> Their very advanced technical skills gave them much better possibilities to earn their living,than gathering or hunting.
> Think they were making trade,raising cattle,practicing agriculture,raiding other people to earn their living.


Keep in mind the samples are very regional.(actually from the same valley) We can be sure to find allot of different Haplogroups in other regions and with rising numbers of samples R1a might even take the lead.

----------


## epoch

> I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.


Yes, that is exactly what I mean. WHG in step 20 of the ADMIXTURE-run add a WHG component, possibly defined by Moto;a, Swedish HG's and la Brana: All of them are 100% grey. A Hungarian HG too. However, if you look at the ADMIXTURE run some more you'll find that Stuttgart has EHG and Caucasian, but hardly any WHG. And Loschbourg, which is found in between Sweden
and Spain all of a sudden has an EHG component. 

This is strange, isn't it?

EDIT: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...1/013433-1.pdf

----------


## bicicleur

> I had a quick look at the paper and I am glad to see that a *T1a* individual was found in the LBK culture, confirming what I had said for years : the Near Eastern Neolithic farmers were predominantly G2a but with J1 and T1a minorities (+ R1b-V88 in North Africa and Iberia).
> 
> The biggest surprise so far is that 4 out of 6 Yamna men tested belonged to the Balkano-Anatolian *R1b-Z2103* (the other two were P297 and L23). This may simply be because they are all from the Volga-Ural region. They would therefore have been among the last to move to the Balkans. In contrast, western Yamna people from southern Ukraine would have been the first to move out of the steppe, and that should in theory be where the ancestors of modern Western Europeans came from.
> 
> Here is a table showing the mtDNA of the six R1b Yamna men.
> 
> *Sample
> *
> *Y-haplogroup
> ...


the R1b-P297 could be Z2103 as well, he tested L51-

all 8 are 3300-2600 BC, long after the split of the Anatolian branch

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R1B in the Mesolithic Samara HG disprove the theory of an Armenian homeland for IE? The Yamnaya have the Ydna of hunter gatherers and it seems they invaded the Armenian highlands and not the other way around? I don't profess to know anything. Just asking questions.



I don't think it disproves it exactly although maybe nudges it a bit.

Given the lowered sea levels I assume there was a lot of wetlands around both the Black and Caspian seas which could have led to large HG populations and a lot of contact across the water so initially the people living in those wetlands around the Black Sea (if that is correct) might have originally been one big population with the northern, steppe half developing into a separate PIE later.

----------


## Alan

> Yes, that is exactly what I mean. WHG in step 20 of the ADMIXTURE-run add a WHG component, possibly defined by Moto;a, Swedish HG's and la Brana: All of them are 100% grey. A Hungarian HG too. However, if you look at the ADMIXTURE run some more you'll find that Stuttgart has EHG and Caucasian, but hardly any WHG. And Loschbourg, which is found in between Sweden
> and Spain all of a sudden has an EHG component. 
> 
> This is strange, isn't it?


reminds of the Thracian samples which some of them were 50% Caucasus Gedrosia like while some other 50% North European like.

Since ANE and WHG have ultimately one source and are close relatives. What if these genes which appear in some Ks as Caucasus_Gedrosia (ANE) like and in some others WHG like is the proof that these genes are close to the source of both WHG and ANE?

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> A very interesting folk belief in Romania is that the blacksmiths were mostly red-haired people.
> If I do remember right,R1B was associated with bringing the metal working in Europe and is pretty likely they also brought red hair genes in Europe.
> Maybe there were more waves of migrations from the steppes and R1B bearers,which came later than R1A brought a more advanced technology,like metal working.
> And they conquered whole West Europe,including Italy.
> You see a very strange thing in Italy, Italy has R1B as dominant paternal line,but in Sardinia,some I2 branch is the dominant branch.
> So that place,being a more isolated place,kept from old I2 lines.
> EDIT:
> I doubt R1B people were carrying hunter gatherer admixture.
> Their very advanced technical skills gave them much better possibilities to earn their living,than gathering or hunting.
> Think they were making trade,raising cattle,practicing agriculture,raiding other people to earn their living.



Very interesting.

edit:

I wonder if there was a sequence of source regions over time

1st) regions that developed agriculture (or just pastoralism)

2nd) regions that had copper deposits

3rd) regions with arsenic-copper or copper & tin

4th) regions with iron deposits

so there was an ebb or flow as the source regions switched over time

----------


## epoch

@Alan

According to your graph Benzingerode should have *no* WHG admixture. However, according to ADMIXTURE it should.

----------


## Sile

> I had a quick look at the paper and I am glad to see that a *T1a* individual was found in the LBK culture, confirming what I had said for years : the Near Eastern Neolithic farmers were predominantly G2a but with J1 and T1a minorities (+ R1b-V88 in North Africa and Iberia).
> 
> The biggest surprise so far is that 4 out of 6 Yamna men tested belonged to the Balkano-Anatolian *R1b-Z2103* (the other two were P297 and L23). This may simply be because they are all from the Volga-Ural region. They would therefore have been among the last to move to the Balkans. In contrast, western Yamna people from southern Ukraine would have been the first to move out of the steppe, and that should in theory be where the ancestors of modern Western Europeans came from.
> 
> Here is a table showing the mtDNA of the six R1b Yamna men.
> 
> *Sample
> *
> *Y-haplogroup
> ...


whats you opinion then, that in the chart , karlsdorf is second only to corded ware for Yamnya ( and worst for early neolithic ) and yet this T1a ( with his H1 mtdna ) is part of this group

----------


## mihaitzateo

This thread is very interesting but what I do not understand is why R1B is at such high rates in British Isles and Western Europe ,while is at lower rates in South Italy,in Balkans,in Eastern Europe.
And if you look,is clear that even Vikings were bearing R1B,if you take Scandinavia,South Sweden,South Norway,Denmark,Iceland all have a significant percentage of R1B,but as you move to Finland,the percentage of R1B suddenly decrease.
And in the areas that Vikings raided,is hard to tell the R1B brought by them,since people bearing same R1B were already present,but that does not mean Vikings did not brought R1B also.

----------


## Alan

> @Alan
> 
> According to your graph Benzingerode should have *no* WHG admixture. However, according to ADMIXTURE it should.



Thats why I said some of the WHG gets probably eaten up by Yamna. Most likely explanation is, that their WHG was brought to them via Yamna. I am also very convinced that 1/3of the ENF geats eaten up by Yamna. I correct my former figures of Yamna to 40/35/25 ENF/ANE/WHG.

But something else. Hasn't anyone of you realized that the Neolithic T1a* sample is almost as much Yamna as CW is?
What if this T1a guy was actually Indo European who arrived in mainland Europe earlier than the major Indo European migration?

----------


## epoch

> reminds of the Thracian samples which some of them were 50% Caucasus Gedrosia like while some other 50% North European like.
> 
> Since ANE and WHG have ultimately one source and are close relatives. What if these genes which appear in some Ks as Caucasus_Gedrosia (ANE) like and in some others WHG like is the proof that these genes are close to the source of both WHG and ANE?


I reckon too it's because of the close relatedness. Possibly the software doesn't handle it all that well. Any idea how ADMIXTURE tries to determine admixtures? Would it skew results if two of the admixtures are far closer related than all others?

----------


## Sile

> And even more interesting that this T1a was allmost as much Yamna like as CW is.
> 
> Makes me wonder if this was not a very early Yamna dude who has reached mainland Europe before the other.


yes, the karlsdorf is the worst for early neolithic plus this T1a1 had very ancient H1 as his mtdna

----------


## mihaitzateo

I know that some Finns will get upset about this,but check this interesting theory about the name of Sami which could also be related to the name of Finland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#Etymologies
...
"The first known historical mention of the Sami, naming them _Fenni_, was by Tacitus, about 98 A.D.[13] Variants of _Finn_ or _Fenni_ were in wide use in ancient times, judging from the names _Fenni_ and _Phinnoi_ in classical Roman and Greek works. _Finn_ (or variants, such as _skridfinn_, "striding Finn") was the name originally used by Norse speakers (and their proto-Norse speaking ancestors) to refer to the Sami, as attested in the Icelandic Eddas and Norse sagas (11th to 14th centuries). The etymology is somewhat uncertain, but the consensus seems to be that it is related to Old Norse _finna_, from proto-Germanic *finthanan ("to find"),[14] the logic being that the Sami, as hunter-gatherers "found" their food, rather than grew it. It has been suggested, however, that it may originally have been a more general term for "northern hunter gatherers", rather than referring exclusively to the Sami, which may explain why two Swedish runestones from the 11th century apparently refer to what is now southwestern Finland as _Finland_. Note that in Finnish, Finns (inhabitants of Finland) do not refer to themselves as Finns. As Old Norse gradually developed into the separate Scandinavian languages, Swedes apparently took to using Finn exclusively to refer to inhabitants of Finland, while Sami came to be called Lapps. In Norway, however, Sami were still called Finns at least until the modern era (reflected in toponyms like Finnmark, Finnsnes, Finnfjord and Finnøy) and some Northern Norwegians will still occasionally use Finn to refer to Sami people, although the Sami themselves now consider this to be a pejorative term."
.....
According to the history,Vikings were not only raiding,but they were raising animals (goats,pigs,etc) ,fishing and even practice agriculture.
Think that Scandinavia is good example of how Indo-European speaking population interacted with native population,here we have Northern Germans (Vikings) interacting with native Fino-Ugric people,which included also Sami people.

Here some archeological proof,that Vikings were practicing agriculture 1000 years ago,even in Greenland:
http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

----------


## Sile

> Thats why I said some of the WHG gets probably eaten up by Yamna. Most likely explanation is, that their WHG was brought to them via Yamna. I am also very convinced that 1/3of the ENF geats eaten up by Yamna.
> 
> But something else. Hasn't anyone of you realized that the Neolithic T1a* sample is almost as much Yamna as CW is?
> What if this T1a guy was actually Indo European who arrived in mainland Europe earlier than the major Indo European migration?


semagyl the russian site, which uses only 67 markers or above , has TL-P326 only in the caucasus ( north and south ). and P326 is the SNP which pre-dates the T and L haplogroup split........

maybe someone should seperate all the haplogroups from the paper into seperate groups by the chart represented also in the paper.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> This thread is very interesting but what I do not understand is why R1B is at such high rates in British Isles and Western Europe ,while is at lower rates in South Italy,in Balkans,in Eastern Europe.


If there was a relatively under populated gap to the west of LBK

http://what-when-how.com/wp-content/...517_thumb1.jpg

then if they had some advantage that made it possible for them to thrive in that gap they could have expanded rapidly to fill it.

----------


## Maciamo

> Caucaso-Gedrosian component among R1b (Yamnaya & Anatolian folks) is not from the Balkans, or is it? *R1b-Z2103 is full of Caucaso-Gedrosian component*, what means it's NATIVE to Anatolia!


Don't misunderstand me. I have always said that R1b came from West Asia, and even domesticated cattle there before moving to the Pontic Steppe. But that was R1b-P297 or M269, not Z2103, which appeared in the steppe then migrated back to Anatolia.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.


So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.

----------


## Maciamo

> the R1b-P297 could be Z2103 as well, he tested L51-
> 
> all 8 are 3300-2600 BC, long after the split of the Anatolian branch


Then it means that the original Anatolian branch wasn't Z2103, but P297*, M269* or L23*. Perhaps it is the Cimmerians, the Sarmatians or even the European Scythians who brought Z2103 to the Balkans and Anatolia much later.

----------


## Maciamo

> whats you opinion then, that in the chart , karlsdorf is second only to corded ware for Yamnya ( and worst for early neolithic ) and yet this T1a ( with his H1 mtdna ) is part of this group


If you remember I mentioned that the Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't just R1a and R1b, but also carried minority lineages like G2a3b1, J2b2 and _T1a_. I am fairly confident that G2a3b1 and J2b2 came to the Steppe from the Balkans/Carpathians during the Chalcolithic (Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk, etc.). However I am still unsure regarding T1a, as it is far more common in northern Mesopotamia and the southeast Caucasus than in southeast Europe. My hypothesis has been that T1a came to the steppe as a minority lineage accompanying R1b from West Asia. If that is the case, then we could expect to find some distant similarities, like some West Asian (Caucaso-Gedrosian) admixture in both Neolithic European T1a and Yamna T1a as they originally hailed from the same region.

The mtDNA H1 just shows that T1a men married Mesolithic European women.

----------


## mihaitzateo

Well Maciamo and how can you explain the distribution of R1B if it came from West Asia through Pontic Steppe,in Europe,compared with how R1B is in current day Europe?
Romans,Germanics,Celts,all bearers of mainly R1B branches were all great warriors,why is no more R1B in Eastern Europe?
If you look at the distribution of R1B,taking Germanic speaking countries it rather seems that they have came from Northern Europe and spread towards South East Europe,for example in Austria there still is a high percentage of R1B and in the same time the South Eastern border of Germanic speakers .
I am not saying that R1B people did not came through Pontic Steppes into Europe,I am just finding hard to believe this,considering the current distribution of R1b in Europe.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.


I think is correct.
I do not see Finns,in this graph,I think they have even more HG than Estonians.
Would be even more interesting to see some genetic testing of ancient Norwegian vikings,how much Yamnaya they were having.

----------


## Maciamo

> I know that some Finns will get upset about this,but check this interesting theory about the name of Sami which could also be related to the name of Finland:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#Etymologies
> ...
> "The first known historical mention of the Sami, naming them _Fenni_, was by Tacitus, about 98 A.D.[13] Variants of _Finn_ or _Fenni_ were in wide use in ancient times, judging from the names _Fenni_ and _Phinnoi_ in classical Roman and Greek works. _Finn_ (or variants, such as _skridfinn_, "striding Finn") was the name originally used by Norse speakers (and their proto-Norse speaking ancestors) to refer to the Sami, as attested in the Icelandic Eddas and Norse sagas (11th to 14th centuries). The etymology is somewhat uncertain, but the consensus seems to be that it is related to Old Norse _finna_, from proto-Germanic *finthanan ("to find"),[14] the logic being that the Sami, as hunter-gatherers "found" their food, rather than grew it. It has been suggested, however, that it may originally have been a more general term for "northern hunter gatherers", rather than referring exclusively to the Sami, which may explain why two Swedish runestones from the 11th century apparently refer to what is now southwestern Finland as _Finland_. Note that in Finnish, Finns (inhabitants of Finland) do not refer to themselves as Finns. As Old Norse gradually developed into the separate Scandinavian languages, Swedes apparently took to using Finn exclusively to refer to inhabitants of Finland, while Sami came to be called Lapps. In Norway, however, Sami were still called Finns at least until the modern era (reflected in toponyms like Finnmark, Finnsnes, Finnfjord and Finnøy) and some Northern Norwegians will still occasionally use Finn to refer to Sami people, although the Sami themselves now consider this to be a pejorative term."
> .....
> According to the history,Vikings were not only raiding,but they were raising animals (goats,pigs,etc) ,fishing and even practice agriculture.
> Think that Scandinavia is good example of how Indo-European speaking population interacted with native population,here we have Northern Germans (Vikings) interacting with native Fino-Ugric people,which included also Sami people.
> 
> Here some archeological proof,that Vikings were practicing agriculture 1000 years ago,even in Greenland:
> http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland



I don't know why the Finns would be upset about that. It's well known that Finnish and Saami languages are closely related (Finno-Samic family) and the two peoples split from one another fairly recently (about 3000 years ago according to Honkola et al. 2013).

----------


## Alan

> So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.


No it simply means large majorty of Tuscan WHG came via Yamna while most WHG in Belarusians and Ukrainians is of pre Yamna origin.

----------


## Alan

> Then it means that the original Anatolian branch wasn't Z2103, but P297*, M269* or L23*. Perhaps it is the Cimmerians, the Sarmatians or even the European Scythians who brought Z2103 to the Balkans and Anatolia much later.


Among the original West Asian R1b was certanly m343, m269 and l23* three which are at least found among Kurds there. l23 is very common among Assyrians and Armenians but they seem to lack m343 and m269.

----------


## Maciamo

> So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.


Norwegians have a higher combined percentage of R1a + R1b than Belarussians and Ukrainians. Plenty of Central Asians invaded eastern Europe over the last 5000 years, almost completely eliminating R1b in the region. I explained 5 years ago that this was why R1b was so low today in its original homeland. 

The huge Neolithic population of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture didn't just vanish in thin air. They were gradually absorbed by PIE people (probably already since the Globular Amphora culture). Don't forget that Cucuteni-Trypillian towns were the largest in the world at the time. That explains the very significant percentage of both male and female Near Eastern lineages in western Ukraine and southern Belarus today.

Additionally, Ukrainians also have partial Greek ancestry in the south (lots of J2a).

It is especially northern Belarus and eastern Ukraine that are very high in R1a, and that is just a sign of higher recent Slavic ancestry, not a sign of more surviving Yamna ancestry. The Slavic branch descends from the Corded Ware and Abashevo cultures, not from Yamna.

----------


## Alan

> If you remember I mentioned that the Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't just R1a and R1b, but also carried minority lineages like G2a3b1, *J2b2* and _T1a_. I am fairly confident that G2a3b1 and J2b2 came to the Steppe from the Balkans/Carpathians during the Chalcolithic (Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk, etc.). However I am still unsure regarding T1a, as it is far more common in northern Mesopotamia and the southeast Caucasus than in southeast Europe. My hypothesis has been that T1a came to the steppe as a minority lineage accompanying R1b from West Asia. If that is the case, then we could expect to find some distant similarities, like some West Asian (Caucaso-Gedrosian) admixture in both Neolithic European T1a and Yamna T1a as they originally hailed from the same region.
> 
> The mtDNA H1 just shows that T1a men married Mesolithic European women.



I would add to J2b, or replace it with J2a. Since J2a is actually the one Haplgroup found in Bronze Age Hungary sample which was French like and since we know French are among the groups with strong affinity to Yamna...

----------


## Tone

So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?

----------


## Alan

> So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?


Seems like Bell beakers originated in Central Europe?

----------


## Maciamo

> I would add to J2b, or replace it with J2a. Since J2a is actually the one Haplgroup found in Iron Age Hungary sample which was French like and since we know French are among the groups with strong affinity to Yamna...


I have also considered J2a, but that would only apply to some subclades, and I haven't been able to determine which ones. In any case a Proto-Indo-European J2a would have come from the South Caucasus or Kurdistan alongside R1b and T1a, not from the Balkans.

I have proposed many years ago that the J2a of Indian Brahmins was picked up in southern central Asia when R1a Proto-Indo-Iranians mixed with the local population in the BMAC complex, before invading India and Iran. That would explain why the Balto-Slavic R1a branch, or northern European R1b for that matter, do not have any meaningful percentage of J2a.

----------


## Maciamo

> So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?





> Seems like Bell beakers originated in Central Europe?


Give me a break, please: 

 Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture

----------


## Alan

> I have also considered J2a, but that would only apply to some subclades, and I haven't been able to determine which ones. In any case a Proto-Indo-European J2a would have come from the South Caucasus or Kurdistan alongside R1b and T1a, not from the Balkans.
> 
> I have proposed many years ago that the J2a of Indian Brahmins was picked up in southern central Asia when R1a Proto-Indo-Iranians mixed with the local population in the BMAC complex, before invading India and Iran. That would explain why the Balto-Slavic R1a branch, or northern European R1b for that matter, do not have any meaningful percentage of J2a.


True but ancient samples have taught us that allot of our understanding of DNA can not be explained with it's modern distribution. The same way with Z2103. If we would have used it's distrbution in modern Europe or South_Central Asia as argument wether it is Indo European or not. We would have drifted completely into the wrong direction. 

I do not think J2a was simply picked up by Indo Iranians in Central Asia since the Bronze Age J2a in Hungary doesn't seem very Indo_Iranian to me. Also a Neolithic origin can be excluded. To be honest only an Indo European explanation for it's origin remains.

----------


## Alan

> Give me a break, please: 
> 
>  Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture


I must admit I have not that much knowledge about Bell Beakers thats why the question mark.

But than the chart shows late Bell Beaker was ~50% Yamna like.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?


Personally I think there are two BB from the same original source but one went by sea to Iberia while the over went overland to Central Europe. Time will tell.

----------


## Goga

> I have proposed many years ago that the J2a of Indian Brahmins was picked up in southern central Asia when R1a Proto-Indo-Iranians mixed with the local population in the BMAC complex, before invading India and Iran. That would explain why the Balto-Slavic R1a branch, or northern European R1b for that matter, do not have any meaningful percentage of J2a.


I don't agree with you. (proto-)Iranic is closer to Greek than to Balto-Slavic, the Satem link between Iranic and Balto-Slavic is not important here. Origin of the Iranic languages must be very different than the origin of Balto-Slavic. Not only Indo-Iranic (Iranians and Indians) people have J2a, but also Anatolian Indo-Europeans, like Armenians, and Greeks have J2a in them too. Basically more than 20-30% of all modern day Indo-Europeans speakers (mostly who live outside Europe) carry this haplogroup. Also it's one of the most widespread haplogroups among the Indo-European speakers, from NorthWest Europe to SouthEast Asia (India) and has high distribution in Northern Caucasus, Maykop Horizon..

----------


## Tone

> Give me a break, please: 
> 
>  Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture


Sorry. I didn't mean to offend you by asking questions. I'll go now.

----------


## bicicleur

> Then it means that the original Anatolian branch wasn't Z2103, but P297*, M269* or L23*. Perhaps it is the Cimmerians, the Sarmatians or even the European Scythians who brought Z2103 to the Balkans and Anatolia much later.


that is the most likely explanation

3300-2600 BC, it is before Sintashta
Indo-Iranians went east and south with chariots
somebody must have brought chariots to the Balkans

----------


## Sile

> I know that some Finns will get upset about this,but check this interesting theory about the name of Sami which could also be related to the name of Finland:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#Etymologies
> ...
> "The first known historical mention of the Sami, naming them _Fenni_, was by Tacitus, about 98 A.D.[13] Variants of _Finn_ or _Fenni_ were in wide use in ancient times, judging from the names _Fenni_ and _Phinnoi_ in classical Roman and Greek works. _Finn_ (or variants, such as _skridfinn_, "striding Finn") was the name originally used by Norse speakers (and their proto-Norse speaking ancestors) to refer to the Sami, as attested in the Icelandic Eddas and Norse sagas (11th to 14th centuries). The etymology is somewhat uncertain, but the consensus seems to be that it is related to Old Norse _finna_, from proto-Germanic *finthanan ("to find"),[14] the logic being that the Sami, as hunter-gatherers "found" their food, rather than grew it. It has been suggested, however, that it may originally have been a more general term for "northern hunter gatherers", rather than referring exclusively to the Sami, which may explain why two Swedish runestones from the 11th century apparently refer to what is now southwestern Finland as _Finland_. Note that in Finnish, Finns (inhabitants of Finland) do not refer to themselves as Finns. As Old Norse gradually developed into the separate Scandinavian languages, Swedes apparently took to using Finn exclusively to refer to inhabitants of Finland, while Sami came to be called Lapps. In Norway, however, Sami were still called Finns at least until the modern era (reflected in toponyms like Finnmark, Finnsnes, Finnfjord and Finnøy) and some Northern Norwegians will still occasionally use Finn to refer to Sami people, although the Sami themselves now consider this to be a pejorative term."
> .....
> According to the history,Vikings were not only raiding,but they were raising animals (goats,pigs,etc) ,fishing and even practice agriculture.
> Think that Scandinavia is good example of how Indo-European speaking population interacted with native population,here we have Northern Germans (Vikings) interacting with native Fino-Ugric people,which included also Sami people.
> 
> Here some archeological proof,that Vikings were practicing agriculture 1000 years ago,even in Greenland:
> http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland


maybe you need to go a bit further back and read this first

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2986642/

----------


## mihaitzateo

> maybe you need to go a bit further back and read this first
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2986642/


Have read it,but I do not see anything told about the Finns autosomal admixture,which should have significant more Hunter-Gatherer admixture,versus Swedish admixture,which should have lots of Yamnaya with more Neolithic.

Anyway,a very strange thing that Norwegians are clustering most close to Yamnaya and I do not know what Norwegians are those tested,I think if you test Norwegians from near sea side,from South Norway,those will cluster even more closed to Yamnaya having fewer HG admixture.
Another question is when Yamnaya people started to move from there towards Western Europe.
I understand that it dates from around 3600-2300 BC.
Maybe in those times Celts and Germans and Italics were speaking same language and as they moved from there,their languages split.
Is a possibility that Italics moved from there by boat,and got into Italy,while Celtic and Germanics traveling on the ground.

----------


## Angela

> Yes, great results. Never expected such a confirmation of my theories. No R1a in Yamnaya, so there's still no evidence that R1a-Z93 in Iranic folks is from Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian Steppes in general. I knew it, but didn't expect that they would find Anatolian (Armenian, West Iranic) R1b in Yamnaya. R1b in Yamnaya is Anatolia, which again is a great indication that Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov is right about his Armenian hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis . The latest results are victory for Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich *Ivanov* & Tamaz V. *Gamkrelidze*! It's true that Indo-Europeans in Europe came from Yamnaya. But folks from NorthWest Asia (from Maykop) Indo-Europized the Yamnaya folks in the Steppes. I was telling this all the time. Indo-Europeanization occured in stages. Best news for me is that R1a-Z93 has nothing to do with the Yamnaya. And this fact is making my thoughts even stronger!


Goga, I think you're jumping the gun a bit if you don't mind me saying so in terms of the actual genetic proof for these things.

The oldest basal R1b is a hunter gatherer from Samara, grouped within EHG, along with the R1a Karelian. There's nothing "Near Eastern" about him. 

"The hunter-gatherer from Samara belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (L278:18914441C→T), with
upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, he was ancestral for both
the downstream haplogroup R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C) and R1b1a2 (M269:22739367T→C) and
could be designated as R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2). *Thus, this individual was basal to most west
Eurasian R1b individuals which belong to the R-M269 lineage as well as to the related R-M73/M478
lineage that has a predominantly non-European distribution." 

*His culture included ceramics but there was no pastoralism at that time in that area. The Yamnaya samples were from one specific site-Samara, and one of them is one is, and five are It is only these samples which are half "Armenian-like".

At present, the only way I can see for the men of these particular subclades to have come from the Caucasus or south of it bearing Near Eastern ancestry is if R1b was a hunter gatherer lineage which existed both north of the Caucasus mountains and in them (and perhaps a little south of them as well, and came into contact with more "southern" populations.) However, this Samara R1b man was half WHG. How much WHG is present south of the Caucasus? I don't think very much, but I don't have the data right at my fingertips so perhaps someone can provide it. Also, what about within the Caucasus? Of course, we now know modern populations are not good proxies for ancient autosomal components, so there is that to consider, and there's been a lot of traffic in that area. Also, I suppose it's possible that the R1b Samara man got his WHG from mixing with Karelia like people? 

Another thing in support of this theory it seems to me is, strangely enough, that R1b1 Neolithic sample in Spain. If R1b when it was still hunter gatherer was more ANE than anything else, was all over the Caucasus area, then it's understandable how some of them were far south of the Caucasus enough to be swept along by the Neolithic and wind up in Spain. Then, the downstream clades could have developed south of the Caucasus and gone back up north as well.


The other possibility is that the downstream clades developed right on the Steppe (never having moved at all),and the Near Eastern like ancestry came either from men (and the women accompanying them) in areas of the Yamnaya horizon not yet sampled (there is that J2a1 Bronze Age Indo-European in central Europe to consider), or it comes only from women.

I discussed this a bit with Greying Wanderer in connection to 6,000 BC interactions. I still think it's a bit of a stretch to see hunter-gatherers males going all the way to the South Caucasus to raid women, but we do have Maykop right on the brink of the Steppes, and a strong argument can be made, I think, that some of the metal working and other parts of the "Yamnya" package came from them. Given the kind of host/patronage relationships characteristic of the Indo-Europeans (and their strongly patriarchal nature), perhaps the women were given to the Steppe men as part of some type of exchange. The bartering of women to cement trade and other economic and political partnerships was part of royal and aristocratic mating virtually down to the present time. 

Anyway, until we have more samples from all parts of the Yamnaya horizon and south into the Caucasus, I don't think we can be much more definite than this. Well, I can't be more definite than this at the present time.

(I just realized that this may have been already addressed. Maybe I should start from the end of the thread and work backwards. :))

----------


## Sile

Note the chart on page 23...*zero WHG for tuscans* ..............what does that do for tuscan admixture

----------


## Maciamo

> Sorry. I didn't mean to offend you by asking questions. I'll go now.


Don't worry, I am not offended. It's true that you are a relatively new member and we have been discussing the Bell Beaker issue for several years on this forum.

----------


## Maciamo

> I must admit I have not that much knowledge about Bell Beakers thats why the question mark.
> 
> But than the chart shows late Bell Beaker was ~50% Yamna like.


Late Beakers_ in Germany_. I am very confident that it wasn't the case at all in Iberia, where Yamna influence was minimal (although probably not entirely absent in some regions after 2000 BCE).

----------


## Angela

As to what happened to some of the WHG figures in Europe, perhaps this chart would be helpful:
resnorm chart Lazardis and Haak.JPG

----------


## Sile

> Note the chart on page 23...*zero WHG for tuscans* ..............what does that do for tuscan admixture


A quick scenario by me, would indicate that etruscan main haplogroup origin is not R1b-U152 *but J2* 

R1b-U152 would be clearly a celtic - gallic -liguri marker

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Give me a break, please: 
> 
>  Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture


Copper smiths and miners spreading along the neolithic trade network with some of them settling as artisans among many different cultures including the Atlantic Megalith culture and then setting up mining colonies from that base along the under populated Atlantic coast regions is why they could have spread R1b to specifically the Atlantic coast part of western Europe *separate from* the main source of R1b coming overland.

They would have needed some extra ingredient to explain how a small population could dramatically expand in those under populated regions when LBK couldn't. I wonder what that could be.

LBK map (note gap to west and north of LBK range)

http://what-when-how.com/wp-content/...517_thumb1.jpg

LP map (note peaks along those same gaps)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k4oPZEUauf...equencies..png

----------


## Aberdeen

> Norwegians have a higher combined percentage of R1a + R1b than Belarussians and Ukrainians. Plenty of Central Asians invaded eastern Europe over the last 5000 years, almost completely eliminating R1b in the region. I explained 5 years ago that this was why R1b was so low today in its original homeland. 
> 
> The huge Neolithic population of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture didn't just vanish in thin air. They were gradually absorbed by PIE people (probably already since the Globular Amphora culture). Don't forget that Cucuteni-Trypillian towns were the largest in the world at the time. That explains the very significant percentage of both male and female Near Eastern lineages in western Ukraine and southern Belarus today.
> 
> Additionally, Ukrainians also have partial Greek ancestry in the south (lots of J2a).
> 
> It is especially northern Belarus and eastern Ukraine that are very high in R1a, and that is just a sign of higher recent Slavic ancestry, not a sign of more surviving Yamna ancestry. The Slavic branch descends from the Corded Ware and Abashevo cultures, not from Yamna.


Actually, according to your own tables, Norwegians don't have that much more R1a + R1b than Belarusians or Ukranians. What they do have is a lot more I1 and I2 haplotype material than Belarusians or Ukranians. So, although I know that Y haplotype frequency doesn't necessarily tell us about autosomal content, I would expect Norwegians with all that I1 and I2b to be fairly high in WHG, higher in fact than Belarusians and Ukrainians. Perhaps there's a reason for Nowegians apparently having minimal WHG in spite of having 31.5 I1 and 4.5 I2b, but I suspect the reason is that the calculation method doesn't distinguish properly between WHG and Yamnaya.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> Note the chart on page 23...*zero WHG for tuscans* ..............what does that do for tuscan admixture


I am supposing that Tuscans are most closed from Ancient Romans,from populations sampled there.

Is interesting the legend of Europe which is described in old Greek legends,Zeus is seducing a maiden from an island ,the maiden being called Europe and being of Phoenician ancestry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28mythology%29
Europa is an Middle East woman,in the legend.
And Zeus come as a white bull.
So the supposition is that Zeus is representing the R1/R1B people who are coming and conquering the old farmers (Early Neolithic) people from Europe.
Is just a supposition.
Look at the Greeks,they are having lots of Early Farmers admixture.
And we can suppose old Greeks were even higher on Early Neolithic admixture (farmers) and lower on Hunter Gatherer and Yamnaya,which were brought by mixing with Slavs,with some Goths ,that settled in Greece and so on.
It should also be noticed that in Greece we have highest percentage of J2 so is quite clear I think that Greeks between Europeans have most from Early Neolithic people,the farmers people.
And R1A and R1B are representing the barbarians.
(which are represented by Zeus and other Olimp deities,probably an Old Greeks irony at the fact that lots of Indo-Europeans had in their religion the belief they are descending from gods  :Laughing:  ).

Wonder how Ancient Romans admixture was,I am inclined to believe that Ancient Romans were mostly J2 also and since lots died in wars they replaced with assimilated Gaulish-Celtic people the lost people,this is why R1B is at such high rates in Italy.

----------


## Maciamo

> True but ancient samples have taught us that allot of our understanding of DNA can not be explained with it's modern distribution. The same way with Z2103. If we would have used it's distrbution in modern Europe or South_Central Asia as argument wether it is Indo European or not. We would have drifted completely into the wrong direction. 
> 
> I do not think J2a was simply picked up by Indo Iranians in Central Asia since the Bronze Age J2a in Hungary doesn't seem very Indo_Iranian to me. Also a Neolithic origin can be excluded. To be honest only an Indo European explanation for it's origin remains.


I wouldn't read too much into the Late Bronze Age J2a1 sample from Hungary (c. 1200 BCE). The Indo-Europeans had been in the region for nearly 2000 years by then, and it could very well have been a foreigner or an assimilated person from a non-IE culture. After all three Unetice samples tested in this new study turned out to be assimilated local I2 lineages, not steppe lineages. 

We are talking about one of the most unstable period in European and Near Eastern history here. Most East Mediterranean civilizations collapsed around 1200 BCE due to the mysterious Sea Peoples. Even the Haak el al. paper discussed here mentions that 1200 BCE is the turning point for the domination of Yamna-like admixture in central European graves. As I mentioned above, this also happen to correspond to the sudden adoption of cremation instead of kurgan/tumulus burial in central Europe for only one hundred years (Urnfield culture), before the traditional tumulus burial resumed with the Hallstatt culture. 

No one knows precisely what cataclysmic events took place around 1200 BCE, but I would bet that this corresponds to an expansion of J2a people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that the Sea Peoples were probably predominantly J2a people. After all, all the great ancient seafaring civilizations all presumably had high percentages of J2a, including the Phoenicians who just happen to emerge around 1200 BCE. 

One hypothesis of mine is that the Sea Peoples were descended from the Minoan civilization, which had just collapsed c. 1450 BCE. The fall of the Minoan state might have led to Minoan people turning to piracy and raiding the coasts of the East Mediterranean, from Sardinia to the Levant. The Trojans, whose city had been destroyed by the Mycenaeans c. 1200 BCE, may well have been a mixture of R1b-L23 and J2a people, and Trojans who escaped may also have been among the Sea Peoples who sought revenge on Mycenaean Greece and caused its downfall less than 100 years later.

1200 BCE also coincides with the arrival of the Dorians in Greece, the Phrygians in western Anatolia and the Armenians in eastern Anatolia, who I think were all predominantly R1b-L23 tribes from the Balkans, with assimilated Neolithic lineages (E-V13, G2a, I2...). Their departure from the Balkans left place for a northward expansion of Greek lineages, among which J2a.

In such a context, it would be unreasonable to label a Hungarian J2a1 as necessarily Indo-European.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

@Angela




> I still think it's a bit of a stretch to see hunter-gatherers males going all the way to the South Caucasus to raid women


Yes, a follow-on of that theory is (edit: it implies) the "Armenian-like" population may have moved south to get away from them i.e. they were originally in the north and close enough to be raided (or traded with) earlier.

----------


## mihaitzateo

Lol Maciamo are you serious when you are saying that R1b were displaced from Eastern Europe by raiding Central Asians?

I rather think that somehow not too many R1B people do not got into the area of South Eastern Europe. And the area was already very likely quite populated with Neolithic farmers.
For example,we are seeing lots of E-V13 and J2 and I2 in Balkans and even Romania,well the area had dense forests,lots of mountains,it was hard to get there,from where Yamna home was.
A very interesting thing would be to get at least a clue about how the forests were spread in those times,in this part of Europe.

----------


## Yetos

> I wouldn't read too much into the Late Bronze Age J2a1 sample from Hungary (c. 1200 BCE). The Indo-Europeans had been in the region for nearly 2000 years by then, and it could very well have been a foreigner or an assimilated person from a non-IE culture. After all three Unetice samples tested in this new study turned out to be assimilated local I2 lineages, not steppe lineages. 
> 
> We are talking about one of the most unstable period in European and Near Eastern history here. Most East Mediterranean civilizations collapsed around 1200 BCE due to the mysterious Sea Peoples. Even the Haak el al. paper discussed here mentions that 1200 BCE is the turning point for the domination of Yamna-like admixture in central European graves. As I mentioned above, this also happen to correspond to the sudden adoption of cremation instead of kurgan/tumulus burial in central Europe for only one hundred years (Urnfield culture), before the traditional tumulus burial resumed with the Hallstatt culture. 
> 
> No one knows precisely what cataclysmic events took place around 1200 BCE, but I would bet that this corresponds to an expansion of J2a people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that the Sea Peoples were probably predominantly J2a people. After all, all the great ancient seafaring civilizations all presumably had high percentages of J2a, including the Phoenicians who just happen to emerge around 1200 BCE. 
> 
> One hypothesis of mine is that the Sea Peoples were descended from the Minoan civilization, which had just collapsed c. 1450 BCE. The fall of the Minoan state might have led to Minoan people turning to piracy and raiding the coasts of the East Mediterranean, from Sardinia to the Levant. The Trojans, whose city had been destroyed by the Mycenaeans c. 1200 BCE, may well have been a mixture of R1b-L23 and J2a people, and Trojans who escaped may also have been among the Sea Peoples who sought revenge on Mycenaean Greece and caused its downfall less than 100 years later.
> 
> 1200 BCE also coincides with the arrival of the Dorians in Greece, the Phrygians in western Anatolia and the Armenians in eastern Anatolia, who I think were all predominantly R1b-L23 tribes from the Balkans, with assimilated Neolithic lineages (E-V13, G2a, I2...). Their departure from the Balkans left place for a northward expansion of Greek lineages, among which J2a.
> ...


hmm

in such case , Varna necropolis, Rudna Glava, and generally Vinca and para-Vinca cultures had no J2a, 
I mean if J2a is upsent from Balkans before 1200 BC, they should be upsent also from copper mettalurgy, not bronze, but copper,
in such case who brought copper mettalurgy to balkans?
we know Vinca and para-Vincas are before bronze, meaning before R1*****, and Mycenae where build before 4000 BC 1500 years before arsenic bronze from steppe, theoritically start to enter south Balkans
beside in many settlements in Greece as the newly Platamon metaneolithic we see no arsenic bronze, in many areas till even after 1500 BC.
but Vincas knew copper and gold very well.


so then if J2xyz did not exist in Vincas, neither R1xyz, could copper spread there by? G2a? Ixyz, ?

----------


## Goga

> I wouldn't read too much into the Late Bronze Age J2a1 sample from Hungary (c. 1200 BCE). The Indo-Europeans had been in the region for nearly 2000 years by then, and it could very well have been a foreigner or an assimilated person from a non-IE culture. After all three Unetice samples tested in this new study turned out to be assimilated local I2 lineages, not steppe lineages. 
> 
> We are talking about one of the most unstable period in European and Near Eastern history here. Most East Mediterranean civilizations collapsed around 1200 BCE due to the mysterious Sea Peoples. Even the Haak el al. paper discussed here mentions that 1200 BCE is the turning point for the domination of Yamna-like admixture in central European graves. As I mentioned above, this also happen to correspond to the sudden adoption of cremation instead of kurgan/tumulus burial in central Europe for only one hundred years (Urnfield culture), before the traditional tumulus burial resumed with the Hallstatt culture. 
> 
> No one knows precisely what cataclysmic events took place around 1200 BCE, but I would bet that this corresponds to an expansion of J2a people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that the Sea Peoples were probably predominantly J2a people. After all, all the great ancient seafaring civilizations all presumably had high percentages of J2a, including the Phoenicians who just happen to emerge around 1200 BCE. 
> 
> One hypothesis of mine is that the Sea Peoples were descended from the Minoan civilization, which had just collapsed c. 1450 BCE. The fall of the Minoan state might have led to Minoan people turning to piracy and raiding the coasts of the East Mediterranean, from Sardinia to the Levant. The Trojans, whose city had been destroyed by the Mycenaeans c. 1200 BCE, may well have been a mixture of R1b-L23 and J2a people, and Trojans who escaped may also have been among the Sea Peoples who sought revenge on Mycenaean Greece and caused its downfall less than 100 years later.
> 
> 1200 BCE also coincides with the arrival of the Dorians in Greece, the Phrygians in western Anatolia and the Armenians in eastern Anatolia, who I think were all predominantly R1b-L23 tribes from the Balkans, with assimilated Neolithic lineages (E-V13, G2a, I2...). Their departure from the Balkans left place for a northward expansion of Greek lineages, among which J2a.
> ...


Close, but no cigar. Although it's a very fascinating theory. Nice try, respect! J2a folks were actually MOUNTAIN people and not SEA people. J2a peaks in the Caucasus, Zagros Mountains and SouthCentral Asia. There's lots of ANE and Caucaso-Gedrosian component in the Caucasus region. ANE is highest there in the whole Europe and West Asia. I think that J2a is also correlated with ANE and Caucaso-Gedrosia component. Ancient J2a should be full of ANE and Caucaso-Gedrosian component. What you're talking about is a massive replacement of folks in South Europe around 1200 BCE. I don't think it was the case, because if such a huge migration of so called Sea People with J2a occured in South Europe, there would be much more ANE and Caucaso-Gedrosian component in Southern Europe, even more than in Northern Europe. There's a lot of J2a in modern MAYKOP and it's not from recent times! When R1b migrated from Maykop into Yamnaya, there was already J2a in Maykop!

----------


## Angela

> As to what happened to some of the WHG figures in Europe, perhaps this chart would be helpful:
> resnorm chart Lazardis and Haak.JPG


Sorry it's not bigger. However, I think it's worth giving it a look.

I think that these figures have to be unpacked a bit.

What has to be kept in mind is that the EHG figure includes WHG as well as ANE. That is _partly_ why the WHG in modern Europeans in this paper is lower than the WHG in the prior Lazardis et al paper. For example, in this paper the Southwestern French, two-thirds (?) of the Spaniards, the Tuscans, and the Sicilians have 0% WHG, whereas in the prior paper, the Southwestern French were 20% WHG, the Tuscans were 14%, and the Spaniards were 7% WHG. 

So, effectively, the WHG in this chart might be the amount of native WHG left in these areas before some new WHG was brought in by the Yamnaya people.

This would explain why the authors say there was a near 100% wipe out of hunter gatherers in some areas by the Neolithic farmers. It would also indicate that there was probably no "resurgence" in southern Europe of the WHG component, which makes it more likely, in my opinion, that, as I had speculated before, the "resurgence" in northern and central Europe is probably the result of hunter gatherers from the peripheral refuges moving south during a climate worsening event, or at least of the additional admixture resulting from contacts along that northern border where the farmers had not penetrated. 

Of course, the proportion of WHG (and not some UHG from the Near East) in the early neolithic farmers should be added to this new number as well, yes? 

The EN figure probably includes, therefore, not just the EEF like people but also the "Near Eastern" portion of the Yamnaya people.

Ed. Any resurgence in Spain and Northern Italy, given that they have 2-3% WHG of perhaps the "original" variety, might come from WHG who took refuge in the Pyrenees and the Alps. 

Also, it should be noted that later gene flows could have further decreased WHG levels. For example, in order to get this close a fit, the authors had to add Nganasans and Bedouins.

----------


## Sile

> I wouldn't read too much into the Late Bronze Age J2a1 sample from Hungary (c. 1200 BCE). The Indo-Europeans had been in the region for nearly 2000 years by then, and it could very well have been a foreigner or an assimilated person from a non-IE culture. After all three Unetice samples tested in this new study turned out to be assimilated local I2 lineages, not steppe lineages. 
> 
> We are talking about one of the most unstable period in European and Near Eastern history here. Most East Mediterranean civilizations collapsed around 1200 BCE due to the mysterious Sea Peoples. Even the Haak el al. paper discussed here mentions that 1200 BCE is the turning point for the domination of Yamna-like admixture in central European graves. As I mentioned above, this also happen to correspond to the sudden adoption of cremation instead of kurgan/tumulus burial in central Europe for only one hundred years (Urnfield culture), before the traditional tumulus burial resumed with the Hallstatt culture. 
> 
> No one knows precisely what cataclysmic events took place around 1200 BCE, but I would bet that this corresponds to an expansion of J2a people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that the Sea Peoples were probably predominantly J2a people. After all, all the great ancient seafaring civilizations all presumably had high percentages of J2a, including the Phoenicians who just happen to emerge around 1200 BCE. 
> 
> One hypothesis of mine is that the Sea Peoples were descended from the Minoan civilization, which had just collapsed c. 1450 BCE. The fall of the Minoan state might have led to Minoan people turning to piracy and raiding the coasts of the East Mediterranean, from Sardinia to the Levant. The Trojans, whose city had been destroyed by the Mycenaeans c. 1200 BCE, may well have been a mixture of R1b-L23 and J2a people, and Trojans who escaped may also have been among the Sea Peoples who sought revenge on Mycenaean Greece and caused its downfall less than 100 years later.
> 
> 1200 BCE also coincides with the arrival of the Dorians in Greece, the Phrygians in western Anatolia and the Armenians in eastern Anatolia, who I think were all predominantly R1b-L23 tribes from the Balkans, with assimilated Neolithic lineages (E-V13, G2a, I2...). Their departure from the Balkans left place for a northward expansion of Greek lineages, among which J2a.
> ...


Mycenea also fell when the trojans fell.......they too can be sea peoples , even more so since identical burial mounds have been found in istria which are same as pellopenne mycenea.
As some state....are myceneans really greek or something else, is the Greek we know today only originate from dorians a NW greek people?

yes I believe R1b was hittitie and also hurrians ( NE of hittities ) with J2 and I

----------


## Sile

> Sorry it's not bigger. However, I think it's worth giving it a look.
> 
> I think that these figures have to be unpacked a bit.
> 
> What has to be kept in mind is that the EHG figure includes WHG as well as ANE. That is _partly_ why the WHG in modern Europeans in this paper is lower than the WHG in the prior Lazardis et al paper. For example, in this paper the Southwestern French, two-thirds (?) of the Spaniards, the Tuscans, and the Sicilians have 0% WHG, whereas in the prior paper, the Southwestern French were 20% WHG, the Tuscans were 14%, and the Spaniards were 7% WHG. 
> 
> So, effectively, the WHG in this chart might be the amount of native WHG left in these areas before some new WHG was brought in by the Yamnaya people.
> This would explain why the authors say there was a near 100% wipe out of hunter gatherer lineages by the Neolithic farmers. It would also indicate that there was no "resurgence" in southern Europe of the WHG component, which makes it more likely, in my opinion, that as I had speculated before, the "resurgence" in northern and central Europe is probably the result of hunter gatherers from the peripheral refuges moving south during a climate worsening event or at least of the additional admixture resulting from contacts along that northern border where the farmers had not penetrated. 
> 
> ...


The chart on page 23 is split into modern and ancient ...........only the modern is WHG free for tuscans.

the 69 samples on page 25 deal only with the ancient part of the chart on page 23

----------


## Goga

> Don't misunderstand me. I have always said that R1b came from West Asia, and even domesticated cattle there before moving to the Pontic Steppe. But that was R1b-P297 or M269, not Z2103, which appeared in the steppe then migrated back to Anatolia.


Yeah I thought a little bit about it and I do believe you. I think that this theory might be the right and only one! Congratulation you persuaded me on this point and as you know I can be a very stubborn person. It's possible that Z2103 entered with the same people who brought R1a-Z282 and I2a with then. I think I'm not the only person who ignored R1b-Z2103 until now, I didn't even pay attention on this subclade. But it is right now one of the most spoken haplogroups, lol! It was for me hard to realise that there could be actually a back migration of 'R1b' into West Asia. I was thinking that R1b-Z2103 entered Yamnaya and the Balkans at the same time. But if that was the case, there would be also some of it in Greece. Is there some R1b-Z2103 in Greece?

----------


## Sile

> whats you opinion then, that in the chart , karlsdorf is second only to corded ware for Yamnya ( and worst for early neolithic ) and yet this T1a ( with his H1 mtdna ) is part of this group


@maciano

I have the same marker as the T1a - PF5604+

*PF5604+*, PF5607+, PF5608+, PF5609+, PF5610+, PF5612+, PF5613+, PF5657+, PF5659+, PF5660+, PF5661+, PF5664+, PF5666+, PF5673+, PF5674+, PF5678+, PF667+, PF719+, PF725+, PF7460+, PF7463+, PF7464+, PF7465+, PF7466+, PF7480+, PF7481+, PF779+, PF796+, PF803+, PF815+, PF821+, PF840+, PF844+, PF892+, PF937+, PF951+, PF970+, V186+, V189+, V205+, V52+, V9+, L298+,

what would it mean....only same age or maybe same place?

----------


## Finalise

What if L23 split east of Anatolia with 1 branch mostly going north to the steppes, some in Anatolia, and another going through Anatolia to the Balkans, and this latter one eventually turning into L21. That would explain "Anatolian" R1b-Z-whatever being the dominant Y-Dna of Yamna people, and Yamna people having new "Near Eastern" or "Armenian like", not found in hunter gatherers. ANE in Europe was most likely due to spread of R1a people. The percentages across Europe don't matter much, as y-dna is useless when it comes to analysing modern ethnic make up, due to founder effect.One thing is clear though. No matter how R1b spread into Europe, the massive founder effect could only be due to farming, not IE stealing women, or other fairy tales. I1's concentration in the north for example is all down to farming, probably picked up from Hungary, not simply 100% remnants of hunter gatherers.

----------


## LeBrok

> I had a quick look at the paper and I am glad to see that a *T1a* individual was found in the LBK culture, confirming what I had said for years : the Near Eastern Neolithic farmers were predominantly G2a but with J1 and T1a minorities (+ R1b-V88 in North Africa and Iberia).
> 
> The biggest surprise so far is that 4 out of 6 Yamna men tested belonged to the Balkano-Anatolian *R1b-Z2103* (the other two were P297 and L23). This may simply be because they are all from the Volga-Ural region. They would therefore have been among the last to move to the Balkans. In contrast, western Yamna people from southern Ukraine would have been the first to move out of the steppe, and that should in theory be where the ancestors of modern Western Europeans came from.
> 
> Here is a table showing the mtDNA of the six R1b Yamna men.
> 
> *Sample
> *
> *Y-haplogroup
> ...


The U4 is a bit of mystery. It wasn't found in Yamnaya and neither in iron age and medieval Poland. On the other hand it was found in Lombards settlement in Hungary.

----------


## Tomenable

It is disappointing that the Janisławice Culture and the Globular Amphora Culture were not covered by this study.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> No matter how R1b spread into Europe, the massive founder effect could only be due to farming, not IE stealing women, or other fairy tales.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Island,_Killarney

The BB who landed at Ross island in Ireland appear to have been copper miners and smelters.

Maybe they brought women with them.

But what if they didn't?


edit: I agree they were (dairy) farmers.

----------


## LeBrok

> These are very strange results. I certainly wasn't expecting the Samara results to be all R1b. And yet they seem to be the wrong subclade to be ancestral to most of the R1b in western Europe. Some very strange conclusions by the authors, I would say.


I thought we will see R1a-Z93 in the far East of Yamnaya, not only R1b. However, I was hoping they can finally localize pre-european R1b somewhere, and finally they were found. I thought they were located on east side of Caspian Sea or more north where the dot on this map is way north of Caspian Sea.


Or on this map close to the right edge north of Caspian.


North of Black Sea where the sort of whole is in frequency of R1b, might be the location of R1a part of Yamnaya. Unfortunately there are no samples from this location.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> The U4 is a bit of mystery. It wasn't found in Yamnaya and neither in iron age and medieval Poland. On the other hand it was found in Lombards settlement in Hungary.


U4 is typical in Scandnavian and Russian hunter gatherers, also it was very popular in Catacomb, Andronovo, Corded ware, Bell beaker, and Unetice. In Europe it's probably most an EHG lineage.

----------


## sparkey

Very interesting (to me) is the confirmation that Motala 2, as well as a Unetice sample, is I2c2. That's the subclade that used to be called I2c-B; it's the one with a bizarre modern pattern that includes expansions in the Caucasian nobility, among Eastern European Jews, and among Cretans, along with a widely distributed pattern across Europe. It seems to be confirming my original thought that I2c2 originally developed alongside the rest of I2c somewhere around Germany. Admittedly, I had been hedging my bets, supposing that I2c2 could be a more Southern Europe-centered subclade, but it's looking like my original thought was correct. It's interesting to note that the Unetice sample is apparently older than the TMRCA of modern I2c2, and Motala 2 is barely younger than the estimated split between I2c1 and I2c2, so we could be seeing a picture of I2c2's ancient origins already. Although, these still don't quite explain how its modern distribution became so odd.

----------


## Angela

> I thought we will see R1a-Z93 in the far East of Yamnaya, not only R1b. However, I was hoping they can finally localize pre-european R1b somewhere, and finally they were found. I thought they were located on east side of Caspian Sea or more north where the dot on this map is way north of Caspian Sea.
> 
> 
> Or on this map close to the right edge north of Caspian.
> 
> 
> North of Black Sea where the sort of whole is in frequency of R1b, might be the location of R1a part of Yamnaya. Unfortunately there are no samples from this location.


I think ancient dna tells us that modern frequencies may be of limited probative value. That particular area has seen populations come and go. There could be a hole there in terms of R1b because that's where Slavic speaking populations were settled relatively late in history after some de-population events. Or, going back in time, R1b might have largely moved into western Europe and R1a moved south to fill the "hole". 

On the other hand they might have been there in Yamnaya times, or they could have been just north in the forest steppe. Until we have more samples I don't think that there's any way of knowing.

----------


## sparkey

> U4 is typical in Scandnavian and Russian hunter gatherers, also it was very popular in Catacomb, Andronovo, Corded ware, Bell beaker, and Unetice. In Europe it's probably most an EHG lineage.


I think it depends on the subclade. U4 isn't as old as U5, but it's still old enough to be associated with multiple autosomal clusters. Looks like the Yamnaya sample from Ekaterinovka carried U4a1, which seems to agree with Maciamo's assessment of it as IE. Meanwhile, other U4 subclades (I think just U4d and U4* so far) have been found in Mesolithic Europe, namely in Sweden and Lithuania.

----------


## Finalise

> What if L23 split east of Anatolia with 1 branch mostly going north to the steppes, some in Anatolia, and another going through Anatolia to the Balkans, and this latter one eventually turning into L21. That would explain "Anatolian" R1b-Z-whatever being the dominant Y-Dna of Yamna people, and Yamna people having new "Near Eastern" or "Armenian like", not found in hunter gatherers. ANE in Europe was most likely due to spread of R1a people. The percentages across Europe don't matter much, as y-dna is useless when it comes to analysing modern ethnic make up, due to founder effect.One thing is clear though. No matter how R1b spread into Europe, the massive founder effect could only be due to farming, not IE stealing women, or other fairy tales. I1's concentration in the north for example is all down to farming, probably picked up from Hungary, not simply 100% remnants of hunter gatherers.


Can someone answer this? Maciamo's dates were obviously very wrong.

----------


## Goga

> What if L23 split east of Anatolia with 1 branch mostly going north to the steppes, some in Anatolia, and another going through Anatolia to the Balkans, and this latter one eventually turning into L21. That would explain "Anatolian" R1b-Z-whatever being the dominant Y-Dna of Yamna people, and Yamna people having new "Near Eastern" or "Armenian like", not found in hunter gatherers. ANE in Europe was most likely due to spread of R1a people. The percentages across Europe don't matter much, as y-dna is useless when it comes to analysing modern ethnic make up, due to founder effect.One thing is clear though. No matter how R1b spread into Europe, the massive founder effect could only be due to farming, not IE stealing women, or other fairy tales. I1's concentration in the north for example is all down to farming, probably picked up from Hungary, not simply 100% remnants of hunter gatherers.


This is what the latest paper that we're discussing right now is saying about the so called *'Armenian Model'* of Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov. They are practically saying that he is right! 

" _4. The Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility by the fact that we have discovered evidence of admixturein the ancestry of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists, including gene flow from apopulation of Near Eastern ancestry for which Armenians today appear to be a reasonable surrogate (SI4, SI7, SI9). However, the question of what languages were spoken by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open. Examining ancient DNA fromthe Caucasus and Near East may be able to provide further insight about the dynamics of the interaction between these regions and the steppe. Our results show that southern populations diluted the ancestry of populations_ _from the steppe, but also that ancestry related to Ancient North Eurasians forms a major ancestral component of the populations of the present-day Caucasus25. Thus, both south-north and north-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible._ "

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf

----------


## LeBrok

> I think ancient dna tells us that modern frequencies may be of limited probative value. That particular area has seen populations come and go. There could be a hole there in terms of R1b because that's where Slavic speaking populations were settled relatively late in history after some de-population events. Or, going back in time, R1b might have largely moved into western Europe and R1a moved south to fill the "hole". 
> 
> On the other hand they might have been there in Yamnaya times, or they could have been just north in the forest steppe. Until we have more samples I don't think that there's any way of knowing.


Sure, I've jumped the gun too soon. It is more that I *wanted* to find them, and not that we actually found them.

----------


## Angela

> The chart on page 23 is split into modern and ancient ...........only the modern is WHG free for tuscans.
> 
> the 69 samples on page 25 deal only with the ancient part of the chart on page 23


I don't understand the relevance of this comment. Tuscans are by definition a modern population, not an ancient one. The authors didn't include Etruscan or Villanovan samples, so obviously we don't know what their proportions of these components might have been. My analysis attempts to give some context for why the WHG figures for modern Tuscans, Spaniards, and other Southern Europeans are different in this paper than they were in the prior Lazaridis paper. (There are other factors as well.)

----------


## Angela

> This is what the latest paper that we're discussing right now is saying about the so called *'Armenian Model'* of Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov. They are practically saying that he is right! 
> 
> " _4. The Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility by the fact that we have discovered evidence of admixturein the ancestry of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists, including gene flow from apopulation of Near Eastern ancestry for which Armenians today appear to be a reasonable surrogate (SI4, SI7, SI9). However, the question of what languages were spoken by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open. Examining ancient DNA fromthe Caucasus and Near East may be able to provide further insight about the dynamics of the interaction between these regions and the steppe. Our results show that southern populations diluted the ancestry of populations_ _from the steppe, but also that ancestry related to Ancient North Eurasians forms a major ancestral component of the populations of the present-day Caucasus25. Thus, both south-north andnorth-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible._ "
> 
> http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf


Has anyone noticed that the authors of Supplementary Section 11, which is where the Indo-European languages question is discussed, and where this quote appears, are:
Iosif Lazaridis, Wolfgang Haak, Nick Patterson,* David Anthony* and David Reich*. 

With all due respect to Dr. Anthony, was he holding his nose or crossing his fingers?  :Grin:  I would love to have been present during their discussions!

Seriously, you're overstating things, Goga. The comments are very cautious. Note that while the Armenian Plateau hypothesis may be _gaining in plausibilty, "__ the question of what languages were spoken by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open._" Also, "_both south-north andnorth-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible."_

----------


## Finalise

> This is what the latest paper that we're discussing right now is saying about the so called *'Armenian Model'* of Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov. They are practically saying that he is right! " _4. The Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility by the fact that we have discovered evidence of admixturein the ancestry of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists, including gene flow from apopulation of Near Eastern ancestry for which Armenians today appear to be a reasonable surrogate (SI4, SI7, SI9). However, the question of what languages were spoken by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open. Examining ancient DNA fromthe Caucasus and Near East may be able to provide further insight about the dynamics of the interaction between these regions and the steppe. Our results show that southern populations diluted the ancestry of populations_ _from the steppe, but also that ancestry related to Ancient North Eurasians forms a major ancestral component of the populations of the present-day Caucasus25. Thus, both south-north andnorth-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible._ "http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf


[IMAGE]http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpg[/IMAGE]Maciamo's map would therefore be rendered useless. The "Armenian" component surely is R1b-Z2013 farmers moving up, while L23 downstream moved to the Balkans to form L51.

----------


## Tomenable

I'm confused about this paper - there are contradictory opinions about its credibility, for example here:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&p=23613#p23613




> David Reich and his associates have published a paper containing a lot of new genetic data from prehistoric Europe. These data utterly refute the Kurgan hypothesis, and yet Reich and his associates are so stupid that they actually think the data support the hypothesis.

----------


## Goga

> [image]http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpg[/image]Maciamo's map would therefore be rendered useless. The "Armenian" component surely is R1b-Z2013 farmers moving up, while L23 downstream moved to the Balkans to form L51.


Yes you're very right. Respect that you have discovered actually such a huge mistake, but Maciamo did his best, and he was VERY close about this issue. On this map we can see R1b-Z2103 is entering Turkey from Greece, which is proven not to be true! And it is older than '2000-1200' BCE, because it was already in Yamnaya much earlier...

----------


## Goga

> Has anyone noticed that the authors of Supplementary Section 11, which is where the Indo-European languages question is discussed, and where this quote appears, are:
> Iosif Lazaridis, Wolfgang Haak, Nick Patterson,* David Anthony* and David Reich*. 
> 
> With all due respect to Dr. Anthony, was he holding his nose or crossing his fingers?  I would love to have been present during their discussions!
> 
> Seriously, you're overstating things, Goga. The comments are very cautious. Note that while the Armenian Plateau hypothesis may be _gaining in plausibilty, " the question of what languages were spoken by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open._" Also, "_both south-north andnorth-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible."_


I think that the 'Armenian Model' is somehow acceptable for David Anthony, because it has many similarities with the 'Pontic-Caspian Steppe Model'. Everything is almost the same, only PIE is more to the south! This is what they're saying about it:

" _4. The “Armenian plateau hypothesis”7,16 which resembles the Steppe hypothesis in postulating a_ *role for the steppe in the dispersal of languages into Europe, but places the homeland of Proto-Indo-European speakers south of the Caucasus.* "

----------


## Goga

With other words they are giving the Russian academic Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov indirectly credits (for his so called 'Armenian Model') without admitting that he is right. Some people are just such a bad losers and too proud to admit that they're wrong!

----------


## Aberdeen

Since we now know that 12.5% of all the ancient Y DNA ever found in Spain is R1b, we can no longer dismiss the idea of R1b having a long history in Spain - we know that, at the very least, it's been there for over 7000 years.

That one R1b1 sample may be an anomaly but we just don't have enough data to be certain. At this point, we can't completely rule out the possibility that P-25, P297 and L-23 were widely distributed, with L51 and its downstream subclades possibly developing in Western Europe.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I think that the 'Armenian Model' is somehow acceptable for David Anthony, because it has many similarities with the 'Pontic-Caspian Steppe Model'. Everything is almost the same, only PIE is more to the south! This is what they're saying about it:
> 
> " _4. The “Armenian plateau hypothesis”7,16 which resembles the Steppe hypothesis in postulating a_ *role for the steppe in the dispersal of languages into Europe, but places the homeland of Proto-Indo-European speakers south of the Caucasus.* "


While some people have assumed that Proto-Indo-European must have evolved in the same place that the IE cultural package came together, a lot of other people have suggested that the original linguistic homeland may not have been the same as the homeland of the people who developed the cultural package that lead to the expansion of IE languages and which could therefore be in one sense considered the Indo-European homeland, even if the language didn't start there. That idea has already been discussed on this forum.

----------


## Silesian

> ................ I was thinking that R1b-Z2103 entered Yamnaya and the Balkans at the same time. But if that was the case, there would be also some of it in Greece. Is there some R1b-Z2103 in Greece?


I believe these will be your R1b-Z2103 samples

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/69


_The dominant haplogroups in both Phokaia and Smyrna are E-V13 (19.4% and 12.1%) and R1b-M269 (22.6% and 27.8%) respectfully_

----------


## LeBrok

> I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.


I think you are right about Yamnaya being a mixture of other/basic admixtures. Definitely a mixture of ANE with WHG, and even some EEF.  I don't want to speculate too much because I'm yet to find some time to read the paper. Yesterday I just skimmed it. 
Do they say that they have built their Yamnaya admixture based on one Yamnaya hunter gatherer, or this admixture was compiled based on all 9 of them, some pastoralist/farmers?

Anyway, they sort of had to develop Yamnaya autosomal package/admixture to see how this package correlates with the rest of Europe. At quick glance their Yamnaya admixture is 40-40-10 ANE-WHG-EEF respectively.

----------


## bicicleur

> I think you are right about Yamnaya being a mixture of other/basic admixtures. Definitely a mixture of ANE with WHG, and even some EEF. I don't want to speculate too much because I'm yet to find some time to read the paper. Yesterday I just skimmed it. 
> Do they say that they have built their Yamnaya admixture based on one Yamnaya hunter gatherer, or this admixture was compiled based on all 9 of them, some pastoralist/farmers?
> 
> Anyway, they sort of had to develop Yamnaya autosomal package/admixture to see how this package correlates with the rest of Europe. At quick glance their Yamnaya admixture is 40-40-10 ANE-WHG-EEF respectively.


have a look at figure 2b (underneath the PCA chart) : the K=16 admixture chart
there is very little variation among the Yamnaya individuals

----------


## bicicleur

> I thought we will see R1a-Z93 in the far East of Yamnaya, not only R1b. However, I was hoping they can finally localize pre-european R1b somewhere, and finally they were found. I thought they were located on east side of Caspian Sea or more north where the dot on this map is way north of Caspian Sea.
> 
> 
> Or on this map close to the right edge north of Caspian.
> 
> 
> North of Black Sea where the sort of whole is in frequency of R1b, might be the location of R1a part of Yamnaya. Unfortunately there are no samples from this location.


I wonder how R1a split into western Z283 - L664 and eastern Z83.
Maybe they were in the zone north of the Caucasus where R1b first came into the Pontic Steppe and R1b came in between them.

----------


## Maciamo

> hmm
> 
> in such case , Varna necropolis, Rudna Glava, and generally Vinca and para-Vinca cultures had no J2a, 
> I mean if J2a is upsent from Balkans before 1200 BC, they should be upsent also from copper mettalurgy, not bronze, but copper,
> in such case who brought copper mettalurgy to balkans?
> we know Vinca and para-Vincas are before bronze, meaning before R1*****, and Mycenae where build before 4000 BC 1500 years before arsenic bronze from steppe, theoritically start to enter south Balkans
> beside in many settlements in Greece as the newly Platamon metaneolithic we see no arsenic bronze, in many areas till even after 1500 BC.
> but Vincas knew copper and gold very well.
> 
> ...


There is also the possibility that J2a expanded from Anatolia to the Balkans during the Copper Age. But that remains to be proven as so far not a single J2a has been found in Copper Age Europe.

----------


## Maciamo

> Close, but no cigar. Although it's a very fascinating theory. Nice try, respect! J2a folks were actually MOUNTAIN people and not SEA people.


One does not preclude the other. Would you say that the Greeks are mountain people or sea people ? I'd say both. Anyway the Minoans, Phoenicians, classical Greeks, medieval Venetians and even Renaissance Portuguese all had a lot of J2a and were all seafaring peoples.

Other West Asian J2a may not have had the opportunity to become navigators and sea traders _because_ they lived far from the sea. That was their original homeland. But J2a expanded best across the sea.

This is not true of all people who lived in coastal areas. The Indians or East Asians never really cared about creating maritime empires. Neither did the Sardinians or the North Africans, nor even the Basques/Gascons or the Illyrians - all people with no or little J2a. Celtic people were also never very interested by the sea.

The only other major maritime ethnic group were Germanic people (Vikings, Dutch, English). What differentiated them from Italic, Celtic or Slavic people is the presence of haplogroup I1.

There must have been some character traits in the J2a and I1 gene pools that encouraged maritime exploration. I am not saying that the genes were located on the Y-chromosome. Just that the genes for that character were found at higher frequency among I1 and J2a populations (just like genes for individualism are found at higher frequency among R1b populations today).

----------


## bicicleur

> There is also the possibility that J2a expanded from Anatolia to the Balkans during the Copper Age. But that remains to be proven as so far not a single J2a has been found in Copper Age Europe.


copper age Hungarian was very related to early Neolithic Hungarian

ncomms6257-f2.jpg

and ötzi 3300 BC was G2a2b-L91

furthermore Catal Hoyuk knew metallurgy and they were related to early Hungarian Neolithic, but not to Levantine/southeast Anatolian PPNB :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...uropean-farmer

so copper melting in the Balkans might be brought by G2a2 as well

----------


## Maciamo

> The U4 is a bit of mystery. It wasn't found in Yamnaya and neither in iron age and medieval Poland. On the other hand it was found in Lombards settlement in Hungary.


U4 was originally a forest-steppe lineage. We can know this because it was found in the Corded Ware, Catacomb and Andronovo cultures, all cultures that I have associated with the R1a branch of Indo-Europeans. Archeologically it is almost certain that the Catacomb culture originated in the forest-steppe and expanded south, taking over the territory of the Yamna culture. That is probably the main turning point for the high incidence of R1b from the Pontic Steppe, and it's progressive replacement by R1a lineages.

----------


## Sile

I was just wondering if the gothic, burgundian, vandals, lombards and other "germanic" peoples of poland and old east germany where in majority R1b ..............they vacated their lands completly. .....more so than any other area of Europe.................Its the only way I can see a replacement of the early R1b by a leter R1a people

----------


## Maciamo

> I wonder how R1a split into western Z283 - L664 and eastern Z83.
> Maybe they were in the zone north of the Caucasus where R1b first came into the Pontic Steppe and R1b came in between them.


The way I see it is that:

- L664 was present in the Pontic Steppe (southern Ukraine and southern Russia) when R1b people arrived from the Caucasus region. R1a-L664 became a minority lineage accompanying R1b-L11 to western Europe.

- Z283 was the main Corded Ware lineage originating in northern Ukraine and Belarus. It experienced a mainly westward expansion.

- Z93 originating in the Russian forest-steppe between Belarus and the Urals. It had an eastward expansion with Abashevo and Sintashta.

This is how the three R1a branches split from one another.

----------


## arvistro

Ok. My initial assumption that whatever was living in/near Baltics got overpopulated by Yamna-> Corded Ware was oversimplistic. It seems that whatever was living in/near Baltics could have been Yamna-like already before Yamna :)
Also if Yamna/Corded did not bring EEF to Baltics, then who did? We apparently have non-Yamna EEF according those admixture tables, since Baltic folk (Lit, Est) is modelled as EEF+WHG+Yamna.

----------


## Maciamo

> copper age Hungarian was very related to early Neolithic Hungarian
> 
> ncomms6257-f2.jpg
> 
> and ötzi 3300 BC was G2a2b-L91
> 
> furthermore Catal Hoyuk knew metallurgy and they were related to early Hungarian Neolithic, but not to Levantine/southeast Anatolian PPNB :
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...uropean-farmer
> ...


The fact that _one_ Copper Age individual (Ötzi) was G2a2 like Neolithic Europeans doesn't prove anything. It only shows that at least some Neolithic lineages survived until the Copper Age, but why wouldn't it ? It doesn't mean that other people didn't bring copper-working technology from the Near East. We'll know once we have more Chalcolithic samples from the Balkans (and Anatolia).

Anyway, Yetos was saying that J2a came from Anatolia to the Balkans during the Copper Age. I only said that it's possible but so far no data supports this hypothesis.

----------


## Maciamo

> Ok. My initial assumption that whatever was living in/near Baltics got overpopulated by Yamna-> Corded Ware was oversimplistic. It seems that whatever was living in/near Baltics could have been Yamna-like already before Yamna :)
> Also if Yamna/Corded did not bring EEF to Baltics, then who did? We apparently have non-Yamna EEF according those admixture tables, since Baltic folk (Lit, Est) is modelled as EEF+WHG+Yamna.


As far as admixtures are concerned, millennia of intermixing between neighbours (even from village to village) could easily have introduced EEF admixture to the Baltic without requiring any major migration. Admixtures even out amazingly well across regions and even continents given enough time and open borders (or changing borders, which was often the case in European history).

----------


## Sile

> copper age Hungarian was very related to early Neolithic Hungarian
> 
> ncomms6257-f2.jpg
> 
> and ötzi 3300 BC was G2a2b-L91
> 
> furthermore Catal Hoyuk knew metallurgy and they were related to early Hungarian Neolithic, but not to Levantine/southeast Anatolian PPNB :
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...uropean-farmer
> ...


well another 4 x oetzi found in central germany G2a2a ...........but I think the *a* and *b* split ( g2a2 ) means either anatolia or caucasus

----------


## Tomenable

> they vacated their lands completly. .....more so than any other area of Europe.................Its the only way I can see a replacement of the early R1b by a leter R1a people


Well - G2a2 (the dominant hg in much of Neolithic Western Europe) did not vacate anywhere, and yet got replaced by other HGs. Also R1b could be replaced without vacating anywhere. Though it is considered that during the mid-Neolithic there was a huge population decline most likely caused by deadly infectious diseases contracted from domestic animals.

According to Shennan 2009, "Evolutionary Demography and the Population History of the European Early Neolithic", in the 5th millenium BC there was a dramatic fall in the population level which remained low for nearly a millenium (so until this massive immigration from the steppe - it seems). That was probably something like the Medieval Black Death.

----------


## Goga

> - Z93 originating in the Russian forest-steppe between Belarus and the Urals. It had an eastward expansion with Abashevo and Sintashta.


Forget about R1a-Z93. I'm almost certain that Z93 is native to the Iranian Plateau and just evolved there. And from there migrated into Central Asia and India. R1a-*S224* could enter the Steppes from the Caucasus region together with R1b. It's possible that pre-Balto-Slavic people were just I2 and N1c1 fellas...

----------


## Angela

Dienekes has decided to opine:
http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/201...europeans.html

Some quotes:
"The EHG (Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers) are likely Proto-Europeoid foragers and the Yamnaya (a Bronze Age Kurgan culture) were a mixture of the EHG and something akin to Armenians.The "attraction" of later groups to the Near East is clear in the PCA: hunter-gatherers on the left side, the Near East (as grey dots) on the right side, and Neolithic/Bronze Age/modern Europeans in the middle. The second migration may very well be related to the Uruk expansion and the presence of gracile Mediterranoids and robust Proto-Europeoids in the Yamna:"

"*The estimate of Yamnaya related ancestry in the Corded Ware is consistent when using either present populations or ancient Europeans as outgroups (SI9, SI10), and is 73.1 ± 2.2% when both sets are combined (SI10).* [...] The magnitude of the population turnover that occurred becomes even more evident if one considers the fact that t*he steppe migrants may well have mixed with eastern European agriculturalists on their way to central Europe. Thus, we cannot exclude a scenario in which the Corded Ware arriving in today’s Germany had no ancestry at all from local populations."


*He also takes the opportunity to show what he obviously feels was the prescience of some of Coon's observations by quoting the following from Coon: 

"We shall see, in our survey of prehistoric European racial movements, 8 that *the Danubian agriculturalists of the Early Neolithic brought a food-producing economy into central Europe from the East. They perpetuated in the new European setting a physical type which was later supplanted in their original home. Several centuries later the Corded people, in the same way, came from southern Russia but there we first find them intermingled with other peoples*, and the cul-tural factors which we think of as distinctively Corded are included in a larger cultural equipment. [...] *On the basis of the physical evidence as well, it is likely that the Corded people came from somewhere north or east of the Black Sea.* The fully Neolithic crania from southern Russia which we have just studied include such a type, also seen in the midst of Sergi's Kurgan aggregation. *Until better evidence is produced from elsewhere, we are entitled to consider southern Russia the most likely way station from which the Corded people moved westward.*

He also quotes Coon as to language development:
"Linguistically, Indo-European is probably a relatively recent phenomenon, which arose after animals had been tamed and plants cultivated.* The latest researches find it to be a derivative of an initially mixed language, whose principal elements were Uralic, called element A, and some undesignated element B which was probably one of the eastern Mediterranean or Caucasic languages.* 5 The plants and animals on which the *Somewhere in the plains of southern Russia or central Asia, the blending of languages took place which resulted in Indo-European speech.* This product in turn spread and split, and was further differentiated by mixture with the languages of peoples upon whom it, in one form or other, was imposed. Some of the present Indo-European languages, in addition to these later accretions from non-Indo-European tongues, contain more of the A element than others, which contain more of the B. *The unity of the original " Indo- Europeans," could not have been of long duration, if it was ever complete. 

*I think this is very important. Yamnaya was a big place. Who knows what lineages will show up around its entire expanse.

On Urheimat (or not) :)
If PIE=EHG (as Anthony and Ringe suggest), then "from the crib", PIE got half its ancestry from a non-IE, Near Eastern source. Conversely, if PIE=Near East (as I suggested) then "from the crib", PIE got half of its ancestry from a non-IE, Eastern European source. *The "Yamnaya" seems to max out in Norwegians at around half, which means that they are about a quarter Proto-Indo-European genetically, regardless of which theory is right.*

Dienekes goes on further to say: 
"These two possibilities (as well as the third one of PIE being neither-nor, but rather a linguistic mixture of the languages of the EHG and Near East) are testable. The Anthony/Ringe version of the steppe hypothesis predicts pre-Yamnaya expansions from the steppe. Whether these happened and what was their makeup can be tested: if they did occur and they did lack "Near Eastern" ancestry, then the steppe hypothesis will be proven. PIE in the Near East, on the other hand, predicts that some PIE languages (certainly the Anatolian ones) will be a "within the Near East" expansion. If such migrations did occur and they lacked "EHG" ancestry, then some variant of the Gamkrelidze/Ivanov model will be proven. Or, the truth might be that everywhere where Indo-Europeans arrive they carry a blend of "West Asian" and "EHG", supporting the third possibility. Time will tell."

He also cautions against too much certainty at this point:
*In the interim, I am curious about how much Yamnaya ancestry existed in different parts of Europe* (all of the post-5kya samples in this study come from Germany, with a couple from Hungary). In northern Europe, all populations seem to have less Yamnaya ancestry than the Corded Ware: there it must have declined. But, modern Hungarians have more than Bronze Age Hungarians: there it must have increased.
*Germany and a slice of Hungary is a very narrow window through which to see the whole of Europe and these results must be tested by looking at samples from beyond the "heartland".* I do hope that some kind of Moore's law operates in the world of ancient DNA, and in three more years we'll be reading studies about _thousands_ of ancient individuals.

----------


## Djordjo

This is the giant leap.

----------


## Tomenable

Another interesting discovery in this study, is R1a Z280 from the site of the Lusatian Culture at Halberstadt:




> Thesis of Reich was released. Found R1a's :
> 
> R1a1-*M459* from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Karelia, Russia, Mesolithic. 5500 - 5000 BCE
> R1a1a1-*M417*xZ282 from Corded Ware site at Esperstedt 2473 - 2348 cal BCE
> R1a1a1b1a2-*Z280* from Late Bronze Age Germany, Halberstadt,* Lusatian Culture*. 1113 -1021 cal BCE
> 
> No R1a from Yamna, Unetice, Bell Beakers


So now - with previous samples from Eulau and Liechtenstein cave - we have in total 4 places (and 7 males) in Germany with ancient R1a:

- Eulau (x 3 males) ----------------------------------- Corded Ware Culture
- Esperstedt (x 1 male) ------------------------------ Corded Ware Culture
- Halberstadt (x 1 male) ----------------------------- Lusatian Culture
- Liechtenstein cave near Dorste (x 2 males) ------ Urnfield Culture

Right ??? Interestingly, all of these sites are located very close to each other:



And we also have this new hunter-gatherer R1a from Karelia.

I added these new places (Halberstadt, Esperstedt, Karelia) to the map of ancient R1a samples that I had made previously:

Red points = places where ancient R1a has been discovered so far:



Map shows aDNA samples + modern frequency of R1a according to Underhill 2014.

But we still have a huge "black hole" in the middle (between Germany and Russia, as well as in much of Russia).

All ancient European R1a samples are from peripheries of modern distribution of R1a.

It is high time to finally start digging for ancient Y-DNA in areas between Germany and Russia !!!

----------


## Tomenable

From the new paper, about this individual in Els Trocs, north-eastern Spain (pretty close to the Basques):




> (...) *I0410 (Spain_EN): 
> 
> We determined that this individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1* (...) *The occurrence of a basal form of haplogroup R1b1 in both western Europe and R1b1a in eastern Europe (I0124 hunter-gatherer from Samara) complicates the interpretation of the origin of this lineage.* (...)


================================

Check this - Indo-European Tocharians from Xiaohe were R1a, and also European R1a (not Z93):

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15

The paper is from 2010, but in the comments section there is a 2014 comment by one of its authors:




> Hui Zhou (2014-07-18 16:14) Jilin University
> 
> Archaeological and anthropological investigations have helped to formulate two main theories to account for the origin of the populations in the Tarim Basin. The first, so-called “steppe hypothesis”, maintains that the earliest settlers may have been nomadic herders of the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3300-2000 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north of the Tarim Basin. The second model, known as the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis”, it maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Oxus civilization (ca. 2200-1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. These contrasting models can be tested using DNA recovered from archaeological bones. Xiaohe cemetery contains the oldest and best-preserved mummies so far discovered in the Tarim Basin, possible those of the earliest people to settle the region. Genetic analysis of these mummies can provide data to elucidate the affinities of the earliest inhabitants.
> 
> Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia,* Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data)* which is mainly found in Asians. mtDNA Hgs H, K, C4 primarily distributed in northern Eurasians. Though H, K, C4 also presence in modern south Asian, they immigrated into South Asian recently from nearby populations, such as Near East , East Asia and Central Asia, and the frequency is obviously lower than that of northern Eurasian. Furthermore, all of the shared sequences of the Xiaohe haplotypes H and C4 were distributed in northern Eurasians. Haplotype 223-304 in Xiaohe people was shared by Indian. However, these sequences were attributed to HgM25 in India, and in our study it was not HgM25 by scanning the mtDNA code region. Therefore, our DNA results didn't supported Clyde Winters’s opinion but supported the “steppe hypothesis”. Moreover, the culture of Xiaohe is similar with the Afanasievo culture. Afanasievo culture was mainly distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions, and didn’t spread into India. This further maintains the “steppe hypothesis”.
> 
> In addition, our data was misunderstand by Clyde Winters. Firstly, the human remains of the Xiaohe site have no relation with the Loulan mummy. The Xiaohe site and Loulan site are two different archaeological sites with 175km distances. Xiaohe site, radiocarbon dated ranging from 4000 to 3500 years before present, was a Bronze Age site, and Loulan site, dated to about 2000 years before present. Secondly, Hgs H and K are the mtDNA haplogroups not the Y chromosome haplogroups in our study. Thirdly, the origin of Xiaohe people in here means tracing the most recently common ancestor, and Africans were remote ancestor of modern people.


This is according to new (not yet officially published) data by Hui Zhou from Jilin University.

=========================

Check also (about Tocharians):

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/l...tokol-0-X.html

http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm

----------


## Kristiina

> Also if Yamna/Corded did not bring EEF to Baltics, then who did? We apparently have non-Yamna EEF according those admixture tables, since Baltic folk (Lit, Est) is modelled as EEF+WHG+Yamna.


It has been argued that y line I1 brought farming to North Europe as well as blondism. Such combination would never have occurred to me only a year ago. However, I took note that there is still no I1 in ancient finds in Germany and Scandinavia but only in Neolithic Hungary where they had EEF.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> It has been argued that y line I1 brought farming to North Europe as well as blondism. Such combination would never have occurred to me only a year ago. However, I took note that there is still no I1 in ancient finds in Germany and Scandinavia but only in Neolithic Hungary where they had EEF.


Maybe I1 was taken by Germanics after they moved from Yamna region towards NW Europe.
What ancient finds are you talking about,Germanics came in Northern Europe after Neolitic period,Yamna culture is estimated to have been between 3600 BC and 2300 BC.

Neolithic ended in Sweden at around 2000 BC.
Till these new findings it was supposed that the Battle-Axe invaded those Neolithic farmers from Scandinavia and brought with them IE languages.
However,according to these new Yamna facts,that Norwegians are most closed to Yamna,Yamna Germanic people moved towards NW Europe and got till Scandinavia.

----------


## Aberdeen

The thing that strikes me about this study is that the authors seem to be arguing for massive replacement of the Neolithic population on the basis of very few actual samples. There are results from four Copper Age sites, two of which produced "Neolithic" results, and results from only a few Bronze Age sites, one of which produced a "Mesolithic" result. I know they're also relying on admixture tests that are producing results that in some cases I think are rather strange, but I think more data is needed before a definite conclusion can be reached. If Corded Ware was a complete replacement, why do half of the CW results look "Neolithic"?

Certainly the discover of multiple R1b results in Yamnaya is very interesting and not what I expected but I think the Spanish results are more interesting. Many people had decided, on the basis of results from a single Neolithic site, that R1b wasn't in Spain during the Neolithic but now we have results from a second site and guess what - R1b appears. I think it's difficult to say how significant that is but I find the result interesting.

----------


## sparkey

> Certainly the discover of multiple R1b results in Yamnaya is very interesting and not what I expected but I think the Spanish results are more interesting. Many people had decided, on the basis of results from a single Neolithic site, that R1b wasn't in Spain during the Neolithic but now we have results from a second site and guess what - R1b appears. I think it's difficult to say how significant that is but I find the result interesting.


I'm the other way around: I find the Yamnaya samples more interesting, simply because they're closer to the branch that modern European R1b is on. That informs us more than the presence of a basal subclade in the Neolithic. The Spanish result is an interesting result, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't disprove people's hypotheses. Not many people predicted that R1b _of any kind_ wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, rather many predicted that modern-European-type R1b wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, and that seems to be playing out so far. This study gives us R1b1 M478-, I2a1b1 (a.k.a I2a-Isles), and an "F*" that could actually be a lot of different things.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I'm the other way around: I find the Yamnaya samples more interesting, simply because they're closer to the branch that modern European R1b is on. That informs us more than the presence of a basal subclade in the Neolithic. The Spanish result is an interesting result, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't disprove people's hypotheses. Not many people predicted that R1b _of any kind_ wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, rather many predicted that modern-European-type R1b wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, and that seems to be playing out so far. This study gives us R1b1 M478-, I2a1b1 (a.k.a I2a-Isles), and an "F*" that could actually be a lot of different things.


I don't think the results from one site prove or disprove anything, and I hadn't actually been expecting R1b to turn up in Spain until the BB era. However, at this point we have results from one Mesolithic site and two Neolithic sites, one of which has an early form of R1b - I think that's grounds for not making a decision until we have more results to go on.

The same could be said for the Yamnaya results. I wasn't expecting that. And the fact that none of the "Western European" subclades turned up may simply mean that we need more results from more westerly Yamnaya sites. Or that the "Western European" subclades are VERY recent - I haven't seen any time estimates for them.

----------


## bicicleur

> The fact that _one_ Copper Age individual (Ötzi) was G2a2 like Neolithic Europeans doesn't prove anything. It only shows that at least some Neolithic lineages survived until the Copper Age, but why wouldn't it ? It doesn't mean that other people didn't bring copper-working technology from the Near East. We'll know once we have more Chalcolithic samples from the Balkans (and Anatolia).
> 
> Anyway, Yetos was saying that J2a came from Anatolia to the Balkans during the Copper Age. I only said that it's possible but so far no data supports this hypothesis.


there are many places where no anciant DNA has been tested yet, that is true
as far as I know, uptill now, the only J2a was the Hungarian BR2 : http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/14...ms6257_T1.html
acording to Genetiker J2a-M67 , this clade has 2 centers of highest diversity : the Levant and the Caucasus
Kyjatice Culture : they were horseriding nomads , +/- 1200 BC
They probably came from the Caucasus

there is also J2a-M319 which could be the Minoans
then there is *J2a1-L24* and subclades, of which I know nothing

----------


## Tomenable

I've found a reconstruction by Gerasimov of that Mesolithic R1a male from Karelia:







And also here is the distance between those early Karelia R1a and Samara R1b:

http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

----------


## bicicleur

> I'm the other way around: I find the Yamnaya samples more interesting, simply because they're closer to the branch that modern European R1b is on. That informs us more than the presence of a basal subclade in the Neolithic. The Spanish result is an interesting result, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't disprove people's hypotheses. Not many people predicted that R1b _of any kind_ wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, rather many predicted that modern-European-type R1b wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, and that seems to be playing out so far. This study gives us R1b1 M478-, I2a1b1 (a.k.a I2a-Isles), and an "F*" that could actually be a lot of different things.


R1b1 is a surprise indeed, but he is M269- so he left very few descendants in Europe, and he is very unlikely the source for Iberian Bell Beaker or anything else
the biggest surprise to me was to find 2 x H2 , alltough 1 of them is ambiguous
H is is an Indian clade, many Gipsies in Europe are H, but they are not H2
allways keep in mind : whatever anciant DNA 3000 years and older, there is 90 % chance, it is extinct today

----------


## bicicleur

[QUOTE=Tomenable;449644]I've found a reconstruction by Gerasimov of that Mesolithic R1a male from Karelia:







/QUOTE]

this man is dated 5000 - 5500 BC
4200 BC Pit-comb ware arrives
I wonder wether they were still the same people
Pit-comb is considered to be Uralic - haplogroup N1c

----------


## Sile

> Another interesting discovery in this study, is R1a Z280 from the site of the Lusatian Culture at Halberstadt:
> 
> 
> 
> So now - with previous samples from Eulau and Liechtenstein cave - we have in total 4 places (and 7 males) in Germany with ancient R1a:
> 
> - Eulau (x 3 males) ----------------------------------- Corded Ware Culture
> - Esperstedt (x 1 male) ------------------------------ Corded Ware Culture
> - Halberstadt (x 1 male) ----------------------------- Lusatian Culture
> ...


Your point is taken , but the fasinating thing is that, using your map above
4 x G2a2a found at Halberstadt and
1 x T1a at Jena ( south of Eulau )

clearly the focus should be ...........why this congregation of people in this area

----------


## bicicleur

> Your point is taken , but the fasinating thing is that, using your map above
> 4 x G2a2a found at Halberstadt and
> 1 x T1a at Jena ( south of Eulau )
> 
> clearly the focus should be ...........why this congregation of people in this area


it is a löss ground, which was interesting for early farmers
many sites were found by accident, during road works
maybe the soil is also favourable to preserve skeletons ?
i guess the researchers have certain criteria, they investigate the skeletons which have the best chance for high DNA coverage

----------


## sparkey

> R1b1 is a surprise indeed, but he is M269- so he left very few descendants in Europe, and he is very unlikely the source for Iberian Bell Beaker or anything else
> the biggest surprise to me was to find 2 x H2 , alltough 1 of them is ambiguous
> H is is an Indian clade, many Gipsies in Europe are H, but they are not H2
> allways keep in mind : whatever anciant DNA 3000 years and older, there is 90 % chance, it is extinct today


H2-P96 (formerly called F3 before its relationship with H was established) is uncommon nowadays, and mostly European and West Asian. It does seem to be popping up here and there in ancient DNA, so I'm not too surprised to see it.

----------


## Alan

> R1b1 is a surprise indeed, but he is M269- so he left very few descendants in Europe, and he is very unlikely the source for Iberian Bell Beaker or anything else
> the biggest surprise to me was to find 2 x H2 , alltough 1 of them is ambiguous
> H is is an Indian clade, many Gipsies in Europe are H, but they are not H2
> allways keep in mind : whatever anciant DNA 3000 years and older, there is 90 % chance, it is extinct today


H is a close cousin of G, Wasn't there a Thracian individual who was also H?
H is also found in Central Asia. There was even a neolithic Syrian sample with H.

Seems like one of those Haplogroups which were once more widespred than nowadays (similar case with C).

----------


## Sile

> H is a close cousin of G, Wasn't there a Thracian individual who was also H?
> H is also found in Central Asia. There was even a neolithic Syrian sample with H.
> 
> Seems like one of those Haplogroups which were once more widespred than nowadays (similar case with C).


yes there was and note that ALL the old ydna F3 are renamed as H1b............which this thracian was

----------


## Tomenable

By the way:




> *R1a1a1b1a2-Z280* from Late Bronze Age East Germany, Halberstadt,* Lusatian Culture*. 1113 -1021 BCE


So we have Balto-Slavic Y-DNA in Lusatian Culture:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...1a_Y-DNA.shtml




> *R1a-Z280 is also an Balto-Slavic marker, found all over central and Eastern Europe*, with a western limit running from East to south-west Germany and to Northeast Italy. It can be divided in many clusters: East Slavic, Baltic, Pomeranian, Polish, Carpathian, East-Alpine, Czechoslovak, and so on.


Moreover, it was found in the westernmost peripheries:

----------


## Yaan

> yes there was and note that ALL the old ydna F3 are renamed as H1b............which this thracian was


Dude there is no Thracian male lines tested, for the last time it is MT DNA

----------


## Alan

[QUOTE=Maciamo;449577]


> I wouldn't read too much into the Late Bronze Age J2a1 sample from Hungary (c. 1200 BCE). The Indo-Europeans had been in the region for nearly 2000 years by then, and it could very well have been a foreigner or an assimilated person from a non-IE culture. After all three Unetice samples tested in this new study turned out to be assimilated local I2 lineages, not steppe lineages.


That could be but which non neolithic farmer population could have come before the Indo Europeans and brought this Haplogroup? There is always a likelyhood for other scenarios but from the data we have so far, an Indo European origin looks like the most likely one.


. 




> No one knows precisely what cataclysmic events took place around 1200 BCE, but I would bet that this corresponds to an expansion of J2a people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that the Sea Peoples were probably predominantly J2a people. After all, all the great ancient seafaring civilizations all presumably had high percentages of J2a, including the Phoenicians who just happen to emerge around 1200 BCE.


Yes but as you said yourself, Sea People emerged later. And I don't know of any other possible migration to Hungary which could have brought J2a there. 



> One hypothesis of mine is that the Sea Peoples were descended from the Minoan civilization, which had just collapsed c. 1450 BCE. The fall of the Minoan state might have led to Minoan people turning to piracy and raiding the coasts of the East Mediterranean, from Sardinia to the Levant. The Trojans, whose city had been destroyed by the Mycenaeans c. 1200 BCE, may well have been a mixture of R1b-L23 and J2a people, and Trojans who escaped may also have been among the Sea Peoples who sought revenge on Mycenaean Greece and caused its downfall less than 100 years later.


I don't see why Minoans would end up in Hungary especially not just 100 years after their collapse and be able to mix so much with the local population in Hungary, that their genetic make up turns totally French like. Also are we speculating that Sea People gave this J2a individual his ANE- That doesn't seem very likely to me, especially not if all the other late Neolithic, Bronze Age samples from the same region are a mix of WHG and ENF, but have no ANE yet. From who should the J2a individual have gained it's ANE?






> In such a context, it would be unreasonable to label a Hungarian J2a1 as necessarily Indo-European.


Not necessary yes, but allot more speaks for an Indo European, than any other theoretical origin.

The point here is, we having two Bronze Age samples from Hungary and only the J2a sample showing ANE admixture and the arrival of ANE admixture in Hungary beeing connected with the arrival of J2a.

Note I am not claiming that J2a came exclusively with Indo Europeans. There are multiple origins of J2a for sure.
But we will see in future with more samples.

----------


## Tomenable

And soon we will probably have Y-DNA from Bronze Age Poland! Dr Monika Abreu-Głowacka is extracting DNA from this guy:

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktua...siecy-lat.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/search?...max-results=21

They found a Bronze Age warrior in Rogalin near Hrubieszow. Here is facial reconstruction:

----------


## Tomenable

OK, I found more info about this project. *DNA results will be published in April.*

Here is a thread about this:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...MINARY-results

----------


## Yetos

does anybody knows the results of william Parkinson search in Diros cave?

some DNA tests I heard started at 2012, but still I haven't found any summarry.

----------


## epoch

> OK, I found more info about this project. *DNA results will be published in April.*
> 
> Here is a thread about this:
> 
> http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...MINARY-results


Nice. We'll be able to see how it fits then. U5b1, Y-DNA not known yet.

----------


## epoch

> Your point is taken , but the fasinating thing is that, using your map above
> 4 x G2a2a found at Halberstadt and
> 1 x T1a at Jena ( south of Eulau )
> 
> clearly the focus should be ...........why this congregation of people in this area


I vaguely recall that area (Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt) was explicitly sampled because it's at the cross roads of many big trans-European cultures. I recall user FrankN saying something of the likes.

----------


## MOESAN

> I think part of the R1b story is related to copper miners / smiths so they may have had a much larger range as minority artisans along trade routes than they had as full populations.
> 
> In which case if there was any dramatic demographic impact along the Atlantic coast it may have been due to that region's relative under population at the time.
> 
> (Just one of my theories but personally I wonder if part of what we think of as "near eastern" actually comes from central Asia i.e. I wonder if there was a metal age demographic transition there as well.)


I have some doubt about tight links between overall numerous populations and some working corporations, whatever the prestige attached to these last ones (it recall me the amber theories or others) - it's right that metallurgists at these times were very important and if I had to attach some special people to these kind of professional rovering I would think in BBs, sure - but are we sure FIRST BBs were Y-R1b? very possible but not sure, and hard to explain the today R1b domination in whole West - 
that said I thought it was possible R1B took at least two roads into Europe westwards: one South, without too much descendants (South Italy H35) and Valencia, and ONE or TWO other roads: principal: Danube/Donau - second: South Baltic (look at the variance in South Sweden and old SNPs and the clear separation (at first) between P312 and U106... but who knows?

----------


## arvistro

Did some brutal mathematics using the admixture table of modern pop vs Yamnaya in this thread and admixture (WHG, EEF, ANE) from http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...post-your-data

Gives that Yamnaya ~ 33% EEF + 33% WHG + 33% ANE

Math is academically wrong, I simply substracted non-Yamna parts from this thread and checked what is left as Yamna :)

Like this - Lithuania
036 EEF 046 WHG 017 ANE - LIT (earlier topic)
or
20 EEF 30 WHG 50 Yamnaya - LIT (this topic)
Now I substract 
36-20 = 16 EEF (left unexplained by EEF being only 20 in this topic)
46-30 = 16 WHG (-//-)
17-0 = 17 ANE (-//-)
So 16 : 16 : 17 or 1:1:1 relationship

Works charming for Lithuania and Czech Republic, 

but for Estonia and Norway gives different results... Estonian Yamna would eat 22 EEF+ 9 WHG + 18 ANE (estimating EEF twice as much as WHG in Yamna), Norwegian Yamna would eat 6 EEF + 24 WHG + 16 ANE (estimating WHG four times as much as EEF in Yamna). 

So apparently simple calculus does not work, but I still think 1:1:1 proportion might not be far from truth.

----------


## epoch

Wow. How does anyone fit Y-DNA of QLB15D (Quedlinburg, Baalberge Culture, 3645-3537 BC) in this story?




> QLB15D: R*(xR1a1a, R1b1a2a1a)-P224 Quedlinburg, Germany: 3645-3537: Baalberge, MN, :: P1 P230+, R P224+: R1a1a M515-, R1b1a2a1a L151-:



EDIT: Marija Gimbutas considered Baalberge culture a IE culture. This R* may point to that as well. But that would make the "massive migration from the steppe" story even more complicated.

----------


## MOESAN

> Well Maciamo and how can you explain the distribution of R1B if it came from West Asia through Pontic Steppe,in Europe,compared with how R1B is in current day Europe?
> Romans,Germanics,Celts,all bearers of mainly R1B branches were all great warriors,why is no more R1B in Eastern Europe?
> If you look at the distribution of R1B,taking Germanic speaking countries it rather seems that they have came from Northern Europe and spread towards South East Europe,for example in Austria there still is a high percentage of R1B and in the same time the South Eastern border of Germanic speakers .
> I am not saying that R1B people did not came through Pontic Steppes into Europe,I am just finding hard to believe this,considering the current distribution of R1b in Europe.


every culture can have its daybreak and its crepuscule - and at these times (and even later) tribes took through some corridors and did not eliminate or conquire whole territories: very often we see the rivers or the shores used as highways or settlements, and some mountains passes giving way to other rivers and staying near good metallic ores ressources - It seems to me the continental Y-R1b were not so numerous at first and that they took strength between Hungary and Switzerland and around: here it seems their demography brutally encreased - for Y-R1B U106 I'm not sure but we see the Danube corridor leading to Moravia South Poland, and to Bohemia where by mountains passes we get to the Saale and Weser, in a region rich for metals - the Corded I believe they were more Y-R1a took the South Baltic plain, rather - the point of meeting with Y-R1b and northern BBs (R1b or not) about the 2500 I think was this Eastern germany Thuringen-Sax-Anhalt "metallic" region, were was found later the frontier between Celts and Germanics before Germanics took the strong side (confirmation of the beginning of my post): I believe future Germanics took even some lessons from Celts at these times.
I know placing Celts there so early is debated; nevertheless the future gaelic speakers (british BBs?) could very well be gone away from Westfalen-South-
Lower-Saxony - 
that to say Y-R1b maybe did not hold the whole eastern Europe from Baltic to Black Sea, and that even a strong society can be swept off by an other strong one (Rome badly finished) -

----------


## MOESAN

> Give me a break, please: 
> 
>  Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture



_YOu have far more tools in your hands than I've and you made a good job until now - 
At first I was against a R1b assignation for BBs but if we consider some early forms of Y-R1b took the South maritime road (the R1b in North-Africa is an element to think about?) so these southern maritime R1b could have been cousins of more numerous brethren of Central Europe, vanguard prospectors (old theory, but old theories can revive) 
who made a few time later the junction with the "brothers" in Rhine/Rhône knot before colonising lower Rhine???
only a precaution suggestion I don't hold too much on -_

----------


## bicicleur

> Wow. How does anyone fit Y-DNA of QLB15D (Quedlinburg, Baalberge Culture, 3645-3537 BC) in this story?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Marija Gimbutas considered Baalberge culture a IE culture. This R* may point to that as well. But that would make the "massive migration from the steppe" story even more complicated.


tell me, why did Gimbutas consider Baalberge IE ?

----------


## epoch

> tell me, why did Gimbutas consider Baalberge IE ?


You need to google that yourself ;) I just saw it on Wiki. The only thing that struck me is the R* in the middle Neolithic in Germany.

----------


## MOESAN

> copper age Hungarian was very related to early Neolithic Hungarian
> 
> Attachment 7072
> 
> and ötzi 3300 BC was G2a2b-L91
> 
> furthermore Catal Hoyuk knew metallurgy and they were related to early Hungarian Neolithic, but not to Levantine/southeast Anatolian PPNB :
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...uropean-farmer
> ...



_no offense but we cannot rely upon a lonesome man - I believe at these brutal times when metals confere military superiority to their owners the dominant ethny passed a maximum of its Y-DNA to descendants: in Balkans, Y-G is not too dominant nor even non-neglictible, as almost nowhere in Europe except some points in Italy or Austria (maybe in Portugal too) often in mountainous region - I don't speak here of Caucasus - Y-J2 and even Y-E1b have a very heavier role in Balkans as a whole - in Balkans the competitors agairnst Y-J2 are Y-R1a, Y-E1bV13 and Y-R1b, except in montainous western Dinaric Alps - 
tremendous thread all the way!!!_

----------


## epoch

> does anybody knows the results of william Parkinson search in Diros cave?
> 
> some DNA tests I heard started at 2012, but still I haven't found any summarry.


Can you elaborate on that?

----------


## Greying Wanderer

I think R1b = copper and copper working could have started anywhere there were copper deposits and so the assumption that copper working spread from the near east might be wrong.

----------


## MOESAN

> What if L23 split east of Anatolia with 1 branch mostly going north to the steppes, some in Anatolia, and another going through Anatolia to the Balkans, and this latter one eventually turning into L21. That would explain "Anatolian" R1b-Z-whatever being the dominant Y-Dna of Yamna people, and Yamna people having new "Near Eastern" or "Armenian like", not found in hunter gatherers. ANE in Europe was most likely due to spread of R1a people. The percentages across Europe don't matter much, as y-dna is useless when it comes to analysing modern ethnic make up, due to founder effect.One thing is clear though. No matter how R1b spread into Europe, the massive founder effect could only be due to farming, not IE stealing women, or other fairy tales. I1's concentration in the north for example is all down to farming, probably picked up from Hungary, not simply 100% remnants of hunter gatherers.


the chances for strong founder effects diminish with number - concerning "stealing women" I think it existed in a soft form (elite prestige and priority, and polygamy perhaps) but I agree it cannot explain everything, it can have noticeable effects after generations of successive conquests - for Yamnaya, I have not a firm opinion today because Yamanya horizon is large and the Samara sample can abuse us very well - I'm tempted to think that closer Yamanya stellements had more Y-R1a, as you, without any proof it's true - but we know Yamnaya was not homogenous: the more southern parts had surely more descendants from S-Caucasus or from Balkans - the 'armenian theory' concerning kurgans ans steppes (anthropology) admit the 'armenan' traits were not so strong in far settlements - other surveys opposed different regions of the steppes, more or less 'cro-magnoid' (unprecise term) more or less 'southern' or 'armenian' (as unprecise) ...
concerning Y-I adn Y-I1 peculiarly I thin its bearers were dissiminated averyplace in central-northern Europe at first between the agricultors net, and mixed partially with them later -

----------


## MOESAN

> It has been argued that y line I1 brought farming to North Europe as well as blondism. Such combination would never have occurred to me only a year ago. However, I took note that there is still no I1 in ancient finds in Germany and Scandinavia but only in Neolithic Hungary where they had EEF.


_me_ _(and others) are arguing about what is found: easier to find numerous remnants from farmers communauties than from HGs poor open sites - easier to find remnants of a warlike elite than of low class population, before christianity - easier to find remnants in some grounds than in granitic acide grounds and so on ...
don't forget it's found some Y-I1 and Y-I2a2 in Northern Russia too - it's not the first time than archeologists notice a so called "return" of older populations thought to have been eliminated; sometimes it's only the result of less "visibility" (I think here in the HGs)... we need more and more ancient DNA FROM DIFFERENT SITES - what shall we say if a survey would publish states about a today 5 or even 20 persons of a same region???_

----------


## MOESAN

> And soon we will probably have Y-DNA from Bronze Age Poland! Dr Monika Abreu-Głowacka is extracting DNA from this guy:
> 
> http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktua...siecy-lat.html
> 
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com/search?...max-results=21
> 
> They found a Bronze Age warrior in Rogalin near Hrubieszow. Here is facial reconstruction:


trahison!! LOL - 
in the reconstitution I saw first, the above profile, i was abused by the "dress" of the skull: I would be glad to see the nude skull from profiel (lateral view) -
from face, it seems far less ' eurafrican' than I found - I think the nose root is to flat and to high, just under glabella, compared to skull (but I need the profiel, again) -
as this, from face, the skull evocate some 'cro-magnoid' gracilized heritage, on the way to a kind of 'eurafrican' (the true nose root here can be of worth) , something finally not to far from the 'long barrows' of Coon (I supposed to be a mix of 'eurafrican' from around Mesopotamia and 'cromagnoids' descendants of Atlantic) - 
but I don't affirm a long-barrow filiation here, because same crossings from same parent races give the same results...
for now, my post is still "litterature", not science...

----------


## MOESAN

some disgression I've not red all post nor the complete study (some runs are too small for i can read them with my poor eyes)

I saw some of the tables and thoughtsof some of ours - 
what puzzles me is the differences ofinterpretations according to definition of autosomes groups(poolings) ; ancient and current - 
I never had the certitude to have wellunderstood the way 'components' are made by scientists and lobbyists– my first thought was they were tracking among today populationsthe portions of DNA which were typical (by denser presence thanelsewhere) to local population : a first step on a half blindempiric way to understand the between populations links – thereliability of this method is uncertain but I see no toher way tobegin with – I don't know if the scientists can track thegenealogic chain of genes at a so big scale (hundreds of thousands ofautosomal genes), which could be a very valuable way, as they do forsome haplogroups – I ever found a book explaining all thesepoolings - 
in some studies they took an ancientpopulation as an unique « pure » component, what enablesus to see the DNA shared by between this old population and todaypopulations but the anteriority of the ancient population push us tobelieve this ancient source was homogenous, what is not proven - 
&: if we find a certain % of say,'gedrosia' in an ancient population (more tha a man!) , I'm not sureit's a complete « panoramic » 'gedrosia' we find in a% of the ancient population members, but rather a certain % ofthe 'gedrosia' genes kit, common to the old and the currentpopulations – the other 'gedrosia' DNA, found in the current oneand not in the ancient one, can be : 1) mutated genes which werepresent among the ancient population / 2) new genes incorporated bycrossings with (an) other population(s) of other roots, « new »genes that became geographically « typical » to thecurrent 'gedrosia' component, by proportional and geographical moreor less recent concentration - 
The way people assign a DNA portion toan « initial » population then considered as 'basiccomponent' changes completely the result of the diverse componentsdistribution – we saw that with the Neolithic 'Stuttgart' taken bysomeones as pure 'neolithic' EEF when it appeared further that hecould have some WHG DNA in him, according to method and criteria,arbitrary choice finally - 
so we see a go-and-return between theconcept of 'population' and the concept of 'component', some supposed'basic populations' taken entirely as 'component' ? (I'm notsure of what I understood, by lack of pedagogy, so i take a taste ofdrink) - 
*in the work about Yamnaya*
« Early Neolithic » (LBK_EN) : component with surelysome taste of WHG ?
« Western European Hunter-Gatherer » (Loschbour)  :Poh: ure WHG ?
« Yamnaya » : ??? mystery ! It is basal inthe survey, but composed if i red well elsewhere by almost 50%EHG/WHG (?) and almost 50% of mixture ANE-Eastern Neolithic ? (Iavow I'm drown under all these changing namings) called« Armenian » by someones...

 I found as you some apparent discrepancies or surprises :
modern : Orcadians and even Norwegians more LBK-EN than Scottish– Greeks neatly less Yamnaya than Bulgarian and less LBK-EN thanSpanish – Spanish without any WHG – Ukrainian less Yamnaya thanHungarian and Czech and than almost ALL Northern Europe - 
past : Karsdorf shows very little of LBK-EN and a lot ofYamnaya, with some WHG : surprising for a Neolithic site (lateit's true) : but the dates are of weight here :« neolithic » could be replaced by « chalcolithic » ?- funny to see almost NO WHG in Halberstadt, Alberstedt, Benzigerodein a same region - 
soI wonder if the part of WHG present among Yamnaya population (here :Samara in fact) has not been labelled « Yamanya »component _ina kind of try to increase the weight of Yamnaya people in Europeanpopulations : a bias, volontary or not ??? -_sorry for my naïveté,I lack clear explanations about poolings... because I find hard tofind very more 'yamanya' among northern Europeans than among easternEuropeans, spite the fact that Yamnaya ought to have more 'westernasian' or a bit more 'ANE' among them (as today easterners) than havenorthern Europeans ?
So the borders between poolings old and new are moving and a bitconfusing, I think -






Zoffmann found in her work about the Carpathian Basin that the AlföldALP culture members had strong 'protonordic cro-magnoid' influencesbefore they became gracilized by the precedent people of theKörös-Cris culture of 'mediterranian' type ('danubian' of Coon?),the result becoming the « autochtonous » population ofCentral-Europe – these new element there were not by force camefrom to far eastern places, they could have been mounts HGs (Y-I2?)acculturated to farming – but later, Zoffmann sees the arrival of'cro-magnoid' types in Tiszapolgàr culture, she links to eastern PitGrave people before the constated archeologic changes inCarpathians : so for her, infiltrations ; they wereabsorbed for the most after – in fact some authors speak of a« carpatho-ukrainian » culture close to Tiszapolgar andin contact with Copper cultures of N-Black Sea ! - otherspopulations moves seem having occurred acccording to metricanthropology : in middle-late Copper Age, Baden, Cotofeni,Kostolac show all (as constated by archeology) the arrival of newpopulations, physically of evident south-southeastern features, ofmix economy – here we deal with an opposition of new types, notalready to deeply mixed, as we could expect at these times if comingfrom the Tripolje area, if the surveys conclusions are right :'cro-magnoid' on one side, roughly said 'southern' or 'mediterranian'(broad sense) on the other – all the way, new people andmoves at the artoculation Copper/Bronze Age !!! - 
more northernly concerning the 2800/2500 BC, Coon had developped hisviews concerning Corded people, the most exemplar being those of EastGermany (less mixture with 'dinaroids' and gracile 'danubians' thanin South Ukraina) : he gave them a « type » :leptodolichomorphic, very high skulled, large long faced, very talland long legged (or longiligne, what is not exactly the same) withstron jaws and chin – I have a skull picture at hand from Yamnayahorizon (helas the palce is not given) which could roughlycorrespond : all the way nothing of little or robust'mediterranian', even 'irano-afghan' : my thoughts (still) :the types are for the most typical 'nordics' (not archaic at all),maybe the first ones in Western Europe, mixed with some other strongdolichos = a good bit of 'brünn' descendants (brutal features,compressed temporals, ruggish long faces with broad cheekbones) witha taste of some kind of 'eurafrican', it's to say something presentamong 'irano-afghan' and 'cappadocian' means... (more fronto-nasalprofile, but some ressemblances, perhaps by common descent at somepoint???) -

----------


## Alan

@Maciamo

When I look at this map of L-23
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...up-R1b-L23.gif

And compare it to this one of total R1b
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/conten...1b-borders.png

And when I compare them to Kurdish data, I think the gab of L23 vs R1b total in the heartland of Kurdistan is to huge.

In any data about Kurds I see most [~65%) of downstream tested R1b being actually l23

see here.




> *2x R1b-M343* (Kurdish village Dogukoy*/Central Anatolia in Gokcumen et al., 2011)
> *1x* *R1b-M343* (Iranian Kurds in Grugni et al., 2012)
> *13x R1b-M343* (Iraqi Kurds in Stenersen et al., 2004; based on Athey's Haplogroup predictor) 
> *1x R1b1a2*-M269* (Kurmanji from Zakho/Iraq)
> *2x R1b1a2a-L23/L49* (Zaza from Turkey)
> *1x R1b1a2a-L23/L49* (Zaza from Lebanon, originally from Dersim)
> *1x R1b1a2a-L23/L49* (Kurd from Dersim) 
> *1x R1b1a2a-L23/L49* (Zaza from Dersim)
> *1x R1b1a2a-L23/L49* (Zaza from Dersim)
> ...


http://kurdishdna.blogspot.de/search...-paginate=true

Or here 23andMe




> *R1b1b2* (M269)* - Zaxo, Kurmanji
> *R1b1b2a (L23)* - Dêrsim, Kurmanji
> *R1b1b2a (L23)* - Dêrsim, Kurmanji 
> *R1b1b2a (L23)* - Dêrsim, Zaza
> *R1b1b2a1a (L11)* - Dêrsim, Zaza


http://corduene.blogspot.de/2014/04/...ogroups_1.html

The reason why all 13 R1b samples in the Stenersen et al study from 2004 turned out as m343 is because there wasn't any downstream test and it is based on Athey's Haplogroup predictor. No doubt that a good chunk of R1b belong other branches such as M343 or M269 but most individual samples with downstream test turned out as l23 with only 1/3 being M343/M269/L11

The trend seems more like 3/5 of samples belong to L23 and 2/5 of samples belong to m343/M269 + some minor lineages.

----------


## Tomenable

*Fig. 2: Distribution of mitochondrial lineages in the Altai region. 
Green: lineages today mainly found in modern Europe; blue: lineages today mainly found in modern East Asia:*

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/...eChartsWeb.png



*From:* http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/...ntralAsia.html




> *(2) Sub-project “Steppe Nomads” (Martina Unterländer)*
> 
> This study addresses the population dynamics in the Eurasian steppe during the Iron Age. It is carried out in collaboration with H. Parzinger (Director Preußischer Kulturbesitz), A. Nagler (German Archaeological Institute, Berlin), Z. Samachev (Margulan Institut für Archäologie, Akademie der Wissenschaft Kazakhstan, Almaty) and V.I. Molodin (Sibirisches Institut für Archäologie und Ethnographie, Akademgorodok, Russia). Beginning with the 9th century BC, there is evidence for clans of horse nomads from the Altai in the East to as far as North of the Black Sea. Because of the astounding uniformity of their material culture, life style and death rituals, they are often summarised under the term Scythians. The name ‘Scythian’ derives from a people mentioned in Herodotus’ Histories that populated the area north of the Black Sea in the 7th century BC. Their only material legacy is found in the form of kurgans, the impressive burial mounds of the Scythian elite.* The earliest archaeological evidence of this culture stems from the region of Tuva, with the kurgan Arzan 1 dating to the 9th century BC. Until the 2nd century BC there are a number of populations in the area of the Eurasian steppe belt which can be assigned to that Scythian culture.*
> 
> Together with our partners, we want to answer whether the obvious cultural homogeneity of these groups points to a common origin or rather to the phenomenon of acculturation. The intention is to understand the ethnogenesis and the population historical connections of these groups called Scythians.
> 
> *Our data show highly diverse maternal lineages whose composition changes over time within the different populations. At the outset of the 1st century BC the examined populations of the Altai region show a relatively high number of lineages which today are found predominantly in Europe. Over time a change takes place which is reflected in an increased number of maternal lineages predominantly found today in East Asia.*

----------


## Angela

> there are many places where no anciant DNA has been tested yet, that is true
> as far as I know, uptill now, the only J2a was the Hungarian BR2 : http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/14...ms6257_T1.html
> acording to Genetiker J2a-M67 , this clade has 2 centers of highest diversity : the Levant and the Caucasus
> Kyjatice Culture : they were horseriding nomads , +/- 1200 BC
> They probably came from the Caucasus
> 
> there is also J2a-M319 which could be the Minoans
> then there is *J2a1-L24* and subclades, of which I know nothing


I don't know if this Wiki entry is current, or what the FTDNA projects show, but going by this, a steppe origin near the north Caucasus would make sense wouldn't it?

J-M67 (Called J2f in older papers) has its highest frequencies associated with Nakh peoples. Found at very high (majority) frequencies among Ingush in Malgobek (87.4%), Chechens in Dagestan (58%), Chechens in Chechnya (56.8%) and Chechens in Malgobek, Ingushetia (50.9%) (Balanovsky 2011). In the Caucasus, it is found at significant frequencies among Georgians (13.3%) (Semino 2004), Iron Ossetes (11.3%), South Caucasian Balkars (6.3%) (Semino 2004), Digor Ossetes (5.5%), Abkhaz (6.9%), and Cherkess (5.6%) (Balanovsky 2011). It is also found at notable frequencies in the Mediterranean and Middle East, including Cretans (10.2%), North-central Italians (9.6%), Southern Italians (4.2%; only 0.8% among N. Italians), Anatolian Turks (2.7-5.4%), Greeks (4-4.3%), Albanians (3.6%), Ashkenazi Jews (4.9%), Sephardis (2.4%), Catalans (3.9%), Andalusians (3.2%), Calabrians (3.3%), Albanian Calabrians (8.9%) (see Di Giacomo 2004 and Semino 2004).

----------


## Angela

> I think R1b = copper and copper working could have started anywhere there were copper deposits and so the assumption that copper working spread from the near east might be wrong.


What paper(s) dealing with metallurgy lead you to that conclusion?

----------


## Tomenable

Check pages 26 and last posts on 25 here:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...-Europe/page26

It seems that Samara R1b hunter-gatherer was autosomally EHG (EHG being a mixture of 60% WHG and 40% ANE).

Karelian R1a hunter-gatherer was also autosomally EHG. Both were similar autosomally, despite one being R1b and the other one R1a.

But the later Late Copper-Early Bronze Age Yamnaya guys from Samara were autosomally distinct - with "Armenian-like" Near Eastern admixture.

So - question is - what haplogroup(s) did those "Armenians" bring, given that both R1b and R1a were native to EHGs prior to their arrival ??? It seems that Indo-Europeans emerged when R1a hunters (who either went southward to the steppe or were native to the steppe) and R1b hunters (native to the steppe) mixed with "Armenians" (who - as it seems - were 80% "Near Eastern" + 15% ANE + 5% "minor components" autosomally).

But who were those Armenian-like immigrants, and what were their hg-s? It could be R1a and / or R1b (maybe different clades than those of Karelia-Samara hunters), but could be something else. We need more samples of Y-DNA from Yamnaya, and from more sites - not just one.

----------


## Tomenable

> "Armenians" (who - as it seems - were 80% "Near Eastern" + 15% ANE + 5% "minor components" autosomally).



Or, actually a different DNA than that of Neolithic farmers:

_"Well they apparently weren't like the Near Easterners that brought farming to Europe, and they apparently had Caucasus and Gedrosia like autosomal ancestry."
_
But what Y-DNA and what mtDNA could they bring?

----------


## Alan

> Anyway, they sort of had to develop Yamnaya autosomal package/admixture to see how this package correlates with the rest of Europe. At quick glance their Yamnaya admixture is 40-40-10 ANE-WHG-EEF respectively.



More like 30/30/40 ANE/WHG/EEF

According to the paper the Karelians were 60% WHG and 40% ANE. The Near Eastern portion of Yamna was also ANE rich.

If we now half the 60% WHG we get 30. And since we know the Near Eastern portion was also ANE rich, and they called them "Armenian like" (who have 15% ANE), we can assume 30% WHG also. And the rest was most likely ENF.

Otherwise they couldn't be closest to Mordovians and Lezgins who both have significant percentage of ENF (Lezgins more and Mordovians less).

----------


## arvistro

> More like 30/30/40 ANE/WHG/EEF


I like ~1:1:1 proportion that comes out in most cases if you look at what ANE/WHG/EEF says for modern folk and what Yamna/WHG/EEF says for modern folk in this topic (So, all ANE + WHG/EEF that got eaten by Yamna component).
I like it because of its symbolic value - three different currents met to develop major river.

----------


## LeBrok

> More like 30/30/40 ANE/WHG/EEF
> 
> According to the paper the Karelians were 60% WHG and 40% ANE. The Near Eastern portion of Yamna was also ANE rich.
> 
> If we now half the 60% WHG we get 30. And since we know the Near Eastern portion was also ANE rich, and they called them "Armenian like" (who have 15% ANE), we can assume 30% WHG also. And the rest was most likely ENF.
> 
> Otherwise they couldn't be closest to Mordovians and Lezgins who both have significant percentage of ENF (Lezgins more and Mordovians less).


I didn't have time to touch the paper today, so I'm not sure if I should open my mouth. Can you explain the K16 run. It shows Yamnaya guys with only grey and blue, about 50/50. Is the grey ANE? Blue is WHG though. 
Anyway these Yamnaya folks are not farmers, they have no ENF. They look like pure HGs.

----------


## LeBrok

> *Fig. 2: Distribution of mitochondrial lineages in the Altai region. 
> Green: lineages today mainly found in modern Europe; blue: lineages today mainly found in modern East Asia:*
> 
> http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/...eChartsWeb.png
> 
> *From:* http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/...ntralAsia.html


Interesting turnover after 7th century BC. Interestingly things didn't change much from 4th century BC till now. Even with such dominance of Russians over the region of last 300 years and million of east Europeans sent to Siberia.

----------


## Sile

> By the way:
> 
> 
> 
> So we have Balto-Slavic Y-DNA in Lusatian Culture:
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...1a_Y-DNA.shtml
> 
> 
> ...



you also have 5 much older samples in the same spot , they range from 5300 to 5050 , they are all G2a and one T1a . What would that mean if they are far far older?

----------


## Sile

> Dude there is no Thracian male lines tested, for the last time it is MT DNA


Pal, when they test ancients they do not get every SNP. They make a sound call with what they find.
now, the Thracian known as K8 ( the royal one from crimea ) had contaminated DNA and his test was ruled out.

the other thracian 192-1 was shown to have SNP 's for ydna H1b1 and also was found his mtdna which is U3b


don't rule out all 4 thracian samples because one was found contaminated

----------


## bicicleur

> Check pages 26 and last posts on 25 here:
> 
> http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...-Europe/page26
> 
> It seems that Samara R1b hunter-gatherer was autosomally EHG (EHG being a mixture of 60% WHG and 40% ANE).
> 
> Karelian R1a hunter-gatherer was also autosomally EHG. Both were similar autosomally, despite one being R1b and the other one R1a.
> 
> But the later Late Copper-Early Bronze Age Yamnaya guys from Samara were autosomally distinct - with "Armenian-like" Near Eastern admixture.
> ...


I don't think Yamnaya brought Armenian-like admixture to the steppe.
Armenians arrived 1200 BC and have quite someR1b-L23
Maybe Armenians have Yamnaya-like admixture

Haplogroup-R1b-L23.jpg

----------


## Maciamo

> @Maciamo
> 
> When I look at this map of L-23
> http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...up-R1b-L23.gif
> 
> And compare it to this one of total R1b
> http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/conten...1b-borders.png
> 
> And when I compare them to Kurdish data, I think the gab of L23 vs R1b total in the heartland of Kurdistan is *far* to huge.
> ...


You are right. Most Kurdish R1b are probably L23+ and Z2103+.

----------


## Angela

> I didn't have time to touch the paper today, so I'm not sure if I should open my mouth. Can you explain the K16 run. It shows Yamnaya guys with only grey and blue, about 50/50. Is the grey ANE? Blue is WHG though. 
> Anyway these Yamnaya folks are not farmers, they have no ENF. They look like pure HGs.


The grey is "Near Eastern", it seems to me. Look at the PCA above it. The grey dots to the right are the Near East. The Karelia and ancient Samara HGs are all the way to the left. The "Yamnaya" samples (by which they mean the later samples from that area) are in the middle.

Neither the R1a1 Karelia sample nor the R1b1 Yamnaya sample are farmers, neither one of them have any ENF, and neither one of them are anything like modern Europeans. The R1b1 man is not even very much like the R1b downstream men buried in the same vicinity. *We are not our ancient ancestors, and we are particularly not our "y" line or "mt" dna line ancestors.*

Furthermore, if you compare the Karelia man with the Samara hunter gatherer you'll also see that they are the same autosomally. Not for you, but for others who may read this post, I'll repeat it...*The R1b1 Samara man and the R1a1 Karelia man are almost the same autosomally.

*So far as I can see, the purpose and thrust of the paper was to determine if genetic proof existed for a movement from the steppe area into Europe that changed the autosomal signature of Europeans, and to try to document the magnitude of that change. 

They found evidence that it did happen, and that the change was substantial, substantial enough that some northern Europeans are autosomally 50% descended from this steppe group.

They did not, and, given the samples they had, they _could not_ document every nuance of these migrations, and pin specific clades of specific y dna R1a or R1b to specific migrations. Indeed, given the limited geographical range of the samples, they can't even say whether or not other y dna lineages are involved. 

It doesn't matter to the broad findings, because, as I stated above, the hunter gatherer lineages in the area, R1a and R1b, were almost the same autosomally, and although I think Corded Ware may have picked up more "pure" EHG as it traveled, which is why they were careful to say it was a population "related to" Yamnaya, I think we will see that the Yamnaya people will all have this mystery "Near Eastern" component, because we can see its presence in all areas of Europe. 

I think this excerpt from the paper is very important in this regard:
"Thus, it appears that before ~4,500 years ago, the frequency of R1a and R1b in Europe outside Russia was very low, and it rose in the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age period. The young, star-like phylogenies of these two haplogroups24 also suggest relatively recent expansions. The ubiquity of these haplogroups in Russia, Siberia, and Central Asia suggest that their rise in Europe was likely to have been due to a migration from the east, *although more work is needed to trace these migrations and also to correlate them with regions of the world that have not yet been studied with ancient DNA (such as southern Europe, the Caucasus, the Near East, Iran, and Central and South Asia)*. Nonetheless, the Y-chromosome results suggest the same east-to-west migration as our analysis of autosomal DNA."

Given all of this, the internecine warfare on the net from some enthusiasts for their own particular y lineage (what about all the other y lines from which they no doubt descend?) as to who can most claim the *glory*(their value systems, not mine) of bringing these changes to Europe is both irritating and depressing.

*Both* R1b and R1a were originally EHG's. *Both* of them are on the steppe. *Both* of them have a massive presence in Europe. For good or ill both of them were involved in whatever happened. 

The details will come later. As for the L23 found in Yamnaya, it is *not* just West Asian in its

distribution. It is also found in significant numbers in southern Italy (Calabria, for one), Greece, the Balkans, and into eastern Europe in general and Russia in particular. This kind of commentary is the type of impulsive, careless, reductionist thinking that so mars discussions of population genetics on the web.

It's true that the L51 lineages of more central and western Europe, including the dominant U-152 of my own area, do not descend from this particular small group. However, somewhere in Yamnaya or in adjacent areas of Europe we will undoubtedly find the trail. To pretend that the lack of L51 in this particular small group means that R1b is not responsible for bringing steppe ancestry to Europe is nonsense*,* in my opinion.

Likewise, as has been pointed out in posts at Anthrogenica, the only way that the lone upstream R1b1 Neolithic farmer in Spain could be the ancestor of all the L51 lineages in central and western Europe is if the same exact sequence of mutations happened to two basal R1bs from opposite ends of Europe. This is *highly* unlikely to have happened, to put it mildly. The only other possibility is that a basal R1b man from inland, isolated Russia managed to join up with the G2a men, caught one of the Neolithic boats to Spain (becoming a 100% "farmer" genetically along the way) ,and then his extremely close descendent reversed the journey along the Mediterranean, and then hiked his way inland to rejoin his long lost cousins and participate in the genesis of the Yamnaya culture and the subsequent movement into Europe. Oh, and all of this had to be accomplished in a very short time frame. These people must have had an imbedded GPS system.

I think we can toss these scenarios and concentrate on more important things.

Ed. LeBrok, the emphatic "tone" is not directed at you, of course. It's just that your question was a good vehicle to address some of these things.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I didn't have time to touch the paper today, so I'm not sure if I should open my mouth. Can you explain the K16 run. It shows Yamnaya guys with only grey and blue, about 50/50. Is the grey ANE? Blue is WHG though. 
> Anyway these Yamnaya folks are not farmers, they have no ENF. They look like pure HGs.


Very good observation, IMO. That could explain why WHG seems to be under-represented in some populations (such as Norwegian) that are shown as having a lot of Yamnaya. But that and details about how and when the Armenian population formed suggests that we need to forget about the idea of G2 or J2 reaching Europe from the Caucasus via Yamnaya. Which makes the persistence of high levels of EEF all the more puzzling in some cases.

----------


## Aberdeen

I do find it interesting that over 7000 years ago, R1b was already spread from Samara to the Pyrenees and that over 4000 years ago R1b P312/S116 had already reached Germany. If we think on this, and the fact that R1b distribution is generally strongest the closest one gets to the sea, I think we can conclude that there was in fact already a sea change in the DNA makeup of Europe 4500 years ago but it didn't necessarily all come sweeping out of the steppes on horseback. I would like to see some BB Y DNA samples from some place other than Germany But of course we need to also keep in mind subsequent population changes if we want to fully understand the DNA structure of modern Europeans. IE languages didn't take over many parts of Europe until the historic period, and that must be a factor in how much Yamnaya is in modern populations. And some modern countries, such as Greece, look more Middle Eastern than Yamnaya in DNA content. That needs to be explained.

----------


## Alan

> I didn't have time to touch the paper today, so I'm not sure if I should open my mouth. Can you explain the K16 run. It shows Yamnaya guys with only grey and blue, about 50/50. Is the grey ANE? Blue is WHG though. 
> Anyway these Yamnaya folks are not farmers, they have no ENF. They look like pure HGs.


No there is no ENF in this chart to begin with :)

It is EEF. And we all know EEF was uncommon among Yamna and their pastoralist(farmer) DNA was more of "West Asian" type. EEF is also rarer among modern West Asians (except some Levantines), because it is ENF + ~20% WHG.

This is why Reich said the "Near Eastern pastoralist DNA from the Near East differs from that we already know from Europe, with having more affinities to Caucasus and South Asia". This Basically indiciates Caucasus_Gedrosia. This is why the Yamna individual shows no ENF. They used "Yamna" as a native component which in itself contains allot of ENF (The sort of ENF you would find in northern West Asia as part of the "Caucasus_Gedrosia" component). It seems Bronze Age was the time when "Caucasus_Gedrosia" was given birth for the first time. When ENF mixed with incoming ANE. Everything speaks for that because Reich also said the Near Eastern portion was also ANE rich. Which total indiciates Caucasus_Gedrosia (especially Gedrosia). 

The same reason why WHG (blue) seems absent in Tucans- But we all know Tuscans have WHG. This is because almost all of their WHG was brought post Neolithic. It simply gets eaten up by the "Yamna component".

This is why Reich said in some of his earlier speeches. That there was a time when almost all WHG completely died out in late Neolithic and suddenly turned up to become stronger during Bronze Age again. What he was implying was that Yamna gave WHG new live in Europe. If it wasn't for Yamna, the WHG in Europe would only be half of what it is nowadays.

So we have to be cautios here. EEF is a specific type of farmer DNA which has evolved either somewhere on the Balkans or in the Near East during the Neolithic but later "died out" or was replaced to "West Asian" by admixing with ANE.

----------


## Sile

> No there is no ENF in this chart to begin with :)
> 
> It is EEF. And we all know EEF was uncommon among Yamna and their pastoralist(farmer) DNA was more of "West Asian" type. EEF is also rarer among modern West Asians (expect some Levantines), because it is ENF + ~20% WHG.
> 
> This is why Reich said the "Near Eastern pastoralist DNA from the Near East differs from that we already know from Europe, with having more affinities to Caucasus and South Asia". This Basically indiciates Caucasus_Gedrosia. This is why the Yamna individual shows no ENF. They used "Yamna" as a native component which in itself contains allot of ENF (The sort of ENF you would find in northern West Asia as part of the "Caucasus_Gedrosia" component). It seems Bronze Age was the time when "Caucasus_Gedrosia" was given birth for the first time. When ENF mixed with incoming ANE. Everything speaks for that because Reich also said the Near Eastern portion was also ANE rich. Which total indiciates Caucasus_Gedrosia (especially Gedrosia). 
> 
> The same reason why WHG (blue) seems absent in Tucans- But we all know Tuscans have WHG. This is because almost all of their WHG was brought post Neolithic. It simply gets eaten up by the "Yamna component".
> 
> This is why Reich said in some of his earlier speeches. That there was a time when almost all WHG completely died out in late Neolithic and suddenly turned up to become stronger during Bronze Age again. What he was implying was that Yamna gave WHG new live in Europe. If it wasn't for Yamna, the WHG in Europe would only be half of what it is nowadays.
> ...


your mixing up the data from pages 23 and 25
page 23 has modern and ancient charts. The page 25 refers to the ancient chart on page 23

It states the LBK_EN for all these indviduals are aged over 5000 years old but all are 100% EN and all in central Germany

also note these 4 G2a2 men from central germany are all the same age as oetzi

I never saw any mention that these G2a2a and T1a people in central Germany with 100% EN came from anywhere except yamnya to germany via hungaria

----------


## Alan

> I don't think Yamnaya brought Armenian-like admixture to the steppe.
> Armenians arrived 1200 BC and have quite someR1b-L23
> Maybe Armenians have Yamnaya-like admixture
> 
> Attachment 7073


the reason why Reich used the notion "Armenian like" is because 
Armenians speak a Indo European language, and he wanted to indicate that their is a high possibility that the Indo European language was brought to Yamna actually from there.

From what I heard from other Users, there are other groups as well fitting as Armenians. This is why they used "Armenian like". Undoubtley half of Armenian ancestry probably came with the Phrygians.

This "Armenian like" population which contributed to Yamna must have been a nowadays died out population who have contributed into the ethnogenesis of Armenians, as well others of the region.

----------


## Alan

> your mixing up the data from pages 23 and 25
> page 23 has modern and ancient charts. The page 25 refers to the ancient chart on page 23



I am using figure 3. Which has a "Yamna component" to show how much of their ancestry Europeans inherited from Yamna. In this figure they use EEF, WHG and Yamna. EEF is a specific type of farmer DNA which is nowadays less common in Western Asia and not equivalent to ENF.
http://s1133.photobucket.com/user/je...c99b9.jpg.html

----------


## Sile

> I am using figure 3. Which has a "Yamna component" to show how much of their ancestry Europeans inherited from Yamna. In this figure they use EEF, WHG and Yamna. EEF is a specific type of farmer DNA which is nowadays less common in Western Asia and not equivalent to ENF.
> http://s1133.photobucket.com/user/je...c99b9.jpg.html


yes I too am using figure 3, but the bottom part which states ancient


look at page 25...pop label for analysis .............this is used for the ancient part of the figure 3 ancients

----------


## Aberdeen

I definitely think there's a danger that a lot of people will get confused about the difference between:

(a) the question of where the Indo-European language may have originated from;

(b) the original spread of R1a and R1b around Europe by BB and CW people; and

(c) the arrival of the Bronze Age cultural package in Europe.

I think it's helpful to remember that those things are related but they are not the same things. And we have no proof that BB or CW spoke IE languages.

----------


## Yaan

> Pal, when they test ancients they do not get every SNP. They make a sound call with what they find.
> now, the Thracian known as K8 ( the royal one from crimea ) had contaminated DNA and his test was ruled out.
> 
> the other thracian 192-1 was shown to have SNP 's for ydna H1b1 and also was found his mtdna which is U3b
> 
> 
> don't rule out all 4 thracian samples because one was found contaminated


Once again, there is not a ancient Y DNA from the Balkans, not a single, and H was never in Europe, before 16th century, so pls stop with this

----------


## bicicleur

> I definitely think there's a danger that a lot of people will get confused about the difference between:
> 
> (a) the question of where the Indo-European language may have originated from;
> 
> (b) the original spread of R1a and R1b around Europe by BB and CW people; and
> 
> (c) the arrival of the Bronze Age cultural package in Europe.
> 
> I think it's helpful to remember that those things are related but they are not the same things. And we have no proof that BB or CW spoke IE languages.


they are not the same but they are connected
I have little doubt that the clades downsrtream of R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 spoke IE
that includes BB and CW people
the difference between BB and CW is that CW came en masse, so they were the majority when they arrived and imposed their language
first BB may have arrived in small groups, and I guess they learned to speak the language of their hosts

----------


## Sile

> Once again, there is not a ancient Y DNA from the Balkans, not a single, and H was never in Europe, before 16th century, so pls stop with this


I do not know what your agenda is but the paper also confirms a ydna H




*I0110174 (Starcevo_EN) 
*
*This individual was assigned to haplogroup H2 (L281:8353840T→G). Upstream haplogroup F was also supported (P142:7218079G→A, P145:8424089G→A, P138:14199284T→C,P316:16839641A→T, P14:17398598C→T, P159:18097251C→A). An individual bearing mutation P96 which also defines Haplogroup H2 was found in the Netherlands ; while haplogroup H is rare inpresent-day Europeans, its discovery in I0174 suggests that it was present in Neolithic Europe


mtdna of this individual is N1a1a1b

his age is between 5710 - 5550 years
*

----------


## Yaan

> I do not know what your agenda is but the paper also confirms a ydna H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I0110174 (Starcevo_EN) 
> *
> *This individual was assigned to haplogroup H2 (L281:8353840T→G). Upstream haplogroup F was also supported (P142:7218079G→A, P145:8424089G→A, P138:14199284T→C,P316:16839641A→T, P14:17398598C→T, P159:18097251C→A). An individual bearing mutation P96 which also defines Haplogroup H2 was found in the Netherlands ; while haplogroup H is rare inpresent-day Europeans, its discovery in I0174 suggests that it was present in Neolithic Europe
> 
> ...


No I do not know what ur agenda is but there is not a single Y DNA from the Balkans and there is not a single H Y DNA tested.

----------


## Yetos

> No I do not know what ur agenda is but there is not a single Y DNA from the Balkans and there is not a single H Y DNA tested.


there is 1 in Thracian

----------


## Sile

> No I do not know what ur agenda is but there is not a single Y DNA from the Balkans and there is not a single H Y DNA tested.


Argue with the people who wrote the Haak paper about *your agenda that H ydna is not in europe until the date you claim*

----------


## sparkey

> No I do not know what ur agenda is but there is not a single Y DNA from the Balkans and there is not a single H Y DNA tested.


To be clear, the H2 Starcevo sample that Sile is referring to was from Hungary, not the Balkans.

There have also been samples from earlier studies, mostly LBK and mostly from Germany, that were reported as F* but did not test P96, making H2 a very likely possibility for them as well. But again, nothing from the Balkans.

----------


## Yaan

> Argue with the people who wrote the Haak paper about *your agenda that H ydna is not in europe until the date you claim*



No there is not, I do not care if ancient Thracian were A, the fact is that they are not tested!, I do not want to argue with u, u seem really nice guy, just there is not a single Y DNA from Ancient Balkans, not a single one, and there is not a single ancient human tested for Y DNA H, as for when H entered we can discuss ofc, but there is not data from Balkans!! 

So when there is data from Balkans I will be more then happy to discuss it with knowledge guy like u, u seem to know a lot , up to then I leave u guys to discuss the R1b, for me it just proves when we already knew that it comes from Anatolia :)

----------


## Yaan

> To be clear, the H2 Starcevo sample that Sile is referring to was from Hungary, not the Balkans.
> 
> There have also been samples from earlier studies, mostly LBK and mostly from Germany, that were reported as F* but did not test P96, making H2 a very likely possibility for them as well. But again, nothing from the Balkans.


Well, this is something totally different, but Hungary is not Balkans, there are no Thrachians there and F* is not H. :)

----------


## Sile

> To be clear, the H2 Starcevo sample that Sile is referring to was from Hungary, not the Balkans.
> 
> There have also been samples from earlier studies, mostly LBK and mostly from Germany, that were reported as F* but did not test P96, making H2 a very likely possibility for them as well. But again, nothing from the Balkans.


his post #206 stated...no H in europe befor ethe 16th century

----------


## Alan

I think he is being "Gypsophobic" but let me help abit against his H* phobia. The H found in the Thracian and Neolithic European samples is H2(former known H1b) while Roma H is H1a?. There was also a Syrian neolithic? sample who turned out as H. So this can't be coincidence. 

H was definitely part of the neolithic movement.

----------


## Alan

I even started to think for long time now. Is it possible that it was some of Haplogroup H who brought farming to India?

----------


## Robert6

Is there any link for Thracian H2 (old F3, new H1b) ????
Where can I read about this?
Also H2 (old F3, new H1b) in Neolithic Syria?

----------


## Finalise

I can't believe Reich all of a sudden revamped the entire WHG component. A few months ago, there were discussions of how Europeans have this deep ancestry from Loschbur related WHG, and all of a sudden now it's only 10% or so, and Yamna-EHG is the new component.I have a feeling that the "Yamna" component will be taken apart and divided again.

----------


## Robert6

> Well, this is something totally different, but Hungary is not Balkans, there are no Thrachians there and F* is not H. :)


*Yaan*
the H2 (old *F3*, new H1b) is European + West Asian haplogroup
the H1 (old *H*, new H1a) is Indian and Roma haplogroup

----------


## bicicleur

> I even started to think for long time now. Is it possible that it was some of Haplogroup H who brought farming to India?


H is paleolithic in India
H started to split very early , more than 40.000 years ago , and all subclades are present in India
so it is very unlikely that H brougth farming to India
it is very likely tough that once farming was introduced in the Indus valley, subclades of H helped to spread farming further south
the people who spread farming further south were the Dravidians

----------


## Alan

> H is paleolithic in India
> H started to split very early , more than 40.000 years ago , and all subclades are present in India
> so it is very unlikely that H brougth farming to India
> it is very likely tough that once farming was introduced in the Indus valley, subclades of H helped to spread farming further south
> the people who spread farming further south were the Dravidians



Thats actually what I meant, if you look at my post I edited it. With some of Haplogroup H I meant some subclades of H might have been brought to India via farmers.


@Robert

I remember reading several times rumors that H was found in Syrian neolithic but people thought it must be wrong because no one was expecting H.

----------


## Sile

> Is there any link for Thracian H2 (old F3, new H1b) ????
> Where can I read about this?
> Also H2 (old F3, new H1b) in Neolithic Syria?


The 4 Thracian samples where analysed as per this link .........and continuation of this link

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824117/

----------


## Sile

> The 4 Thracian samples where analysed as per this link .........and continuation of this link
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824117/


testers found

Z14091 
H1b1


17129345 
A->G

----------


## Angela

If you look at the chart on page 25, the division is very clear. The orange is Neolithic Farmer, although I don't know if it's exactly the same as the component in the prior Lazardis paper. Here, the standard is Starcevo and LBKT, and thus Stuttgart shows a little WHG, as does the Spanish early Neolithic. Still, it's Early Neolithic Farmer in Europe and EEF is the closest term, as Alan pointed out above. The blue is, of course, WHG, based on Loschbour. The green is Yamnaya. That component is not based on the R1b1 hunter gatherer who was so similar to the R1a1 hunter gatherer but who was, indeed, found in the Samara Valley. The green Yamnaya component is based on the later and downstream R1b samples from Yamnaya, and thus autosomally are half Eastern Hunter Gatherer and half "Near Eastern". I agree with Alan that this is the "West Asian" component that Dienekes has been chasing all these years. In my opinion, however, it should not be seen as some totally foreign component. I think they could have extracted the majority EEF like component. 


(Alan is also right that ENF has no place in the discussion. That is a component found through modeling by Eurogenes. It is not, unlike these components, based on an ancient set of genomes.)

It's interesting that a little sliver of Yamnaya made it into the Gamba samples. You can also see how the blue WHG component made something of a comeback in the MN of Germany. Obviously, that didn't happen in other areas. Then there's the big explosion of it with Corded Ware, and lower levels in Bell Beaker. 

There are all sorts of questions that arise as to why individual groups have their own particular set of percentages, as well. The Greeks (I believe the samples were taken in a northern part of the mainland) and the Albanians, for instance, why do they have less Yamnaya, when in addition to what might have come originally, they were invaded by Slavic speaking tribes who would have carried some with them? Also, why do they have more WHG than their immediate neighbors? The PCA is also interesting:

The PCA is also interesting:
Attachment 7074
You can see how the later Yamnaya samples cluster right between the EHGs and the Near Easterners.

Does anyone know, by the way, where the authors talk about the percentage of population replacement in the south?

----------


## Angela

> the reason why Reich used the notion "Armenian like" is because 
> Armenians speak a Indo European language, and he wanted to indicate that their is a high possibility that the Indo European language was brought to Yamna actually from there.
> 
> From what I heard from other Users, there are other groups as well fitting as Armenians. This is why they used "Armenian like". Undoubtley half of Armenian ancestry probably came with the Phrygians.
> 
> This "Armenian like" population which contributed to Yamna must have been a nowadays died out population who have contributed into the ethnogenesis of Armenians, as well others of the region.


I'm not sure about their motivations but these are some of the good "fits" for Yamnaya.
52% Iraqui Jews + 48% Karelia
47% Armenian + 53% Karelia

----------


## Angela

Someone has helpfully provided the actual percentages for the European populations in terms of EN (European Neolithic Farmers), WesternHunterGatherers (_old WHG_ or pre-the Yamnaya migrations) and Yamnaya.
(For those interested in the breakdown, Yamnaya would be _very_ _roughly_ 1/4 WHG like, 1/4 ANE like, and half "Armenian like". )


Norway - 30, 16, 54
Lithuania - 18, 30, 52
Estonia - 12, 37, 51
Iceland - 32, 19, 49
Scotland - 28, 23, 49
Czech - 35, 16, 49
Belarus - 25, 28, 47
Hungary - 39, 16, 45
Ukraine - 28, 27, 44
England - 44, 14, 42
Orkney - 34, 25, 41
South French - 57, 4, 39
Croatia - 44, 17, 37
French - 51, 12, 37
North Spanish - 59, 10, 31
Bulgaria - 55, 14, 31
Tuscany - 72, 0, 28
Basque - 54, 19, 27
Bergamo - 63, 13, 24
Spain - 78, 0, 22
Greece - 66, 14, 20
Albania - 65, 18, 17
Sardinia - 88, 7, 5

Stuttgart - 94, 6, 0
Bell Beaker - 38, 16, 46
Unetice - 24, 33, 43
Corded Ware - 17, 4, 79

----------


## Finalise

I think the Yamna component, just like WHG, will be revised after data north of the Black Sea in Ukraine comes along, as some of these percentages don't make sense. How could Albania have more WHG than France, Spain, England when the Loschbour cavemen was found in Western Europe? Maybe they're mixing up WHG with Yamnaya (who have EHG = ANE + WHG). I think Western Yamnaya will be different than Samara. (Sorry for my ignorance if I miss anything, as I haven't looked at the admixtures in detail)

----------


## Tomenable

[COLOR=#333333]Klyosov commented: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperIn...6#.VN6CYp2G9g0




> "... the IE speakers (R1a) arrived in the Balkans and further in Europe between the 10th - 8th millennia bp. Gimbutas’ theory is in error when it proposes the formation of territorial, nomadic, pastoral populations speaking PIE languages (collectively named the Kurgan culture), in the 7th millennium bp in the area of the Dnepr and Don basins, the middle and lower Volga basin, the Caucasus and the Ural mountains. In fact, there were no PIEs (R1a) at those times in those territories. The Kurgan theory apparently has inverted the roles of the NIE (R1b) and the IE (R1a). Instead, these cultural features should be ascribed to NIEs (R1b) who migrated westward. Gimbutas claims that IE speakers migrated to Europe three times--first, between 6400 and 6300 ybp; second, around 5500 ybp (from the area North of the Black Sea); third, between 5000 and 4800 ybp (allegedly from the Volga steppes). These claims are unsupportable. There were no IEs (R1a) in the Volga steppes between 5000 and 4800 ybp or earlier; they arrived between 4600 and 4300 ybp. Had they been in the steppes, they would have been moving from Europe eastward."


But how does Klyosov know that R1b were Non-IE speakers ??? This is just an assumption - based on what?

This steppe data confirms that R1b (or at least some of them) were IE speakers, and so were R1a (or at least some of them).




> there were no PIEs (R1a) at those times in those territories.



Just because they did not find R1a in 7 Samara burials (very localized), doesn't mean they were not there.

We have 9 x R1a in Andronovo (which is descended from Yamna) and 4 x R1a in Corded Ware (also descended from Yamna).

So logically there should be some R1a among Yamnaya as well, just not among those 7 x R1b from Samara.

=============================

When it comes to that Non-IE, Neolithic R1b from Els Trocs in north-eastern Spain:

The problem with that R1b from Spain is that it tests negative on P297 mutation, which means that this guy was NOT ancestor of great majority of modern European R1b (which is P297+). On the other hand, hunter-gatherer from Samara (6th millenium BC) tests positive on this mutation.

Here is a map of types of *Neolithic and Mesolithic Y-DNA discovered in Europe to date:*

----------


## Sile

> [COLOR=#333333]Klyosov commented: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperIn...6#.VN6CYp2G9g0
> 
> 
> 
> But how does Klyosov know that R1b were Non-IE speakers ??? This is just an assumption - based on what?
> 
> This steppe data confirms that R1b (or at least some of them) were IE speakers, and so were R1a (or at least some of them).
> 
> 
> ...



thanks for map

maybe you should place ages on any that are over 5000 years like the R1a and R1b

here is the others

G2a in germany = 5206 to 5052

T1a in germany = 5207 to 5070

H2 in hungaria = 5710 to 5500

R1b in spain = 5178 to 5066

----------


## Alan

> Someone has helpfully provided the actual percentages for the European populations in terms of EN (European Neolithic Farmers), WesternHunterGatherers (_old WHG_ or pre-the Yamnaya migrations) and Yamnaya.
> (For those interested in the breakdown, Yamnaya would be _very_ _roughly_ 1/4 WHG like, 1/4 ANE like, and half "Armenian like". )


basically what you and I said ~30% ANE/ ~25-30% WHG / ~40% ENF

The thing is the orange component is EEF and differs from the "ENF" in Yamna in that way, that it is the first appearance of the West Asian type. While EEF is WHG admixed (~20%), the farmer DNA in Yamna is ANE admixed. 70% ENF + 30% ANE that is what made the "West Asian" component.


In other words.

Early European Farmer (EEF)= ~80% Proto-Farmer (ENF) + 20% WHG

Caucasus_Gedrosia aka "West Asian= ~70% Proto-Farmer (or possibly even EEF itself) + 30% ANE

----------


## Alan

And to the question about R1a*.

Don't forget all the samples of Yamna were from one valley in Samarra. If we take a look at cultures descend of Yamna, such as Andronovo, Corded Ware. And even some ancient Indo Europeans such as Tocharians. There is absolutely no doubt that R1a will pop up in Yamna And I am pretty convinced allot of other Haplogroups will pop up also.

Be not suprised if in some regions closer to North Caucasus yDNA T, J and few other pop up.

Isn't there even allot of T* in some modern Uralic speakers in the region?

----------


## Sile

> And to the question about R1a*.
> 
> Don't forget all the samples of Yamna were from one valley in Samarra. If we take a look at cultures descend of Yamna, such as Andronovo, Corded Ware. And even some ancient Indo Europeans such as Tocharians. There is absolutely no doubt that R1a will pop up in Yamna And I am pretty convinced allot of other Haplogroups will pop up also.
> 
> Be not suprised if in some regions closer to North Caucasus yDNA T, J and few other pop up.
> 
> Isn't there even allot of T* in some modern Uralic speakers in the region?


the T is in

M. A. Gubina et al, "Haplotype Diversity in mtDNA and Y�Chromosome in Populations of Altai–Sayan Region," "Russian Journal of Genetics," (2012),

Kazakhs
 in
Kosh-Agachski Raion
 found 19/49
 at 38.8%



Kazkhs announed IIRC that they where Kazakhs in the year 1490...prior to this they where under the Uzbek banner.........really I am usure who or what is a true Kazakh

----------


## Yaan

> his post #206 stated...no H in europe befor ethe 16th century



So u were mistaken, would have been good to admit it

There is not a single ancient Y DNA from the Balkans. 

Thrachians do not live in Hungary 

F* is not H( and even if it is, it is not Thrachian and from the Balkans), it has nothing to do with Gypsies, it is just Balkans are not tested and u were spreading fake info :)

----------


## Alan

> the T is in
> 
> M. A. Gubina et al, "Haplotype Diversity in mtDNA and Y�Chromosome in Populations of Altai–Sayan Region," "Russian Journal of Genetics," (2012),
> 
> Kazakhs
>  in
> Kosh-Agachski Raion
>  found 19/49
>  at 38.8%
> ...


All this region was once Indo_Iranian speaking. Either Turks themselves are "altaified" Irano_Aryans OR they are Altains who mixed and replaced them.

----------


## Diurpaneus

> Thrachians do not live in Hungary


The Thracians lived almost everywhere,including the eastern half of Hungary,Slovakia, Carpathian Poland or parts of Ukraine;
though,it is quite clear that the Bulgarian ones are the true stars.

See the article from pg.167(and an interesting map at 181):

http://www.academia.edu/823512/H._Ci...ba_Iulia_1994_


For chariotry and Mnogovalikovaya(also named Babino), see Kuzmina's article:

http://www.google.ro/url?sa=t&rct=j&...,d.d24&cad=rja

http://www.academia.edu/7837844/Balk...gy_of_Religion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-c...d_ware_culture

----------


## Yaan

> The Thracians lived almost everywhere,including the eastern half of Hungary,Slovakia, Carpathian Poland or parts of Ukraine;
> though,it is quite clear that the Bulgarian ones are the true stars.
> 
> See the article from pg.167(and an interesting map at 181):
> 
> http://www.academia.edu/823512/H._Ci...ba_Iulia_1994_
> 
> 
> For chariotry and Mnogovalikovaya(also named Babino), see Kuzmina's article:
> ...


There was never Thrachians civilization outside the Balkan( and to a lesser extend Anatolia) :) I hope they will test for male lines remains fro Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and North Greece, this is what was the Thrachian core :)

----------


## Tomenable

Corded Ware individual I0104, age 2473 - 2348 BCE, is M417 - which is ancestral to 99% of modern R1a (including Z93 and CTS 4385).

He lived 4350 - 4500 years ago. And according to Underhill 2014, the R-M417 has an estimated TMRCA of 4800 - 6800 years ago, average of 5000.

While according to Haak 2015 it has an estiated TMRCA of 5800 years ago. 

Anyway, our M417 from Corded Ware lived between 300 and 2500 years after the common ancestor of 99% of modern R1a.

Moreover, that hunter-gatherer from Karelia from 7000 - 7500 years ago (5000 - 5500 BCE) is ancestral to M417 !!!

*So it seems very probable that common ancestor for 99% of all R1a lived in Europe somewhere between Finland-Russia and East Germany.

*Let's also check Y-DNA from steppe / nomadic cultures, discovered to date:

Yamnaya - R1b 
=============
Corded Ware - R1a
Tocharians - R1a (and Tocharian R1a is M417, but *not* Z93)
Andronovo - R1a
Scythians - R1a

----------


## Angela

Gentlemen, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting very tired of this chest beating for one ydna haplogroup over another, especially in the R1a versus R1b divisional championships. Did any of you get into this because of intellectual curiosity, or is it just about ethnic rivalry?

Europe didn't exist as a concept in these times. The line between Europe and Asia wasn't always drawn at the Urals. Anyway, who cares on what side of some imaginary line some samples were found? I'm sure they roamed the whole steppe.

I mean, it's getting ridiculous. First the Ancient North Eurasians suddenly became Europeans. Then, when it seemed R1 developed in Siberia, that suddenly became Europe. Basal R couldn't have developed in Central or Central/South Asia, even though that's what some academics have said, because then it wouldn't be European. So, it had to develop in "Russia". Never mind that we don't KNOW that yet. If all else fails, then let's just say that R1a and R1b happened to have most of their camps on the west of the Urals, so that definitely makes them European.

Do people have so little self awareness that they don't see the flaws in this kind of reasoning? Enough.

----------


## Sile

The questions on R1 for the paper is or should be said

1 - R1a/b where once just R1, where is origin 

2 - Yamnya as per paper is R1b, did R1a reside north or east of this area 

3 - If they ( R1a and R1b ) where together in yamnya at the same time and they migrated westerly into Europe, then why is there no equal % of these 2 big haplotypes in western Europe?


If I had to make a call, I say R1b was earlier into Yamnya than R1a which concludes that R1 origins where further East, maybe SW China..............we know by Karafet 2014 paper than R origins is SE Asia

----------


## Sile

> [COLOR=#333333]Klyosov commented: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperIn...6#.VN6CYp2G9g0
> 
> 
> 
> But how does Klyosov know that R1b were Non-IE speakers ??? This is just an assumption - based on what?
> 
> This steppe data confirms that R1b (or at least some of them) were IE speakers, and so were R1a (or at least some of them).
> 
> 
> ...



you missed oetzi on your map...........exactly same time frame as the G2a in germany ( on your map )

----------


## Aberdeen

> you missed oetzi on your map...........exactly same time frame as the G2a in germany ( on your map )


He also missed the four Corded Ware samples from Poland (Neolithic looking) and Germany (R1a) and the three Bell Beaker R1b samples from Germany. Including those samples might have complicated things - the two oldest and most easterly CW samples weren't R1a.

----------


## Tomenable

> No, Z93 is from R1a-S224


*
Entire S224 (including Z93) is from M417:

*

----------


## Aberdeen

> I considered adding Oetzi as well. But Corded Ware is too late for that map.
> 
> Anyway - you can find this data here (they also already added these new samples from Haak 2015):
> 
> http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml
> 
> They have aDNA divided into chronological categories, for example:
> 
> Mesolithic aDNA
> ...


Sorry - I wasn't thinking about the dates and categories of the finds when I made that comment - call it a mental glitch. And now that I am thinking about Neolithic versus Copper Age, I think Oetzi's copper axe justifies putting him in the Copper Age category, rather than the Neolithic.

----------


## Tomenable

> Native people of Europe were not Indo-European.


This is true for Northern and Central Europe. But in Eastern Europe we now have *Mesolithic people* with Indo-European haplogroups.

Adjust your views to these new findings. Take a look at my map of Stone Age haplogroups in Europe again:



No IE haplogroups in Western and Central Europe. But in Eastern Europe we have them, among native hunters of that area.




> Saami in Northern Europe are native people of that region


According to most recent studies Saami are a mix of locals with immigrants from North-East Asia. So not entirely native.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> This is true for Northern and Central Europe. But in Eastern Europe we now have *Mesolithic people* with Indo-European haplogroups.
> 
> Adjust your views to these new findings. Take a look at my map of Stone Age haplogroups in Europe again:
> 
> 
> 
> No IE haplogroups in Western and Central Europe. But in Eastern Europe we have them, among native hunters of that area.
> 
> 
> ...


Where did you hear the Mesolithic R1b from Samara was R1b1a-P297+. It didn't say that in the paper. If it does that's huge news because it makes it ancestral to M73 and M269.

----------


## LeBrok

> More like 30/30/40 ANE/WHG/EEF
> 
> According to the paper the Karelians were 60% WHG and 40% ANE. The Near Eastern portion of Yamna was also ANE rich.
> 
> If we now half the 60% WHG we get 30. And since we know the Near Eastern portion was also ANE rich, and they called them "Armenian like" (who have 15% ANE), we can assume 30% WHG also. And the rest was most likely ENF.
> 
> Otherwise they couldn't be closest to Moravians and Lezgins who both have significant percentage of ENF (Lezgins more and Mordovians less).


I still don't get why you give them such ingh EEF admixture. According to Figuer 2 they so much autosomally closer to Mal'ta boy MM1 and pure ANE than to Neolithic Farmers of Europe. Yamnaya guys are very close and alike the two EHG samples. Some of Yamnaya are very close to ANE source, and some stretched towards EEF, but not far enough. Note that the grey dots from the background are the location of modern population on the chart. Even Corded Ware individuals don't touch the first grey dots, which represent modern Russians and Finns having almost 30% of EEF. From this chart I would guess that Corded Ware were about 20% EEF and Yamnaya at 10%, EEF some of them much less (the sampled region of Yamnaya).


Figure 2.JPG

I'm still yet to read most of the paper. Could you post numbers for pages you are taking your numbers from, please.

----------


## LeBrok

K16.JPG
I finally found the explanation for the colours in the runs.

"The *Early/Middle Neolithic European populations belong almost entirely to the “orange”* ancestral
population from K=2 to K=8, while hunter-gatherers show a relationship to eastern non-Africans from
K=3 to K=8, consistent with sharing more genetic drift with these populations due to their lack of
“Basal Eurasian” ancestry2. From K=4 to K=6, the *hunter-gatherers and late Neolithic/Bronze Age*
*(LN/BA) groups possess some of the “pink*” component that is dominant in Native Americans; this
may reflect either the presence of west Eurasian-related “Ancient North Eurasian” ancestry in Native
Americans5 or of the same type of ancestry in European hunter-gatherers. An interesting pattern
occurs at K=8, with all the late LN/BA groups from central Europe and the Yamnaya having some of
the “light green” component that is lacking in earlier European farmers and hunter-gatherers; this
component is found at high frequencies in South Asian populations and its co-occurrence in late
Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans (but not earlier ones) and South Asians might reflect a degree of
common ancestry associated with late Neolithic migratory movements (e.g., the ~5,800-year old
TMRCA of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-M417 suggests some gene flow affecting both Europe
and South Asia in this time frame11, although this date is subject to uncertainty due to poor estimates
of the human mutation rate.)
At K=9 a *European hunter-gatherer ancestral population (“dark blue”)* appears; this was not present in
an earlier analysis of the Human Origins modern populations and a much smaller number of ancient
individuals2. The inclusion of a large number of ancient hunter-gatherers has probably caused such an
ancestral population to appear in this analysis. European farmers now appear to be mixture of a Near
Eastern (orange) and European hunter-gatherer (dark blue) ancestral populations, with an increase in
the hunter-gatherer ancestry during the Middle Neolithic (reflecting the “resurgence” of such ancestry
shown in PCA, Fig. 2a) and also during the Late Neolithic. *Note, also, the persistent presence of the*
*“light green” component that ties LN/EBA groups to South Asia between K=9 and K=15*. 
A similar
*(darker green) component also distinguishes LN/EBA groups from earlier ones at K=16; this*
*component appears to be highly represented in groups from South Asia, the Near East, and the*
*Caucasus.* The existence of this component may correspond to the evidence for “dilution” of EHG
ancestry in the Yamnaya (SI7), showing them to have evenly split ancestry between the “dark blue”
hunter-gatherer and “dark green” component; the analysis of SI9 also suggests an even split between
an EHG and a Near Eastern component in the ancestry of the Yamnaya. The “dark green” component
seems to have been carried from a Yamnaya-related population to the Corded Ware and other Late
Neolithic and Bronze Age populations of central Europe. A useful topic for future work is to study the
relationship of LN/BA populations to contemporary South Asians, Caucasian and Near Eastern
populations and to see if this affinity (in contrast to earlier Europeans) may be related to the dispersal
of Indo-European languages."

So orange colour is Early Neolithic EEF, almost like from Lazaridis runs. Blue is not WHG, but European Hunter Gatherer, which is sort of amalgamation of of WHG and ANE. Dark Green is something unusual. It persists in modern Caucasus and South Asians, and in 50% of Yamnaya. It was almost completely missing from Samara HG. It is shows also in LN/EBA sites all over Europe.

----------


## Tomenable

OK, I can see that our discussion got split into another thread - here it is:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ded-discussion

----------


## LeBrok

> K16.JPG
> So orange colour is Early Neolithic EEF, almost like from Lazaridis runs. Blue is not WHG, but European Hunter Gatherer, which is sort of amalgamation of of WHG and ANE. Dark Green is something unusual. It persists in modern Caucasus and South Asians, and in 50% of Yamnaya. It was almost completely missing from Samara HG. It is shows also in LN/EBA sites all over Europe.


Actually the dark green component was present in Samara HG at about 15% level (if my eyes are not deceiving me looking at this small column in the chart) and then grew to 50% in Yamnaya. I would guess that it was present not to far away feeding Yamnaya with time going by. Influence of population from Caucasus, like Maykop culture?

----------


## Sile

> K16.JPG
> I finally found the explanation for the colours in the runs.
> 
> "The *Early/Middle Neolithic European populations belong almost entirely to the “orange”* ancestral
> population from K=2 to K=8, while hunter-gatherers show a relationship to eastern non-Africans from
> K=3 to K=8, consistent with sharing more genetic drift with these populations due to their lack of
> “Basal Eurasian” ancestry2. From K=4 to K=6, the *hunter-gatherers and late Neolithic/Bronze Age*
> *(LN/BA) groups possess some of the “pink*” component that is dominant in Native Americans; this
> may reflect either the presence of west Eurasian-related “Ancient North Eurasian” ancestry in Native
> ...


Thanks

but the orange arrived in central europe before the EHG according to page 25 of the paper, did the blue and green populace mix in yamnya and then follow orange a thousand plus years later?

----------


## Sile

according to Manco, the plus 5000 year old T1a in central germany has mtdna H1bz, the only other H1bz in central Germany was found in 2013 ( brotherton ), speculating that T1a man was born in germany.
My theory is that the 2013 Hibz is the same one that the T1a has and that T1a brought this mtdna in central europe from yamnya

I have only found one other h1bz , who is from Norway

----------


## Angela

> Actually the dark green component was present in Samara HG at about 15% level (if my eyes are not deceiving me looking at this small column in the chart) and then grew to 50% in Yamnaya. I would guess that it was present not to far away feeding Yamnaya with time going by. Influence of population from Caucasus, like Maykop culture?


That's the question...who brought it and when? Is it from farmers/pastoralists who entered the eastern part of the steppe 6000BC (some posters claim there is some archaeological evidence of such a movement, although I haven't seen a link to a paper), or did it arrive from over the Caucasus later on? 

It's clear there's a lot of Near Eastern mtDna in Yamnaya, but how did it get there? Given the time period, women wouldn't have come over the Caucasus on their own...no Amazons, I'm afraid. So, either farmers/pastoralists of unknown yDna brought them, or steppe men went to get them, or there was some sort of asymmetrical bride exchange at the interface between two cultures.

The result is, as I posted above, that the authors can fit Yamnaya as:
52% Iraqui Jews + 48% Karelia
47% Armenian + 53% Karelia 

What has to be kept in mind is that the non-ANE portion of these "Near Eastern" people would have been roughly the same as the non-WHG portion of the EEF European farmers.

----------


## Angela

> Thanks
> 
> but the orange arrived in central europe before the EHG according to page 25 of the paper, did the blue and green populace mix in yamnya and then follow orange a thousand plus years later?


The "blue" component already existed in the first European farmers,as you can see in the chart and which we've known about since the Lazaridis paper.

----------


## Sile

> The "blue" component already existed in the first European farmers,as you can see in the chart and which we've known about since the Lazaridis paper.


figure 3 ancient chart works with page 25

the orange is only LBK_EN ...these are all over 5000 years old

the blue is MN which is 3500 to 3900 years old

the LN is the mostly green with years 2200 to 2600 years old

the groups of this figure 3 ancients matches the page 25 under the title "pop label for analysis" or some use the title under group , it makes little difference


the motala is not used in that chart

----------


## holderlin

> Mycenea also fell when the trojans fell.......they too can be sea peoples , even more so since identical burial mounds have been found in istria which are same as pellopenne mycenea.
> As some state....are myceneans really greek or something else, is the Greek we know today only originate from dorians a NW greek people?
> 
> yes I believe R1b was hittitie and also hurrians ( NE of hittities ) with J2 and I


The BAC seems to be an upheaval of all power centers in the Aegean and Levant, super interesting. Most of what's been found in the ash layers of the Levantine cities seems to be Mycenaean Greek and/or European in origin. What's really interesting is that in some of these layers you also see what is believed to be among the first really effective slashing weapons (legit sword), which are central European in origin.

And yes we call the Mycenaeans the first "Greeks"

----------


## Sile

> The BAC seems to be an upheaval of all power centers in the Aegean and Levant, super interesting. Most of what's been found in the ash layers of the Levantine cities seems to be Mycenaean Greek and/or European in origin. What's really interesting is that in some of these layers you also see what is believed to be among the first really effective slashing weapons (legit sword), which are central European in origin.
> 
> And yes we call the Mycenaeans the first "Greeks"


The myceneans are the same level of greek as the minoans :Don't hurt me:

----------


## Fire Haired14

I think you guys are putting to much emphasis on ADMIXTURE. F-statistics are the bread and butter of Haak 2015.

----------


## bicicleur

> Actually the dark green component was present in Samara HG at about 15% level (if my eyes are not deceiving me looking at this small column in the chart) and then grew to 50% in Yamnaya. I would guess that it was present not to far away feeding Yamnaya with time going by. Influence of population from Caucasus, like Maykop culture?


maybe Maykop or some other Caucasus people
my first interpretation was different :
Maybe the 2 EHG samples crossed the caucasus much earlier (8000 years ago or earlier)
while the Yamnaya crossed the Caucasus later (maybe 6000 years ago) , and they catched the green 'Armenian-like' admixture south of the Caucasus

----------


## Tomenable

Please check my posts on pages 4 and 3 of the "extended discussion" thread:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...scussion/page4

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post449880

And CHECK ALSO this:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...l#pigmentation




> *R1 populations spread genes for light skin, blond hair and red hair*
> 
> There is now strong evidence that both R1a and R1b people contributed to the diffusion of the A111T mutation of the SLC24A5, which explains apporximately 35% of skin tone difference between Europeans and Africans, and most variations within South Asia. The distribution pattern of the A111T allele (rs1426654) of matches almost perfectly the spread of Indo-European R1a and R1b lineages around Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia. The mutation was probably passed on in the Early neolithic to other Near Eastern populations, which explains why Neolithic farmers in Europe already carried the A111T allele (e.g. Keller 2012 p.4, Lazaridis 2014 suppl. 7), although at lower frequency than modern Europeans and southern Central Asians.
> 
> The light skin allele is also found at a range of 15 to 30% in in various ethnic groups in northern sub-Saharan Africa, mostly in the Sahel and savannah zones inhabited by tribes of R1b-V88 cattle herders like the Fulani and the Hausa. This would presuppose that the A111T allele was already present among all R1b people before the Pre-Pottery Neolithic split between V88 and P297. R1a populations have an equally high incidence of this allele as R1b populations. On the other hand, the A111T mutation was absent from the 24,000-year-old R* sample from Siberia, and is absent from most modern R2 populations in Southeast India and Southeast Asia. Consequently, it can be safely assumed that the mutation arose among the R1* lineage during the late Upper Paleolithic, probably some time between 20,000 and 13,000 years ago.
> 
> *Fair hair was another physical trait associated with the Indo-Europeans*. In contrast, the genes for blue eyes were already present among Mesolithic Europeans belonging to Y-haplogroup I.* The genes for blond hair are more strongly correlated with the distribution of haplogroup R1a,* but those for red hair have not been found in Europe before the Bronze Age, and appear to have been spread primarily by R1b people (=> see The origins of red hair).


AND THIS:

http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2014/08/...o-ugrians.html




> *Indo-Europeans preceded Finno-Ugrians in Finland and Estonia
> 
> An archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language* and a subsequently extinct Paleo-European language were likely spoken in what is now called Finland and Estonia, when the linguistic ancestors of the Finns and the Sami arrived in the eastern and northern Baltic Sea region from the Volga-Kama region probably at the beginning of the Bronze Age.


*So our Karelian R1a1 hunter-gatherer from 5500 - 5000 BCE most likely spoke an archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language. 
*
This, in addition to what I wrote already before (quote below), perfectly fits the big picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans




> The Proto-Indo-Europeans likely lived during the late Neolithic, or roughly the 4th millennium BC [4000 - 3000 BCE). *Mainstream scholarship places them in the forest-steppe zone immediately to the north of the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe. Some archaeologists would extend the time depth of PIE to the middle Neolithic (5500 to 4500 BCE) or even the early Neolithic (7500 to 5500 BC), and suggest alternative location hypotheses.*

----------


## Tomenable

When it comes to the Armenian Hypothesis:

The problem with it is that Indo-European R1b (P297) and R1a (M417) were already present to the north of Caucasus 7500 years ago, among hunters:



And now let's see what is the Armenian Hypothesis about**:




> The Armenian hypothesis of the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat, based on the Glottalic theory suggests that the Proto-Indo-European language was spoken during the 4th millennium BC [4000 - 3000 BCE] in the Armenian Highland.


Why should PIE be spoken in the Armenian Highland in 4000 BCE, if genetically Indo-European people lived in Russia already in 5500 BCE ???

So a more probable hypothesis is that PIE Urheimat was in the forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe - this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2014/08/...o-ugrians.html




> The Proto-Indo-Europeans likely lived during the late Neolithic, or roughly the 4th millennium BC [4000 - 3000 BCE]. *Mainstream scholarship places them in the forest-steppe zone immediately to the north of the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe. Some archaeologists would extend the time depth of PIE to the middle Neolithic (5500 to 4500 BCE) or even the early Neolithic (7500 to 5500 BC), and suggest alternative location hypotheses.*





> *Indo-Europeans preceded Finno-Ugrians in Finland and Estonia
> 
> An archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language* and a subsequently extinct Paleo-European language were likely spoken in what is now called Finland and Estonia, when the linguistic ancestors of the Finns and the Sami arrived in the eastern and northern Baltic Sea region from the Volga-Kama region probably at the beginning of the Bronze Age.


So Eastern European hunters who spoke archaic PIE, switched to *pastoralism* and settled the steppe.

Maybe they also mixed with people south of them (but what hg-s did those people have? because R1a and R1b had already been present in Russia before).

----------


## Tomenable

As for the role of N1c1:

As you know Balts have a lot of N1c1. And Lithuanians according to Haak 2015 have a lot of Yamnaya admixture autosomally.

So maybe some N1c1 (but rather a very small amount) was also present among archaic Proto-Indo-Europeans ???

Norwegians (who have more R1a and R1b than other Scandinavians) and Lithuanians (R1a + N1c1) are very Yamnaya-like.

=========================

And according to Eupedia:




> The N1c1 subclade found in Europe likely arose in Southern Siberia 12,000 years ago, and* spread to north-eastern Europe 10,000 years ago.* It is associated with the Kunda culture (8000-5000 BCE) and the subsequent Comb Ceramic culture (4200-2000 BCE), which evolved into Finnic and pre-Baltic people.


So it could be already present in Karelia 7500 - 7000 years ago.

==================================

Yakuts (who are Turkic, not Finnic) have a lot of N1c.

Lithuanians & Latvians (Baltic not Finnic) have a lot of N1c as well.

Non-Finnic Uralics (Ugric, Permic, Volgaic, Saamic, Samoyedic) also have N1c.

Samoyedic Nenets have a lot of N1c, but even more of N1b.

Baltic Finnic peoples have no monopoly for N1c.

Slavic and Germanic groups also have N1c. Most of it probably comes from recent (Medieval) assimilation of other, Non-Slavic and Non-Germanic groups. But some clades could be inherited from Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Maybe Proto-Indo-Europeans got a bit of N1c1 early on from intermarriages with Non-Indo-Europeans.

*In Karelia there could be contacts between R1a1 and N1c1 already 7000 - 7500 years ago!*

----------


## Alan

> I still don't get why you give them such ingh EEF admixture. According to Figuer 2 they so much autosomally closer to Mal'ta boy MM1 and pure ANE than to Neolithic Farmers of Europe. Yamnaya guys are very close and alike the two EHG samples. Some of Yamnaya are very close to ANE source, and some stretched towards EEF, but not far enough. Note that the grey dots from the background are the location of modern population on the chart. Even Corded Ware individuals don't touch the first grey dots, which represent modern Russians and Finns having almost 30% of EEF. From this chart I would guess that Corded Ware were about 20% EEF and Yamnaya at 10%, EEF some of them much less (the sampled region of Yamnaya).
> 
> 
> Attachment 7076
> 
> I'm still yet to read most of the paper. Could you post numbers for pages you are taking your numbers from, please.



I actually answered the question in my previous posts. 
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post449762


I was talking about ENF. I think you mistook it with the orange EEF. As I said there is a significant difference between these two. The Near Eastern portion in Yamna would be significantly different from that orange EEF.


The point is Yamna even fits as 52% Iraqi Jew/48% Karelian. And Iraqi Jews are slightly more ENF than Armenians. 


The reason why the farmer DNA is orange EEF, is because most of the farmer DNA in Europe is still of the early Neolithic EEF type while they only received some of the "Caucasus_Gedrosia" Proto-herder DNA, which is something like ~70% Near Eastern farmer+ ~30% ANE. The Yamna was almost ~50% of this Caucasus_Gedrosia type farmer DNA. But modern Europeans are more of the EEF type which on itself was not yet contaminated by ANE admixture.

The major difference between EEF and Caucasus_Gedrosia seems to be mainly because of the ANE admixture in the latter.


Now this green component is simply predominantly what we would call nowadays Caucasus_ Gedrosia.
But it also contains some significant WHG and additional ANE.

And the way Yamna places in pca plots (Somewhere in between Mordovians and Lezgians).

And the fact that Reich tried to explain Yamna as "Armenian like farmer" + Karelian H&G. 
Brings me to the conclusion that Yamna was 30/30/40 WHG/ANE/ENF.

Note ENF not EEF and take in mind ENF is also just a speculative "proto farmer" component because we don't know yet how the proto farmers could have looked like. It could very well be that EEF is ENF and just the additional ANE changed it to Caucasus_Gedrosia.

----------


## Sile

> I think you guys are putting to much emphasis on ADMIXTURE. F-statistics are the bread and butter of Haak 2015.


this paper is the next step to remove EEF,WHG and ANE

we will see EN, EHG and another moving through


the isotopic analysis of the skeltons are showing origin of homeland of the bones, ........these new bones show all born in yamnya

what kind of admixture do you mean

----------


## Sile

> I actually answered the question in my previous posts. 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post449762
> 
> 
> I was talking about ENF. I think you mistook it with the orange EEF. As I said there is a significant difference between these two. The Near Eastern portion in Yamna would be significantly different from that orange EEF.
> 
> 
> The point is Yamna even fits as 52% Iraqi Jew/48% Karelian. And Iraqi Jews are slightly more ENF than Armenians. 
> 
> ...


it also shows ANE went into yamnya later than EN and EHG

----------


## Angela

> I actually answered the question in my previous posts. 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post449762
> 
> 
> I was talking about ENF. I think you mistook it with the orange EEF. As I said there is a significant difference between these two. The Near Eastern portion in Yamna would be significantly different from that orange EEF.
> 
> 
> The point is Yamna even fits as 52% Iraqi Jew/48% Karelian. And Iraqi Jews are slightly more ENF than Armenians. 
> 
> ...


I've been playing with the numbers and that's how I see it as well...maybe some tweaking, i.e. ENF maybe a few percents more or less, but basically this is how it shakes out. 

I think this sort of seals the deal, don't you think?
"The point is Yamna even fits as 52% Iraqi Jew/48% Karelian. And Iraqi Jews are slightly more ENF than Armenians."

Perhaps we need to change the avatar for the incredibly sought after "Near Eastern" brides? Or at least add another one?  :Laughing:  She's an Iranian Jew not Iraqui but close enough. Plus, people might be familiar with her as she's been in a good number of movies.
http://media.sinematurk.com/person/a...%20%282%29.jpg

----------


## holderlin

> The myceneans are the same level of greek as the minoans


Are you referring to some genomes I haven't seen? Because by every other measure this can't be true.

----------


## Alan

> I've been playing with the numbers and that's how I see it as well...maybe some tweaking, i.e. ENF maybe a few percents more or less, but basically this is how it shakes out. 
> 
> I think this sort of seals the deal, don't you think?
> "The point is Yamna even fits as 52% Iraqi Jew/48% Karelian. And Iraqi Jews are slightly more ENF than Armenians."
> 
> Perhaps we need to change the avatar for the incredibly sought after "Near Eastern" brides? Or at least add another one?  She's an Iranian Jew not Iraqui but close enough. Plus, people might be familiar with her as she's been in a good number of movies.
> http://media.sinematurk.com/person/a...%20%282%29.jpg



We have yet only few Samara valley samples. Who knows if in the future (Iam 100% convinced) there will pop up other yDNA?

on Another thought, why is it so impossible that R1b was actually brought with these Near Eastern pastoralists? I mean only one H&G from the Samara valley turned out as R1b and even he had some of the "Caucasus_Gedrosia"already. What if this single R1b in the EHG was actually from a pastoralist who impregnated some EHG lady!. At the end of the day all the other R1b were Yamna and the R1b found in Samara is of the West Asian-Balkan type.

So what if R1b was actually the Haplogroup brought with the pastoralists?

I say this because I honestly doubt that an all female migration was able to impose their pastoralist lifestyle on the EHG.

For many reasons: 1. Indo Europeans as many ancient West EUrasian cultures were patriachal
2. how many times in History did it actually happen that there was an all female migration? In fact it was always male+female, never only male and never only female migration. And if these females were kidnapped how did they impose their pastoralist livestlye on the guys who actually kidnapped them?
3. EHG according to Reich and Dieneks was unlikely to have spoken any PIE language. There are two possibilities. Either the pastoralists brought the language with them or PIE is a fusion of both. 

So I honestly doubt the bride hypothesis. Especially because of the ~50% Caucasus-Gedrosia genes. If we would go by that theory we would need to assume that the EHG replaced *all their females completely* by pastoralist brides lol. Otherwiese a 50% "Caucasus_Gedrosia" ancestry is impossible. If only 1/4 of their females were "kidnapped" or exchanged brides the Yamna wouldn't have 50% of this modern "Near Eastern" component.

----------


## LeBrok

> I actually answered the question in my previous posts. 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post449762
> 
> 
> I was talking about ENF. I think you mistook it with the orange EEF. As I said there is a significant difference between these two. The Near Eastern portion in Yamna would be significantly different from that orange EEF.


I was referring to base ENF which came from Near East with first farmers and mixed with some WHG to create EEF. However, I agree that farmer DNA "ENF" from today's Armenia region and Caucasus was different. Similarly to europe's EEF it was probably a mixture with ENF + local hunter gatherer.

There was an old dude who lived in Kostenki Russia 36 kya. It happens that his genome is plotted together with other ancients in Figure 2.
Interestingly he plots almost exactly with population of Caucasus and not far away from Armenians. That's a surprise from 36 thousand year dude! All modern Europeans plot farther away from WHG, ANE, SHG or EEF. But Kostenki is right there with modern Caucasus. It is visually obvious that Yamnaya people are pooled half the way from EHG location of their ancestors towards Caucasus and Kostenki dude. I don't think it was the farmer admixture. I was also looking through the paper about archeological context they were found in. I couldn't find any description of their lifestyle, except a short paragraph that they were horseback herders, and not described as typical farmers.
Kostenki (K14) is very distinct, equally far away from ANE, EHG, WHG and even EEF neolithic farmers. 
I really think there is a strong but not well understood and recognize ancient admixture in Caucasus. It is not a signature of ENF or otherwise first farmers from Fertile Crescent. For that reason, and because Lazaridis calculations were not meant for "out of Europe", this Caucasus/Armenian admixture plots as EEF. For Armenians it gives 83% EEF and 17% ANE, but it is misleading for a lack of a better calculator. Looking at Figure 2 I'm bravely stating that Armenians are 40 EEF, 43 Kostenki/Ancient Caucasus, and 17 ANE. In this case The Yamnaya people in their 50 % Caucasus/Near Eastern admixture got mostly Ancient Caucasus and ANE, and a little bit of EEF. It doesn't need to be 50% of exactly of every admixture. They say they got 50%, but not quantifying the admixtures. Perhaps they've gotten more ENF but I don't see it in their lifestyle.







> The point is Yamna even fits as 52% Iraqi Jew/48% Karelian. And Iraqi Jews are slightly more ENF than Armenians. 
> 
> The reason why the farmer DNA is orange EEF, is because most of the farmer DNA in Europe is still of the early Neolithic EEF type while they only received little of the "Caucasus_Gedrosia" Proto-herder DNA, which is something like ~70% Near Eastern farmer+ ~30% ANE. The Yamna was almost ~50% of this Caucasus_Gedrosia type farmer DNA. But modern Europeans are more of the EEF type which on itself was not yet contaminated by ANE admixture.
> 
> The major difference between EEF and Caucasus_Gedrosia seems to be mainly because of the ANE admixture in the latter.


 I think we have a similar view of this situation. The difference is that you think that Caucasus Gedrosia constitutes of EEF and ANE, I'm thinking that it is a completely distinct thing, Ancient Caucasian Admixture from Kostenki people. 






> Now this green component is simply predominantly what we would call nowadays Caucasus_ Gedrosia.


 I guess we should, if it is the same thing. Somehow Gedrosia doesn't show in modern East Euros. Them being descendants of Corded Ware it should have been there.



> But it also contains some significant WHG and additional ANE.


 Perhaps some, but mostly something unique from Kostenki.






> And the fact that Reich tried to explain Yamna as "Armenian like farmer" + Karelian H&G. 
> Brings me to the conclusion that Yamna was 30/30/40 WHG/ANE/ENF.


 For now I would just expand it as 30/30/30 ACA/10 ENF. On other hand, if my eyeballing the PCA chart makes sense, I'd say 15/35/35/15 WHG/ANE/ACA/ENF.




> Note ENF not EEF and take in mind ENF is also just a speculative "proto farmer" Haplogroup because we don't know yet how the proto farmers could have looked like. It could very well be that EEF is ENF and just the additional ANE changed it to Caucasus_Gedrosia.


 It is about time to test ancients from Caucasus and Near East. And of course in few places. ;)

I'm almost confident to find 100% Ancient Caucasus Admixture (Gedrosia?) in Maykop Culture.

----------


## Tomenable

> There was an old dude who lived in Kostenki Russia 36 kya.


His Y-DNA haplogroup was C1. 

Then we have C1a2 in Spain (7,7 - 8 kya), C1a2 in Hungary (7 - 7,3 kya) and C (not C3) in Andronovo culture in Russia (2,8 - 2,4 kya).

It seems that the presence of C in Western Eurasia (including Europe) is very, very ancient (from Paleolithic times).

----------


## Tomenable

> You mean that R1a people from Finland emigrated to Asia and Europe?


Yes, but from Karelia or somewhere around (not Finland). 

7500 - 7000 years ago ancestor of R1a M417 lived in Karelia.

And nowadays his descendants live all over this vast area in Eurasia:



*Modern distribution of R1a M417 (green = R1a Z282; blue = R1a Z93):*



*Now info from Underhill 2014:*




> Whole Y-chromosome sequence analysis of eight R1a and five R1b individuals suggests a divergence time of ~25 000 (95% CI: 21 300–29 000) years ago and a coalescence time within R1a-M417 of ~5800 (95% CI: 4800–6800) years.
> 
> (...)
> 
> A consensus has not yet been reached on the rate at which Y-chromosome SNPs accumulate within this 9.99Mb sequence. Recent estimates include one SNP per: ~100 years,58 122 years,4 151 years5 (deep sequencing reanalysis rate), and 162 years.59 Using a rate of one SNP per 122 years, and based on an average branch length of 206 SNPs from the common ancestor of the 13 sequences, we estimate the bifurcation of R1 into R1a and R1b to have occurred ~25 100 ago (95% CI: 21 300–29 000). Using the 8 R1a lineages, with an average length of 48 SNPs accumulated since the common ancestor, we estimate the splintering of R1a-M417 to have occurred rather recently, ~5800 years ago (95% CI: 4800–6800). The slowest mutation rate estimate would inflate these time estimates by one third, and the fastest would deflate them by 17%.
> 
> (...)
> 
> we estimate that diversification downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ~5800 years ago. This suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages, partially replacing previous Y-chromosome strata, an interpretation consistent with albeit limited ancient DNA evidence


*Nowadays 99% of all R1a (2893 out of 2923 samples) belong to M417 branch, even though it is so young:*




> We measured R1a haplogroup frequency by population (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 2923 hg R1a-M420 samples, 2893 were derived for the M417/Page7 mutations (1693 non-Roma Europeans and 1200 pan-Asians), whereas the more basal subgroups were rare. We observed just 24 R1a*-M420(xSRY10831.2), 6 R1a1*-SRY10831.2(xM198), and 12 R1a1a1-M417/Page7*(xZ282,Z93). We did not observe a single instance of R1a1a-M198*(xM417,Page7), but we cannot exclude the possibility of its existence. Of the 1693 European R1a-M417/Page7 samples, more than 96% were assigned to R1a-Z282 (Figure 2), whereas 98.4% of the 490 Central and South Asian R1a lineages belonged to hg R1a-Z93 (Figure 3), consistent with the previously proposed trend.31 Both of these haplogroups were found among Near/Middle East and Caucasus populations comprising 560 samples.


*Another excerpt from Underhill 2014:*




> This raises the possibility of a wide and rapid spread of R1a-Z282-related lineages being associated with prevalent Copper and Early Bronze Age societies that ranged from the Rhine River in the west to the Volga River in the east55 including the Bronze Age Proto-Slavic culture that arose in Central Europe near the Vistula River.56 It may have been in this cultural context that hg R1a-Z282 diversified in Central and Eastern Europe. The corresponding diversification in the Middle East and South Asia is more obscure. However, early urbanization within the Indus Valley also occurred at this time57 and the geographic distribution of R1a-M780 (Figure 3d) may reflect this.

----------


## Silesian

> Coming back to R1a for a moment:
> 
> 7500 - 7000 years ago ancestor of R1a M417 lived in Karelia.
> 
> And nowadays his descendants live all over this vast area in Eurasia:
> 
> 
> 
> *Modern distribution of R1a M417 (green = R1a Z282; blue = R1a Z93):*
> ...



Here is some rough estimates from Polish Michael for approximate date range for R1a-R1b I have highlighted Yamnaya 5000+/- R1b -Z2105 sample in red.
 Originally Posted by *Michał*  
I think the calculations that have been recently posted by Ebizur are very reasonable and I would definitely agree with most of his estimates. The only exception is that I consider L11 to be rather older than 5.1 ky, but I may be wrong about it. I am on vacation now, so don't have access to any details of my calculations, but here are my relatively recent rough estimates (in ky) taken from the notes I have with me:

R1b-M269 7.5 (7.0-8.1)
R1b-L23 7.2 (6.7-7.7)
R1b-Z2103 6.4 (5.9-6.9)
R1b-L51 6.7 (6.2-7.2)
R1b-L11 5.7 (5.2-6.2)
R1b-P312 5.6 (5.1-6.1)
R1b-U106 5.5 (5.0-6.0)

R1a-M417 6.2 (5.7-6.7)
R1a-CTS4385 5.8 (5.3-6.3)
R1a-L664 4.8 (4.3-5.2)
R1a-Z645 5.6 (5.1-6.1)
R1a-Z93 5.4 (4.9-5.9)
R1a-Z282 5.4 (4.9-5.9)

----------


## Silesian

> I've been playing with the numbers and that's how I see it as well...maybe some tweaking, i.e. ENF maybe a few percents more or less, but basically this is how it shakes out. 
> 
> I think this sort of seals the deal, don't you think?
> "The point is Yamna even fits as 52% Iraqi Jew/48% Karelian. And Iraqi Jews are slightly more ENF than Armenians."
> 
> Perhaps we need to change the avatar for the incredibly sought after "Near Eastern" brides? Or at least add another one?  She's an Iranian Jew not Iraqui but close enough. Plus, people might be familiar with her as she's been in a good number of movies.
> http://media.sinematurk.com/person/a...%20%282%29.jpg


I do not know for sure, but I think they made a mistake. Karelian you can also find 6000+/- year R1b-Z2103 in15%+/- (Arkhangelsk region and amongst the Komi at 16%the same for Iraqi Jews they also have 15 -20% R1b-Z2103 so they are sampling all R1b-Z2103 and using R1b-Z2103 population regions in their models. Of course the oldest to date now is in the center of these two poles of R1b-Z2103 5-6.4K+/- the Yamnaya R1b1 sample at 7.6 K +/-

----------


## Tomenable

Thanks, great calculations.

So let's compare Michal's estimate with Underhill's for M417:

R1a-M417 6.2 (5.7-6.7) ----- when according to Underhill 5.8 (4.8-6.8)

----------


## Sile

> I was referring to base ENF which came from Near East with first farmers and mixed with some WHG to create EEF. However, I agree that farmer DNA "ENF" from today's Armenia region and Caucasus was different. Similarly to europe's EEF it was probably a mixture with ENF + local hunter gatherer.
> 
> There was an old dude who lived in Kostenki Russia 36 kya. It happens that his genome is plotted together with other ancients in Figure 2.
> Interestingly he plots almost exactly with population of Caucasus and not far away from Armenians. That's a surprise from 36 thousand year dude! All modern Europeans plot farther away from WHG, ANE, SHG or EHG. But Kostenki is right there with modern Caucasus. It is visually obvious that Yamnaya people are pooled half the way from EHG location of their ancestors towards Caucasus and Kostenki dude. I don't think it was the farmer admixture. I was also looking through the paper about archeological context they were found in. I couldn't find any description of their lifestyle, except a short paragraph that they were horseback herders. 
> Kostenki (K14) is very distinct, equally far away from ANE, EHG, WHG and even EEF neolithic farmers. 
> I really think there is a strong but not well understood and recognize ancient admixture in Caucasus. It is not a signature of ENF or otherwise first farmers from fertile Crescent. For that reason, and because Lazaridis calculations were not meant for "out of Europe", this Caucasus admixture plots as EEF. For Armenians 83% EEF and 17% ANE. Looking at Figure 2 I'm bravely stating that Armenians are 40 EEF, 43 Kostenki/Ancient Caucasus, and 17 ANE. In this case The Yamnaya people in their 50 % Caucasus/Near Eastern admixture got mostly Ancient Caucasus and ANE, and a little bit of EEF.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hmmm?

what do you think this sentence means from page 3 of the haak paper

*the Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding eastern European hunter-gatherers, but from a 
**population of Near Eastern ancestry.*

----------


## Sile

> Are you referring to some genomes I haven't seen? Because by every other measure this can't be true.


modern greek numbers match dorian numbers and not minoan or mycenean that good

do you have any mycenean numbers that match Greek?

----------


## LeBrok

> hmmm?
> 
> what do you think this sentence means from page 3 of the haak paper
> 
> *the Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding eastern European hunter-gatherers, but from a 
> **population of Near Eastern ancestry.*





> We don't have Ancient Near Eastern DNA to conclude that. It might be vice versa, the 50% dark green admixture in Yamnaya could have spread from Caucasus to Near East and the rest came with IE to Near East with invasion.
> A similar (darker green) component also distinguishes LN/EBA groups from earlier ones at K=16; this
> component appears to be highly represented in groups from South Asia, the Near East,* and the*
> *Caucasus.* The existence of this component may correspond to the evidence for “dilution” of EHG
> ancestry in the Yamnaya (SI7), showing them to have evenly split ancestry between the “dark blue”
> hunter-gatherer and “dark green” component; the analysis of SI9 also suggests an even split between
> an EHG and a Near Eastern component in the ancestry of the Yamnaya. The “dark green” component
> seems to have been carried from a Yamnaya-related population to the Corded Ware and other Late
> Neolithic and Bronze Age populations of central Europe. *A useful topic for future work is to study the*
> ...


For my logic the dark green came from Caucasus. If it was truly old Near Eastern it would have spread to Europe with EEF, but it didn't. It was stuck in Caucasus till copper/bronze age.

----------


## LeBrok

> Thanks
> 
> but the orange arrived in central europe before the EHG according to page 25 of the paper, did the blue and green populace mix in Yamnaya and then follow orange a thousand plus years later?


Actually orange/farmer guys inserted themselves into population of blue and green hunter gatherer in Yamnaya first. Only after mixing with farmers/orange in Yamnaya the population of Yamnaya stopped being HG, grew in numbers as new farmers (West Yamnaya), and expanded into central europe as farming community of Corded Ware. East Yamnaya stayed as HG/horseback herders/ and a bit of farmers and expanded into East Steppe as Andronovo Indo-Iranians.

----------


## holderlin

> modern greek numbers match dorian numbers and not minoan or mycenean that good
> 
> do you have any mycenean numbers that match Greek?



Modern Greek doesn't really mean anything to me. I'm thinking of pre-Greek greece (non-Greek speaking) vs. Greek Greece (Greek speaking). Two completely different cultures when they meet. The change is obvious in the archaeological and what little historical record they have. Although it sounds like the two peoples may have homogenized very quickly, which is consistent with the data you cite. But the arrival of the Mycenaean signals a very distinct indoeuropean newcomer. I believe much of the Pantheon is maintained through the flourish of the Dorians, which is hard to reconcile given the seeming obliteration of Mycenaean hegemony, which is further compounded by the fog of the BAC.

----------


## bicicleur

> For my logic the dark green came from Caucasus. If it was truly old Near Eastern it would have spread to Europe with EEF, but it didn't. It was stuck in Caucasus till copper/bronze age.


EEF - G2a2 came from coastal southwest Anatolia

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...uropean-farmer

there were many different ethnicities in other areas of SW Asia

----------


## motzart

> Did you predict that Yamna and Corded Ware would cluster closest to the Mordovians ? It makes sense since the Mordovians have one of the highest incidence of red hair and I always sustained that genes of red hair were brought by R1b people (and blond hair by R1a people).
> 
> Unetice clusters especially well with Ukrainians, Hungarians and Czechs. That's the supposed geographic route followed by R1b Yamna tribes from Ukraine to central Europe.


All wrong. The Unetice samples were all (3/3) I2 y dna and had less Yamnaya admixture than the Bell Beakers who were all (3/3) R1b y dna. All of the Yamnaya samples tested so far have had dark hair and dark eyes. The oldest evidence of blonde hair comes from a 5000 BC individual in hungary with an EEF autosomal makeup and I2 y dna. 

looks like you were right the yamnaya but wrong about beakers, unetice, and pigmentation (1/4)

----------


## Angela

> EEF - G2a2 came from coastal southwest Anatolia
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...uropean-farmer
> 
> there were many different ethnicities in other areas of SW Asia


I'm sure there were other yDna lineages. I'm not sure they were all that different autosomally. The oldest evidence of neolithic settlement in Cyprus is dated to 8800–8600 BC. By that time wouldn't the population of the Near East have been pretty admixed? I think that was the implication of Paschou et al. Therefore, I would think these island hopping farmers brought the genes as well as the animals from the Zagros with them at least.

----------


## Angela

> Actually orange/farmer guys inserted themselves into population of blue and green hunter gatherer in Yamnaya first. Only after mixing with farmers/orange in Yamnaya the population of Yamnaya stopped being HG, grew in numbers as new farmers (West Yamnaya), and expanded into central europe as farming community of Corded Ware. East Yamnaya stayed as HG/horseback herders/ and a bit of farmers and expanded into East Steppe as Andronovo Indo-Iranians.


Wait...So are you saying that when the authors of the Haak et al paper say that the "Yamnaya" people were half "Armenian like", they're only ta;king about the people of the eastern steppe who then became the Indo-Iranians? Z2103 is also present in the Balkans, southern Italy, Anatolia, etc. 

I ask because I thought you were proposing that the Yamnaya people didn't have a big chunk of the orange component.

----------


## Maciamo

> All wrong. The Unetice samples were all (3/3) I2 y dna and had less Yamnaya admixture than the Bell Beakers who were all (3/3) R1b y dna. All of the Yamnaya samples tested so far have had dark hair and dark eyes. The oldest evidence of blonde hair comes from a 5000 BC individual in hungary with an EEF autosomal makeup and I2 y dna. 
> 
> looks like you were right the yamnaya but wrong about beakers, unetice, and pigmentation (1/4)


You can't know anything about pigmentation from a handful of samples. Even within a same family eye and hair colour can very tremendously. 

Unetice samples obviously had less Yamna admixture than the Corded Ware or Bell Beaker since Unetice is more recent, and therefore more admixed with indigenous populations (such as I2).

If you think that three I2 samples mean that all Unetice people were I2, you shouldn't be writing on this forum (or anywhere for that matter) as you don't understand the first thing about population genetics.

Anyway, I don't understand your reply. I didn't say that_ I_ predicted that Yamna and Corded Ware would cluster closest to the Mordovians or that Unetice clusters especially well with Ukrainians, Hungarians and Czechs. I was asking _Fire Haired14_ if he had predicted that on Eurogenes, as he was claiming that the Yamna, Corded ware, Bell Beaker, and Unetice are clustering on PCAs exactly as he predicted.

----------


## Angela

> I do not know for sure, but I think they made a mistake. Karelian you can also find 6000+/- year R1b-Z2103 in15%+/- (Arkhangelsk region and amongst the Komi at 16%the same for Iraqi Jews they also have 15 -20% R1b-Z2103 so they are sampling all R1b-Z2103 and using R1b-Z2103 population regions in their models. Of course the oldest to date now is in the center of these two poles of R1b-Z2103 5-6.4K+/- the Yamnaya R1b1 sample at 7.6 K +/-


Why would this necessarily mean that the authors were "wrong"? As you know, there is no necessarily direct connection between a specific yDna lineage and autosomal signature.

----------


## Angela

> Alan:What if this single R1b in the EHG was actually from a pastoralist who impregnated some EHG lady!.


It would have had to have been going on for quite a long while for this sample to be almost 100% EHG.

Alan:


> I say this because I honestly doubt that an all female migration was able to impose their pastoralist lifestyle on the EHG.


I actually wouldn't find it at all surprising if the "farmers" were matrilineal in terms of descent. That might go some way toward explaining the incorporation of hunter-gatherer men in Europe. We also have the example of the American Indians. Men took on the cultural identity of their mothers. 

However, in Europe the "Near Eastern" yDna lineages are also present. That isn't to say that we won't find some "G" and "J2" on the steppe, but we don't have them yet. 

Also, it seems that these intrusive "Near Eastern" lineages were pastoralist, and pastoralist societies today are almost always patrilineal and patrilocal, yes?



> Alan:how many times in History did it actually happen that there was an all female migration?


Never to my knowledge, although there are some mostly male migrations.




> Alan: So I honestly doubt the bride hypothesis


I tend to doubt it as well. I mean, I'm very familiar with the Rape of the Sabines and all of that, but the scale in this case would have had to have been huge, I think.

----------


## bicicleur

> I'm sure there were other yDna lineages. I'm not sure they were all that different autosomally. The oldest evidence of neolithic settlement in Cyprus is dated to 8800–8600 BC. By that time wouldn't the population of the Near East have been pretty admixed? I think that was the implication of Paschou et al. Therefore, I would think these island hopping farmers brought the genes as well as the animals from the Zagros with them at least.


and yet, the difference between the Yamnaya samples and the 2 EHG samples is the 'Armenian-like' admixture
this 'Armenian-like' admixture is different fom EEF 
or do you think the origin of this 'Armenian-like' is not SW Asian?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> You can't know anything about pigmentation from a handful of samples. Even within a same family eye and hair colour can very tremendously. 
> 
> Unetice samples obviously had less Yamna admixture than the Corded Ware or Bell Beaker since Unetice is more recent, and therefore more admixed with indigenous populations (such as I2).
> 
> If you think that three I2 samples mean that all Unetice people were I2, you shouldn't be writing on this forum (or anywhere for that matter) as you don't understand the first thing about population genetics.
> 
> Anyway, I don't understand your reply. I didn't say that_ I_ predicted that Yamna and Corded Ware would cluster closest to the Mordovians or that Unetice clusters especially well with Ukrainians, Hungarians and Czechs. I was asking _Fire Haired14_ if he had predicted that on Eurogenes, as he was claiming that the Yamna, Corded ware, Bell Beaker, and Unetice are clustering on PCAs exactly as he predicted.


I predicted at Eurogenes. Mordovians and other Volga-people might be mostly descended of Yamna-types who admixed with newcomers from Siberia. The single Saami sample Eurogenes has is from Finland and clusters with Volga-pops, so Yamna might also be similar to them. Also an Iron Age "Cimmerian" from Hungary appears to have been similar to Yamna.

Because there are so many different mutations associated with red hair and some have very obvious geographic trends it really matters which one if any of the ancient samples carry. So, if any of the R1b-Yamna or Bell beaker carry R160W which is most popular cause for red hair in the North sea, that would be evidence they carried it to northwest Europe.

----------


## Sile

> I'm sure there were other yDna lineages. I'm not sure they were all that different autosomally. The oldest evidence of neolithic settlement in Cyprus is dated to 8800–8600 BC. By that time wouldn't the population of the Near East have been pretty admixed? I think that was the implication of Paschou et al. Therefore, I would think these island hopping farmers brought the genes as well as the animals from the Zagros with them at least.


The haak paper is about steppe/yamnya movement into central europe, not about anatolian

 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 is ubiquitous in present-day Europeans. 

IMO, there was no J found because J seems to have origins in the fertile crescent and the zargos mountains "prevented" a massive movement north into south caucasus to follow these EN "south caucasus people " into yamnya lands

----------


## Aberdeen

> All wrong. The Unetice samples were all (3/3) I2 y dna and had less Yamnaya admixture than the Bell Beakers who were all (3/3) R1b y dna. All of the Yamnaya samples tested so far have had dark hair and dark eyes. The oldest evidence of blonde hair comes from a 5000 BC individual in hungary with an EEF autosomal makeup and I2 y dna. 
> 
> looks like you were right the yamnaya but wrong about beakers, unetice, and pigmentation (1/4)


Blondism is probably a lot more complex than that. My maternal grandmother had blond hair and my other three grandparents had black hair but my father and I were both born with blonde hair that got darker as we got older. And one of my sisters is a blond and the other two have always had dark hair. So it's complicated. And there were R1a types with light hair and light eyes in the Andronov sites that are about 4000 years old. And there seems to be some overlap between those modern populations that have a lot of R1b and those modern populations that have a lot of people with the red hair and blue eyes (e.g. Ireland and Scotland). So we certainly can't conclude at this point that Yamnaya people were all dark haired and dark eyed.

----------


## Angela

> and yet, the difference between the Yamnaya samples and the 2 EHG samples is the 'Armenian-like' admixture
> this 'Armenian-like' admixture is different fom EEF 
> or do you think the origin of this 'Armenian-like' is not SW Asian?


I guess I didn't explain myself very well. I do think that this "Armenian like" component is from southwest Asia if that definition includes not only the Levant but also adjacent areas involved in the genesis of the "Neolithic" package, ie. the domestication of animals as well as plants, and is distinguished from the more specialized "Southwest Asian" of, for example, the Dodecad calculators.
See:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08...-k12b-and.html

What I meant is that as the Neolithic farmers moved into areas like the Caucasus and/or Iran, they probably did admix with another group, as the ones who moved into Europe at some point mixed with WHG or a related population. Somehow a South Asian signal was incorporated which may be ANE related in addition to ANE from perhaps another source? The whole relationship of ANE to South Asian populations requires a lot more clarification.

See this Dienekes post:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08...-k12b-and.html

Also, as to the existence of a specific Caucasus group separate from the farmers in Anatolia (and ultimately EEF), I think we need to incorporate the data on Kostenki, who after all lived not so far away. According to 
Eske Willerslev he was Basal Eurasian, which of course is a major component of ENF and EEF .
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/11...leolithic.html

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Blondism is probably a lot more complex than that. My maternal grandmother had blond hair and my other three grandparents had black hair but my father and I were both born with blonde hair that got darker as we got older. And one of my sisters is a blond and the other two have always had dark hair. So it's complicated. And there were R1a types with light hair and light eyes in the Andronov sites that are about 4000 years old. And there seems to be some overlap between those modern populations that have a lot of R1b and those modern populations that have a lot of people with the red hair and blue eyes (e.g. Ireland and Scotland). So we certainly can't conclude at this point that Yamnaya people were all dark haired and dark eyed.


We have over 50 Eneolithic-bronze age Pontic steppe samples from many different sites with calls in key pigmentation SNPs. 90% most defiantly had brown eyes(or maybe some grey). Other calls suggest they had pigmentation most similar to modern west Asians. In terms of skin-pigmentation the same is true for EEF, but EEF had more light eyes because of alot of WHG ancestry. We have a pretty good idea what-type of pigmentation both had. 

I don't think we can associate the change in pigmentation in Europe in the last 6,000 years with one genetic group(like Yamna-types) but that it was more of a gradual change that involved many different and related people. 

If anyone though it can be associated with the Yamna-types and later CWC and BB-types.

----------


## Angela

> We have over 50 Eneolithic-bronze age Pontic steppe samples from many different sites with calls in key pigmentation SNPs. 90% most defiantly had brown eyes(or maybe some grey). Other calls suggest they had pigmentation most similar to modern west Asians. In terms of skin-pigmentation the same is true for EEF, but EEF had more light eyes because of alot of WHG ancestry. We have a pretty good idea what-type of pigmentation both had. 
> 
> I don't think we can associate the change in pigmentation in Europe in the last 6,000 years with one genetic group(like Yamna-types) but that it was more of a gradual change that involved many different and related people. 
> 
> If anyone though it can be associated with the Yamna-types and later CWC and BB-types.


I agree with most of that; certainly they seem to have been dark eyed and mostly dark haired. However, in terms of skin pigmentation I'm not sure they would have been modern "West Asian" like, which is in any case a subjective judgment. There are fairer and darker West Asians. It would be more clear if they had tested for SLC24A5 as well as SLC45A2, and other snps as well, since pigmentation is polygenic. For other readers, see Sandra Wilde et al 2014
http://www.pnas.org/lens/pnas/111/13/4832

In the first figure of the supplement there is a list of the specific sites from which the samples were taken, their mtDna information, and the pigmentation snp results.
www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/03/05/1316513111.DCSupplemental/pnas.201316513SI.pdfhttp://www.pnas.org/lens/pnas/111/13/4832

Yamnaya and Catacomb Culture pigmentation snps.JPG

Ed. Sorry, it's not legible. People will have to go to the link.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I agree with most of that; certainly they seem to have been dark eyed, and mostly dark haired. However, in terms of skin pigmentation I'm not sure they would have been modern "West Asian" like, which is in any case a subjective judgment. There are fairer and darker West Asians. It would be more clear if they had tested for SLC24A5 as well as SLC45A2 and other snps as well, since pigmentation is polygenic. For other readers, see Sandra Wilde et al 2014
> http://www.pnas.org/lens/pnas/111/13/4832


Yes, we may never know exactly what they looked like but it can't be random most both EEF and Yamna samples lack mutations associated with light skin in modern Europe. Remember even the 4,000YBP Pole had "dark complexion", something's going on. Looking at it from a world or west Eurasian view it is very strange that so many north Euros have yellow hair, and it makes sense this is a recent phenomenon. 5,000YBP most of the ancestors of north Euros(mostly Yamna and EEF) probably had similar pigmentation as west Asians and or south Europeans. 

rs16891982 and rs1042602 are the two skin-color related SNPs in Hirisplex that Euros and west Asians differ the most in. Looking at ancient DNA Yamna and EEF are just like west Asians in terms of those two SNPs. Whatever diversity in skin color west Asians have Yamna and EEF may have also had it. Bronze age Euro samples are more similar to modern Euros in terms of those SNPs. I suspect those two SNPs are key to understanding why west Asians and Europeans have different skin color. Sardinians have the lowest amount of derived alleles in rs16891982 in Europe and could easily pass as west Asian.

----------


## LeBrok

> Wait...So are you saying that when the authors of the Haak et al paper say that the "Yamnaya" people were half "Armenian like", they're only ta;king about the people of the eastern steppe who then became the Indo-Iranians? Z2103 is also present in the Balkans, southern Italy, Anatolia, etc. 
> 
> I ask because I thought you were proposing that the Yamnaya people didn't have a big chunk of the orange component.


I think the difference between West and East Yamnaya is shown in Corded Ware people. Corded Ware being descendents of West Yamnaya. West Yamnaya being a mixture of Yamnaya + Cucuteni. The orange in Corded Ware is from Cucuteni farmers. The mixing of Yamnaya and Cucuteni is attested by archeology, therefore it is safe to conclude that early neolithic farming admixture/orange came from Cucuteni farmers from Balkans. I believe they got some more farming genetic package from Armenian side admixture, the dark green. So they were more of farmers that 20% of orange could represent.

The East Yamnaya folks with less farming genes and more hunter gatherer/herders admixture,and a lot of R2013, fit better the horse back herders, Indo Iranian scenario, migrating to the East, then around caspian sea into the Middle East, and later some of them trickling down into the Balkans.

The 50% Armenian admixture, which I called Ancient Caucasian Admixture, muches the best of distribution of known Caucasian admixture, maybe with some West Asian in it. It took part in spreading farming, being part of EEF package. But it also has a strong presence in East Europe, matching ruffly Yamnaya/Corded Ware spread.




This Ancient Caucasus/Kostenki14/half Armenian signal can't be Gedrosia. We know that it was very strong in Yamnaya and Corded, and it would took a lot of explaining why isn't it present now in Eastern Europe, even at noise level.

----------


## motzart

> You can't know anything about pigmentation from a handful of samples. Even within a same family eye and hair colour can very tremendously. 
> 
> Unetice samples obviously had less Yamna admixture than the Corded Ware or Bell Beaker since Unetice is more recent, and therefore more admixed with indigenous populations (such as I2).
> 
> If you think that three I2 samples mean that all Unetice people were I2, you shouldn't be writing on this forum (or anywhere for that matter) as you don't understand the first thing about population genetics.
> 
> Anyway, I don't understand your reply. I didn't say that_ I_ predicted that Yamna and Corded Ware would cluster closest to the Mordovians or that Unetice clusters especially well with Ukrainians, Hungarians and Czechs. I was asking _Fire Haired14_ if he had predicted that on Eurogenes, as he was claiming that the Yamna, Corded ware, Bell Beaker, and Unetice are clustering on PCAs exactly as he predicted.


Nice to see that your counter argument is anecdotal and an ad hominem. Perfect example of the childish attitude and willful ignorance that is your answer to the mountain of data that directly contradicts all of your batshit crazy theories. Also exemplary of why I never bother to put antany effort into anything I post here if I even bother at all. Good luck with trying to spin your Indo European ubermensch yarn, its only going to get more difficult as the data grows.

----------


## Yetos

yo guys,

I heard william Parkinson finished his research in Diros project,
I know DNA tests have been done,
does anyone found a summary or a result?
I am searching 2 weeks now

----------


## Aberdeen

> Nice to see that your counter argument is anecdotal and an ad hominem. Perfect example of the childish attitude and willful ignorance that is your answer to the mountain of data that directly contradicts all of your batshit crazy theories. Also exemplary of why I never bother to put antany effort into anything I post here if I even bother at all. Good luck with trying to spin your Indo European ubermensch yarn, its only going to get more difficult as the data grows.


If you intend to continue being so childish and so rude to our host, could you at least conceal your national identity? You're an embarrassment to our country.

----------


## bicicleur

> I guess I didn't explain myself very well. I do think that this "Armenian like" component is from southwest Asia if that definition includes not only the Levant but also adjacent areas involved in the genesis of the "Neolithic" package, ie. the domestication of animals as well as plants, and is distinguished from the more specialized "Southwest Asian" of, for example, the Dodecad calculators.
> See:
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08...-k12b-and.html
> 
> What I meant is that as the Neolithic farmers moved into areas like the Caucasus and/or Iran, they probably did admix with another group, as the ones who moved into Europe at some point mixed with WHG or a related population. Somehow a South Asian signal was incorporated which may be ANE related in addition to ANE from perhaps another source? The whole relationship of ANE to South Asian populations requires a lot more clarification.
> 
> See this Dienekes post:
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08...-k12b-and.html
> 
> ...


I mentioned SW Asia in the first place and not just the Fertile Crescent
Acording to the book 'First Migrants' by Peter Bellwood, farming started 11500 years ago, but expansion beyond the fertile crescent started only 9000 years ago
West to Europe, east till Pakistan (Indus Valley)
He says 8500 years ago there was an expansion till western Armenia, but not beyond, so not to Transcaucasia
So there was space room lest for other tribes south of the Caucasus
As we now know expansion to Europe was mainly G2a2, but they also picked up other tribes along the way.
IMO the frist farmers in the Fertile Crescent were not G2a2, I would guess J2a, and these people also expanded eastwarts, probably just like G2a2 picking up other tribes on the way
Maykop seems to be associated with the Uruk expansion 6-5000 years ago.
Question is where Maykop R1b-M269 and R1b-M73 crossing the Caucasus or where these tribes allready on the steppe before that and did they get admixed with Maykop people north of the Caucasus before the 1st expansion of IE. (In the 2nd case, who were the Maykop people then?)

----------


## holderlin

> Nice to see that your counter argument is anecdotal and an ad hominem. Perfect example of the childish attitude and willful ignorance that is your answer to the mountain of data that directly contradicts all of your batshit crazy theories. Also exemplary of why I never bother to put antany effort into anything I post here if I even bother at all. Good luck with trying to spin your Indo European ubermensch yarn, its only going to get more difficult as the data grows.


Damn
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

----------


## Robert6

> Wait...So are you saying that when the authors of the Haak et al paper say that the "Yamnaya" people were half "Armenian like", they're only ta;king about the people of the eastern steppe who then became the Indo-Iranians? Z2103 is also present in the Balkans, southern Italy, Anatolia, etc. 
> 
> I ask because I thought you were proposing that the Yamnaya people didn't have a big chunk of the orange component.


I think that the early Kurgan people(Leila-Tepe Maykop and Kurganized Yamna) had Satem languages
Albanians + Armenians have many Z2103 and Albanians + Armenians are Satem.
Kurgan people invaded the Europe but didn't change the Languages.
Like the Satem, Sarmatians Alanians and European Huns(with Leto-Slavic or Iranian words "Med" "Strava" etc)
also invaded the Europe but didn't change the Languages


But Satem languages existed before the Kurgan people.
The ancestor cultures to Kurgan cultures are Gawra Ubaid Samarra(not to be confused to Samara) and Halaf, all four cultures were in Mesopotamia-Syria.
There is Euphratian substratum in Sumerian.
Euphratian languages possibly were IE, and possibly were ancestors of Satem languages.
Luvian languages were Satem according to some scholars, while the Hittite "newcomer" from Europe was Kentum.

----------


## ebAmerican

I would guess R1b-M269 is part of the EHG cline like it's cousin in Samara. The near eastern influence referred to by Haak of Yamna I suspect would be the Leyla-Tepe culture around 4000BC. Maykop seems to be highly influenced by Anatolian and Mesopotamian people. R1b-V88 in Africa is thought to be 3000BC. It probably descended from the Steppe into Syria, the Levant and Egypt during or before Maykop (along trade routes). We don't know what type of R1b (R1b1 basal) was found in Spain. The R1b sample in Spain was probably an outlier who wondered with some R1a through Central Europe and found it's way to the LBK and Pyrenees 5000BC. I like the idea of the Indo-European language being a mash-up of this cultural womb of nations from Tepe in the south and EHG in the north. It would make both hypothesis correct. The Anatolian version being 4000 years later that originally thought.

----------


## Tomenable

BTW - here is an interesting paper, which reveals a correlation between genetics and linguistics among Indo-European speakers:

http://www.jolr.ru/files/(105)jlr2013-9(23-35).pdf




> We do not expect that the history of Indo-Europeans followed the same clear model as that of the North Caucasians. It is therefore even more interesting to apply the same methodology to the IE case. So far, we have performed only one, but the most important kind of analysis — the correlation analysis of genetic, linguistic and geographic distances between the Indo-European populations of Europe. (We did not include Indo-Iranian populations because the Indian gene pool is much too different from the European one). This kind of analysis had already been performed earlier, in 2000 [Rosser et al., 2000], where it was found that both correlations are about r = 0.3. Twelve years later we repeated this analysis using a dataset that was ten times as large (Table 1). We found correlations that were twice as high (0.67 between genetics and linguistics and 0.70 between genetics and geography). In contrast with the case of the Caucasus, the partial correlation indicates a more important role of geography (genetics and geography r = 0.32, while genetics and linguistics only r = 0.21). *However, the high pair correlation with linguistics (r = 0.67) allows to use the statistical data as good predictors of genetic similarity between populations*


A very interesting chart from page 5 (genetic distances of *mitochondrial DNA* between major IE groups):



We notice that:

1) Generally languages correlate well with genetic distances.
2) There are some sharp exceptions from this rule, including:

a) Hungarians - they are genetically like Slavonic group, yet speak a Non-IE language
b) Romanians - genetically half-way between Slavonic & Germanic, yet speak Romance
b*) Aromuns - genetically (mtDNA) most similar to Slavonic group, yet speak Romance
c) Sicilians - genetically far away from all other groups, yet speak Romance

3) Some other quick observations:

d) Albanians - genetically in the middle between Germanic, Romance, Slavonic, and Baltic
e) Norwegians & Germans - genetically closest to Slavonic & Romance out of all Germanic groups
f) Icelanders and Austrians - relatively close to Celtic group (even closer than English)
g) Slavonic - genetically about half-way between Baltic and Germanic (interesting!)
h) Icelanders - mitochondrial DNA is very Celtic (pretty consistent with other studies).
i) Germanic group - in the middle between Celtic, Romance & Balto-Slavonic (fits with geography)

Remember that this is mitochondrial only (so Y-DNA and autosomal DNA was not compared).

----------


## Tomenable

> BTW - here is an interesting paper, which reveals a correlation between genetics and linguistics among Indo-European speakers:
> 
> http://www.jolr.ru/files/(105)jlr2013-9(23-35).pdf
> 
> A very interesting chart from page 5 (genetic distances of *mitochondrial DNA* between major IE groups):
> 
> 
> 
> We notice that:
> ...


One more thing - Latvians, so far away from Germanic (quite surprising).

Perhaps this is because this study is on mtDNA, not on Y-DNA or autosomal.

=============================

BTW:

Czechs & Swedes - looks like Czechs like Swedish women (or the other way around).

Or rather female stock in both countries have some common deep ancestry ???

In terms of Y-DNA Swedes and Czechs are very different.

----------


## Tomenable

From page 6 - hotspots of Neolithic ancestry in Picardy and North-Eastern Ukraine ???:

----------


## Alan

@LeBrok

So you think it is possible that some of the Caucasus_Gedrosia genes were much more widespred in Northern Eurasia in the past. I agree it is very possible, but naturally I think ancient Eurasians should be closer to populations of ancient Western Asian because at the end of the day at some point thex reached the North fom the South.

But this is all mere speculation. Kosetnki even had some early "Basal Eurasian.

But the point here is that at least native mesolithic H&G were different from the Yamna population by not having (or having less of it) genes which are nowadays typical for populations of Caucasus, Mesopotamia and Iranian Plateau.

----------


## Alan

> I do not know for sure, but I think they made a mistake. Karelian you can also find 6000+/- year R1b-Z2103 in15%+/- (Arkhangelsk region and amongst the Komi at 16%the same for Iraqi Jews they also have 15 -20% R1b-Z2103 so they are sampling all R1b-Z2103 and using R1b-Z2103 population regions in their models. Of course the oldest to date now is in the center of these two poles of R1b-Z2103 5-6.4K+/- the Yamnaya R1b1 sample at 7.6 K +/-


So as I thought they are assuming that R1b-Z2103 was brought to the Steppes from Western Asia.

----------


## Alan

> For my logic the dark green came from Caucasus. If it was truly old Near Eastern it would have spread to Europe with EEF, but it didn't. It was stuck in Caucasus till copper/bronze age.


But the problem is, as Dienekes wrote even with Bedoins this affinity still strongly exists, which makes it doubtful that this "pastoralist" DNA is not from there. As I said the most logical conclusion i that this green Yamna component is not a real component but ~50% Caucasus_Gedrosia + WHG and ANE (additional to the ANE already in Caucasus_Gedrosia).

----------


## Alan

> It would have had to have been going on for quite a long while for this sample to be almost 100% EHG.
> 
> Alan:
> 
> I actually wouldn't find it at all surprising if the "farmers" were matrilineal in terms of descent. That might go some way toward explaining the incorporation of hunter-gatherer men in Europe. We also have the example of the American Indians. Men took on the cultural identity of their mothers. 
> 
> However, in Europe the "Near Eastern" yDna lineages are also present. That isn't to say that we won't find some "G" and "J2" on the steppe, but we don't have them yet. 
> 
> Also, it seems that these intrusive "Near Eastern" lineages were pastoralist, and pastoralist societies today are almost always patrilineal and patrilocal, yes?
> ...




I understand what you mean and the point was actually that pastoralists in Western Asia are very patriachal. 

If it was all womens bringing their genes to Yamna and the pastoralist lifestyle to Yamna, we would expect the Yamna Indo Europeans to have become a matriachal society. But we all know it is exactly the opposite.
Also in History I have yet to see any migration only taken by one gender on it's own. It seems it was always family migrations. Heck even among the Indo_Aryans who migrated into India and have been very much patriachal, as seen on the founder effect there, we can find allot of typical Indo European mtDNA which supports a at least some female migration too. I would say the Indo_Aryan migration was something like a quarter female. 

What means half of the migration was taken by families and another half by single males who definitely took local wifes. And with time this mixing went on and on.

And last but not least, if there was not a single male migration into Yamna we would have to expect that the EHG completely replaced there natives females with proto-pastoralist brides. Which doesn't seem very logical to me.

And as you I am sure we will find allot of other yDNA lineages in Yamna. And I am still not 100% convinced that R1b Z2103 was an all "EHG" lineage.

----------


## bicicleur

> Actually orange/farmer guys inserted themselves into population of blue and green hunter gatherer in Yamnaya first. Only after mixing with farmers/orange in Yamnaya the population of Yamnaya stopped being HG, grew in numbers as new farmers (West Yamnaya), and expanded into central europe as farming community of Corded Ware. East Yamnaya stayed as HG/horseback herders/ and a bit of farmers and expanded into East Steppe as Andronovo Indo-Iranians.


i don't see any orange in yamnaya, only blue and green
but on the PCA both orange and green cause a shift toward the right hand side

----------


## arvistro

> One more thing - Latvians, so far away from Germanic (quite surprising).
> 
> Perhaps this is because this study is on mtDNA, not on Y-DNA or autosomal.


Latvians also autosomally are outliers. I think there was one chart where we were in the very corner, the usual Finn place :) With Estonians and even Finns being somewhat closer to other Europe.
On Y-dna we are also not very much Germanic ~40% N1C, ~40% R1A... We have some R1B and probably some I1, unfortunately not much statistics is available on Latvian subclades. But we have huge influence on our culture and language from Germans.

----------


## Ukko

> Latvians also autosomally are outliers. I think there was one chart where we were in the very corner, the usual Finn place :) With Estonians and even Finns being somewhat closer to other Europe.
> On Y-dna we are also not very much Germanic ~40% N1C, ~40% R1A... We have some R1B and probably some I1, unfortunately not much statistics is available on Latvian subclades. But we have huge influence on our culture and language from Germans.


You have a lot of Baltic Finnic genes, most likely language and culture also.

----------


## Yetos

> I think that the early Kurgan people(Leila-Tepe Maykop and Kurganized Yamna) had Satem languages
> Albanians + Armenians have many Z2103 and Albanians + Armenians are Satem.
> Kurgan people invaded the Europe but didn't change the Languages.
> Like the Satem, Sarmatians Alanians and European Huns(with Leto-Slavic or Iranian words "Med" "Strava" etc)
> also invaded the Europe but didn't change the Languages
> 
> 
> But Satem languages existed before the Kurgan people.
> The ancestor cultures to Kurgan cultures are Gawra Ubaid Samarra(not to be confused to Samara) and Halaf, all four cultures were in Mesopotamia-Syria.
> ...


Hettit was no satem no centum.
so yamnaa was neither centum, neither satem,
besides the linguistic group among Greco-Aryan, and German-Slavic shows also that PIE were not divided in such.

only Armenian Hypothesis can support a satem PIE

----------


## Alan

> Hettit was no satem no centum.
> so yamnaa was neither centum, neither satem,
> besides the linguistic group among Greco-Aryan, and German-Slavic shows also that PIE were not divided in such.
> 
> *only Armenian Hypothesis can support a satem PIE*


If you mean the West Asian herders theory, than I would say contrary this theory would explain why Hittite was not yet Satem or Kentum, because it would be close to the supposed PIE homeland.

I wished we had any Hittite sample. It's aDNA would shed allot of light on all this PIE discussion.

----------


## Yetos

> If you mean the West Asian herders theory, than I would say contrary this theory would explain why Hittite was not yet Satem or Kentum, because it would be close to the supposed PIE homeland.
> 
> I wished we had any Hittite sample. It's aDNA would shed allot of light on all this PIE discussion.


possible Ydna H
the full hettit theory is called Indo-Hettit,
homeland, Afganistan/Pakistan, out of India.

----------


## LeBrok

> i don't see any orange in yamnaya, only blue and green
> but on the PCA both orange and green cause a shift toward the right hand side


Because we don't have samples from West Yamanaya. This is where Yamnaya mixed with Cucuteni farmers.

----------


## LeBrok

> But the problem is, as Dienekes wrote even with Bedoins this affinity still strongly exists, which makes it doubtful that this "pastoralist" DNA is not from there. As I said the most logical conclusion i that this green Yamna component is not a real component but ~50% Caucasus_Gedrosia + WHG and ANE (additional to the ANE already in Caucasus_Gedrosia).


Definitely not Gedrosia. Gedrosia came late (Bronze Age) from East side of Caspian Sea. It came on South side of Caspian. This map shows how it flows from lower right corner and diminishes towards Balkans. It didn't have epicenter in Near East, not even existed there during Neolithic. It is a latecomer. 
Caucasian admixture was hiding in Caucasus till Bronze Age too. 
Yamnaya received mostly Caucasian admixture, some West Asian, and no Gedrosia.


There is no Gedrosia in half of Yamnaya and Corded Ware territory. Gedrosia in Western Europe corresponds to R1b IE invasion, through Near East.

----------


## Alan

@Lebrok


Reich called it a component characteristic for populations of "Caucasus and South_Central Asia".

This is definitely Caucasus_Gedrosia and more so Gedrosia. Gedrosia peaks in the Baloch groups who live in Southwestern Asia and are known to have hailed from Zagros/Northern Mesopotamia.

I think you might have confused something. "Caucasus, Gedrosia and West Asian" are not three different components. from your statement it appears like you think that way.

"West Asian" of Dodecad is "Caucasus_Gedrosia", in fact Gedrosia is more "West Asian" than Caucasus. 

Gedrosia is 92% West Asian like of K7b + 8% ANI like.
Caucasus is 56% West Asian like of k7b + 38% Southern like and 6% North European like.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v80ztSRUM9...A8/s400/_7.png

And the West Asian component itself is ~58% Gedrosia and 42% Caucasus.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iN1EuOd52c...0/s400/_12.png

----------


## Sile

> i don't see any orange in yamnaya, only blue and green
> but on the PCA both orange and green cause a shift toward the right hand side


leBrok is correct, the orange, blue and green mixed in yamnya for a long time and when eventually they began to head from yamnya to central europe and beyond, these haplogroups where already mixed..........basically the thinking that haplogroups entered central europe on their lonesome is 100% boulderdash

Yamnya was a mixing bowl of many many haplogroups

----------


## bicicleur

> Because we don't have samples from West Yamanaya. This is where Yamnaya mixed with Cucuteni farmers.


do you mean, Yamaya people got EEF (orange) admixture from Cucuteni before getting into Europe ?

----------


## Angela

Aren't we perhaps getting lost in semantics?

The "Armenian like" people who form half of the ancestry of the Yamnaya samples are not EEF. However, I think that when a sample of an early near eastern farmer is found and analyzed, there will be overlap or gene flow from that sample into EEF people and also into "West Asian" or "Caucasus" people or whatever else one chooses to label that drifted cluster. 

I think we have learned that "pots are _indeed_ people in most instances", and agriculture and pastoralism are _also_ people. These were changes in technology and culture that were brought from one place to another by the migration of people. Cultural diffusion of agriculture didn't work in Europe as an explanation for the spread of agriculture and I don't think it works for the east either. It spread from the Zagros area (and others) into Iran, and then eventually up around the South Caspian and into Turkmenistan with the people who brought it.
See these maps for the spread of the Neolithic into Iran:




In the case of pastoralism, everything I know indicates that hunter gatherers don't just make a leap into pastoralism. It is embedded in an agricultural context, i.e. it develops in an agricultural context when people find that their crops don't do so well in a certain environment, but their domesticated animals do quite well. This is what happened in the Near East. On the fringes of the agricultural/pastoral world you're going to find more mixed people. The anthropology of Africa makes that clear. The hunter gatherers remain isolated and marginalized people, even if they have some minority ancestry from newcomers. The farmers and/or pastoralists have hunter-gatherer ancestry, meaning that they are a sort of "mestizo" group. Something similar probably happened in the Near East. 

When the pastoralists arrived in these areas, they encountered other people who were heavy in ANE and probably traces of other things. Who knows, maybe there was some "Basal" there as well. Here, it gets too speculative for me even under these circumstances. 

As to what yDna lineages this involved, I don't know. Y Dna fluctuates. Perhaps it was G or perhaps it was J2. From my reading of Grugni et al J2 seems to have a center of gravity in Iran, but it might have originated in the greater Zagros area as well. We're going to have to wait for ancient dna.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0041252

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xY5E4itZfp...41252.g002.jpg
The vertical column on the left is frequency...on the right it's diversity.

The Dodecad "clusters", as helpful as they doubtless were to Dienekes in attempting to figure out the population genetics in West Eurasia, are of limited usefulness. Too many layers of migrations went into the creation of them. All of these "clusters" are drifted sets of alleles formed from much more ancient populations. 

As to what was in the western steppe, I don't know. Perhaps R1a was there, but if it was, I think it might have had a more northern distribution. I still tend to think that Corded Ware was a "Yamnaya related" group, not Yamnaya proper. I think it's more likely that Yamnaya proper originated and developed in the Samara region, which is why they wanted to sample there. I also think it's pretty likely that the southwestern Yamnaya steppe, at least, was R1b as well, and that it was from there that the older (?) L51 left. If it isn't found there, I think it will be in the Balkans. 

Of course, it's possible that some L23 went from the steppe south of the Caucasus, across Anatolia and then into Europe. We'll have to wait and see.

Ed. If R1a _is_ found there, it may be that it moved south later to fill a vacuu.

----------


## Angela

It is the K16 figure which seems to be under discussion.
Attachment 7080
It is _Corded Ware_ which shows the "orange" EEF like intrusion, which they likely picked up in their move west. There is no "orange" in the R1b Yamnaya people from the greater Samara region. Whether there will be some in the western or southwestern Yamnaya region remains to be seen, but I would assume that is probably the case, given the long documented contacts between those communities and western Samara. That has nothing to do with whether or not there is underlying similarity between EEF and the "Near Eastern" half of the Yamnaya. As I said in my prior post, I believe there will be overlap, with the major difference being WHG in EEF and ANE in the "Near Easterners". Time and more ancient genomes and more analysis will tell.

----------


## Maciamo

> From page 6 - hotspots of Neolithic ancestry in Picardy and North-Eastern Ukraine ???:


This doesn't look like Neolithic ancestry but rather the Armenian-like component 5caucaso-Gedrosian) of Yamna. Neolithic admixture peaks in the southern Levant (Israel, Palestine, Jordan), which on this map is as low as, or lower than the European average. 

It just looks like Haak et al. completely mistook in their assessment of Neolithic ancestry in 2010. The green region around Kurdistan and western Iran corresponds to what I consider the Neolithic homeland of R1b cattle herders, before they crossed the Caucasus to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. It's not surprising that within Europe it should peak in southern Ukraine (Yamna core) then follow the migration path of R1b through the Carpathians, up the Danube to Germany, and into the Benelux, France and Italy. Non-Indo-European populations like the Basques, Sardinians, Sami, Siberian tribes, North African have very low levels of their admixture. This is also the case for other regions with low R1b like Bosnia-Serbia-Albania, the Arabian peninsula, or even the central Alps (a known refuge for the Neolithic population after the IE invasions).

----------


## holderlin

I hope everyone on this site realizes how weird they are

----------


## holderlin

I was at a Christmas party years back, with family, and there was this one step cousin who had a Chinese girlfriend with freckles. We all got to talking, everyone was drinking a lot, and someone mentioned her freckles. So of course I blurt out "Yeah, yeah you look more like an Altaic Steppe Nomad, maybe with a bit of Iranian, than a Han Chinese." There wasn't really an awkward moment at the time, people just commented on how fair she was and the conversation meandered.

But the next day at breakfast people were talking about how they didn't like freckled Chinese girl and they say "..she HATED you" to me. My brother in law starts laughing, and goes "....what did you call her?......what did you say?...." then he blurts out "Steppe Nomad" and the entire table of people erupts into hilarity.

And I thought I was complimenting her.

----------


## Maciamo

> Definitely not Gedrosia. Gedrosia came late (Bronze Age) from East side of Caspian Sea. It came on South side of Caspian. This map shows how it flows from lower right corner and diminishes towards Balkans. It didn't have epicenter in Near East, not even existed there during Neolithic. It is a latecomer. 
> Caucasian admixture was hiding in Caucasus till Bronze Age too. 
> Yamnaya received mostly Caucasian admixture, some West Asian, and no Gedrosia.
> 
> 
> There is no Gedrosia in half of Yamnaya and Corded Ware territory. Gedrosia in Western Europe corresponds to R1b IE invasion, through Near East.



I am still convinced that Yamna R1b people brought the Gedrosian admixture to Europe, and that before living in the steppe they came from what is now Kurdistan, a hotspot on the Gedrosia map. 

The reason that Slavic countries lack the Gedrosian admixture is that they descend mostly from the Corded Ware culture, who were relatively pure R1a and didn't have that Gedrosian admixture. R1a people re-expanded several times to the Yamna territory from the Catacomb culture to the Slavic expansion, progressively depleting the region from the Yamna genes.

We could know if I am right by running the Yamna samples in the Dodecad K12b and see how much Gedrosian they have, once (or if) the autosomal data gets published.

----------


## Maciamo

> It is the K16 figure which seems to be under discussion.
> Attachment 7080
> It is _Corded Ware_ which shows the "orange" EEF like intrusion, which they likely picked up in their move west. There is no "orange" in the R1b Yamnaya people from the greater Samara region. Whether there will be some in the western or southwestern Yamnaya region remains to be seen, but I would assume that is probably the case, given the long documented contacts between those communities and western Samara. That has nothing to do with whether or not there is underlying similarity between EEF and the "Near Eastern" half of the Yamnaya. As I said in my prior post, I believe there will be overlap, with the major difference being WHG in EEF and ANE in the "Near Easterners". Time and more ancient genomes and more analysis will tell.


What surprises me in this paper is the *complete absence of EEF admixture in the Yamna samples* tested. That could mean two things:

A) It wasn't G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a1a people from the Balkans/Carpathians who brought copper metallurgy to the steppes (Sredny Stog, Khvalinsk, etc.), as I thought.

B) It was them, but they hadn't mixed with the few R1b-Z2103 individuals tested from the Volga-Ural region. After all population blending takes many centuries or millennia before affecting the genetic admixture of all the individuals in the population. I would therefore expect to find other individuals who are hybridized, and even individuals who are mostly EEF (with some WHG or EHG) among future Yamna samples. Those EEF-dominant samples would surely belong to G2a3b1, J2b2 or T1a1a (perhaps even some E-V13 and I2a). 

It's always important to keep in mind that with DNA a few samples aren't always representative of all the people who lived in a region/culture at a given time. It is especially true in periods of migrations, when new people had just arrived in a region and hadn't had time to mix with indigenous people. Imagine testing the DNA of the person person you mean in London or Paris today and think that that individual necessarily represent a typical English or French genome. Of course the person sampled could be a recent immigrant, or half-local, half-immigrant. It's the same with Yamna, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Unetice, etc. New people just moved in. How can we be sure they are locals or immigrants ? Usually we can guess from the style of the artefacts in their tomb. But what if the origins of the culture are unclear, like the Bell Beaker or Yamna ? Who brought the Copper/Bronze Age to the steppes ? Caucasian people ? West Asians ? Balkanic people ? Was it developed by autochthons ? 


Another observations is that the *Malta-1* sample was predominantly EHG and Armenian-like (with some EEF and many minor admixtures) in all Ks except K=20. This suggest the dual Yamna admixture was not dual at all, but that there were R1 people were originally like Yamna, and not like the Samara and Karelia hunter-gatherers. This completely reverses the table. It wouldn't be the Mesolithic R1a-M417 and R1b-P297 samples who are pure, but rather so admixed with indigenous Northeast European women that they lost their original admixture, a bit like the N1c1 Lithuanians and Latvians today who do not have any trace of East Asian ancestry anymore.

----------


## Angela

> I hope everyone on this site realizes how weird they are


All the rudeness, boorishness and ad hominem attacks in the world won't change the fact that Maciamo and other posters here were right in many of their predictions, unlike people from other blogs. Whatever happened to R1b is definitely *not* Indo-European?

You also don't seem to understand that you are a guest here. Whether or not you care, this isn't civilized behavior. You do no credit to either yourself or your people when you behave in this way.

----------


## holderlin

> All the rudeness, boorishness and ad hominem attacks in the world won't change the fact that Maciamo and other posters here were right in many of their predictions, unlike people from other blogs. Whatever happened to R1b is definitely *not* Indo-European?


This response to my joke makes absolutely no sense. I don't even know what you're talking about




> You also don't seem to understand that you are a guest here. Whether or not you care, this isn't civilized behavior. You do no credit to either yourself or your people when you behave in this way.


And I think this is a bit over dramatic. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm poking fun at a bunch of nerds, of which I am a part, who are obsessed with a weird intellectual niche. Did you read my post immediately following the one you quoted?

----------


## Angela

> This response to my joke makes absolutely no sense. I don't even know what you're talking about
> 
> 
> 
> And I think this is a bit over dramatic. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm poking fun at a bunch of nerds, of which I am a part, who are obsessed with a weird intellectual niche. Did you read my post immediately following the one you quoted?


There was no context to your comment, and this is the internet, not a face to face conversation. Have you ever heard of the use of emoticons to transmit "tone"? Personally, I'm not accustomed to calling people "weird" because they're passionate about certain intellectual pursuits, but perhaps that's how you talk in your circles, so I'll accept that it was meant to be humorous. As to your second post, I've just read it. I take it that you meant that calling someone "weird" in this context is a complement.

Actually, I don't actually find an interest in this subject "weird". What I find "weird" are the motivations and agendas which often seem to drive this interest.

In the interests of collegiality perhaps you would care to explain your disagreement with post number 319.

----------


## Ukko

> What surprises me in this paper is the *complete absence of EEF admixture in the Yamna samples* tested. That could mean two things:
> 
> A) It wasn't G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a1a people from the Balkans/Carpathians who brought copper metallurgy to the steppes (Sredny Stog, Khvalinsk, etc.), as I thought.
> 
> B) It was them, but they hadn't mixed with the few R1b-Z2103 individuals tested from the Volga-Ural region. After all population blending takes many centuries or millennia before affecting the genetic admixture of all the individuals in the population. I would therefore expect to find other individuals who are hybridized, and even individuals who are mostly EEF (with some WHG or EHG) among future Yamna samples. Those EEF-dominant samples would surely belong to G2a3b1, J2b2 or T1a1a (perhaps even some E-V13 and I2a). 
> 
> It's always important to keep in mind that with DNA a few samples aren't always representative of all the people who lived in a region/culture at a given time. It is especially true in periods of migrations, when new people had just arrived in a region and hadn't had time to mix with indigenous people. Imagine testing the DNA of the person person you mean in London or Paris today and think that that individual necessarily represent a typical English or French genome. Of course the person sampled could be a recent immigrant, or half-local, half-immigrant. It's the same with Yamna, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Unetice, etc. New people just moved in. How can we be sure they are locals or immigrants ? Usually we can guess from the style of the artefacts in their tomb. But what if the origins of the culture are unclear, like the Bell Beaker or Yamna ? *Who brought the Copper/Bronze Age to the steppes ? Caucasian people ? West Asians ? Balkanic people ? Was it developed by autochthons ? 
> *
> 
> Another observations is that the *Malta-1* sample was predominantly EHG and Armenian-like (with some EEF and many minor admixtures) in all Ks except K=20. This suggest the dual Yamna admixture was not dual at all, but that there were R1 people were originally like Yamna, and not like the Samara and Karelia hunter-gatherers. This completely reverses the table. It wouldn't be the Mesolithic R1a-M417 and R1b-P297 samples who are pure, but rather so admixed with indigenous Northeast European women that they lost their original admixture, a bit like the N1c1 Lithuanians and Latvians today who do not have any trace of East Asian ancestry anymore.


N1c1 and Uralic is not an candidate?

----------


## Tomenable

Is most of R1b among the Basques descended from that Pre-Indo-European Neolithic Spanish R1b ??? 

Check:




> I0410 (Spain_EN)
> We determined that this individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (M415:9170545C→A), with upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, the individual was ancestral for R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C), R1b1a2 (PF6399:2668456C→T, L265:8149348A→G, L150.1:10008791C→T and M269:22739367T→C), R1b1c2 (V35:6812012T→A), and R1b1c3 (V69:18099054C→T), and could thus be designated R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1c2, R1b1c3). The occurrence of a basal form of haplogroup R1b1 in both western Europe and R1b1a in eastern Europe (I0124 hunter-gatherer from Samara) complicates the interpretation of the origin of this lineage. We are not aware of any other western European R1b lineages reported in the literature before the Bell Beaker period (ref. 2 and this study). It is possible that either (i) the Early Neolithic Spanish individual was a descendant of a Neolithic migrant from the Near East that introduced this lineage to western Europe, or (ii) there was a very sparse distribution of haplogroup R1b in [Western] European hunter-gatherers and early farmers, so the lack of its detection in the published literature may reflect its occurrence at very low frequency. The occurrence of a basal form of R1b1 in western Europe logically raises the possibility that presentday western Europeans (who belong predominantly to haplogroup R1b1a2-M269) may trace their origin to early Neolithic farmers of western Europe. However, we think this is not likely given the existence of R1b1a2-M269 not only in western Europe but also in the Near East; such a distribution implies migrations of M269 males from western Europe to the Near East which do not seem archaeologically plausible. We prefer the explanation that R-M269 originated in the eastern end of its distribution, given its first appearance in the Yamnaya males (below) and in the Near East17.


And also:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/




> Interestingly, all seven of the Yamnaya males sampled by Haak et al., mostly from the Samara Valley on the Ural steppe, belong to R1b-M269, the most common subclade of R1b today.* However, five belong to the West Asian-specific R1b-Z1203, but none to the West European-specific R1b-M412.* Also, all nine Yamnaya samples show Near Eastern admixture, described in the paper as Armenian-like.


Yamnaya subclades:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

R1b1a2a2*
R1b1a
R1b1a2a2
R1b1a2a*
R1b1a2a2
R1b1a2a2*
R1b1a2a2*

----------


## Angela

This is the complete graphic from Haak et al 2010, which only concerns mtDna:

The map on the left shows the genetic distances to modern populations for _all_ of their 42 mtDna samples (which in addition are _only_ from the early Neolithic LBK). The map on the right shows the genetic distances for _only_ the Derenberg sample. Obviously, comparisons using the samples from one single site are not as informative as comparisons using the compilation of all the samples from that particular culture. If this were repeated with _all_ the mtDna sequences from _all_ of the pre-Yamnaya appearance Neolithic samples in Europe it would be even more informative. Then, we have to remember that Yamnaya brought some EHG mtDna along with it, and there were still migration movements further on into history, including migrations with ancestry from northern Baltic refugia and from Uralic speaking areas. All of those things would affect modern distributions. It has nothing to do with yDna obviously.

It seems to me that this graphic shows that the "Neolithic" or "farmer" mtDna is correlated with Anatolia/northern Syria and the area just to the _south of the Caucasus_, which is what I've been talking about for the last couple of days. The mtDna and thus some part of the autosomal admixture in "EEF" and "Near Eastern" is similar. There is far less of this mtDna signature off to the east. That might indicate that the people who contributed the "Near Eastern" portion of Yamnaya came from south of the Caucasus, possibly moving up the narrow passage along the eastern side of the Caspian, or, if they came up the other side of the Caspian their mtDna signature is no longer dominant there. Perhaps someone very familiar with that part of the world can further elucidate this for us.

----------


## holderlin

> There was no context to your comment, and this is the internet, not a face to face conversation. Have you ever heard of the use of emoticons to transmit "tone"? Personally, I'm not accustomed to calling people "weird" because they're passionate about certain intellectual pursuits, but perhaps that's how you talk in your circles, so I'll accept that it was meant to be humorous.


Yes




> As to your second post, I've just read it. I take it that you meant that calling someone "weird" in this context is a complement.


Kinda




> Actually, I don't actually find an interest in this subject "weird". What I find "weird" are the motivations and agendas which often seem to drive this interest.


Bingo




> In the interests of collegiality perhaps you would care to explain your disagreement with post number 319.


You must mean how I accidentally clicked on the "no not helpful" button. Just an accident. I agreed with that post.

----------


## LeBrok

> do you mean, Yamaya people got EEF (orange) admixture from Cucuteni before getting into Europe ?


Yes, but only in West Yamnaya. It is not present in East Yamnaya where R1b samples come from.

----------


## LeBrok

> I am still convinced that Yamna R1b people brought the Gedrosian admixture to Europe, and that before living in the steppe they came from what is now Kurdistan, a hotspot on the Gedrosia map. 
> 
> The reason that Slavic countries lack the Gedrosian admixture is that they descend mostly from the Corded Ware culture, who were relatively pure R1a and didn't have that Gedrosian admixture. R1a people re-expanded several times to the Yamna territory from the Catacomb culture to the Slavic expansion, progressively depleting the region from the Yamna genes.
> 
> We could know if I am right by running the Yamna samples in the Dodecad K12b and see how much Gedrosian they have, once (or if) the autosomal data gets published.


Well, we have the one R1b HG full of EHG admixture and nothing Armenian, before Yamnaya R1b showed up with half Armenian. It is more likely that Caucasian and Gedrosian admixture came to them by others, Mykop women. There is still a possibility that they indeed came from Kurdistan. However, if they came from lands filled with Near Eastern Farmers, why they had only R1b? At this time period it is hard to find any farming community in Europe to be so Y hg homogenous. It is unlikely that in Near East was different. In most known cases, the farmers move into HGs area and not vice versa, and mix heavily.
I hope they publish the full genome, and some mystery will be solved.

I think the dark green in Yamnaya is Caucasian admixture only, which is a mixture of ENF with Kostenki/Ancient Caucasian admixture. I think that R1b went around Caspian Sea to Kurdistan area and this is where they've picked up Gedrosia, or perhaps from east side of Caspian, before moving to Europe. We'll see.

----------


## LeBrok

> i don't see any orange in yamnaya, only blue and green


 Orange is in Corded Ware who were related to Yamnaya. West Yamnaya where samples were tested didn't have it, but I'm sure it must have been present in West Yamnaya (untested), the closer to Cucuteni the more orange.



> but on the PCA both orange and green cause a shift toward the right hand side


 If we assume that Yamnaya R1bs come from Samara HG R1b (the starting point), then you'll see that Yamnaya guys were pulled straight East, not South, towards Kostenki and Caucasian folks. You can draw a straight line from EHG to Caucasus/Kostenki, and in the middle of this line you'll see Yamnaya guys. EEF/European Neolithic would pull them more South than East.
If we have samples from West Late Yamnaya we should see them on the PCA very close to Corded Ware, or I eat the crow. :)

----------


## LeBrok

> @Lebrok
> 
> 
> Reich called it a component characteristic for populations of "Caucasus and South_Central Asia".


 It is characteristic now but it wasn't till Bronze Age when these two components finally mixed together.




> This is definitely Caucasus_Gedrosia and more so Gedrosia. Gedrosia peaks in the Baloch groups who live in Southwestern Asia and are known to have hailed from Zagros/Northern Mesopotamia.
> 
> I think you might have confused something. "Caucasus, Gedrosia and West Asian" are not three different components. from your statement it appears like you think that way.
> "West Asian" of Dodecad is "Caucasus_Gedrosia", in fact Gedrosia is more "West Asian" than Caucasus.


I didn't know that, thanks for explaining. Actually I'm glad it turned this way. Now I know why West Asian correlated with Yamnaya a bit. It was the Caucasian admixture in it. Now it makes things simpler.

I don't think Gedrosia was in Neolithic mix in Near East, because: 
- it is not in EEF farmers, and we know where they came from.
- it is not present in East Europe these days, however we have elevated level of Caucasian throughout East Europe.
- If it was one/well mixed component by Bronze Age, the Yamnaya would have gotten it together and spread together through Eastern Europe. When we look at these two admixture maps of Eastern Europe they don't match at all. Caucasian is present at 10-20% level, Gedrosia is 0 or close to zero percent. It is not the way the united component of West Asian should work. On other hand Western Europe has Gedrosia and Caucasus at about 10% level. IE R1b folks came from location where these two admixtures were about even.
- How is it possible that Corded Ware and Unetice had 1/3 of gedrosia, but it is completely gone from this area, except in countries with high level of R1b?

We should have 3 major admixtures in Middle East.
- ENF from Fertile Crescent
- Caucasian hunter gatherer turned farmer by Bronze Age, hiding in Caucasus till Late Neolithic and Bronze Age.
- Gedrosian hunter gatherer hiding at East side of Caspian Sea till Bronze Age.




> And the West Asian component itself is ~58% Gedrosia and 42% Caucasus.
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iN1EuOd52c...0/s400/_12.png


 Even more wierd that Caucasus admixture exists in Eastern Europe without Gedrosia. It wouldn't be the case if it was one united element spreading together from Bronze Age.

----------


## Maciamo

> N1c1 and Uralic is not an candidate?


Of course not. There was no copper metallurgy is Northeast Europe or the Urals before Yamna.

----------


## Maciamo

> Is most of R1b among the Basques descended from that Pre-Indo-European Neolithic Spanish R1b ???


It is phylogenetically impossible that the Basque descend from the R1b1* from Neolithic Spain because the Basque belong to the Celtic P312 clade. They would have needed to accumulate exactly the same mutations as the M269 branch starting from P25. There are already 45 mutations separating R1b1* (P25) from R1b1a2 (M269) as you can see in the R1b phylogeny. After that there are 8 more mutations to P312 and 11 mutations more to reach the Basque *M153*. We you know that there is one chance in 60 million that two individuals are born with the same mutation on the Y chromosome (which has 60 million characters) the chances that two separate lineages acquire exactly the same 64 mutations in a row is so astronomical as to be unfathomable by the human mind (imagine a number followed by hundreds of zeros). 

Therefore we can say with close to 100% certainty (limit towards infinity of 100%) that not a single R1b-M269 descends from the Spanish Neolithic sample.

By the way, Yfull.com gives an age of 15000 years for the formation of R1b-M153 and a TMRCA of 1300 years. This means that the common R1b patrilineal ancestors of about half of Basque R1b men only lived around 700 CE, during the Early Middle Ages, around the time of the Moorish conquest of Iberia. This means that if we tested Basque sample from 2000, 3000 or 4000 years ago, there is a high probability that the majority of samples wouldn't be R1b (but probably in majority I2a1). The replacement of Basque paternal lineages by R1b lineages is very recent.

It's also interesting to see that most of the Catalan R1b-SRY2627 (mostly the Z206 and CTS606 subclades) have a TMRCA of 2700 to 3500 years, meaning that R1b spread in the region in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age, when most of Western Europe outside Iberia was already Celtic.

----------


## Maciamo

> Well, we have the one R1b HG full of EHG admixture and nothing Armenian, before Yamnaya R1b showed up with half Armenian. It is more likely that Caucasian and Gedrosian admixture came to them by others, Mykop women. There is still a possibility that they indeed came from Kurdistan. However, if they came from lands filled with Near Eastern Farmers, why they had only R1b? At this time period it is hard to find any farming community in Europe to be so Y hg homogenous. It is unlikely that in Near East was different. In most known cases, the farmers move into HGs area and not vice versa, and mix heavily.
> I hope they publish the full genome, and some mystery will be solved.
> 
> I think the dark green in Yamnaya is Caucasian admixture only, which is a mixture of ENF with Kostenki/Ancient Caucasian admixture. I think that R1b went around Caspian Sea to Kurdistan area and this is where they've picked up Gedrosia, or perhaps from east side of Caspian, before moving to Europe. We'll see.


What you say is possible, and what I used to believe too. But I am not so sure anymore. Yfull.com gives an age of 15900 ybp for R1b-P297 and 15100 ybp for M269 (although the TMRCA of surviving lineages is only 12200 ybp). The HG sample from Samara is only 5000 years old, which means that R1b-P297 lineages had already existed and wandered around Europe and West Asia *for over 10,000 years*. I know it is tempting to think that because the P297 and M269 samples were tested in the same region at a similar period (some M269 samples are actually older than the P297), the two must be closely related. But that is not necessarily the case, and autosomal DNA shows that they are only distantly related. 

I would rather think that the Samara P297 belonged to a branch of R1b that had migrated to Northeast Europe many thousands of years before Yamna, surely before the Early Neolithic and cattle domestication, while the Yamna R1b hailed from the Caucasus region (not because of the Armenian-like admixture, but because of they were cattle herders with copper/bronze technology).

----------


## arvistro

1 in 60 Million to have same mutation independently. Hmm. It is not much for modern world with billions of males living.
But I guess it is compensated by fact that to share TWO mutations independently = 1/(60 Mill * 60 Mill). Impossible. 
OK, sorry for offtopic.

----------


## Maciamo

> 1 in 60 Million to have same mutation independently. Hmm. It is not much for modern world with billions of males living.
> But I guess it is compensated by fact that to share TWO mutations independently = 1/(60 Mill * 60 Mill). Impossible. 
> OK, sorry for offtopic.


Not much too for one mutation. But as you said, to have two identical mutations, the chances are 1 in 3.6 x 1021 (60 million squared), that is 3.6 sextillions. For three identical mutations, the chances drop to 2.16 x1031, or 21.6 Nonillions. I let you do the calculations for 45 identical mutations. Just a clue, there is no name for numbers past 10 mutations in common. The biggest number that has a name is a googol, which is 10100.

Now had it been mitochondrial DNA, the sequence is only 16,500 characters long, so chances of aligning several identical mutations are not impossible, and it has actually happened times and again because some regions of the mtDNA (hypervariable regions or HVR) tend to mutate much more often than the rest of the sequence.

----------


## Tomenable

> there is one chance in 60 million that two individuals are born with the same mutation on the Y chromosome (which has 60 million characters) the chances that two separate lineages acquire exactly the same 64 mutations in a row is so astronomical as to be unfathomable by the human mind (imagine a number followed by hundreds of zeros).
> 
> (...)
> 
> I let you do the calculations for 45 identical mutations. Just a clue, there is no name for numbers past 10 mutations in common.


The number you are looking for is *k**urganillion* (now there is name).

----------


## Aberdeen

> ..............................
> 
> By the way, Yfull.com gives an age of 15000 years for the formation of R1b-M153 and a TMRCA of 1300 years. This means that the common R1b patrilineal ancestors of about half of Basque R1b men only lived around 700 CE, during the Early Middle Ages, around the time of the Moorish conquest of Iberia. This means that if we tested Basque sample from 2000, 3000 or 4000 years ago, there is a high probability that the majority of samples wouldn't be R1b (but probably in majority I2a1). The replacement of Basque paternal lineages by R1b lineages is very recent.
> 
> It's also interesting to see that most of the Catalan R1b-SRY2627 (mostly the Z206 and CTS606 subclades) have a TMRCA of 2700 to 3500 years, meaning that R1b spread in the region in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age, when most of Western Europe outside Iberia was already Celtic.


Perhaps R1b dominance among Basques is a recent thing. But is it perhaps also possible that Basques were quite few in numbers prior to the Moorish conquest? Perhaps the Moors who were the new ruling class of Spain simply didn't bother much with a small tribe in the Pyrenees, unlike their Spanish predecessors, resulting in a rapid Basque expansion that could have continued after the reconquest of Spain, provided the Basques picked the right time to stop co-operating with the Moors.

The late date for Catalan R1b doesn't surprise me, since there doesn't seem to have been any IE languages in Spain prior to the arrival of the Celts.

----------


## Ukko

> Of course not. There was no copper metallurgy is Northeast Europe or the Urals before Yamna.



And Yamna got their technology from Caucasus?

----------


## LeBrok

> What you say is possible, and what I used to believe too. But I am not so sure anymore. Yfull.com gives an age of 15900 ybp for R1b-P297 and 15100 ybp for M269 (although the TMRCA of surviving lineages is only 12200 ybp). The HG sample from Samara is only 5000 years old, which means that R1b-P297 lineages had already existed and wandered around Europe and West Asia *for over 10,000 years*. I know it is tempting to think that because the P297 and M269 samples were tested in the same region at a similar period (some M269 samples are actually older than the P297), the two must be closely related. But that is not necessarily the case, and autosomal DNA shows that they are only distantly related. 
> 
> I would rather think that the Samara P297 belonged to a branch of R1b that had migrated to Northeast Europe many thousands of years before Yamna, surely before the Early Neolithic and cattle domestication, while the Yamna R1b hailed from the Caucasus region (not because of the Armenian-like admixture, but because of they were cattle herders with copper/bronze technology).


I agree, they don't need to be originally from Samara. They might be as well from Mykop or other region. However, I don't think they came from deep Near East or the places with long history of farmers. If they did they would have more varied Y haplogroups and clades.

----------


## Angela

> Yes, we may never know exactly what they looked like but it can't be random most both EEF and Yamna samples lack mutations associated with light skin in modern Europe. Remember even the 4,000YBP Pole had "dark complexion", something's going on. Looking at it from a world or west Eurasian view it is very strange that so many north Euros have yellow hair, and it makes sense this is a recent phenomenon. 5,000YBP most of the ancestors of north Euros(mostly Yamna and EEF) probably had similar pigmentation as west Asians and or south Europeans. 
> 
> rs16891982 and rs1042602 are the two skin-color related SNPs in Hirisplex that Euros and west Asians differ the most in. Looking at ancient DNA Yamna and EEF are just like west Asians in terms of those two SNPs. Whatever diversity in skin color west Asians have Yamna and EEF may have also had it. Bronze age Euro samples are more similar to modern Euros in terms of those SNPs. I suspect those two SNPs are key to understanding why west Asians and Europeans have different skin color. Sardinians have the lowest amount of derived alleles in rs16891982 in Europe and could easily pass as west Asian.


Sorry, I just got back to this...
I don't mean to nitpick, but I don't think that's totally accurate. The EEF don't lack the mutations associated with light skin in Europe. It's true that Stuttgart was only derived for SLC24A5, which has reached fixation in both Europe and much of the Near East, but Oetzi, 3300 BC, had both SLC24A5 and SLC42A5.

Both appeared even earlier than 3300 BC. You can see the data in this Christina Gamba et al grapic:


(Interestingly, the hunter gatherer had one derived copy of SLC 24A5 and one for TYRP1. Doesn't he show up somewhere as having a bit of EEF or ENF? Was that from a paper or "internet" modeling? I can't remember right now. Then there was that stray derived allele for SLC42A5 in one of the northeastern HGs. The WHG were different.)

It's sort of hit or miss with the Neolithic samples but you can definitely see how the trend is for more and more of them to have two derived alleles for SLC24A5 as time goes one, as you can see with Neolithic6 from 4900 to 5300 BC. Then with Neolithic 7 the derived allele for SLC42A5 makes its first appearance. (4360-4490 BC) I don't think we see a change autosomally in these people until the Baden CO1 sample from 2700 to 2900 BC, correct? Even that was very small. Of course, we don't know what y Dna lineage is involved here either. Nor do we know what was going on in other parts of Europe. 

An abstract was published from a paper that was supposed to take a broad look at all of this but who knows when it's going to come out.

Ed. Wild Speculation Alert! :)
Some older papers saw a star like phylogeny for the derived SLC24A5 from the Caucasus. Is it possible it arose in certain mtDna lineages near there and sort of diffused outward long before the actual large migration of people in the Copper and Bronze Ages? Could the SLC42A5 have occurred in the far northeast at a relatively late date and diffused south into Middle Neolithic cultures in Central Europe? That's one of the theories for the increase in WHG before the Yamnaya migrations. Perhaps the meeting of these two derived snps in Europe is what created European "fair" skin?

----------


## Maciamo

> Perhaps R1b dominance among Basques is a recent thing. But is it perhaps also possible that Basques were quite few in numbers prior to the Moorish conquest? Perhaps the Moors who were the new ruling class of Spain simply didn't bother much with a small tribe in the Pyrenees, unlike their Spanish predecessors, resulting in a rapid Basque expansion that could have continued after the reconquest of Spain, provided the Basques picked the right time to stop co-operating with the Moors.


What are you talking about ? The Moors didn't conquer the Basque country. I was just placing the historical context. I could just as well have said it was the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty, with Pepin the Short and Charlemagne.

----------


## Maciamo

> I agree, they don't need to be originally from Samara. They might be as well from Mykop or other region. However, I don't think they came from deep Near East or the places with long history of farmers. If they did they would have more varied Y haplogroups and clades.


We have no idea when populations of different haplogroups started to mix heavily with one another in the Near East. Based on ancient European Neolithic samples, it looks like Near Eastern Neolithic farmers only belonged to G2 and T1a, although if T1a is there then J1 will also turn up as the two are intricately linked. 

Obviously R1b were cattle herders, and the simple fact that R1b-V88 expanded from the Near East to North Africa is proof enough that it was really a Neolithic lineage too - but one that was clearly separate from G2a as R1b-V88 is very rare in Europe today. We still can't exclude that the R1b1* from Neolithic Spain was V88+ as they didn't test for it. If so, it is not impossible that it came through North Africa, which would explain why no R1b-V88 has been found in Neolithic sites outside Iberia.

To summarize there were at least 3 distinct Neolithic populations from the Near East, who may not have mixed with one another for several millennia:

1) G2 cereal farmers
2) J1 & T1a goat herders
3) R1b cattle herders

There might have been a 4th group made of J2a, but I still don't know where they originated. I think they were rather Near Eastern HG during the Neolithic, and might have thrived from the Chalcolithic onwards, just like R1a.

Even when we look at Early Bronze Age samples, it looks like intermarriages between locals and newcomers was not very common. I think it is especially from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age that we really see frequent intermingling and a homogenization of the regional populations. It makes sense from an anthropological point of view too. The Neolithic was all about extended families and local communities. The Bronze Age was extremely hierarchical with a ruling elite that didn't mix much with the rest of the population (except through concubines). But the Iron Age was much more egalitarian age, where most men could afford cheap iron weapons, unlike the extremely expensive bronze weapons. Many historians think that the great upheavals of the East Mediterranean c. 1200 BCE are linked to the adoption of iron weapons by the populace, who then overthrew their oppressing ruling elite.

----------


## Alan

Yesterday after thinking about it, I came across another third theory. Many people said the fact that Reich speaks about CW as "Yamna LIKE" and *not* Yamna descend.
Could indicate and explain something. It could explain why Reich said not every Indo European expansion can be explained with the Yamna.
It is very well possible that we have it here to do with three related cultures (Yamna, Andronovo, Corded Ware) instead of one being descend of the other.

If that turns out to be the case, than this is in my opinion the biggest indiciation that Yamna was not PIE but one of the earliest Indo European cultures descend of PIE.
We might ask ourselves now, who could be the PIE? Well what is it, that connects Yamna, CW and very likely Andronovo too?

It is the significant appearance of the Caucasus_Gedrosia component.

But this is just one of some other theories.

----------


## Sile

> We have no idea when populations of different haplogroups started to mix heavily with one another in the Near East. Based on ancient European Neolithic samples, it looks like Near Eastern Neolithic farmers only belonged to G2 and T1a, although if T1a is there then J1 will also turn up as the two are intricately linked.


i once believed this between J and T but I discover this is not so

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182266/

T and L are in union and their early areas where basically from india, afghan, caspian sea and caucasus ......then they went to the levant via syria and anatolia. noted in paper.

the african and arabian peninsula are all young in age for the T marker as per the paper.



J on the other hand is purely locked in as the "founders" of the fertile crescent with later influence in the levant and anatolia, and later still into arabia

the problem is the association of I and J .............where does I marker come in if they (IJ ) broke off from one another

----------


## Alan

@Lebrok

There are many other reasons why I am convinced Gedrosia is part of this green component and maybe even slightly more than Caucasus. Take a look at North Caucasus. Populations with more Gedrosia over Caucasus are also naturally closer to Yamna. See Lezgins vs Adygei or Ingush vs Georgians.

What is nowadays the case doesn't mean it had to be the same in the past. We have learned this several times in history. Who would have thought that R1b would be one of the dominant Haplogroups (well I thought about this possibility but we are talking about the average Anthroboard member) if we would have gone with the modern distribution of this Haplogroup there? Also Yamna was genetically very different from the modern people of this region by beeing halfway "West Asian".


Gedrosia is definitely ~50% ENF. Both Caucasus_Gedrosia are ENF. Only that ENF is higher in Caucasus (~75%) compared to Gedrosia (~60%).
We know that from the fact that South_Central Asians who have very low Caucasus have yet ~35-40% ENF This can largely be explained with Gedrosia.


Now to the "Maykop brides" theory. Angela and I have completly discussed about this theory and why it is close to impossible. Please take a look.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post450113

Yamna is halfway Caucasus_Gedrosia. To assume this component was brought by "Maykop brides" we would need to assume that EHG almost completely replaced their femalse with these. Otherwise we can't come to the ~50%. To assume that females were able to impose their pastoralist lifestyle on Yamna we would need to assume that Yamna had some matriachal structures. But Indo Europeans are some of the most patriachal groups of the ancient world. And additional to that there was never in human history an all single gender migration, let alone all female one. 

People usually migrated either with their families or alone. We know that even from patrichal India where we can find Indo European maternal DNA. Even if it is only half that much as paternal lineages. Which again speaks of my theory that migration took place with families and single males.

So now back to R1b.

Considering that most of the diversity and the basal clade M343 is found in Western Asia, between Kurdistan and Iran to be more specific. I go with the theory of pastoralists from there to Caucasus and than to Yamna. While it was also recently proven that an expansion from Kurdistan, Iraq and South Caucasus brought this "Kurgan" and many other elements to Maykop.

----------


## bicicleur

> Obviously R1b were cattle herders, and the simple fact that R1b-V88 expanded from the Near East to North Africa is proof enough that it was really a Neolithic lineage too - but one that was clearly separate from G2a as R1b-V88 is very rare in Europe today. We still can't exclude that the R1b1* from Neolithic Spain was V88+ as they didn't test for it. If so, it is not impossible that it came through North Africa, which would explain why no R1b-V88 has been found in Neolithic sites outside Iberia.


according to Yful, http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/

R1b-V88 is some 16700 years old
I think estimating ages for R1b-subclades is more dificult than estimating ages for R1a-sublcades where more snp's are known
Still, I think this age estimate is realistic and I suppose R1b-V88 adopted cattlebreeding separated from R1b-P297, alltough it is obvious both did
both R1b-V88 and T entered Africa with cattle, I wonder who was first, probably both around the same period (7-8000 years ago)
For R1b-P297, where did they adopt cattle raising - north or south of the Caucasus ? Or was it R1b-M269? Did R1b-M73 ever raise cattle? The 2 EHG sampled certainly didn't.

----------


## Sile

> according to Yful, http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/
> 
> R1b-V88 is some 16700 years old
> I think estimating ages for R1b-subclades is more dificult than estimating ages for R1a-sublcades where more snp's are known
> Still, I think this age estimate is realistic and I suppose R1b-V88 adopted cattlebreeding separated from R1b-P297, alltough it is obvious both did
> both R1b-V88 and T entered Africa with cattle, I wonder who was first, probably both around the same period (7-8000 years ago)
> For R1b-P297, where did they adopt cattle raising - north or south of the Caucasus ? Or was it R1b-M269? Did R1b-M73 ever raise cattle? The 2 EHG sampled certainly didn't.


I already posted a paper recently ( academia paper) on R1b-v88 and T1a-pages21 as entering egypt via the levant, it was noted R1b-v88 entered first and T1a-pages21
entered later and did not proceed further south than sudan, while R1b-v88 went further.

edit: here it is

http://www.academia.edu/3642572/Unra...Neolithisation

----------


## Drax

> We have over 50 Eneolithic-bronze age Pontic steppe samples from many different sites with calls in key pigmentation SNPs. 90% most defiantly had brown eyes(or maybe some grey). Other calls suggest they had pigmentation most similar to modern west Asians. In terms of skin-pigmentation the same is true for EEF, but EEF had more light eyes because of alot of WHG ancestry. We have a pretty good idea what-type of pigmentation both had.


If I remember correctly, It seem that the report about the neolithic/bronze age samples tested has a problem, we still don't know their Y haplogroup (correct me if I'm wrong); in fact they could have been "siberians" (with a kurgan culture), mixed with them or with the Neolithic farmer; lot of peoples have pointed the big difference between them and the "all fair skins, light hairs and eyed" from the other indo-europeans place (Andronovo, Tocharians etc...); if these Pontic/yamna samples have been mixed, that could explain this difference.

Also I think now we know that Yamna peoples have lot of WHG ancestry, no ? I don't think EEF poples had more WHG ancestry than them; and don't seem to have "more" light eyes", it was very rare among them with WHG or not (according their sample); in comparaison, it was around 16% of light eyes among the Yamna/Pontic steppes peoples tested and 43% of them with light skins (these numbers are not really "too weak"); I guess the 16% of light eyes was among these 43% of Yamna with light skins.

for the WHG with dark skin and light eyes, I'm not a specialist and that just my opinion, but I find that really weird simply because today light eyes are exclusively related to peoples with very fair skins (or peoples mixed with them); if I remember correctly the WHG like Labrana, Motola etc... has just 50% chance to have blue eyes (except HERC2, I'm not sure they have the other genes for the light eyes), so it was apparently more a probability; and honestly, I don't think we can make conclusion with that.





> I don't think we can associate the change in pigmentation in Europe in the last 6,000 years with one genetic group(like Yamna-types) but that it was more of a gradual change that involved many different and related people. 
> 
> If anyone though it can be associated with the Yamna-types and later CWC and BB-types.


Yes but in the same time you seem to give the light eyes "exclusively" to WHG; when in fact, not lot of them (just 3/4 WHG) had this gene and it was very late during the neolithic, in general they were all brown eyed with brown hairs and dark skin, so maybe they has the gene for light eyes from the EHG from Pontic steppes (they have mixed alot, the same mtdna etc...). If I remember correctly there were a paper (by V. Caufield) posted in this forum aboute the very strong association the light skin gene have with the Indo-Europeans; that seem, imho, more "logical" that light eyes are born among light skinned peoples.

Sorry if I'm confused and sorry for my poor english.

----------


## Aberdeen

> What are you talking about ? The Moors didn't conquer the Basque country. I was just placing the historical context. I could just as well have said it was the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty, with Pepin the Short and Charlemagne.


What I'm saying is that a Moorish conquest of Spain that didn't include the Basque country could have been the opportunity for a rapid population expansion by the Basques, and I think that's sufficient to explain that recent R1b bottleneck among Basques. It's an explanation that doesn't require all the Basque women to suddenly start cohabitating with Spanish men around the time of the Moorish conquest, an event that doesn't appear anywhere in the historical record. I'm saying that the Basques could have already been R1b but few in number prior to the Moorish conquest.

I don't actually know anything about Basque history, but I think it's fairly obvious that if the R1b bottleneck among Basques is that recent, it didn't involve a wholesale change in Y haplotype. And it certainly didn't have anything to do with Bronze Age IE invaders, unless they were time travelers.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> If I remember correctly, It seem that the report about the neolithic/bronze age samples tested has a problem, we still don't know their Y haplogroup (correct me if I'm wrong); in fact they could have been "siberians" (with a kurgan culture), mixed with them or with the Neolithic farmer; lot of peoples have pointed the big difference between them and the "all fair skins, light hairs and eyed" from the other indo-europeans place (Andronovo, Tocharians etc...); if these Pontic/yamna samples have been mixed, that could explain this difference.


Yamna and the light-pigmented people from Bronze-Iron age North asia had very similar mtDNA. Also, their Y DNA(R1) connects them. We will have to wait for Samara Yamna pigmentation results. They might come out like Andronovo. My guess is they will be relatively tan-skinned, brown eyed, and dark haired. 






> Also I think now we know that Yamna peoples have lot of WHG ancestry, no ? I don't think EEF poples had more WHG ancestry than them; and don't seem to have "more" light eyes", it was very rare among them with WHG or not (according their sample); in comparaison, it was around 16% of light eyes among the Yamna/Pontic steppes peoples tested and 43% of them with light skins (these numbers are not really "too weak"); I guess the 16% of light eyes was among these 43% of Yamna with light skins.
> 
> for the WHG with dark skin and light eyes, I'm not a specialist and that just my opinion, but I find that really weird simply because today light eyes are exclusively related to peoples with very fair skins (or peoples mixed with them); if I remember correctly the WHG like Labrana, Motola etc... has just 50% chance to have blue eyes (except HERC2, I'm not sure they have the other genes for the light eyes), so it was apparently more a probability; and honestly, I don't think we can make conclusion with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but in the same time you seem to give the light eyes "exclusively" to WHG; when in fact, not lot of them (just 3/4 WHG) had this gene and it was very late during the neolithic, in general they were all brown eyed with brown hairs and dark skin, so maybe they has the gene for light eyes from the EHG from Pontic steppes (they have mixed alot, the same mtdna etc...). If I remember correctly there were a paper (by V. Caufield) posted in this forum aboute the very strong association the light skin gene have with the Indo-Europeans; that seem, imho, more "logical" that light eyes are born among light skinned peoples.
> 
> Sorry if I'm confused and sorry for my poor english.


All 5/5 WHG so far have light eyes. It could have been a uniform trait, and a legacy of WHG. The oldest and youngest samples have it. Most are about 8,000 years old. Also, a paper not yet published confirmed blue eyes existing in Europe some 15,000 years ago.

WHG seems to be the original source for light eyes in Europe, but that was a gazillion years ago. After WHG admixed with Middle easterns, their admixed descendants evolved to have light skin. 

Pigmentation today is mostly the result of natural selection. It can change within a few hundred years.

----------


## Robert6



----------


## LeBrok

> We have no idea when populations of different haplogroups started to mix heavily with one another in the Near East. Based on ancient European Neolithic samples, it looks like Near Eastern Neolithic farmers only belonged to G2 and T1a, although if T1a is there then J1 will also turn up as the two are intricately linked. 
> 
> Obviously R1b were cattle herders, and the simple fact that R1b-V88 expanded from the Near East to North Africa is proof enough that it was really a Neolithic lineage too - but one that was clearly separate from G2a as R1b-V88 is very rare in Europe today. We still can't exclude that the R1b1* from Neolithic Spain was V88+ as they didn't test for it. If so, it is not impossible that it came through North Africa, which would explain why no R1b-V88 has been found in Neolithic sites outside Iberia.
> 
> To summarize there were at least 3 distinct Neolithic populations from the Near East, who may not have mixed with one another for several millennia:
> 
> 1) G2 cereal farmers
> 2) J1 & T1a goat herders
> 3) R1b cattle herders
> ...


Neolithic farmers ENF were most expansionists of their age, unlike Hunter Gatherers who were rather local isolationists. Wherever we test HGs in certain region, they belong to one haplogroup or handful of similar clades. On other hand ENF in Europe incorporated local HGs haplogroups rather early during their expansion becoming EEF. The best example is Neolithic genetics from Hungary where we can find not only farmer's hgs but also HGs like I1,I2 C, F, H2. For few tested Neolithic Hungarians we found 4 or 5 distinct haplogroups. And we know they were not HGs but real farmers with farmer autosomal DNA, just hunter gatherer hgs. This multi Y-DNA mixture is a signature of farmers in Europe, after couple of millenia.
I would be very surprised, if this situation was different in Middle East. I suspect ENF, at the end of Neolithic, incorporated few HGs haplogroups around Middle East too. Therefore they became Y-DNA mixed population by the end of Neolithic, before copper age.
According to this scenario, if Yamnaya R1b folks came from Middle East farming horizon, as farmers/herders, they wouldn't be pure R1b anymore. Instead of seeing only R1b clades in Yamnaya we would have gotten also G2a, J2, J1, T, E and more, bunch. But it is not the case at all. We have only R1b and mostly of the same clad. By this token I think they look like HGs folks, but with half Armenian like admixture. In this case, I suspect that, if they came from somewhere, it wasn't too far away, and definitely not from Middle East. I think this Armenian mix is from close by Caucasus area, and it is Caucasus admixture. Perhaps this admixture came with acquired women only but men being from Samara afterall.

Farthermore, there is a strong case that Caucasian admixture came to Yamnaya before Gedrosia reached Caucasus. On this chart below we can see that Yamnaya admixture still exists today in modern populations of Lithuania and Belarus, the regions which have no Gedrosia whatsoever. In such elevated levels of Yamnaya admixture, over 50%, there is no chance that gedrosia didn't show up in these populations, if it was present in Yamnaya dudes.
In this case the 50% Armenian like admixture has to consist of Caucasian and some ENF admixtures, I guess.

----------


## LeBrok

> @Lebrok
> 
> There are many other reasons why I am convinced Gedrosia is part of this green component and maybe even slightly more than Caucasus. Take a look at North Caucasus. Populations with more Gedrosia over Caucasus are also naturally closer to Yamna. See Lezgins vs Adygei or Ingush vs Georgians.


Populations of Belarus and Lithuania is rich in Yamnaya, over 50%, but they don't show gedrosia whatsoever. Chart in post above.




> What is nowadays the case doesn't mean it had to be the same in the past.


It can mean that in the past Gedrosia wasn't mixed with Caucasus as it is today. Once they are mixed you can't separate them to spread in different ways around. When we look at gedrosia and caucasian admixture they have different patterns in Europe. it can only mean that they didn't spread together. 
If it was one mixed admixture the pattern would be the same for both, but it is not, right?
The only explanation for the different distribution is that they came separately, and it could only happened before they mixed in Near East.





> Gedrosia is definitely ~50% ENF. Both Caucasus_Gedrosia are ENF. Only that ENF is higher in Caucasus (~75%) compared to Gedrosia (~60%).
> We know that from the fact that South_Central Asians who have very low Caucasus have yet ~35-40% ENF This can largely be explained with Gedrosia.


 Today yes, but not in Copper and Bronze Age.

----------


## Maciamo

> Yesterday after thinking about it, I came across another third theory. Many people said the fact that Reich speaks about CW as "Yamna LIKE" and *not* Yamna descend.
> Could indicate and explain something. It could explain why Reich said not every Indo European expansion can be explained with the Yamna.
> It is very well possible that we have it here to do with three related cultures (Yamna, Andronovo, Corded Ware) in Europe instead of one being descend of the other.
> 
> If that turns out to be the case, than this is in my opinion the biggest indiciation that Yamna was not PIE but one of the earliest Indo European cultures descend of PIE.
> We might ask ourselves now, who could be the PIE? Well what is it, that connects Yamna, CW and very likely Andronovo too?
> 
> It is the significant appearance of the Caucasus_Gedrosia component.
> 
> But this is just one of some other theories.


I completely agree with that. That's what I had been saying for years. Corded Ware descend from the indigenous Mesolithic R1a people from the forest-steppe, while Yamna was R1b hybrid from West Asia who mixed with some R1a in the open steppe in southern Ukraine and Russia. Therefore Corded Ware people do not descend of Yamna or vice versa. There may have been some intermingling between the two, but I doubt it's more than 5 to 10% of each population.

----------


## Maciamo

> according to Yful, http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/
> 
> R1b-V88 is some 16700 years old
> I think estimating ages for R1b-subclades is more dificult than estimating ages for R1a-sublcades where more snp's are known


16700 years old, but the TMRCA is only 6600 years, which means that the Neolithic expansion from the Fertile Crescent to Africa must date to about 6600 years ago. All the other V88 (those who didn't become cattle herders and remained HG) would have died out, like most C1a2, F and I* in Europe. That's also what happened to the Samara R1b-P297 HG. He probably didn't leave any patrilineal descendants in Russia today.

That being said, 6600 years seems a bit too young. Cattle were domesticated 10,500 years ago, and I placed the expansion of V88 from the Southern Levant and Egypt to Africa at 9000 to 8500 years. The TMRCA was probably underestimated due to the scarcity of African and Middle Eastern samples.

----------


## bicicleur

> 16700 years old, but the TMRCA is only 6600 years, which means that the Neolithic expansion from the Fertile Crescent to Africa must date to about 6600 years ago. All the other V88 (those who didn't become cattle herders and remained HG) would have died out, like most C1a2, F and I* in Europe. That's also what happened to the Samara R1b-P297 HG. He probably didn't leave any patrilineal descendants in Russia today.
> 
> That being said, 6600 years seems a bit too young. Cattle were domesticated 10,500 years ago, and I placed the expansion of V88 from the Southern Levant and Egypt to Africa at 9000 to 8500 years. The TMRCA was probably underestimated due to the scarcity of African and Middle Eastern samples.


first signs of Cattle and milk in North Africa are only 7000 years old, I guess R1b-V88 expansion is some 8000 years old
anyway 6600 years is to young indeed
cattle domestication 10500 years ago, I agree with that

----------


## Drax

> Yamna and the light-pigmented people from Bronze-Iron age North asia had very similar mtDNA. Also, their Y DNA(R1) connects them. We will have to wait for Samara Yamna pigmentation results. They might come out like Andronovo. My guess is they will be relatively tan-skinned, brown eyed, and dark haired.


How do you explain the difference with peoples from Andronovo culture (blond, blue eyed, fair skins) if they were "similar" ? Because the "difference" between R1A vs R1b ? How to explain the evolution from tan skinned to very light skinned for indo-Europeans, specially with the paper of Caufield ? We have for these samples previously tested (for their skin colors) the mtdna but no Haplogroup Y, that could be an siberian group, mixed peoples etc... also these yamna have lot of WHG genes, so I guess according to you, if they have blue eyes that would not be a big surprise too; specially now that we know that these yamna folks are close to baltic peoples and the Norwegians

Corded Ware and WHG have also the same mtdna, but different haplogroup Y




> All 5/5 WHG so far have light eyes. It could have been a uniform trait, and a legacy of WHG. The oldest and youngest samples have it. Most are about 8,000 years old. Also, a paper not yet published confirmed blue eyes existing in Europe some 15,000 years ago.
> 
> WHG seems to be the original source for light eyes in Europe, but that was a gazillion years ago. After WHG admixed with Middle easterns, their admixed descendants evolved to have light skin.


Not really, previous WHG has brown eyes for what I have read; until late Neolithic (around 6000 BC), "blue eyes" seem to appear like that, so no it's not an uniform trait, and imho that could be from Karelian type peoples (EHG); that difficult to know because there were mixed (and Labrana has the haplogroup C, another WHG with light eyes has the haplogroup R etc...); now there are the problem of the "probability", according these papers they have just 50% chance to have "blue eyes" (except HERC2, I'm not sure they have the other genes for blue eyes); so I guess it's not really sure; they were also brown skinned; when light skin and light eyes seem to be exclusive to each other...I honestly think there are a problem somewhere.

Also, if they are the original sources of blue eyes, that weird because they have been invaded/mixed multiples times, with such recessive trait blue eyes shouldn't exist today; for middle easterns to have light skins; yes I guess for their genes; the problem is, unlike the Europeans, they are dark skinned to olive skins; far more rarely with fair skins (and that could be explained by invasion from Europeans).

I think we should be careful with big probability, if we have found 5 WHG with blue eyes in neolithic, that don't mean all the WHG was blue eyed, imagine we would have been just found the yamna peoples with light eyes; that would have been the same conclusion.

For your paper, there were another who claim that blue eyes peoples has the same ancestors and this gene is very young, for him it was around 8000 BC near the black sea (with the Indo-Europeans); I think you have already see it.




> Pigmentation today is mostly the result of natural selection. It can change within a few hundred years.


That just a theory (and that don't explain why that have worked just for the Europeans), sorry that don't explain how the indo-europeans have been dark skinned to very light skinned, light eyed and hairs; in a very short time during the bronze age; specially with such extremely recessive trait like light blue eyes, light hairs and white skins (and why middle eastern peoples, despite the light genes, are so "brown").

Also, according various paper, light or blue eyes don't any particular use; so that not from the natural selection.

----------


## Alan

> Populations of Belarus and Lithuania is rich in Yamnaya, over 50%, but they don't show gedrosia whatsoever. Chart in post above.


Yamna ancestry in North and Northeast Europe peaks among Norwegians who have almost no Caucasus but Gedrosia. But than if we go even further. the populations with the most Yamna ancestry are Mordovians and Lezgins anyways and both have also higher Gedrosia. 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...DcTZEYlE#gid=0
I don't think that it works that way. We can't measure Yamna based on one component. Especially not if Caucasus_Gedrosia are so close and they are so close that most of them appear like one component in lower Ks. It is similar case to Northwest and Northeast European component.









> According to this scenario, if Yamnaya R1b folks came from Middle East farming horizon, as farmers/herders, they wouldn't be pure R1b anymore. Instead of seeing only R1b clades in Yamnaya we would have gotten also G2a, J2, J1, T, E and more, bunch. But it is not the case at all. We have only R1b and mostly of the same clad. By this token I think they look like HGs folks, but with half Armenian like admixture. In this case, I suspect that, if they came from somewhere, it wasn't too far away, and definitely not from Middle East. I think this Armenian mix is from close by Caucasus area, and it is Caucasus admixture. Perhaps this admixture came with acquired women only but men being from Samara afterall.


I think you also concluded that we can't take the 9 samples from the Samara valley who most likely belonged to the same tribal group as the final proof. 

But than as I and Angela said it is extremely unlikely that females could impose their pastoralist lifestyle on a totally patrichal society. And if we take the bride theory serious we would have to expect that the EHG exchange all their females almost completely with those of Maykop. That doesn't sound really realistic to me.

----------


## Alan

> I completely agree with that. That's what I had been saying for years. Corded Ware descend from the indigenous Mesolithic R1a people from the forest-steppe, while Yamna was R1b hybrid from West Asia who mixed with some R1a in the open steppe in southern Ukraine and Russia. Therefore Corded Ware people do not descend of Yamna or vice versa. There may have been some intermingling between the two, but I doubt it's more than 5 to 10% of each population.


I remember very well that there was one of 4 Corded Ware samples which turned out to be either J, I or E and something tells me the fact that they couldn't figure it out beeing I or E despite this already found in Europe, that this might be one of the early J samples in CW.

The reason for that is CW was almost 38% "Caucasus_Gedrosia" like itself with 20% EEF and compared to Yamna who were also 50% CG. Either the J theory or R1a itself part of this migration, because I doubt a "female bride" theory among CW even more than in Yamna (Which I already think is extremely unlikely).

I think there is more around R1b and R1a as we think. These Haplogroups might have been almost as widespred in the past as nowadays. 
For example I don't think Andronovo R1a z93 is descend of CW z93 or vica versa. Much further it is likely that z93 belonged to an wave of population which settled in North/Central Asia and Central Europe early than the actual Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures.

----------


## Alan

@Drax

There are close to 63 Yamna samples tested for skin/eye and hair color and the result for light eyes /hair were much similar to that of populations from northern Western Asia, such as among Kurds, Armenians, Turks, Iranians and among Europeans close to such as South Italians, Greeks or South_Central Iberians.

Another physical feature is that they were broader faced (robust) meso-dolichocephalic people. Basically what we would call a Mediterranean population.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...k-pigmentation


I am still waiting for some of these yDNA.

----------


## Angela

> How do you explain the difference with peoples from Andronovo culture (blond, blue eyed, fair skins) if they were "similar" ? Because the "difference" between R1A vs R1b ? How to explain the evolution from tan skinned to very light skinned for indo-Europeans, specially with the paper of Caufield ? We have for these samples previously tested (for their skin colors) the mtdna but no Haplogroup Y, that could be an siberian group, mixed peoples etc... also these yamna have lot of WHG genes, so I guess according to you, if they have blue eyes that would not be a big surprise too; specially now that we know that these yamna folks are close to baltic peoples and the Norwegians
> 
> Corded Ware and WHG have also the same mtdna, but different haplogroup Y
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, previous WHG has brown eyes for what I have read; until late Neolithic (around 6000 BC), "blue eyes" seem to appear like that, so no it's not an uniform trait, and imho that could be from Karelian type peoples (EHG); that difficult to know because there were mixed (and Labrana has the haplogroup C, another WHG with light eyes has the haplogroup R etc...); now there are the problem of the "probability", according these papers they have just 50% chance to have "blue eyes" (except HERC2, I'm not sure they have the other genes for blue eyes); so I guess it's not really sure; they were also brown skinned; when light skin and light eyes seem to be exclusive to each other...I honestly think there are a problem somewhere.
> 
> Also, if they are the original sources of blue eyes, that weird because they have been invaded/mixed multiples times, with such recessive trait blue eyes shouldn't exist today; for middle easterns to have light skins; yes I guess for their genes; the problem is, unlike the Europeans, they are dark skinned to olive skins; far more rarely with fair skins (and that could be explained by invasion from Europeans).
> ...



If you wish to focus on pigmentation issues, I think you would find it helpful to read the pigmentation threads here on this site, where specific results by ancient sample are discussed, as well as the possible drivers of evolutionary natural selection. Just type "pigmentation" into the search engine. Or you may want to start a thread on pigmentation among the Yamnaya and Catacomb culture samples. This paper doesn't address pigmentation issues. 

Just generally to address some of your concerns, do we have hundreds of ancient samples with pigmentation information? No, we don't. However, we have information for WHG's and they all have the snps that are used today to predict blue eyes. They _lack_ the derived de-pigmentation snps that are today used to predict skin color. If you have a study that shows that isn't the case, please provide it. 

The fact that the WHG all had a pigmentation trait despite having different yDna lineages should indicate to you that it is unwarranted to tie pigmentation traits to one specific yDna lineage. 

We also have pigmentation data for Malta (who is the model for ANE) and he was predicted to be dark haired, dark eyed and dark skinned if we use modern de-pigmentation snps as a guide. 

We don't have pigmentation data for the first farmers in the Near East because we don't have an ancient sample of one of them. Once again, we do have the data for Stuttgart, an LBK early european farmer from central Europe (who had _perhaps_ up to 20% WHG or UHG ancestry), and she had the derived versions of SLC24A5, making her probably lighter, according to the authors of the paper, than the WHG. The derived version of that snp is now fixed in Europe and most of the Near East. 

Given that pigmentation is a polygenic trait, I think it's a good bet that it requires derived snps for SLC 24A5, SLC42A5, and TYRP1 to produce "European fair" skin, plus the HERC 2 which adds the blue eyes trait. A derived version of SLC42A5 does appear in a northeastern European hunter gatherer.

We further know that the _oldest_ (by far) ancient samples we have where all these snps come together are the autosomally EEF (early European farmers) in central Europe. Andronovo is_ much younger_.

Also, we have results from Yamnaya and Catacomb culture. You can easily check the data for yourself. They were very predominantly dark haired and eyed, although it's difficult to be precise because Sandra Wilde didn't test for SLC24A5. To the best of my recollection, their levels of SLC42A5 are more in line with what is present in West Asia today than with the current levels in Europe. An early Bronze Age man from Poland has also been predicted to have a "darker" complexion. I don't _know_, but perhaps that means that he also didn't have derived snps for SLC42A5. 



Once again, this is the link to the Sandra Wilde et al paper where you can check the percentages:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832.full.pdf+html

This is a map showing the presence of derived versions of SLC24A5. 

This is data from Europe showing levels of SLC42A5. (Remember that all these populations are fixed for SLC24A5)
Attachment 7083


I also think someone has collated all the pigmentation data for all the ancient samples. Perhaps someone can provide a link.

That's all we know. The rest is total speculation. I don't know where any of these snps first appeared, and neither does anyone else. (The Caucasus area seems like a good bet to me for various reasons, but this is not the thread for that discussion.) What seems inescapable, however, is that these snps are under recent selection. Also keep in mind that the source of a mutation is different from its spread and its current frequencies. The possible drivers are discussed in pigmentation threads, but generally, scientists have hypothesized that it involves some interaction of latitude and changes in diet relating to the transition to a "farmer" diet, and perhaps some influence relating to the consumption of large amounts of dairy products. 

Time will tell.

I will permit myself an editorial comment, which is not directed at you, of course. Other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity, who cares where it originated? Who cares where it is most frequent, or how it correlates with _present_ distributions of yDna lineages. This is just a biological reaction to environmental factors. Am I supposed to feel superior because I have all of the depigmentation snps except those for blue eyes? According to the ancient Greeks, they had the perfect pigmentation, while the northerners were too light and the Africans too dark. Every group, I suppose, will laud its own particular traits, but any specific combination has no higher intrinsic value than any other. Certainly, this kind of bias should not have anything to do with scientific analysis.

----------


## Drax

@Alan

Yes and no, I think Yamna skin/eyes and hairs colors is still far more important than the west asians peoples you have cited (in general), but agree that would make them closer to the South Europeans, also these Yamna (a very vast place) I guess there were not from all the same region, the same date etc...that not really the same think that to compare them with modern population; but thanks for confirm the lack of info about their Y haplogroups (I think that important to be sure of their identity).

I find weird (or funny); that the new data about Yamna make them close to the baltic peoples and Norwegians; not really mediterranean.

@Angela

I'm not the one who have brought this discussion in this topic, I have several questions about this subject, and I wished to have some answers so I have taken the opportunity, and yes I have already seen the others discussions, but I'm sorry it's not really clear imho; and yes I know the spread is different than the place or the peoples who has the first these genes; but that have absolutely no sense (again these traits are extremely recessive).

Sorry for the WHG with brown eyes, I can't find the study (or maybe I have done a mistake); the previous data for the late cro-magnons were brown eyed, but still there are a difference between hundred and...4/5 WHG, but like you say their different "lineage"; but I don't know how to interpret that, specially with the previous paper about the common ancestor for blue eyes.

And yes Andronovo is younger (but in bronze age), but that don't change the fact that they are the first group with a massive presence of light eyes, hairs and fair skinned peoples, it's not a coincidence if Maciamo think R1 folks have bring the light hairs (or fair skin according Caufield).

For your last comment, well imho, it's very important, specially for Europeans peoples (I'm not European for the record); if it was not important we wouldn't have these studies about hairs, eyes etc...; to know why such physical traits is so important among Europeans; some peoples may think that give some superiority to have these genese, maybe, I don't know, I'm not a specialist (I have read a recent study about blue eyed supposed to be smarter than the others so...).

and for the Greek, I don't know your source, but I don't think they seem themselves like something between nordics peoples and Africans or to have the perfect pigmentation, in fact a good part of their Gods were blonds, the Spartans were described like blonds, the Danaans too, Greek were well known for bleach their hairs; most of these greeks have more brown hairs, so I guess, they could have seen the nordic appearances like something positives.

But sorry to have derailed this thread if you want to back and stay to the topic, thank you very much Alan, Fire haired and Angela for to have taken the time to reply to my messages.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Drax,

Archaeology, mtDNA, and Y DNA connect Bronze-Iron age IE North Asians to Yamna and Bronze age central Euros. Even though their pigmentation was radically different from Yamna(of the samples we have so far) they were probably very similar genetically. Pigmentation should not be put at the same level as genetic DNA markers and archaeology, because it is prone to change. 

It isn't as simple as Pop A is 20% WHG and therefore has ~20% blue eyes. If that was true why do South Dutch have over 50% blue eyes and around 30% WHG? Eye color frequencies can go up and down and up and down. 

I won't be surprised if the genetically east-north Euro Late Neolithic/bronze age samples from Germany come out mostly dark skinned, dark haired, and brown eyed. They're still the ancestors of people in that region today.

----------


## Alan

> I find weird (or funny); that the new data about Yamna make them close to the baltic peoples and Norwegians; not really mediterranean.


Nah the new data doesn't make them particulary close to Norwegians and Baltic people. On the chart only some particular European populations are listed and among them, they were close to Norwegians yes.
But on the fst distance table we see that they are most close to Mordovians and Lezgins. And on the pca plot, they also cluster in between Mordovians and North Caucasians.

It's just on the chart, where there is not many people listed, which gives the wrong impression that Norwegians are the closest followed by Baltic people. But that is not the whole story.

----------


## holderlin

> Another physical feature is that they were broader faced (robust) dolichocephalic people. Basically what we would call a Mediterranean population.


I'm pretty sure this doesn't make sense

----------


## Alan

The point of the whole thing is back in the days all people around Europe were in comparison to today slightly darker in combined traits.
It is not clear how they were exactly based on skin color, the only thing we know they were darker than the average modern European based on skin color. Heck they even had less frequency of the SLC24A5 gene. than any modern West Eurasians
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...-%28R1a-R1b%29

But what we know is that skin color is not only based on this gene alone. There are other important once too. This might be the reason that despite half of Iberians having less frequency of that are still similar to other South Europeans based on skin color. So other genes play also a role.

The only thing we can say with certinity, that it is very unlikely that people having the SLC24A5 gene only at ~45% could have been "light" in North or Central European standards.

Than we also have the HERC2 mutation which is mostly associated with eye color. I have calculated the results and in this point they were very typical for populations of Anatolian, northern Mesopotamia, South Caucasus and Iran. But even too "dark" for North Caucasians or Balkan Slavic standards.


We know that they were broader faced meso-dolichocephalic people. 

Honestly you can call me "ethnocentric" (most humans are ethnocentric to some degree), but is simply that I am most familiar with my own people.

Years ago I compared some images of Kurdish fighters who passed away to Yamna reconstructions. People said the overall cranial features might be very similar but they didn't take it serious based on the reasoning that "Yamna is from Southern Russia" and therefore be all blond and that stuff. So the Kurdish examples would be "Kurgan types who have been darkened by mixing with the locals". Nowadays I am pretty convinced my initial instinct was right and it is actually the "blonde" Europeans who are simply the "lighter" version of the Kurgan types due to centuries/millenia of drift/selection.

Of course you can disagree but in my opinion the Kurgan people look more akine to this men.



compare to these men
http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploa...q9ywka7gn0.jpg
http://www.hpg-sehit.com/wene/sehit_..._azad_unal.jpg
http://www.hpg-sehit.com/wene/sehit_...ttin_xidir.jpg
http://www.hpg-sehit.com/wene/sehit_...hasan_omer.jpg





compare to these men
http://www.hpg-sehit.com/wene/sehit_...20%2849%29.jpg
http://www.hpg-sehit.com/wene/sehit_...hasan_kaya.jpg


Even pre WW2 racial/racist anthropologists knew that there is some similarities. They frequently came into the region and took some pictures for their physical anthropology. They however were just like many people convinced that these Kurds would be the darkened result of the light Yamna people. Nowadays we know the opposite would rather be the case.

the broad faced meso-dolichocephalic type is very well seen on these two kurdish shepherd examples from over 100 years ago.
http://img3.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...3ysn87trg1.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...no-nordoid.jpg


Of course there will be other examples from other ethnicities which will make as good comparison but since I am most familiar with my own people...

----------


## Alan

> I'm pretty sure this doesn't make sense


Natalie Portman disagrees.
http://media2.intoday.in/wonderwoman...1411123455.jpg
http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/22204...ie-portman.jpg

and Zidane too.

----------


## LeBrok

> Yamna ancestry in North and Northeast Europe peaks among Norwegians who have almost no Caucasus but Gedrosia.


 Well, this make us both wrong. How can you have so much Yamnaya without Gedrosia and Caucasian? ;) We might need an alternative theory of what was in 50% like Armenians, if it wasn't neither Caucasus nor Gedrosia.





> But than if we go even further. the populations with the most Yamna ancestry are Mordovians and Lezgins anyways and both have also higher Gedrosia. 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...DcTZEYlE#gid=0


 Yet, we don't know if they got these 2 at the same time. It is like looking at modern European population and say that WHG and ANE are one component, because they fall and rise in the same cline. We know the story is way more complicated and that these are 2 different components.




> I don't think that it works that way. We can't measure Yamna based on one component. Especially not if Caucasus_Gedrosia are so close and they are so close that most of them appear like one component in lower Ks. It is similar case to Northwest and Northeast European component.


 It doesn't work like one component in Europe. Take Norway for example.






> I think you also concluded that we can't take the 9 samples from the Samara valley who most likely belonged to the same tribal group as the final proof. 
> 
> But than as I and Angela said it is extremely unlikely that females could impose their pastoralist lifestyle on a totally patrichal society. And if we take the bride theory serious we would have to expect that the EHG exchange all their females almost completely with those of Maykop. That doesn't sound really realistic to me.


 Pastoralist is not that far away from HG. Just instead of hunting, to follow animals, one tells animals where to go, but the diet is mostly meat and they both love watching animals and roaming the land. Actual farming is lots of heavy repetitive work in the field, planning work, and affinity to starchy diet. A different set of genes needed. Pastoralism is easier to grasp for hunter gatherers than field farming. In this case the farming women didn't need to turn their hunter gatherer culture upside down, but just do a little modification.

----------


## Angela

> Drax: (I have read a recent study about blue eyed supposed to be smarter than the others so...).


I don't know whether to be appalled or to laugh. If you can produce a peer reviewed paper from an accredited academic institution within the last twenty years that says any such thing, I'll...eat my hat!




> Drax: and for the Greek, I don't know your source, but I don't think they seem themselves like something between nordics peoples and Africans or to have the perfect pigmentation


A little education in the Classics has its uses, as does having married a man who once wanted to major in the Classics:

It is human nature for groups to elevate their own traits, physical and otherwise, and to their credit the ancient Greeks recognized it.


Xenophanes, B16 (500 BC):* 
‘‘“if oxen had gods they would be like oxen,Men make gods in their own image; those of the Ethiopians are black and snub-nosed, those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair’’ 

Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 1903, pp.38-58.  

It didn’t stop some of them from falling prey to the same tendency. The Greeks are the people of the “well balanced” lands. 

Galen:

_So much for the formation of the hair; we should now pass on to the features of all the incidental features of the mixtures, as regards the differences of hair according to age, place, and nature of the body. The hair of Egyptians, Arabs, Indians, and of general all peoples who inhabit hot, dry places, has poor growth and is black, dry, curly and brittle. That of the inhabitants of cold, wet places, conversely - Illyrians, Germans, Dalmatians, Sauromatians, and the Scythian types of people in general- has reasonably good growth and is thin, straight, and red. Those who live in some well-balanced land which is between these in quality have hair with extremely good growth, which is strong, fairly black, moderately thick, and neither completely curly nor completely straight. The differences due to age are analogous to these: with regard to the qualities of strength, thickness, size, and colour, infants’ hair is similar to the Germans’, hair in the prime of life to the Ethiopians’, and that of ephebes and children to the hair of people of well-balanced lands._

_In our country, as in others of good climate, one may see many bodies similar [to the canon], but in Scythians, Egyptians and Arabs, not even in a dream can one expect to find such a body._

I could bore everyone to death and further derail this thread by listing all the references in classical literature to dark haired or dark eyed ancient Greek heroes or gods (some were blonde as well) but I won't. Just on general principals I would advise against getting historical and scientific information from certain anthrofora.

----------


## holderlin

> Natalie Portman disagrees.
> http://media2.intoday.in/wonderwoman...1411123455.jpg
> http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/22204...ie-portman.jpg
> 
> and Zidane too.


Nah, I meant that I normally hear of early Mediterraneans as being described as smaller and more "gracile" than steppe populations. And broader faces are generally ascribed to brachycephalicskulls, but I guess you said meso, so whatever. Now that we have genetics this shit is less important to the debate.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Well, this make us both wrong. How can you have so much Yamnaya without Gedrosia and Caucasian? ;) We might need an alternative theory of what was in 50% like Armenians, if it wasn't neither Caucasus nor Gedrosia.


I think it's connected to ANE but ANE has multiple sources i.e. I think ANE is a high altitude or high latitude component that existed both in the far north and in mountainous regions further south so the component isn't Caucasus_Gedrosia but Caucasus and Gedrosia and Urals and unknown1 and unknown2 etc.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Years ago I compared some images of Kurdish fighters who passed away to Yamna reconstructions. People said the overall cranial features might be very similar but they didn't take it serious based on the reasoning that "Yamna is from Southern Russia" and therefore be all blond and that stuff. So the Kurdish examples would be "Kurgan types who have been darkened by mixing with the locals". Nowadays I am pretty convinced my initial instinct was right and it is actually the "blonde" Europeans who are simply the "lighter" version of the Kurgan types *due to centuries/millenia of drift/selection*.


I think your main point - northerners getting lighter afterwards - may be right but my guess for the reason is that there were multiple de-pigmentation genes in different regions and so different populations ended up with different combinations (combined with selection pressure as well maybe).

For example say there was (for whatever reason but probably related to sunlight somehow):

1) a gene that made eyes lighter
2) a gene that made eyes and hair and skin a little lighter
3) a gene that made skin substantially lighter (but not eyes or hair)

and population A just got (3), population B got (1) and (3), population C got (1) and (2) etc.

I don't think the entire phenotype came in one package.

I think it's worth figuring out because of that - if correct the trail will lead in multiple directions and so will be useful for tracking.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> But than as I and Angela said it is extremely unlikely that females could impose their pastoralist lifestyle on a totally patrichal society. And if we take the bride theory serious we would have to expect that the EHG exchange all their females almost completely with those of Maykop. That doesn't sound really realistic to me.


I don't think they'd be imposing it. If you were nomad hunter and you stole a lot of sheep from a farming settlement you might want to steal someone to herd them for you as well. So effectively what you'd have is mounted hunters forcing pastoralists to grow food for them so they could carry on being mounted hunters.

Such a process would automatically create a hierarchical society with a mounted warrior/hunter elite above and commoner herders below.

"exchange all their females almost completely"

or 5% a generation over multiple generations.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> This means that the common R1b patrilineal ancestors of about half of Basque R1b men only lived around 700 CE, during the Early Middle Ages, around the time of the Moorish conquest of Iberia. This means that if we tested Basque sample from 2000, 3000 or 4000 years ago, there is a high probability that the majority of samples wouldn't be R1b (but probably in majority I2a1). The replacement of Basque paternal lineages by R1b lineages is very recent.


That's strange. I wonder if it's anything to do with LP - was there food problems in the Basque region as a result of the invasion?

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> I was at a Christmas party years back, with family, and there was this one step cousin who had a Chinese girlfriend with freckles. We all got to talking, everyone was drinking a lot, and someone mentioned her freckles. So of course I blurt out "Yeah, yeah you look more like an Altaic Steppe Nomad, maybe with a bit of Iranian, than a Han Chinese." There wasn't really an awkward moment at the time, people just commented on how fair she was and the conversation meandered.
> 
> But the next day at breakfast people were talking about how they didn't like freckled Chinese girl and they say "..she HATED you" to me. My brother in law starts laughing, and goes "....what did you call her?......what did you say?...." then he blurts out "Steppe Nomad" and the entire table of people erupts into hilarity.
> 
> And I thought I was complimenting her.


Yeah I've browsed Chinese forums in the past and a lot of posters didn't seem to like those northern steppe barbarians at all.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> What surprises me in this paper is the *complete absence of EEF admixture in the Yamna samples* tested. That could mean two things:
> 
> A) It wasn't G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a1a people from the Balkans/Carpathians who brought copper metallurgy to the steppes (Sredny Stog, Khvalinsk, etc.), as I thought.
> 
> B) It was them, but they hadn't mixed with the few R1b-Z2103 individuals tested from the Volga-Ural region. After all population blending takes many centuries or millennia before affecting the genetic admixture of all the individuals in the population. I would therefore expect to find other individuals who are hybridized, and even individuals who are mostly EEF (with some WHG or EHG) among future Yamna samples. Those EEF-dominant samples would surely belong to G2a3b1, J2b2 or T1a1a (perhaps even some E-V13 and I2a).


What do you think about the possibility of

C) E1b (or one of the Js) farmers from Levant spreading mostly by sea with the G farmers/herders taking the overland route via Anatolia

only over-lapping later?

----------


## Drax

> Drax,
> 
> Archaeology, mtDNA, and Y DNA connect Bronze-Iron age IE North Asians to Yamna and Bronze age central Euros. Even though their pigmentation was radically different from Yamna(of the samples we have so far) they were probably very similar genetically. Pigmentation should not be put at the same level as genetic DNA markers and archaeology, because it is prone to change.


Yes and no, Mtdna don't give you too much info about a population, Corder Ware culture and WHG have the same mtdna, but different haplogroup Y, Andronovo have the haplogroup R1A; Yamna R1b, the Yamna population tested for their dark or light features (samples from the 2014 study), we don't have for the moment their haplogroup Y, in other words, we are not sure of their identity.

Don't forget that these populations were patriarcal; it's not rare to change their women for create an alliance etc...; for examples this excellent article about the link between Caucasian languages and Indo-Europeans:

http://kinshipstudies.org/2012/07/07...omal-genetics/

For the Pigmentation and the genetic markers, not really, we know that these traits are from parents (see the common ancestor behind blue eyes etc...).




> It isn't as simple as Pop A is 20% WHG and therefore has ~20% blue eyes. If that was true why do South Dutch have over 50% blue eyes and around 30% WHG? Eye color frequencies can go up and down and up and down.


Yes, that my problem, lol, I don't understand how this recessive trait can be today; in every europeans, it's dormant genes, something like that; really there are something "weird" because they are recessive.

For example in USA blue eyes will disappear sooner or later:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/wo...9975.html?_r=0

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask355

I don't see will all these variants, blue eyes seem to be multiplied during the bronze age, specially with the indo-europeans.

I have just read a really weird info from another board, about an amerindian tribe very isolate (so not mixed with Europeans), the karitiana, with the locus for blue eyes (rs12913832, see the link for more details); but are all brown dark eyed; that here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...a-Region/page5

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...a-Region/page6

So I guess a gene don't mean you have necessary blue eyes (?); that could explain how dark skinned peoples like WHG has the genes (or some of them, that not clear) for blue eyes, but without necessary to have them "physically" (blue eyes are linked with white skin and maybe other factors, genes etc...).

edit: For this debate with blue eyes/WHG/indo-europeans I will quote Eupedia:

"Mesolithic Europeans from Spain and Luxembourg have been confirmed to have possessed the HERC2 mutation for blue eyes (see Olade et al. (2014) and Lazaridis et al. (2014)). This mutation is also found in parts of Asia settled by the Proto-Indo-European speakers belonging to the paternal lineages R1a and R1b, including the Altai, southern Siberia, Central Asia, Iran and the Indian subcontinent. Since the the Proto-Indo-Europeans carried very different paternal lineages from Mesolithic Europeans (Y-haplogroups C, F and I), and only shared a few very old maternal lineages, like haplogroups U4 and U5, their HERC2 mutation could have been inherited from a common Paleolithic ancestor or passed on by two different groups of Neanderthals to separate Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens."

That make an agreement between the two previous studies about the place of blue eyes (black sea with Indo-Europeans and/or WHG).




> I won't be surprised if the genetically east-north Euro Late Neolithic/bronze age samples from Germany come out mostly dark skinned, dark haired, and brown eyed. They're still the ancestors of people in that region today.


I agree that wouldn't be a very big surprise, but the opposite too could be true, and in some way that my problem, with all the differents physical traits they seem to have; for me it's seem, and I'm agree with Maciamo and Alan, Andronovo and Corded are a different (but close) population that Yamna (we know they don't have the same haplogroup, one with R1a the other with R1b).

----------


## Drax

> Nah the new data doesn't make them particulary close to Norwegians and Baltic people. On the chart only some particular European populations are listed and among them, they were close to Norwegians yes.
> But on the fst distance table we see that they are most close to Mordovians and Lezgins. And on the pca plot, they also cluster in between Mordovians and North Caucasians.
> 
> It's just on the chart, where there is not many people listed, which gives the wrong impression that Norwegians are the closest followed by Baltic people. But that is not the whole story.


Autosomal, they are close to 50% of actual North Europeans, sorry but that mean alot, Mordovian have very light features, Europeans features and are the first, the second closer is in fact lezgins but share the second place with Russians, the others are baltics, Norwegians and Icelandic, that put them far more in the North and in Europe; than in West Asia (despite the "Armenian" or Caucasus element).

edit: For your picture, the first guy look like a guy I know, a french, he remind me also general de Gaulle, the second picture look like for me typical Slavic peoples; but like you say you can see what we want with pictures...about the ethnocentrist from your west asian background (kurd ? Iranian ?), don't worry, apparently it's just a sin when that from the Europeans peoples; and honestly I find that sad; but I think you should try to be the most objective possible.

For your comment: "They however were just like many people convinced that these Kurds would be the darkened result of the light Yamna people. Nowadays we know the opposite would rather be the case."; 

Well, completly disagree, the Andronovo culture say "hi"; they clearly are the old indo-iranians branch according various studies (unlike maybe the Yamna); and were all blond haired and blue eyes (except if you talk about R1b yamna ?, but they are still the problem that they are closest to east and north europeans, and not west asians or kurd).

----------


## Fire Haired14

Drax Samara Yamna and German Corded ware were almost identical to each other genetically, we know this because of Haak 2015. It is pretty incredible how pure Steppe IEs stayed as they migrated all the way west into Germany. I can't imagine Andronovo was much differnt.

----------


## Drax

> I don't know whether to be appalled or to laugh. If you can produce a peer reviewed paper from an accredited academic institution within the last twenty years that says any such thing, I'll...eat my hat!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...brilliant.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/08...an-brown-eyed/

I don't know if two university from two different countries are enough or if they are "serious" (I'm not a scientific, I can't judge them); imho that would not be a surprise, they are various studies (not PC) and very serious about the difference of intelligence between races; so why not with the eyes.

If that good enough for you, well good appetite. :Good Job: 




> A little education in the Classics has its uses, as does having married a man who once wanted to major in the Classics:
> 
> It is human nature for groups to elevate their own traits, physical and otherwise, and to their credit the ancient Greeks recognized it.
> 
> 
> Xenophanes, B16 (500 BC):* 
> ‘‘“if oxen had gods they would be like oxen,Men make gods in their own image; those of the Ethiopians are black and snub-nosed, those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair’’ 
> 
> Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 1903, pp.38-58.  
> ...


The first quote contradict the second (red hairs vs black hairs), Greeks have different appearances (probably more during this time), with different location, tribes etc...but I'm not sure the Galen really represent the opinion of all the ancients greeks; for example Herodotus:

"The Budini for their part, being a large and numerous nation, are all mightily blue-eyed and ruddy."

Or for arabic source Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, just to prove not every nations or peoples think themselves like perfect or the best:

"I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Itil. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blond and ruddy; "

We can say what we want, but in general peoples in other countries find Europeans extremely atractives.




> I could bore everyone to death and further derail this thread by listing all the references in classical literature to dark haired or dark eyed ancient Greek heroes or gods (some were blonde as well) but I won't. Just on general principals I would advise against getting historical and scientific information from certain anthrofora.


But we can do the opposite, and I'm sorry, not "some were blonde as well); a very good part were blonds; and among them some of the most important gods (Athena, Apollon etc...).

----------


## Angela

> Drax Samara Yamna and German Corded ware were almost identical to each other genetically, we know this because of Haak 2015. It is pretty incredible how pure Steppe IEs stayed as they migrated all the way west into Germany. I can't imagine Andronovo was much differnt.


I agree they were very similar indeed, although I don't know that I'd say identical...73% by some measures...higher by others?

I also agree they remained a cohesive unit for a long time. Yet we are supposed to believe that at some point before leaving the Pontic Caspian steppe they totally ditched their own women for the women they raided for all the way into the Caucasus or south of it (a trip some bloggers assured us almost never happened), or, in Greying Wanderer's formulation, even when they were mestizos they still preferred in each generation to get pure south of the Caucasus women? 

I have to defend my EHG ancestry, small though it is. They couldn't have been all that hideous. :Annoyed:

----------


## Drax

> Drax Samara Yamna and German Corded ware were almost identical to each other genetically, we know this because of Haak 2015. It is pretty incredible how pure Steppe IEs stayed as they migrated all the way west into Germany. I can't imagine Andronovo was much differnt.


Yes for the Yamna studied in Haak 2015 (I have already said they were close), but are you sure with the previous Yamna samples (the ones with dark features) ? Because I guess these two Yamna peoples can be (relatively) different; for the Corded Ware, like Angela have said, they are close but still different, I quote Maciamo for that, from his previous message:

"I completely agree with that. That's what I had been saying for years. Corded Ware descend from the indigenous Mesolithic R1a people from the forest-steppe, while Yamna was R1b hybrid from West Asia who mixed with some R1a in the open steppe in southern Ukraine and Russia. Therefore Corded Ware people do not descend of Yamna or vice versa. There may have been some intermingling between the two, but I doubt it's more than 5 to 10% of each population." 

Well, I don't know, that weird, I really don't know how to interpret that.

edit: in your previous messages you have described the Yamna with brown eyes or/and some of them with gray eyes; have you more info about that (the grey eyes among Yamna) ? (in France we don't really make difference between blue or gray eyes), their numbers etc...; I guess they are different that the ones with blue eyes, thanks for advance.

----------


## Goga

> Yet we are supposed to believe that at some point before leaving the Pontic Caspian steppe they totally ditched their own women for the women they raided for all the way into the Caucasus or south of it (a trip some bloggers assured us almost never happened), or, in Greying Wanderer's formulation, even when they were mestizos they still preferred in each generation to get pure south of the Caucasus women?


Maybe they liked the 'brown eyed girls' much more than girls with other eye colors? Personally I like the green eyes the most, like those of Emma Stone (, not really pretty face, but damn beautiful eyes)!





It is a pity that I do have light brown eyes, but I've also inherited some kind of green colour eyes genes from my parents.

Hmm, according to Gedmatch I should have the green coloured eyes.

TT at: rs916977 - Adds melanin. Some darkening.
GG at: rs4778138 - Adds melanin. Adds yellow, amber, or brown. Some darkening. Contributes to brown.
*CC* at: rs3794604 - Blocks some melanin. Often gives light colored eyes.
*GG* at: rs7174027 - Blocks some melanin. Often gives light colored eyes.
*CC* at: rs4778241 - Low Melanin. Basis for Gray, Blue, Green, or Yellow Eyes if no other pigmentation is present.
CT at: rs989869 - Contrasting sphincter around pupil.
CT at: rs3947367 - Contrasting sphincter around pupil.
CC at: rs1129038 - High Melanin production. Brown.
AA at: rs1105879 - Weak Amber Gradient
*GT* at: rs7713279 - Inhibit weak amber gradient
CG at: rs16891982 - Medium melanin production on Anterior Epithelium. Adds yellow, amber, or brown. Some darkening.
CT at: rs3935591 - Heavy melanin on Anterior Epithelium. Brown.
AA at: rs12913832 - High melanin production on Anterior Epithelium. Adds yellow, amber, or brown. Some darkening. Contributes to brown.
CC at: rs1667394 - Increased melanin production on Anterior Epithelium. Adds yellow, amber, or brown. Some darkening.
CC at: rs12203592 - No pigmented Collarette.
TT at: rs13160471 - Amber Collarette

----------


## Aberdeen

> Drax Samara Yamna and German Corded ware were almost identical to each other genetically, we know this because of Haak 2015. It is pretty incredible how pure Steppe IEs stayed as they migrated all the way west into Germany. I can't imagine Andronovo was much differnt.


On page 8 of the article by Haak at al, 2015, it's stated that Corded Ware people were 79% Yamnaya, 4% WHG and 17% Early Neolithic Farmer.

----------


## Alan

> Nah, I meant that I normally hear of early Mediterraneans as being described as smaller and more "gracile" than steppe populations. And broader faces are generally ascribed to brachycephalicskulls, but I guess you said meso, so whatever. Now that we have genetics this shit is less important to the debate.


You are confusing the body measure of Mediterranean people (as living in the Mediterranean) with the general darker haired (Black/Brown) population in many countries reaching as far as the east of the Caspian.

There are dozen of very heavy broader faced people in the North Caucasus still today and they are meso to dolichocephalic.
There are many types of "Mediterranean people.

----------


## Alan

> Well, this make us both wrong. How can you have so much Yamnaya without Gedrosia and Caucasian? ;) We might need an alternative theory of what was in 50% like Armenians, if it wasn't neither Caucasus nor Gedrosia.
> 
> 
> Yet, we don't know if they got these 2 at the same time. It is like looking at modern European population and say that WHG and ANE are one component, because they fall and rise in the same cline. We know the story is way more complicated and that these are 2 different components.
> It doesn't work like one component in Europe. Take Norway for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wel Le Brock this is why I said Yamna ancestry can not be explained simply by one component :)

Yamna might have been ~50% like Caucasus_Gedrosia but there is still the other 50%.

There is actually quite a difference between H&G and pastoralists. Pastoralism was invented in regions were classicaly farming wasn't that much possible. But even classic farmer probably domesticated animals already to some degree.

But to be able for herders to create dairy products from milk you need agricultural knowledge. Simple H&G were hunting/fishing and collecting berries and similar stuff. They were not knowladgeable in how to produce dairy products imo.

----------


## Alan

> I don't think they'd be imposing it. If you were nomad hunter and you stole a lot of sheep from a farming settlement you might want to steal someone to herd them for you as well. So effectively what you'd have is mounted hunters forcing pastoralists to grow food for them so they could carry on being mounted hunters.
> 
> Such a process would automatically create a hierarchical society with a mounted warrior/hunter elite above and commoner herders below.
> 
> "exchange all their females almost completely"
> 
> or 5% a generation over multiple generations.


No the 5% wouldn't be enough because the moment they admixed with the other 95% non admixed population the pastoralist DNA would be diluted back to few percentages. This is so because the chance that a pastoralist mixed H&G would mate with another admixed one would be 1/20. Let's assume to every mixing with a pastoralist female come ten with non admixed once. This will dilute the pastoralist DNA to less than a percentage until they mate again with an pastoralist bride. 
It is extremely hard (all the way to impossible) to reach the figure of 50% with bride kidnapping. Sorry it is a quite amusing theory but nothing more. Especially if we would expect the pastoralist simply taking a blind eye for H&G kidnapping of their brides for a millennia or so. These kind of theories have always a minimal possibility but they are too unlikely to take them into consideration imo.

----------


## Alan

> Yeah I've browsed Chinese forums in the past and a lot of posters didn't seem to like those northern steppe barbarians at all.


The mongols were the reason for the Chinese wall and they terrorized the Chinese people. How would you expect them to react  :Laughing:

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> I agree they were very similar indeed, although I don't know that I'd say identical...73% by some measures...higher by others?
> 
> I also agree they remained a cohesive unit for a long time. Yet we are supposed to believe that at some point before leaving the Pontic Caspian steppe they totally ditched their own women for the women they raided for all the way into the Caucasus or south of it (a trip some bloggers assured us almost never happened), or, in Greying Wanderer's formulation, even when they were mestizos they still preferred in each generation to get pure south of the Caucasus women? 
> 
> I have to defend my EHG ancestry, small though it is. They couldn't have been all that hideous.


It's the other way round; the farmers moved onto the steppe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuten...500-3000_BC.29




> During the late period the Cucuteni-Trypillian territory expanded to include the Volyn region in northwest Ukraine, the Sluch and Horyn Rivers in northern Ukraine, and along both banks of the Dnieper river near Kiev. Members of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture who lived along the coastal regions near the Black Sea came into contact with other cultures. Animal husbandry increased in importance, as hunting diminished; horses also became more important. The community transformed into a patriarchal structure. Outlying communities were established on the Don and Volga rivers in present-day Russia.


The Cucuteni late period expansion strikes me as a plausible catalyst for initiating the transformation of the pre PIE steppe HGs into the PIE.

The model I am suggesting is similar to native Americans taking captives (and domesticated animals) from advancing settlers.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> No the 5% wouldn't be enough because the moment they admixed with the other 95% non admixed population the pastoralist DNA would be diluted back to few percentages. This is so because the chance that a pastoralist mixed H&G would mate with another admixed one would be 1/20. Let's assume to every mixing with a pastoralist female come ten with non admixed once. This will dilute the pastoralist DNA to less than a percentage until they mate again with an pastoralist bride. 
> It is extremely hard (all the way to impossible) to reach the figure of 50% with bride kidnapping. Sorry it is a quite amusing theory but nothing more. Especially if we would expect the pastoralist simply taking a blind eye for H&G kidnapping of their brides for a millennia or so. These kind of theories have always a minimal possibility but they are too unlikely to take them into consideration imo.


5% each generation over multiple generations. As Cucuteni collapsed within a few hundred years of contact that could be say 8-16 generations.

I think the history of the Great Plains in America is likely to have similarities with what happened on the steppe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_Indians#The_Horse

----------


## Alan

> Autosomal, they are close to 50% of actual North Europeans, sorry but that mean alot, Mordovian have very light features, Europeans features and are the first, the second closer is in fact lezgins but share the second place with Russians, the others are baltics, Norwegians and Icelandic, that put them far more in the North and in Europe; than in West Asia (despite the "Armenian" or Caucasus element).


n the fst table Russians follow very close to Lezgins but we also see on the pca plot that Lezgins are slightly closer. We can assume the Yamna people as ~50% Caucasus_Gedrosia + ~ North Euro.

Lezgins are ~73% Caucasus_Gedrosia and 24% North Europe based on Dodecad components. That would make them ~74% Yamna like.
Unfortunately I don't have any data on Mordovians but I am pretty sure their Caucasus_Gedrosia figures are slightly higher compare to the figures of Russians like all populations in the Ural Region.

Here is the pca plot. I draw red connection from the closest Mordovian samples to the core of Yamna and a red connection from the North Caucasians to it too.

I also draw a line showing into the direction were the South_Central Asians would cluster.





> edit: For your picture, the first guy look like a guy I know, a french, he remind me also general de Gaulle, the second picture look like for me typical Slavic peoples; but like you say you can see what we want with pictures...about the ethnocentrist from you west asian background (kurd ? Iranian ?), don't worry, apparently is just a sin when that from the Europeans peoples; and honestly I find that sad; but I think you should be try to be the most objective possible


.

I don't think the first guy looks like a French. He looks quite Kurdish. The second person kinda could be a European. The third and fourth however again look quite Kurdish.

I am Kurdish as seen on "ethnicity" part. I am usually just saying it because people of course will think I am using Kurdish people as example just because I am Kurd. Well some ethnocentrism is alwaxys in sure. But the fact is that I am more familiar with my own people and I think a Kurds would make better comparison to the "West Asian like" pigmented Yamna people than most modern Europeans.




> For your comment: "They however were just like many people convinced that these Kurds would be the darkened result of the light Yamna people. Nowadays we know the opposite would rather be the case."; 
> 
> Well, completly disagree, the Andronovo culture say "hi"; they clearly are the old indo-iranians branch according various studies (unlike maybe the Yamna); and were all blond haired and blue eyes (except if you talk about R1b yamna ?, but they are still the problem that they are closest to east and north europeans, and not west asians or kurd).


If we take a look at the position of Andronovo and take a look at all the modern descend of them. The West Eurasian ancestry of them is always 2/3 West Asian like and 1/3 North European like. I am pretty convinced that Caucasus_Gedrosia in Andronovo might even had been higher.

Don't forget light eyes/hair are not connected to H&G ancestry. The very first Europeans were dark by any means the first individual with blonde hair/blue eyes light skin combination was a farmer in Hungary.

Andronovo is probably not descend of Yamna or vica versa but they are related. Also Andronovo is some thousand years after Yamna. This is enough time for some changes in look. Scientist only found out that Andronovo was 60% light haired and eyed (Not Blonde or Blue eyed per se ) and that they were "West Eurasian". They never specified what they mean under Blight haired and Blue eyed.

We also know that allot of Thracian samples turned out halfway Caucasus_Gedrosia and ancient accounts describe their appearance as red haired and blue eyed.

So light features =/= North European ancestry. 

And to the Yamna they are as close to the West Asian core as to Europeans I think this should be clear now from all the data collected. Yamna was more similar to Anatolian Turks than Iberians or people of Bergamo/Armenians. But equally similar to Turks and Greeks. Unfortunately we don't have Kurdish or Iranian comparison. But from the data we have collected earlier. It is a good guess to say Yamna will be as close to Kurds/Iranians as to Bulgarians, French /Croatians or even more.

Kurds have also signficantly higher ANE scores than any of the populations listed above.

----------


## Alan

> 5% each generation over multiple generations. As Cucuteni collapsed within a few hundred years of contact that could be say 8-16 generations.
> 
> I think the history of the Great Plains in America is likely to have similarities with what happened on the steppe
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_Indians#The_Horse


But only if we expect that the admixed individual does always marry one of the other 5% admixed individuals instead of the 95% majority.

The moment when an admixed individual mates with four of the non admixed once, the pastoralist DNA will be extremely dliuted from 50% to ~3%.

----------


## Angela

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...brilliant.html
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/08...an-brown-eyed/
> 
> I don't know if two university from two different countries are enough or if they are "serious" (I'm not a scientific, I can't judge them); imho that would not be a surprise, they are various studies (not PC) and very serious about the difference of intelligence between races; so why not with the eyes.
> 
> If that good enough for you, well good appetite.
> 
> 
> ...


Poseidon, Zeus, Hades, Dionysos, Theseus and Odysseus are described as having either dark hair or dark eyes. Hercules, in addition to being described as dark, was said to have a hook nose. So, obviously, there was a mixture of phenotypes, and the dark ones were certainly not relegated to the lower echelons of the celestial world.


In terms of commoners I think it is likely that some people are described as having fair hair precisely because it was not all that common a feature among them. That is why it's mentioned. Were they all fair it would not be worthy of comment.

We have no way of knowing the precise percentages. Unless perhaps you know of some scientist who has time traveled back to classical Greece to take a survey of Greek pigmentation and found that they had “a good number” of blondes? I don’t think so.


As for the Budini, they were nomads. Herodotus tells us that in the area of the Budini there was a people who were farmers who spoke a half Scythian/half Greek language. He believed they were _Greek_ colonists (and obviously of the Classical Age, since we're talking about Herodotus here) who migrated inland from the port communities. He further says that they were not like the Budini in either form nor coloring.

There is no ancient Greek source which contradicts Galen in terms of Greeks describing themselves as generally looking like Scythians. So you have no evidence that this was not the common perception.

The quote about body forms underscores that the Greeks did not consider the Scythians (or the Arabs or Egyptians) as models for perfection. Like most peoples they modeled perfection on themselves. This can also be seen in their descriptions of the "perfect" face. The low forehead, high rooted, large, straight nose almost joined to the forehead, the oval face and large eyes of the classical ideal _did not_ exist among the Scythians, and does not normally show up in northern Europeans. 

Bottom line is that there were a mixture of phenotypes, but we have no way of knowing the percentages. What we do know is that at least some ancient Greeks did _not_ consider the Scythians to possess the "ideal" characteristics.

You have posted blurbs from the Daily Mail and Fox News. You have not posted papers so that an analysis can be done of their sampling strategy or their methodology. I presume you are aware that both Britain and the U.S. have very mixed populations groups. In addition, were I the type to equate intelligence or accomplishment with pigmentation traits, I might find it very interesting that the people who developed animal husbandry, metallurgy, writing, and the first great civilizations were most probably dark haired and eyed. Now we discover that the Yamnaya and Catacomb people were also predominantly dark haired and dark eyed. Of course, I'm not at all so simplistic in my thinking.

I don't have time to post extensively today, which is just as well, as I would undoubtedly wind up saying something very rude. This is all Nordicist nonsense, and, in my opinion, unworthy of being part of intellectual discourse. I will not be responding to any further such posts.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Wel Le Brock this is why I said Yamna ancestry can not be explained simply by one component :)
> 
> Yamna might have been ~50% like Caucasus_Gedrosia but there is still the other 50%.
> 
> There is actually quite a difference between H&G and pastoralists. Pastoralism was invented in regions were classicaly farming wasn't that much possible. But even classic farmer probably domesticated animals already to some degree.
> 
> But to be able for herders to create dairy products from milk you need agricultural knowledge. Simple H&G were hunting/fishing and collecting berries and similar stuff. They were not knowladgeable in how to produce dairy products imo.


That is the critical point about captives from the farmers. They had the knowledge. The steppe hunters didn't have to turn into pastoralists. All they had to do is kidnap some.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> But only if we expect that the admixed individual does always marry one of the other 5% admixed individuals instead of the 95% majority.
> 
> The moment when an admixed individual mates with four of the non admixed once, the pastoralist DNA will be extremely dliuted from 50% to ~3%.


And that might be how caste started.

----------


## Alan

I think the best thing to do is wait for the Andronovo samples to be published but as with Yamna. Again people will be suprised that I was right and they were genetically more like the West Eurasian ancestry in modern Central Asians. 
The West Eurasian ancestry in most Central Asians is 2/3 Caucasus_Gedrosia 1/3 North European.


Lezgins are 73% Caucasus_Gedrosia + 24% North European.

I expect Andronovo to be like 60-65% Caucaus_Gedrosia and ~ 35-40% North European

North Caucasians already have a number of 20-49% light hair and 20-35% light eyes. That is not that extreme difference to ~60% light eyes and hair of Andronovo. So I think my estimation isn't so wrong.
http://www.europeanunionmaps.com/wp-...-in-europe.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eqhQhrOT-C...neral--lig.png

----------


## Alan

> That is the critical point about captives from the farmers. They had the knowledge. The steppe hunters didn't have to turn into pastoralists. All they had to do is kidnap some.



Ok, but to your own question what do you feel is the more plausible explanation. 
If we believe in a simple migration as it was always the case in ancient history. Or some bride kidnapping.

It is obvious that the bride kidnapping story is the much more unlikely theory, because as you admit yourself it needs much more thinks to fit than simply expect a migration.
(caste system, bride kidnapping of 5% over a millennia etc etc). 
But I think this is a prime example how people can be ethnocentric that they put aside the most logical explanation for the most satisfying. I am that way sometimes myself.  :Laughing: 

But let's be simply honest here. The best explanation is a migration everything else is just possible theories and can only be explaned with "if's andmight's"
It is possible that they kidnapped brides but it is also possible that they kidnapped males and forced them to teach the pastoralist system and than included them into their society.

But is it likely? No.

I am simply convinced it was simply a migration. It is not even only the pastoralist lifestyle. The whole Yamna package cries "strong influence from South".
From the pastoralist lifestyle all the way to how they buried (Kurgan) their people is typically copied from Maykop (who themselves copied it from NW Iran according to some rather recent study). Yamna was simply a copy of Maykop.

Why should anyone copy the rituals of kidnapped brides?

The point is there is an whole West Asian highland package (rituals such as Kurgans, pastoralism, genetic ancestry) which reached Maykop and from there came to Yamna and can not simply be explained with "bride kidnapping".

----------


## Sile

> It's the other way round; the farmers moved onto the steppe.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuten...500-3000_BC.29
> 
> 
> 
> The Cucuteni late period expansion strikes me as a plausible catalyst for initiating the transformation of the pre PIE steppe HGs into the PIE.
> 
> The model I am suggesting is similar to native Americans taking captives (and domesticated animals) from advancing settlers.


Are you sure?

because this paper below from 2013 has the exact same mtdna in most cases with this recent haak paper ( but haak has refined the mtdna and found the ydna )

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978205/

----------


## Drax

> n the fst table Russians follow very close to Lezgins but we also see on the pca plot that Lezgins are slightly closer. We can assume the Yamna people as ~50% Caucasus_Gedrosia + ~ North Euro.
> 
> Lezgins are ~73% Caucasus_Gedrosia and 24% North Europe based on Dodecad components. That would make them ~74% Yamna like.
> Unfortunately I don't have any data on Mordovians but I am pretty sure their Caucasus_Gedrosia figures are slightly higher compare to the figures of Russians like all populations in the Ural Region.
> 
> Here is the pca plot. I draw red connection from the closest Mordovian samples to the core of Yamna and a red connection from the North Caucasians to it too.
> 
> I also draw a line showing into the direction were the South_Central Asians would cluster.
> 
> ...


I don't see your point, when I talk about Europeans, north or east, I talk about the actual population, not the WHG or the oldest ones; look I'm not a specialist, but the paper is very clear; they are close to modern Europeans; like Mordovians (don't forget; they are europeans).




> I don't think the first guy looks like a French. He looks quite Kurdish. The second person kinda could be a European. The third and fourth however again look quite Kurdish.


No, sorry I think he look like European, I have talked about France because I live in this country and I know a guy with the same face.




> I am Kurdish as seen on "ethnicity" part. I am usually just saying it because people of course will think I am using Kurdish people as example just because I am Kurd. Well some ethnocentrism is alwaxys in sure. But the fact is that I am more familiar with my own people and I think a Kurds would make better comparison to the "West Asian like" pigmented Yamna people than most modern Europeans.


Not if we trust this new study; about the pigmentation, we will see with them, maybe that would be the case; but that change the fact that they are closer to the modern Europeans (pigmentation or not).




> If we take a look at the position of Andronovo and take a look at all the modern descend of them. The West Eurasian ancestry of them is always 2/3 West Asian like and 1/3 North European like. I am pretty convinced that Caucasus_Gedrosia in Andronovo might even had been higher.
> 
> Don't forget light eyes/hair are not connected to H&G ancestry. The very first Europeans were dark by any means the first individual with blonde hair/blue eyes light skin combination was a farmer in Hungary.


Yes, that for that I have make the comparaison with the indo-europeans, and with the modern Europeans population; "North European" for me don't mean WHG, but simply modern North Europeans.




> Andronovo is probably not descend of Yamna or vica versa but they are related. Also Andronovo is some thousand years after Yamna. This is enough time for some changes in look. Scientist only found out that Andronovo was 60% light haired and eyed (Not Blonde or Blue eyed per se ) and that they were "West Eurasian". They never specified what they mean under Blight haired and Blue eyed.


Well that make them pretty close physically to the modern Europeans, not the actual west asians.




> We also know that allot of Thracian samples turned out halfway Caucasus_Gedrosia and ancient accounts describe their appearance as red haired and blue eyed.
> 
> So light features =/= North European ancestry.


I think there are a misandurstanding, I talk about modern North Europeans, not WHG, I don't deny the Caucasian presence among Europeans peoples, I have posted a link for the close relation between Caucasian language and Indo-Europeans, sincerely I don't see your point.




> And to the Yamna they are as close to the West Asian core as to Europeans *I think this should be clear now from all the data collected*. Yamna was more similar to Anatolian Turks than Iberians or people of Bergamo/Armenians. But equally similar to Turks and Greeks. Unfortunately we don't have Kurdish or Iranian comparison. But from the data we have collected earlier. It is a good guess to say Yamna will be as close to Kurds/Iranians as to Bulgarians, French /Croatians or even more.
> 
> Kurds have also signficantly higher ANE scores than any of the populations listed above.


The data are very clear for the moment, Yamna are by far closer to modern North/East Europeans, I don't see your problem with that; look I'm not a specialist, I take the words for these studies, for me that pretty clear.

----------


## Drax

> Poseidon, Zeus, Hades, Dionysos, Theseus and Odysseus are described as having either dark hair or dark eyes. Hercules, in addition to being described as dark, was said to have a hook nose. So, obviously, there was a mixture of phenotypes, and the dark ones were certainly not relegated to the lower echelons of the celestial world.


I have never said something like that, but the "nordic" physical attribute was not seen like something negative, something you seem to imply in your previous posts.





> In terms of commoners I think it is likely that some people are described as having fair hair precisely because it was not all that common a feature among them. That is why it's mentioned. Were they all fair it would not be worthy of comment.
> 
> We have no way of knowing the precise percentages. Unless perhaps you know of some scientist who has time traveled back to classical Greece to take a survey of Greek pigmentation and found that they had “a good number” of blondes? I don’t think so.


Where I have said that ? I have clearly said they were (probably; I don't know, that depend of the tribes) more brown haired, and despite that, they don't see the nordics physical attributes (blond hairs), like something bad or inferior to them; and their Gods were a big arguments for that





> As for the Budini, they were nomads. Herodotus tells us that in the area of the Budini there was a people who were farmers who spoke a half Scythian/half Greek language. He believed they were _Greek_ colonists (and obviously of the Classical Age, since we're talking about Herodotus here) who migrated inland from the port communities. He further says that they were not like the Budini in either form nor coloring.


the "all mightily" blue eyes term don't seem really negative; it was the point.




> There is no ancient Greek source which contradicts Galen in terms of Greeks describing themselves as generally looking like Scythians. So you have no evidence that this was not the common perception.


Their gods for lot of them were blond hairs, for me that the proof that the ancient greeks don't see these hairs colors like something negative, unlike Galen comment.




> The quote about body forms underscores that the Greeks did not consider the Scythians (or the Arabs or Egyptians) as models for perfection. Like most peoples they modeled perfection on themselves. This can also be seen in their descriptions of the "perfect" face. The low forehead, high rooted, large, straight nose almost joined to the forehead, the oval face and large eyes of the classical ideal _did not_ exist among the Scythians, and does not normally show up in northern Europeans. 
> 
> Bottom line is that there were a mixture of phenotypes, but we have no way of knowing the percentages. What we do know is that at least some ancient Greeks did _not_ consider the Scythians to possess the "ideal" characteristics.


The fact they bleach their hairs, to have a good portion of blond gods speak for themselves, now I don't have said they were ethnomasochists, of course they probably see themselves probably like better (bust most of them don't have seen lot of North Europeans); specially during this time; but that don't change fact they seem to really like the "light hairs", I also have posted another quote from the arabic traveller just to show, that not always the case, that peoples don't seem themselves like the best. 




> You have posted blurbs from the Daily Mail and Fox News. You have not posted papers so that an analysis can be done of their sampling strategy or their methodology.


Not every study are in internet, and I don't have said too that these studies are true, you have asked the links; I have posted them.




> I presume you are aware that both Britain and the U.S. have very mixed populations groups. In addition, were I the type to equate intelligence or accomplishment with pigmentation traits, I might find it very interesting that the people who developed animal husbandry, metallurgy, writing, and the first great civilizations were most probably dark haired and eyed. Now we discover that the Yamnaya and Catacomb people were also predominantly dark haired and dark eyed. Of course, I'm not at all so simplistic in my thinking.


That not my point of view; you have asked about the study, I have posted the link of the articles; and their studies are not about the ancient civilizations, but about individuals modern peoples, I don't see the point of your comparaison (also apparently during ancient civilizations, nobody were blonde with blue eyes, so there are no comparaison possible); yes I'm aware that britain and USA have mixed populations groups, but I think also that peoples in these University are not idiots, so I think they have done their studies relatively seriously.




> I don't have time to post extensively today, which is just as well, as I would undoubtedly wind up saying something very rude. This is all Nordicist nonsense, and, in my opinion, unworthy of being part of intellectual discourse. I will not be responding to any further such posts.


If you talk about me, first I'm not nordicist (I'm not European for the record); for the "Nordicist nonsense", well that your point of view, and of course if you can't stay polite, I'm agree with you, don't reply to such posts.

----------


## Alan

I don't know the difficulty about to understand that the distance of Yamna from modern Europeans is equally big as the distance from any northern West Asians to them. That the Yamna samples cluster "north" of East Europeans doesn't mean Yamna was more North European it just means that Yamna is more shifted towards ANE. It is a 2 dimensional map.

Have you even taken a look at the data?

Here the map once again . But take in mind this is only a 2 dimensional map showing the general genetic closeness but is not about the real actual Yamna ancestry and therefore not 100% accurate. It only shows a rough impression on how Yamna clusters. In general we can say the closest are Mordovians/North Caucasians/Russians second by Norwegians, Lithuanians, Kurds, Iranians, French, Croatians, Bulgarians followed by Greeks, Turks... Iberians... Armenians and so on.




The Yamna core is equally distant from Mordovians/Russians as from North Caucasians.

The Yamna is equally distant from North and East European as it is from northern West Asians like Kurds/Iranians/Turks.





> No, sorry I think he look like European, I have talked about France because I live in this country and I know a guy with the same face.


I respect your opinion but for me he has a very Kurdish face.




> Yes, that for that I have make the comparaison with the indo-europeans, and with the modern Europeans population; "North European" for me don't mean WHG, but simply modern North Europeans.


I never said North European means WHG. I didn't even use the WHG/ANE/ENF components and exclusively the Dodecad once. I don't mix those two calculators because it is impossible to mix them accurately. Caucasus_Gedrosia is 2/3 ENF + 1/3 ANE. North European is something like 5/9 WHG, 3/9 ANE and 1/9 ENF.

So if modern Europeans means for you North Europeans. Than allot of Europeans are not European and even in that case Yamna is not like North Europeans because they share *allot* more ancestry with modern West Asians than any modern North European.

The point is you can't describe ancient cultures with modern ethno_geographic terms. We only can tell which part of their ancestry reached when Europe. 

WHG most likely during mesolithic, ENF during early Neolithic and most of ANE (and Caucasus_Gedrosia as hybrid of this and ENF) during late Neolithic/Bronze Age.

There is no genetic Europe. There is an ethno_geographic term which describes populations with similar culture, history, politics and to some degree looks.





> Well that make them pretty close physically to the modern Europeans, not the actual west asians.


In modern peoples eyes they would have looked like Europeans, and pimgentationwise like modern Central, East and North Europeans yes. But to be exactly more like, those light Iranic people. And in genetic sense this doesn't matter. Otherwise we could argue that Yamna were all West Asians.

The point is that looks does not correlate with genetics for 100%. And especially not among genetic groups which are so close.

I mean the genetic difference between northern West Asia and Europe is so extremely small in global comparison that it is negligable. It is so small I remember all Kurds, Turks, Iranians and Armenians on Global Similarity charts in 23andme appearing closer to South Europeans and even North Europeans as to Arabians. And Arabians themselves are genetically very close to what we would call "European" in global perspective. So now you can imagine how close West Asian and European really are. 

West Asia and Europe are genetically like two siblings who have diverged very recently. *so a genetic Europe doesn't really exist*. The only reason why there is a fluent connection from South to North or North to East Europe is because there was never an event which could have created a gab. This was not the case in the Steppes.

*As I said in the past and as many ancient samples have proven me over time as right. There was once a fluent genetic transition from northern West Asia to Europe and Central Asia with the North Iranic tribes.*

It is no wonder that Yamna and other ancient samples seem to be on "no mans land". 

Just recently I opened a thread about this and explaining how the Turkic and later Slavic expansion changed the demographics of the Steppes and created this gap.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...-unnatural-gap

And here is a map to make clear how close actually Western Asia and Europe are in comparison to East Eurasian and Sub Saharan diversity.
http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/x...ing2010PCA.jpg

----------


## Goga

> I don't know the difficulty about to understand that the distance of Yamna from modern Europeans is equally big as the distance from any northern West Asians to them. That the Yamna samples cluster "north" of East Europeans doesn't mean Yamna was more North European it just measn that Yamna is mroe shifted towards ANE. It is a 2 dimensional map.
> 
> Have you even taken a look at the data?
> 
> Here the map once again . But take in mind this is only a 2 dimensional map showing soe general genetic closeness but not about the real actual Yamna ancestry and therefore not 100% accurate. It only shows a rough impression on how Yamna clusters. In general we can say the closest are Mordovians/North Caucasians/Russians second by Norwegians, Lithuanians, Kurds, Iranians, French, Croatians, Bulgarians followed by Greeks, Turks and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As you can see here Northern Caucasian *Maykop Adygei* folks are closer to Kurds, than they are to Persians and the Turks. *Kurgan* *Maykop Adygei* folks are children of the Kurds. All over the world there're 6 million Adygeans/Circassians, while there're 50 million Kurds (Medes). Like Kurds, they and other Northern Caucasians have a lot '*Gedrosia*' component in them, I think it's from the Kurds (Medes)...

----------


## epoch

> There is actually quite a difference between H&G and pastoralists. Pastoralism was invented in regions were classicaly farming wasn't that much possible. But even classic farmer probably domesticated animals already to some degree.
> 
> But to be able for herders to create dairy products from milk you need agricultural knowledge. Simple H&G were hunting/fishing and collecting berries and similar stuff. They were not knowladgeable in how to produce dairy products imo.


That is a broad sweeping statement, and possibly untrue. You need to check the Pitted Ware Culture, or the Ertebolla culture; HG cultures contemporary to LBK. From genetic data (mtDNA) of pig remains we know those cultures started keeping pigs that had a high affinity with current day Turkeys wild boar. LBK also kept those, considered yet another clue that early farmers were settlers from that area, so the HG's pigs were probably traded from them. After contact with farmers the HGs appear to have learned the trick and domesticated their own. After a short while the pigs they keep show a high affinity with local wild boar. In the middle Neolithic all European pigs have a high local wild boar affinity. 

EHG learned from farmers.

----------


## Drax

> I don't know the difficulty about to understand that the distance of Yamna from modern Europeans is equally big as the distance from any northern West Asians to them. That the Yamna samples cluster "north" of East Europeans doesn't mean Yamna was more North European it just means that Yamna is more shifted towards ANE. It is a 2 dimensional map.
> 
> Have you even taken a look at the data?
> 
> Here the map once again . But take in mind this is only a 2 dimensional map showing the general genetic closeness but is not about the real actual Yamna ancestry and therefore not 100% accurate. It only shows a rough impression on how Yamna clusters. In general we can say the closest are Mordovians/North Caucasians/Russians second by Norwegians, Lithuanians, Kurds, Iranians, French, Croatians, Bulgarians followed by Greeks, Turks... Iberians... Armenians and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look, I'm not a specialist, and honestly I find your text and your map, extremely confusing; I will post this link, imo far more clear:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...o-other-groups

1-Mordovian 0.018
2-Lezgian/Russian 0.019
3- Czech/Belarusian/Estonian/Hungarian/Icelandic 0.020
4-Norwegian/English 0.021
5-Croatian/French/Lithuanian/Orcadian 0.022
6- Bulgarian 0.023
7- Greek/Turkish 0.026
8-Spanish 0.027
9- Sindhi/Bergamo 0.028
10- Armenian/Sicilian 0.030 

You see there are a clear order or hierarchy, first North Europeans (I count the North East like "North") and the other European, and in the bottom; South Europeans and Armenians.

I don't have said they are 100% North Europeans, or that they don't have any "west asians" composent; I have simply said; what the specialists have said:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.fr/2015/01...lf-of-our.html

. *"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."


Look that not my words, I repeat what the studies have said nothing more nothing less; also from your previous message about North Caucasus like Chechen or Lezgian with light features and Andronovo, well they are closest to Europeans than to West Asians, that seem logical; they look like Europeans (light hairs, features etc...):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechens

Chechens clustered closest to Azeris, Georgians and Kabardins. They clustered closer to European populations than Middle Eastern populations this time, but were significantly closer to Western European populations (Basques and Britons) than to Eastern European populations (Russians and other Slavs, as well as Estonians), despite living in the East. They actually clustered about as close to Basques as they did to Ingush (Chechens also cluster closer to many other populations than Ingush, such as Armenians and Abazins)






> I respect your opinion but for me he has a very Kurdish face.


agree to disagree





> I never said North European means WHG. I didn't even use the WHG/ANE/ENF components and exclusively the Dodecad once. I don't mix those two calculators because it is impossible to mix them accurately. Caucasus_Gedrosia is 2/3 ENF + 1/3 ANE. North European is something like 5/9 WHG, 3/9 ANE and 1/9 ENF.
> 
> So if modern Europeans means for you North Europeans. Than allot of Europeans are not European and even in that case Yamna is not like North Europeans because they share *allot* more ancestry with modern West Asians than any modern North European.


No, see the order, and the paper, I don't see why you argue against that; again see the list; north European for me mean also "North East"; they are no "west asians"; that your theory.




> The point is you can't describe ancient cultures with modern ethno_geographic terms. We only can tell which part of their ancestry reached when Europe. 
> 
> WHG most likely during mesolithic, ENF during early Neolithic and most of ANE (and Caucasus_Gedrosia as hybrid of this and ENF) during late Neolithic/Bronze Age.
> 
> There is no genetic Europe. There is an ethno_geographic term which describes populations with similar culture, history, politics and to some degree looks.


Lol; completly wrong for the "no genetic Europe"; are you serious ? but you don't hesitate to create a big west asians group with Caucasians peoples (North or South); kurd, turkish, Greek; Iranian etc...?

Look there are "genetic Europe":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe

"It suggested that the English and Irish cluster with other Northern and Eastern Europeans such as Germans and Poles, while some Basque and Italian individuals also clustered with Northern Europeans. Despite these stratifications, it noted the unusually high degree of European homogeneity: "there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world."[46]





> In modern peoples eyes they would have looked like Europeans, yes. But more like, those light haired Iranic people. And in genetic sense this doesn't matter. Otherwise we could argue that Yamna were all West Asians.


Iranic peoples with light features are probably (I have no doubt); the descent from ancient Indo-Europeans groups from Andronovo etc...you have some in village in Pakistan like that (peoples with Europeans features); or with the Uyghur, that simply that they are migration from Russia (see Kurgan hypothesis; Indo-Europeans invasion/migration from Russia etc...).

Don't understand your Yamna /West Asians comparaison, they are in Russia and close to European modern group;




> The point is that looks does not correlate for 100% with genetics. And especially not among genetic groups which are so close.
> 
> I mean the genetic difference between northern West Asia and Europe is so extremely small in global comparison that it is negligable. It is so small I remember Kurds, Turks, Iraniands and Armenians on Global Similarity charts in 23andme. Appearing closer to South Europeans and even North Europeans as to even Arabians. And Arabians themselves are genetically very close to what we would call "European" in global perspective. So now you can imagine how close West Asian and European really are. 
> 
> West Asia and Europe are genetically like two siblings who have diverged very recently. *so a genetic Europe doesn't really exist*. The only reason why there is a fluent connection from South to North or North to East Europe is because there was never an event which could have created a gab. This was not the case in the Steppes.
> 
> *As I said in the past and as many ancient samples have proven me over time as right. There was once a fluent genetic transition from northern West Asia to Europe and Central Asia with the North Iranic tribes.*
> 
> It is no wonder that Yamna and other ancient samples seem to be on "no mans land". 
> ...


I know that West Asian and Europeans are close, but there are still a clear difference; see my link with the genetic connection of all the Europeans (specially the comparaison with other population); that will prove my point; there are in fact a "genetic Europe".

For the migration of "North Iranic tribes"; you talk about the Indo-Europeans ? Or a very old previous migration ? Well the Reich paper have proven the Kurgan Hypothesis more than before; R1 were already in the Steppes (or in Siberia), see the articles and the comments in Eurogenes; I'm not fluent in english, they would explain that better than me.

There are the language evidence; most linguist think the oldest Indo-Europeans languages are among the Baltic peoples (specially now that we know that they are close genetically to the ancient yamna peoples):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_languages

I think that help to know that the steppes hypothesis is the most logical and the most proven.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Alan,

Thanks for pointing out that Yamna on Haak 2015 PCAs is as close to north West Asians as he is from northeast Europeans. I didn't notice that at first.

This leaves room for significant Yamna-related ancestry in north west Asia. Yamna and Caucasins have similar ANE levals, while Yamna has a lot more WHG and less ENF. Although Caucasians have more WHG and less ENF than other west Asians, which increases their affinity to Yamna. 

Northeast Europeans have a less ANE than Yamna, more WHG, and less ENF. 

Considering the ANE-WHG model may be wrong and changed in the future, there's room for EHG and Yamna-related ancestry in west Asia. We already know Yamna was around 50% West Asian-like, but we don't know all the directions gene flow went, and there may be Yamna-like ancestry in west Asia. The argument that Asians can't have significant Yamna ancestry because they have little WHG doesn't work anymore because we're looking for EHG now. 

We have genomes from Europe before mass migrations by Yamna-like people, but we don;t have the same thing for west Asia.

----------


## Alan

> Look, I'm not a specialist, and honestly I find your text and your map, extremely confusing; I will post this link, imo far more clear:
> 
> http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...o-other-groups
> 
> 1-Mordovian 0.018
> 2-Lezgian/Russian 0.019
> 3- Czech/Belarusian/Estonian/Hungarian/Icelandic 0.020
> 4-Norwegian/English 0.021
> 5-Croatian/French/Lithuanian/Orcadian 0.022
> ...



Drax I have totally lost the energy to try explaining you something so simple and appears like I am trying to explain the string theory.

Which part of *you can't take this list as hirarchy because there is no Iranian, Kurdish, Azeri or Adygai, Chechen, Ingish or whatever*, *can't you understand.*

The Reich paper only used Turks and Armenians as samples for comparison.

So no there is no hirarchie if you don't have other samples for comparison. 

We know from the PCA plot and from the fact the Lezgins are genetically close to other North Caucasians, Kurds, Azeris and Iranians. That these groups would equally be close to Yamna as the North and Northeast Europeans.

*If already one North Caucasian population is genetically closer to Yamna than North and Northeast Europeans. The logical conclusion is that the other genetically close North Caucasians populations are closer to Yamna too. And populations like Kurds, Iranians and Azeris which are genetically as close to Lezgins, as North Europeans to Mordovians/Russians, will cluster as close to Yamna as North Europeans.*

That is the whole point.

Now did you understand that or is it still too confusing.  :Smile:

----------


## Alan

It might be my bad english. I am sorry if it is sometimes hard to understand what I mean. At the end of the day it is my fourth language I am fluent in. And heck I am not even an expert on languages lol.

But Drax, if you had red more into the side you have taken the table from you would see exactly what I am trying to explain you.


This is what the guy says who actually made this list




> Based on the data we have from West Eurasia K8, I think it would be fair to say that Iranians and Kurds would be placed between Lezgians and Turks.


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...ll=1#post68461


He is exactly saying what I tried to tell you. That there is not enough West Asian samples for comparison. So this list is not a "hirarchy" but simply a direct comparison of the populations used in the study.

----------


## Alan

Drax and than a answer to a question which should actually answer your question too.



> Out of curiosity why do the Sindhi show up? Among south asian and central asian groups Tajiks, Pamiris, Pashtuns, Burusho, dardic speakers (including the Kalash), Nuristanis, Kashmiris, Punjabis should al be higher up.





> The results are out of the samples they have. It would have been interesting if they had collected samples from Kashmir, Punjab, and other places. But they have not.





> They have samples from many more Caucasus and S-C Asian groups but decided to include just a few non-European populations in the fst-comparison.


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...ll=1#post69902


it's not like these samples are the closest to Yamna, it's just that they are the closest from the samples published

I serious smell Eurocentrism in this decision otherwise I can't explain why they wouldn't inclue other non European populations which would show Yamna as what they are.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Alan Haak 2015 is not Eurocentric. Two of the leading authors; David Reich and Isoif Laz(aridis), are Jewish and Greek. This is an unbiased paper. They didn't estimate Yamna admixture in west Asians because they have 0 genomes from ancient west Asia and over 60 from ancient Europe. We don't know who exactly who lived in west Asia in 3,000BC so we can't get an accurate idea how much Yamna-related ancestry is there today.

----------


## Alan

> Alan,
> 
> Thanks for pointing out that Yamna on Haak 2015 PCAs is as close to north West Asians as he is from northeast Europeans. I didn't notice that at first.
> 
> This leaves room for significant Yamna-related ancestry in north west Asia. Yamna and Caucasins have similar ANE levals, while Yamna has a lot more WHG and less ENF. Although Caucasians have more WHG and less ENF than other west Asians, which increases their affinity to Yamna. 
> 
> Northeast Europeans have a less ANE than Yamna, more WHG, and less ENF. 
> 
> Considering the ANE-WHG model may be wrong and changed in the future, there's room for EHG and Yamna-related ancestry in west Asia. We already know Yamna was around 50% West Asian-like, but we don't know all the directions gene flow went, and there may be Yamna-like ancestry in west Asia. The argument that Asians can't have significant Yamna ancestry because they have little WHG doesn't work anymore because we're looking for EHG now. 
> ...


Some good points. Just that I would add WHG is like 2.5 as much as among North Caucasians and half of what modern North/Northeast Europeans have.

which is basically around ~27% as I have said so many times in the past. And has been proven by the fact that Norwegians minus their Yamna ancestry have ~25% WHG. That brings us to the conclusion that Yamna added ~25% of WHG to Norwegians.

North Caucasians have roughly 10% WHG. At the end of the day I always said WHG in Yamna would be something in between 20-30% but no way much more or much below, you know that from my comments on Eurogenes. But David and some other on Eurogenes had to disagree. Now we see who was right once again. As much as I actually like Davids work.
I always love it how David bets on ancient samples being as much European as possible and than fails and has to admit that he was wrong. He argued about 40-50% WHG for Yamna and total ignored my arguments why this is impossible. And now we see who was once again completely wrong and who was right.  :Laughing:

----------


## Alan

> Alan Haak 2015 is not Eurocentric. Two of the leading authors; David Reich and Isoif Laz(aridis), are Jewish and Greek. This is an unbiased paper. They didn't estimate Yamna admixture in west Asians because they have 0 genomes from ancient west Asia and over 60 from ancient Europe. We don't know who exactly who lived in west Asia in 3,000BC so we can't get an accurate idea how much Yamna-related ancestry is there today.


People say they have allot of West Asian samples but didn't include them for whatever reason. Might be because they are witholding it for further studies to publish.
The whole point is that it gives many people who are not that knowledgeable about the topic the impression that Yamna is all like North and Northeast Europeans.

I would love them to publish the actual aDNA so people can start comparing it to modern populations. Look at Sindhis from Pakistan they have almost as much Yamna ancestry as Bergamo has. Now imagine how much Yamna ancestry Kurds, Iranians, Georgians, Pashtuns and Tajiks with some East Eurasian DNA will show.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Are you sure?
> 
> because this paper below from 2013 has the exact same mtdna in most cases with this recent haak paper ( but haak has refined the mtdna and found the ydna )
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978205/


Am I sure about which bit?

I think both sides of the argument accept there was a farmer migration onto the steppe which came into contact with the steppe HGs. The questions are:

1) Was there a peaceful merger or a conflict?
2) If there was a conflict who won?

I'm suggesting the PIE culture that resulted implies the answers to those questions.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Ok, but to your own question what do you feel is the more plausible explanation. 
> If we believe in a simple migration as it was always the case in ancient history. Or some bride kidnapping.
> 
> It is obvious that the bride kidnapping story is the much more unlikely theory, because as you admit yourself it needs much more thinks to fit than simply expect a migration.
> (caste system, bride kidnapping of 5% over a millennia etc etc). 
> But I think this is a prime example how people can be ethnocentric that they put aside the most logical explanation for the most satisfying. I am that way sometimes myself. 
> 
> But let's be simply honest here. The best explanation is a migration everything else is just possible theories and can only be explaned with "if's andmight's"
> It is possible that they kidnapped brides but it is also possible that they kidnapped males and forced them to teach the pastoralist system and than included them into their society.
> ...


"The point is there is an whole West Asian highland package"

Bride kidnapping is part of that package.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_k...g#Central_Asia

"Approximately half of all Kyrgyz marriages include bride kidnapping"

So like all of this the question is simply which direction did it come from. Did it originally come from the farmers or did it originally come from mounted steppe HGs raiding farmer settlements.

----------


## Alan

> "The point is there is an whole West Asian highland package"
> 
> Bride kidnapping is part of that package.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_k...g#Central_Asia
> 
> "Approximately half of all Kyrgyz marriages include bride kidnapping"
> 
> So like all of this the question is simply which direction did it come from. Did it originally come from the farmers or did it originally come from mounted steppe HGs raiding farmer settlements.


Bride kidnapping is part of the Indo European and Caucasic culture. My people did it too and we call it "berdel", but they usually kidnapped brides from other tribes or families were the father didn't agree on the marriage, not whole other people I think.

But even if. There must still have been some dominant male population who imposed their culture on the Yamna people. The reason for that is simply and has already been mentioned. The whole Yamna culture is simply a copy of Maykop. Kurgans, pastoralism, and at least half of their genetics. 

You don't let kidnapped brides teach you how to burry your own people. Even the pottery everything else seems to be Maykop copy. The only logical conclusion is, a migration from Maykop to the Steppes and we know Maykop has copied most of their culture from NW Iran and Mesopotamia earlier. This is what a paper some few years old wrote.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> People say they have allot of West Asian samples but didn't include them for whatever reason. Might be because they are witholding it for further studies to publish.
> The whole point is that it gives many people who are not that knowledgeable about the topic the impression that Yamna is all like North and Northeast Europeans.
> 
> I would love them to publish the actual aDNA so people can start comparing it to modern populations. Look at Sindhis from Pakistan they have almost as much Yamna ancestry as Bergamo has. Now imagine how much Yamna ancestry Kurds, Iranians, Georgians, Pashtuns and Tajiks with some East Eurasian DNA will show.


The paper is submitted and will be published when the editors feel it should. This is what David Patterson said about one month ago.

This paper was focused on north Euro origins, which is why to some people it may appear Yamna were just like North euros. In reality they are one part of the equation which created north euros. Like you've said they were probably just as related to northern west Asians as to north Euros. 

It's up to debate why northern west Asians have relation to Yamna. It's hard to say exactly why till we get ancient west Asian genomes spanning the Neolithic-Bronze age at least. 

Reich and his crew's focus in the next few years will probably go towards middle easterns and south Asians. Maybe they'll get Maykop genomes, Bronze age Indians, or early Neolithic ones from the near east.

----------


## holderlin

> Attachment 7085
> 
> Beat a dead horse indeed. The irony.
> 
> I think the model above might help some people understand.
> 
> And I encourage everyone to consider horses more scrupulously. Domesticated ones.
> 
> *EDIT*
> ...



Here's my post from a different forum that many of you may have read. It's linguistics/Historic, but I think it's very relevant even in a gene-centric discussion.

If one honestly considers the consequences of an Anatolian/West Asian homeland consisting of R1b's that brought PIE by trickling through the Caucuses, you either conclude that it's impossible/extremely unlikely, or it's an answer to a different question, beyond the scope of PIE.

The more I consider it, the more crazy it sounds to me.

----------


## holderlin

I think it was horse trading for cattle, bronze or what not. Horses are THAT valuable in the ancient world and I don't know how people can't see this. It was the first form of VERY rapid transportation that could easily be weaponized. It's that simple. 

Look at Mitanni for instance. A Hurrian people, speaking Hurrian, and yet all of their writings on Chariot battle and horse training/horsemanship is in Indic/Aryan. Now there's additional evidence that this was actually an Aryan aristocracy imposing themselves on the Native Hurrians, but whatever, at the very least it supports my point.

PIE arose on the Steppes with the domestication of horses, and IEs wielded enormous power through use as a tool and a SUPER valuable commodity. They no doubt traded for cattle, which became integral to their culture and religion. Interesting that you can reconstruct "raid for cattle" into PIE, and there appears to be a myth suggesting that the primary function of the first specialized PIE warriors was to retrieve stolen cattle and presumably kill the thieves, then the priests would sacrifice the cattle and distribute the parts. Super interesting. The thieves also appear to be construed as non-indoeuropean foreigners. What strikes me is that the cattle has to be stolen for this cycle to perpetuate, which makes one wonder who was really doing the stealing. 

Early Afanasievo genomes could be very telling. These people are very likely to have spoken Tocharian. With the very early departure, before any other known IE's in that direction, especially at such great a distance these samples offer a very unique glimpse into the IE genome. We will of course expect them to look like Yamna, but if they look like R1b Samara and R1a Karelin, with both R1b and R1a, then we have additional genetic evidence of a Steppe origin.

----------


## Drax

@Alan

Well, I have already understand your point of view, and imho you speculate alot, you create big group of "west asian"; when they are vaguely related to each other like your conclusion:

*



If already one North Caucasian population is genetically closer to Yamna than North and Northeast Europeans.


*Wrong, the first group are Mordovians, something I can consider in North (I guess the term is very general in the paper, that include them) and they are not related with North (or south) Caucasus groups (or west asians); for the North Caucasians, see my previous messages, they are closer to Europeans than west asians (see Chechen); and there are in an equal range in the list with Russian (a North east European country for me; remember I live in France), that make your second point irrelevant.
*




The logical conclusion is that the other genetically close North Caucasians populations are closer to Yamna too. And populations like Kurds, Iranians and Azeris which are genetically as close to Lezgins, as North Europeans to Mordovians/Russians, will cluster as close to Yamna as North Europeans.


*

No, see the place of Armenians or Sindhi (or other South Europeans), far after North and East European country; according your theory, Norwegians for example should be in the bottom or not in the list; remember we don't see the complete list, it's the 10 closest group to Yamna.




> They have samples from many more Caucasus and S-C Asian groups but decided to include just a few non-European populations in the fst-comparison. 
> 
> I serious smell Eurocentrism in this decision otherwise I can't explain why they wouldn't inclue other non European populations which would show Yamna as what they are.


I don't know maybe they think they don't need it or they have been "tested" but don't make "good score"(in the list); or similar to the bottom samples like Amernia and Sindhi etc...for examples we don't have the samples of all the Europeans countries in the list too (despite some them are close to the ones in the top of the list); that don't make Reich and his team "Europeans haters" or "anti-white"; I don't think we know, just with internet, all their works and all the result of these tests (I don't know if the guy from your quote speculate or not); they are professionnal; they are scientifics; they know their works, and I think honestly you have been very harsh to accuse them to be too "eurocentrism"...

In the same time I don't think I should take your comment too seriously from a kurd-centrist or nationalist like you (according your own words); but hey that cool; but maybe you should try to write to Reich if you think he have done a mistake (or if he is too "eurocentrist").

But whatever, thanks for to have taken the time to reply.

----------


## MOESAN

these two maps are about the LBK more common sites (a) and about the unique Derenburg (b) - they are supposed to show us the neat difference of region of origin of the two groups based upon today Aanatolia/Caucasus populations- do notice that the today Europeans, showing very more of the first (common: central Anatolia and Caucasus: surely enough Y-G2 by the way, and 'danubian' type) than of the second, show also, and nevertheless, roughly the same uneven % of every component, country to country -

----------


## MOESAN

all 'gedrosia' is certainly not modern 'west-asian' component, I think - 'gedrosia' elemnts were found in very ancient skeletons of Siberia and northern Steppes - like some ANE, it seems linking all Central Asia, North and South, wherever the today borders between political states are -

----------


## Sile

> Am I sure about which bit?
> 
> I think both sides of the argument accept there was a farmer migration onto the steppe which came into contact with the steppe HGs. The questions are:
> 
> 1) Was there a peaceful merger or a conflict?
> 2) If there was a conflict who won?
> 
> I'm suggesting the PIE culture that resulted implies the answers to those questions.


the ages of these are over 5000 years old ...but their isotopic mtdna of these are 4000BC in germany. what do you mean who won, the paper states they mixed ( summary page 3)

the farmers arrived in germany before the hunters did ..........for this central german area

----------


## MOESAN

addenda:
I base myself upon some surveys but it is amazing seeing some contradictory tables, with non neglictible 'gedrosia' or at opposite almost NO 'gedrosia' in the same regions - perhaps I pressure my poor inner "cabbage" for no gain???

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=Alan;450391]Some good points. Just that I would add WHG is like 2.5 as much as among North Caucasians and half of what modern North/Northeast Europeans have.

which is basically around ~27% as I have said so many times in the past. And has been proven by the fact that Norwegians minus their Yamna ancestry have ~25% WHG. That brings us to the conclusion that Yamna added ~25% of WHG to Norwegians.


_just a detail:
Alan, I appreciate what you write for the most, but here am I a bit block-headed ? I don't understand the way Yamanaya can add their 25% of WHG to Norwegian already possessing 25% of WHG? percentages don't add but mix according to the weight of every componant: if I suppose Yamnya made 50% of the modern Norwegians and have roughly the same % of WHG I find 50 x 25% (Yamnaya) + 50 x 25% (old Norwegians) = 100 x 25% (new Norwegians) - Or I made a miss something?
No offense_

----------


## Angela

> I don't know the difficulty about to understand that the distance of Yamna from modern Europeans is equally big as the distance from any northern West Asians to them. That the Yamna samples cluster "north" of East Europeans doesn't mean Yamna was more North European it just means that Yamna is more shifted towards ANE. It is a 2 dimensional map.
> 
> Have you even taken a look at the data?
> 
> Here the map once again . But take in mind this is only a 2 dimensional map showing the general genetic closeness but is not about the real actual Yamna ancestry and therefore not 100% accurate. It only shows a rough impression on how Yamna clusters. In general we can say the closest are Mordovians/North Caucasians/Russians second by Norwegians, Lithuanians, Kurds, Iranians, French, Croatians, Bulgarians followed by Greeks, Turks... Iberians... Armenians and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't have time to spend on the site today, but I just wanted to point out that while I agree with almost everything you say here in this post, and with your explanation of the PCA, the part of the paper debated in this series of posts is not the end of the story. I was directed to the post(s) by RK on the Eurogenes thead on the Armenian paper. I think they make great sense, and not just because they might provide evidence through the Laz(?) modeling in the paper of some of my own speculations. :) 

I have been saying for a long time that the northeast European populations are not "Armenian like" enough to be as heavily Yamnaya like as some of the analyses in the paper would indicate, and that the correlation might be related to excess EHG (only before this paper came out I called it WHG/EHG) that moved south with later migrations. I also speculated that this might explain why "Gedrosia" as a component shows up more strongly in northwest Europe than in northeast or eastern Europe. This analysis would perhaps help to explain that anomaly? I would be interested in your view of it.

The 2/3 ENF, 1/3 something "ANE like" makes sense to me for Caucasus-Gedrosia. (Did the final percentages for Yamnaya in terms of WHG/EEF/ANE come out close to our speculations?)

The source of the ENF can be pretty easily explained by the movement of the Neolithic into Iran and then Turkmenistan as per the maps I posted.

The "ANE" like component is a little more problematical. I am inclining toward thinking it moved east to west, but we need more aDna. I certainly see no reason to believe that it has to have been a north/south migration, and the same holds true for the movement of R1b. RK also discusses this in those posts.

How and when this "Armenian like" component got into the steppe populations is a separate issue, which is again separate from but related to questions about the uhrheimat of the Indo-European languages.

----------


## Fluffy

This is completely delusional talk. Indo Europeans did not come from the steppe, they came from Anatolia with the invention of agriculture. Renfrew's theory makes a hell of a lot more sense.

----------


## LeBrok

> I don't have time to spend on the site today, but I just wanted to point out that while I agree with almost everything you say here in this post, and with your explanation of the PCA, the part of the paper debated in this series of posts is not the end of the story. I was directed to the post(s) by RK on the Eurogenes thead on the Armenian paper. I think they make great sense, and not just because they might provide evidence through the Laz(?) modeling in the paper of some of my own speculations. :) 
> 
> I have been saying for a long time that the northeast European populations are not "Armenian like" enough to be as heavily Yamnaya like as some of the analyses in the paper would indicate, and that the correlation might be related to excess EHG (only before this paper came out I called it WHG/EHG) that moved south with later migrations. I also speculated that this might explain why "Gedrosia" as a component shows up more strongly in northwest Europe than in northeast or eastern Europe. This analysis would perhaps help to explain that anomaly? I would be interested in your view of it.
> 
> The 2/3 ENF, 1/3 something "ANE like" makes sense to me for Caucasus-Gedrosia. (Did the final percentages for Yamnaya in terms of WHG/EEF/ANE come out close to our speculations?)
> 
> The source of the ENF can be pretty easily explained by the movement of the Neolithic into Iran and then Turkmenistan as per the maps I posted.
> 
> The "ANE" like component is a little more problematical. I am inclining toward thinking it moved east to west, but we need more aDna. I certainly see no reason to believe that it has to have been a north/south migration, and the same holds true for the movement of R1b. RK also discusses this in those posts.
> ...


There is one aspect that mudding the water in Armenian Like admixture. Armenians are IE linguistically and contain genetically a big percentage of European Steppe ancestral component. If they journey to the Anatolia started in Yamnaya they surely carried it to the Near East with them. Part of it still persists today in Anatolia and Caucasus. This backflow movement of some components, that possibly originated in Near East and native Northern components makes the whole picture difficult to decipher.

----------


## MOESAN

very unreliable reconstitutions! 
to Alan:
no, dolichocrane euryprosope (broad low faces) are not 'mediterranean' - they evocate the 'cro-magnon' phylum when jaws are broad too, very ancient, and which features could be found today among populations of same far origin but having evolved towards disfferent modern populations, concerning other autosomes (because thiese traits depend on autosomes, spite some profans remarks) - the typical 'mediterraneans', short or high statured, don't have broad faces, and these broad faces are today a relatively rare to very rare % in pooulations, except some little populated isolats - they did not fade completely out and can be found at low rate in individuals, curiously enough in rugby world among Welshes, Irishmen and French Basques or southwest by instance, or in some parts of Scandinavia, but evolved very early in some parts or were mixed in others - 
these faces can be found at higher level in North-East an Central Europe, but then associated to brachycephaly (Borreby touch)- very rare around Mediterranea or Near East all the way -

----------


## MOESAN

its not centered on this thread, but it concerns it asn other threads linked to history and I-Eans and diverse hypothesis and autosome approximatios:
present in Eurogenes and Dienekes blogs, thanks them - it is somwhat partly discussed by Eurogenes - but it could change our insight about populations moves (for a long time I thought, based upon old anthropology, that Armenians were not a so homgenous group -

*Geneticevidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing ofmultiple populations* 

MarcHaber et al. 

TheArmenians are a culturally isolated population who historicallyinhabited a region in the Near East bounded by the Mediterranean andBlack seas and the Caucasus, but remain underrepresented in geneticstudies and have a complex history including a major geographicdisplacement during World War One. Here, we analyse genome-widevariation in 173 Armenians and compare them to 78 other worldwidepopulations. We find that Armenians form a distinctive clusterlinking the Near East, Europe, and the Caucasus. We show thatArmenian diversity can be explained by several mixtures of Eurasianpopulations that occurred between ~3,000 and ~2,000 BCE, a periodcharacterized by major population migrations after the domesticationof the horse, appearance of chariots, and the rise of advancedcivilizations in the Near East. However, genetic signals ofpopulation mixture cease after ~1,200 BCE when Bronze Agecivilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean world suddenly andviolently collapsed. Armenians have since remained isolated andgenetic structure within the population developed ~500 years ago whenArmenia was divided between the Ottomans and the Safavid Empire inIran. Finally, we show that Armenians have higher genetic affinity toNeolithic Europeans than other present-day Near Easterners, and that29% of the Armenian ancestry may originate from an ancestralpopulation best represented by Neolithic Europeans.

----------


## LeBrok

> its not centered on this thread, but it concerns it asn other threads linked to history and I-Eans and diverse hypothesis and autosome approximatios:
> present in Eurogenes and Dienekes blogs, thanks them - it is somwhat partly discussed by Eurogenes - but it could change our insight about populations moves (for a long time I thought, based upon old anthropology, that Armenians were not a so homgenous group -
> 
> *Geneticevidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing ofmultiple populations* 
> 
> MarcHaber et al. 
> 
> TheArmenians are a culturally isolated population who historicallyinhabited a region in the Near East bounded by the Mediterranean andBlack seas and the Caucasus, but remain underrepresented in geneticstudies and have a complex history including a major geographicdisplacement during World War One. Here, we analyse genome-widevariation in 173 Armenians and compare them to 78 other worldwidepopulations. We find that Armenians form a distinctive clusterlinking the Near East, Europe, and the Caucasus. We show thatArmenian diversity can be explained by several mixtures of Eurasianpopulations that occurred between ~3,000 and ~2,000 BCE, a periodcharacterized by major population migrations after the domesticationof the horse, appearance of chariots, and the rise of advancedcivilizations in the Near East. However, genetic signals ofpopulation mixture cease after ~1,200 BCE when Bronze Agecivilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean world suddenly andviolently collapsed. Armenians have since remained isolated andgenetic structure within the population developed ~500 years ago whenArmenia was divided between the Ottomans and the Safavid Empire inIran. Finally, we show that Armenians have higher genetic affinity toNeolithic Europeans than other present-day Near Easterners, and that*29% of the Armenian ancestry may originate from an ancestralpopulation best represented by Neolithic Europeans*.


Thank you Moesan, I wonder how much of it was in 50% of "Armenian like" admixture?

----------


## Aberdeen

Did anyone else read the new article in the Deinekes Blog entitled "Scandinavian team looking for Indo-Europeans in Kazakhstan"? It has a link to a Kazakhstan newspaper that has an article about a Scandinavian team testing 120 "Bronze Age and early Iron Age samples", although the results aren't available yet. But the article also says the samples are 4000 years old. Perhaps the samples actually cover a range of time periods. Regardless, the results should be interesting, although I would personally rather see testing of 4000-5000 year old samples from western Yamnaya. I suppose those will come in time.

----------


## Alan

> Here's my post from a different forum that many of you may have read. It's linguistics/Historic, but I think it's very relevant even in a gene-centric discussion.
> 
> If one honestly considers the consequences of an Anatolian/West Asian homeland consisting of R1b's that brought PIE by trickling through the Caucuses, you either conclude that it's impossible/extremely unlikely, or it's an answer to a different question, beyond the scope of PIE.
> 
> The more I consider it, the more crazy it sounds to me.





> I think it was horse trading for cattle, bronze or what not. Horses are THAT valuable in the ancient world and I don't know how people can't see this. It was the first form of VERY rapid transportation that could easily be weaponized. It's that simple. 
> 
> Look at Mitanni for instance. A Hurrian people, speaking Hurrian, and yet all of their writings on Chariot battle and horse training/horsemanship is in Indic/Aryan. Now there's additional evidence that this was actually an Aryan aristocracy imposing themselves on the Native Hurrians, but whatever, at the very least it supports my point.
> 
> PIE arose on the Steppes with the domestication of horses, and IEs wielded enormous power through use as a tool and a SUPER valuable commodity. They no doubt traded for cattle, which became integral to their culture and religion. Interesting that you can reconstruct "raid for cattle" into PIE, and there appears to be a myth suggesting that the primary function of the first specialized PIE warriors was to retrieve stolen cattle and presumably kill the thieves, then the priests would sacrifice the cattle and distribute the parts. Super interesting. The thieves also appear to be construed as non-indoeuropean foreigners. What strikes me is that the cattle has to be stolen for this cycle to perpetuate, which makes one wonder who was really doing the stealing. 
> 
> Early Afanasievo genomes could be very telling. These people are very likely to have spoken Tocharian. With the very early departure, before any other known IE's in that direction, especially at such great a distance these samples offer a very unique glimpse into the IE genome. We will of course expect them to look like Yamna, but if they look like R1b Samara and R1a Karelin, with both R1b and R1a, then we have additional genetic evidence of a Steppe origin.



First of all 

West Asian pastoralist highlands =/= Anatolian farmer hypothesis.


If you made some effort into reading the arguments of the other users, instead of randomly throwing a statement into the room which doese not refute the other arguments, you would have probably known that.

1. You say the Yamna people simply took wives from the Maykop culture not even showing slight interest into the whole debate going on about this since several pages now, and in which this argument has been refuted and shown how ridiculous nonsense it is.

Reasons are
Yamna does not only have ~50% West Asian highland pastoralist ancestry. Yamna does not only have the pastoralist lifestyle, Also Yamna has the same burying rituals of Maykop and even many more.

*Yamna is basically a clone of Maykop fact.* Now instead of simply accpeting the most logical explanation, that there was a migration from the West Asian highlands, via Maykop into the Steppes. We could also argue that it *might* be possible that Yamna took systematically for over a millennia Maykop brides, and than *might* have forced these brides to teach them pastoralism and might even asked them to teach them how to burry their deads in Kurgan style. The oldest Kurgans are found in Leila Tepe, NW Iran/North Mesopotamia.

I think till here it should get obvious to everyone how ridiculous this theory sounds. This theory needs so many possibilities to add up at each other to even function properly, It is like tossing a coin 3-4 times and expecting that it turns always right. This is a prime example of how far humans are ready to go just to satisfy their own egos.

Even Reich himself speaks only about two possibilities. 

Either PIE is the product of pastoralists meeting EHG in Yamna (therefore not a bride exchange but real mixing of cultures). Or that PIE was already spoken in the West Asian highlands by a pastoralist population.

Reich completely rules out that EHG could have spoken a PIE language. So no chance there.


sitenote: Mitanni =/= Indic. Someone who had been really interest in this would know it and not let himself be confused by the classification of Indo_Aryan *some* linguists made.

It is not clear wether Mitanni spoke an archaic and yet undivided(IranoAryan vs Indo Aryan) form of Indo_Iranian or it was part of the Indo_Aryan group which one part went into indian subcontinent while the other into Mesopotamia.

However from what I have been reading it looks much more like Mitanni was a very archaic form of Indo_Iranian(the reason some linguists however classify it as Indo_Aryan is because overall Indo_Aryan is more archaic and akine to proto Indo Iranian than Iranic is) just like Hittite was of PIE. Another reason for me to wonder if the PIE homeland was not too far away.

----------


## Alan

> Originally Posted by Alan
> 
> 
> Some good points. Just that I would add WHG is like 2.5 as much as among North Caucasians and half of what modern North/Northeast Europeans have.
> 
> which is basically around ~27% as I have said so many times in the past. And has been proven by the fact that Norwegians minus their Yamna ancestry have ~25% WHG. That brings us to the conclusion that Yamna added ~25% of WHG to Norwegians.
> 
> 
> _just a detail:
> ...



I meant that pre IE Norwegians had ~25% WHG. And the rest of their WHG was added with the incoming Yamna. Sometimes more sometimes less depending on the populations.

Norwegians have roughly ~47% WHG. ~24% of it was added from Yamna. 

Yamna is said to have been ~50% EHG like and ~50% WA pastoralist. 

EHG is said to be 40/60% ANE/WHG. So ~60% /2 = ~30%

Until IE reached Norway their WHG and ANE probably decreased slightly. Remember Reich said pre Yamna WHG almost completely "died out" in Europe. So it must have become very weak and IE was what gave WHG new life. 
Pre Bronze AgeTuscans had almost no more WHG!

Pre Bronze Age Europe seems to have been dominated by European farmers.

----------


## Alan

> I don't have time to spend on the site today, but I just wanted to point out that while I agree with almost everything you say here in this post, and with your explanation of the PCA, the part of the paper debated in this series of posts is not the end of the story. I was directed to the post(s) by RK on the Eurogenes thead on the Armenian paper. I think they make great sense, and not just because they might provide evidence through the Laz(?) modeling in the paper of some of my own speculations. :) 
> 
> I have been saying for a long time that the northeast European populations are not "Armenian like" enough to be as heavily Yamnaya like as some of the analyses in the paper would indicate, and that the correlation might be related to excess EHG (only before this paper came out I called it WHG/EHG) that moved south with later migrations. I also speculated that this might explain why "Gedrosia" as a component shows up more strongly in northwest Europe than in northeast or eastern Europe. This analysis would perhaps help to explain that anomaly? I would be interested in your view of it.
> 
> The 2/3 ENF, 1/3 something "ANE like" makes sense to me for Caucasus-Gedrosia. (Did the final percentages for Yamnaya in terms of WHG/EEF/ANE come out close to our speculations?)
> 
> The source of the ENF can be pretty easily explained by the movement of the Neolithic into Iran and then Turkmenistan as per the maps I posted.
> 
> The "ANE" like component is a little more problematical. I am inclining toward thinking it moved east to west, but we need more aDna. I certainly see no reason to believe that it has to have been a north/south migration, and the same holds true for the movement of R1b. RK also discusses this in those posts.
> ...


Our speculation seem to have been roughly correct. it seems Yamna was 25-30% WHG, 30% ANE and the rest must be ENF part of Caucasus_Gedrosia.


An explanation for why modern East Europeans have less Caucasus_Gedrosia can be that is has been diluted and they are not that much descend of Corded Ware.

I agree that most of modern Northeast European similarity to Yamna is based on the EHG portion of Northeast Europeans, but there is also allot of Caucasus which probably adds to it.

----------


## Alan

> very unreliable reconstitutions! 
> to Alan:
> no, dolichocrane euryprosope (broad low faces) are not 'mediterranean' - they evocate the 'cro-magnon' phylum when jaws are broad too, very ancient, and which features could be found today among populations of same far origin but having evolved towards disfferent modern populations, concerning other autosomes (because thiese traits depend on autosomes, spite some profans remarks) - the typical 'mediterraneans', short or high statured, don't have broad faces, and these broad faces are today a relatively rare to very rare % in pooulations, except some little populated isolats - they did not fade completely out and can be found at low rate in individuals, curiously enough in rugby world among Welshes, Irishmen and French Basques or southwest by instance, or in some parts of Scandinavia, but evolved very early in some parts or were mixed in others - 
> these faces can be found at higher level in North-East an Central Europe, but then associated to brachycephaly (Borreby touch)- very rare around Mediterranea or Near East all the way -




Yamna is said by all authors to have been broader faced meso_Dolichocephalic. 
CM is extremly broad faced *Brachycephalic.*

Borreby seems to be round faced brachycephalic and light eyed, haired. 

Yamna was not brachycephalic. Yamna was pred. Dark haired and eyed. Yamna was meso-Dolichocephalic

In the eastern Mediterranean, North Caucasus and Western Asia there are still allot of this broader faced Mediterranean type.

Reconstruction of Yamna. They don't look CM or Borreby to me.






> *The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90).*



When I say "broader" faces I don't mean CM like square faces. I am trying to describe a robust mediterranean face which exist allot. To differentiate it from the narrow faced type you are reffering to.

Some more robust CM types did exist,also some more narrow faced Mediterraneans. But the majority was robust faced meso_dolichocephalic.

----------


## Alan

> its not centered on this thread, but it concerns it asn other threads linked to history and I-Eans and diverse hypothesis and autosome approximatios:
> present in Eurogenes and Dienekes blogs, thanks them - it is somwhat partly discussed by Eurogenes - but it could change our insight about populations moves (for a long time I thought, based upon old anthropology, that Armenians were not a so homgenous group -
> 
> *Geneticevidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing ofmultiple populations* 
> 
> MarcHaber et al. 
> 
> TheArmenians are a culturally isolated population who historicallyinhabited a region in the Near East bounded by the Mediterranean andBlack seas and the Caucasus, but remain underrepresented in geneticstudies and have a complex history including a major geographicdisplacement during World War One. Here, we analyse genome-widevariation in 173 Armenians and compare them to 78 other worldwidepopulations. We find that Armenians form a distinctive clusterlinking the Near East, Europe, and the Caucasus. We show thatArmenian diversity can be explained by several mixtures of Eurasianpopulations that occurred between ~3,000 and ~2,000 BCE, a periodcharacterized by major population migrations after the domesticationof the horse, appearance of chariots, and the rise of advancedcivilizations in the Near East. However, genetic signals ofpopulation mixture cease after ~1,200 BCE when Bronze Agecivilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean world suddenly andviolently collapsed. Armenians have since remained isolated andgenetic structure within the population developed ~500 years ago whenArmenia was divided between the Ottomans and the Safavid Empire inIran. Finally, we show that Armenians have higher genetic affinity toNeolithic Europeans than other present-day Near Easterners, and that29% of the Armenian ancestry may originate from an ancestralpopulation best represented by Neolithic Europeans.




Doesn't matter because the European like portion of the Armenians is pred. *EEF* like which totally lacks among Yamna. 

And as me and Angela and even Dienekes have been pointing out and people haven't yet red. Armenians ar enot even the best proxy for the Near Eastern like DNA in Yamna.

If you replace Armenian with iraqi Jew you get even higher similarity (52%) which again shows us that the similarity to Yamna has absolutely nothing to do with the European origin of Armenians.

Additional to that we have a comment from Dienekes which sums it up



> The authors present a table of Fst values which confirms the homogenizing influence of migrations from the Near East. The WHG group has an Fst=0.086 with Armenians, but the LBK farmers have only 0.023. The EHG group has an Fst=0.067 with Armenians, but the Yamnaya steppe people have only 0.030.* Someone might argue that it is the Armenians that are receiving genes from Europe*, *but the same pattern holds even for the Bedouins, for which admixture with Europeans seems far-fetched: 0.106 to 0.043 and 0.093 to 0.060.* *It is now clear that the "glue" that did not allow West Eurasian populations to drift very far apart were migrations from the Near East.*


Obviously that is West Asian admixture reaching Europe and not European genes reaching Armenians.

----------


## Alan

> No, sorry I think he look like European, I have talked about France because I live in this country and I know a guy with the same face.


Now when I think of it. The fact that he has a very Kurdish face to me and yet you say he could also pass as "French", speaks actually for my claim that he looks very Yamna.

If you know what I mean.

----------


## LeBrok

> Our speculation seem to have been roughly correct. it seems Yamna was 25-30% WHG, 30% ANE *and the rest must be ENF part of Caucasus_Gedrosia*.
> t.


Were Caucasian and Gedrosia found in early neolithic farmers?

----------


## Drax

> Now when I think of it. The fact that he has a very Kurdish face and yet you say he could also pass as "French", speaks actually for my claim that he looks very Yamna.
> 
> If you know what I mean.


No, not really, that just mean Yamna look like European or "Caucasian", nothing more; that just your opinion he have "a kurdish face" and that not a "fact"; for example one of the Yamna have been compared to Magnus Carlsen in Eupedia forum; and that the same thing in various boards (the comparaison with Europeans and not "west asians").

for the face analysis about "mediterranean" (a term very vague) face, I'm 100% agree with Moesan, so again agree to disagree with you.

----------


## Alan

> Were Caucasian and Gedrosia found in early neolithic farmers?


Caucasus_Gedrosia is not all ANE. contrary Caucasus_Gedrosia is 2/3 farmer like DNA which was diluted by 1/3 ANE admixture coming from the east very early. We had already a debate about this one few pages ago.

----------


## Alan

> No, not really, that just mean Yamna look like European or "Caucasian", nothing more; that just your opinion he have "a kurdish face" and that not a "fact"; for example one of the Yamna have been compared to Magnus Carlsen in Eupedia forum; and that the same thing in various boards (the comparaison with Europeans and not "west asians").
> 
> for the face analysis about "mediterranean" (a term very vague) face, I'm 100% agree with Moesan, so again agree to disagree with you.


Are you serious? It is ok to accept your "opinion" that he looks European even though* he is not*, because you are familiar with French but it is not ok to accept my opinion that he has a Kurdish face and even though he *IS KURD* (in the case you missed that one).

Could you show me a French guy who looks similar to him for comparison?


And no in this case he is unfortunately not right, when we talk about a population which had less light gene alleles than any modern West Eurasian, similar amount of light eyes as West Asians.

So how would you classify a pred. dark haired, dark eyed, olive skinned, meso_dolichocephalic people, if not Mediterranean? I think you missed that part. most reliable scientists point that out.

Obviously not rounder faced, flashy nosed, lighter featured, brachycephalic borreby.

Eurocentrism is what speaks out of you without doubt. Not even a single reliable scientist would come to the idea to claim they look European the way what you consider European looking (North European).

----------


## Drax

@Alan

Look, I don't understand your opinion; Yamna is kurd is a fact now ? I should have missed something or there are a misunderstanding somewhere.

Now I have never said you can't say what you want; and never say you should accept my opinion (please quote me if you have seen the opposite); I just disagree with you; nothing more nothing less.

And to accuse someone to be "eurocentrism" (I'm not European) like it was an insult; like I have already said, I find that weird and funny, from someone who claim to be a kurdish nationalist and kurdish-centrism in your previous message and to be proud of it...specially in the board of "Eupedia".

First Reich and his team are "eurocentrism", now that me; okay if you want.

Also when you say about yamna: "smiliar amount of light eyes as west asians"; you are completly wrong; the Yamna and Catacomb (who were not sure to be indo-europeans, but could have been Siberians or Eurasians); have 16% of blue eyes (probably more with the "gray eyes") I quote Maciamo in the other thread: "The frequency of the two other genes, HERC2 and TYR, came as an even bigger surprise, as a mere 16% and 4% of Bronze Age Steppe people possessed them."; that make them way more light eyed than "west asians"; and something close to south Europeans or North Caucasians.

Also these samples teste don't have Y dna, so we are not really sure of their identity, we will see for the Reich samples if that the same thing about their pigmentations.

----------


## Alan

> @Alan
> 
> Look, I don't understand your opinion; Yamna is kurd is a fact now ? I should have missed something or there are a misunderstanding somewhere.
> 
> Now I have never said you can't say what you want; and never say you should accept my opinion (please quote me if you have seen the opposite); I just disagree with you; nothing more nothing less.
> 
> And to accuse someone to be "eurocentrism" (I'm not European) like it was an insult; like I have already said, I find that weird and funny, from someone who claim to be a kurdish nationalist and kurdish-centrism in your previous message...specially in the board of "Eupedia".
> 
> When you say: smiliar amount of light eyes as west asians"; you are completly wrong; the Yamna and Catacomb (who were not sure to be indo-europeans, but could have been Siberians or Eurasians); have 16% of blue eyes (probably more with the "gray eyes) "The frequency of the two other genes, HERC2 and TYR, came as an even bigger surprise, as a mere 16% and 4% of Bronze Age Steppe people possessed them."; that make them way more light eyed than "west asians"; and something close to south Europeans or North Caucasians.
> ...


You don't only not understand my opinion you do not "understand" any of the scientific facts I have given. Where did I wrote Yamna is a Kurd?
I wrote this guy looks like a Yamna individual and he is Kurd. Does that mean all Kurds look Yamna, or vica versa? I even mentioned that there are most likely also individuals from other nations who can fit as Yamna type, just that I as a Kurd am more familiar with my people, therefore used Kurdish samples as example. If you have French examples for comparison you can post them nothing wrong about that.

What are you even trying to say with "also these sample tests have no Y dna". Do you think Y dna determines hair, eye and skin color? 
Just because the Forums name is called "Eupedia" doesn't mean it is ok to claim something wrong, as long as it is European nonsense. There is no difference between Afrocentrism, Eurocentrism or West Asian centrism or whatever centrism. If it obviously doesn't make sense.

Again anyone with a some understanding of genetics would know what "Yamna had less frequency of the light skin genes than *any West Eurasians*" means.

And the light eyes frequency of Yamna was akine to northern West Asians. Nothing to debate there.

I think I am totally wasting my time.

Have a nice day.

----------


## Drax

> You don't only not understand my opinion you don't "understand" any scientific facts which have not a good taste for you. Where did I wrote Yamna is a Kurd?
> I wrote this guy looks like a Yamna individual and he is Kurd. Does that mean all Kurds look Yamna, or vica versa?


Yes, I understand the problem, my comparaison with the french were from the Yamna construction; this:

http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploa...z3r2ubptdc.jpg

I don't have talked about the kurd picture so I don't know why you have quoted me....; for "scientific facts"; I don't have seen lot in your posts.




> What are you even trying to say with "also these sample tests have no Y dna". Do you think Y dna determines hair, eye and skin color? 
> Just because the Forums name is called "Eupedia" doesn't mean you can claim nonsense as long as it is European nonsense.


Never say that, but if the Catacomb have an Y typical of Siberian, if the autosomal dna don't have been tested; how to know that these peoples in Yamna are the same than the others ? Just because they have the same mtdna (WHG and Corded have also the same mtdna) or because they are more or less in the same place ? I don't think so.

For the European "nonsense"; well that your point of view, I'm for the freedom of speech; and I have read lot of west asian or kurdish nonsense from you and other...but I'm okay with that; and I think you don't understand something; I just have said I have found funny that you use "eurocentism" like an insult from you a kurdish-centrist in Eupedia....you have also insulted Reich and his team to be "eurocentism"; I guess that mean for you their works are not "scientifics" too.




> Again anyone with a slight percentage of knowledge would understand what "Yamna had less frequency of the light skin genes than *any West Eurasians*" means.
> 
> And the light eyes frequency of Yamna was akine to northern West Asians. Nothing to debate there.


16% of light eyes is very far more that any place in west asian (kurdish, iranian; Syria etc...), nothing to debate here and if you can't understand that I can't help you; now if you count the North Caucasus like "norther West Asian"; that could be a different story; but for me Caucasus are closer to Europe; in my previous message I don't have talked about "skin" (and apparently everybody were supposed "tan skinned" during this time so...).




> I think I am totally wasting my time. Now have a nice day.


I'm agree; you waste your time.

----------


## Alan

For example slightly darker, this French man looks Yamna like too.

----------


## Drax

ok, but he look like European, not kurdish (he seem to have gray or hazel eyes).

----------


## Alan

> 16% of light eyes is very far more that any place in west asian (kurdish, iranian; Syria etc...), nothing to debate here and if you can't understand that I can't help you; now if you count the North Caucasus like "norther West Asian"; that could be a different story; but for me Caucasus are closer to Europe; in my previous message I don't have talked about "skin" (and apparently every were supposed "tan skinned" during this time so...).


For the last time pleace don't use arguments without evidence/source.

the 16% "Light eyes" in this particular example refer to the AG mutation of the genes. AG is a chance of ~55% Green eyes, ~30% brown eyes and ~15% blue eyes.

It is not light as in typically blue". It is everything from pred. Green to Amber often AG even results in Brown eyes. So it is not clear if all these 16% AG are really light eyes, the chances are simply high. But it is even very likely that not all of these 16% AG are really light eyed!
I myself am AG, chances were higher that I have green eyes but ended up with brown

Than we only have additional 4% of GG for Blue eyes. That is low even for North Iberian, Central_North Italian, North Caucasian and Balkan Slav standards as I have written.

And 7-25% light eyes (amber, green, blue) are typical for northern West Asia (Iran, Syria, Iraq have probably ~7-9% since they border territories with 10-25%). 

Europe except Greece, South_Central Spain and South Italy have more of it. But than Greeks, South_Central Spaniards and South Italians have far higher percentage of light skin alleles. So northern West Asian pigmentation does come closer to Yamna than any Europeans.

----------


## Alan

> ok, but he look like European, not kurdish (he seem to have gray or hazel eyes).


I didn't said he does  :Useless: 

He looks French. But Gray or Hazel eyes are not the reason for him looking French. I don't know where you have been living if you think HAZEL or grey eyes disqualify him for possibly looking non European (Please don't misunderstand that again, he looks European).

----------


## Drax

Okay sorry for the mistake, I have read HERC2 so for me it was like "strongly associated to "blue eyes" ( don't worry, I know already all the info you have posted about this gene); "Fire haired" seemed to separate them and the "gray eyes" in his message...so I have made a fake conclusion in this context; I don't have read the rest of the info in the article (the updates); okay, but that don't change the fact this map, and your "7-25% of light eyes among west asians and west asians are comparable to South Europeans/Yamna" are just a joke.

I don't know where you have found this map, but to have South European to have in the same level of light eyes than north africa and west asians (both should be in the last dark area), or to have France with the same level with East Europe countries (when they should have close to North Italia; and there are no such a big difference between North and South in France), that have absolutely no sense.

See these statisctics, I don't trust them specially more, but that contradict your maps:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4659289/1/

for example Algeria and Morrocco 5% and Tunisia 6% (that sound too much but closer to the true, and I'm sure Algeria have more light eyes in Maghreb so...); see the difference with your maps, but these statistics have big problems too; Iran 8%; Irak 6% (I see them with less); Chechens 18% (so unlike what you have said, not more than Yamna) but the same for Turkey...lol ? Greece have less light eyes than Turkey....lol ? Syria; Lebanon with 15 and 16% (lol); so more than Israel (lol) ? That I have absolutely no sense.

My point is that these kind of statistics, maps etc... found in internet are in general very mediocre, without real studies, and contradict to each others, so try again with your so-called "scientific arguments".

----------


## Drax

> I didn't said he does 
> 
> He looks French. But Gray or Hazel eyes are not the reason for him looking French. I don't know where you have been living if you think HAZEL or grey eyes disqualify him for possibly looking non European (Please don't misunderstand that again, he looks European).


I have never said that his eyes colors qualify him to be more french or Europeans, I have just noticed that his eyes colors, nothing more, don't be parano and don't try to read more in my words.

----------


## holderlin

> First of all 
> 
> West Asian pastoralist highlands =/= Anatolian farmer hypothesis.


Yeah I never said this. Nice try.

Although the only real difference between the two is that one is extremely unlikely and one is impossible.





> If you made some effort into reading the arguments of the other users, instead of randomly throwing a statement into the room which doese not refute the other arguments, you would have probably known that.


If you did the same you wouldn't be confused as to what I actually posted, and what I did not.

It actually does refute the "West Asian pastoralist highlands" theory.




> 1. You say the Yamna people simply took wives from the Maykop culture not even showing slight interest into the whole debate going on about this since several pages now, and in which this argument has been refuted and shown how ridiculous nonsense it is.
> 
> Reasons are
> Yamna does not only have ~50% West Asian highland pastoralist ancestry. Yamna does not only have the pastoralist lifestyle, Also Yamna has the same burying rituals of Maykop and even many more.


I never said this either. 




> *Yamna is basically a clone of Maykop fact.* Now instead of simply accpeting the most logical explanation, that there was a migration from the West Asian highlands, via Maykop into the Steppes. We could also argue that it *might* be possible that Yamna took systematically for over a millennia Maykop brides, and than *might* have forced these brides to teach them pastoralism and might even asked them to teach them how to burry their deads in Kurgan style. The oldest Kurgans are found in Leila Tepe, NW Iran/North Mesopotamia.
> 
> I think till here it should get obvious to everyone how ridiculous this theory sounds. This theory needs so many possibilities to add up at each other to even function properly, It is like tossing a coin 3-4 times and expecting that it turns always right. This is a prime example of how far humans are ready to go just to satisfy their own egos.


Maykop is not a clone of Yamna. I don't necessarily disagree with most of your points here, except that the Leila Tepe comparison to the steppe is a huge reach for many of the same reasons that I would rule out Anatolia, or "West Asian pastoralist highlands" as a PIE homeland/language source or whatever people are trying to place there.




> Even Reich himself speaks only about two possibilities. 
> 
> Either PIE is the product of pastoralists meeting EHG in Yamna (therefore not a bride exchange but real mixing of cultures). Or that PIE was already spoken in the West Asian highlands by a pastoralist population.
> 
> Reich completely rules out that EHG could have spoken a PIE language. So no chance there.


I've actually emphasized the likely hood of his first possibility several times on these forums, however the resulting language is not consistent with one that would have arisen in the neolithic Near East, so I disagree with notion that the "proto-proto-language" (or whatever we're even talking about here) somehow originated among these "West Asian highland pastoralist".





> sitenote: Mitanni =/= Indic. Someone who had been really interest in this would know it and not let himself be confused by the classification of Indo_Aryan *some* linguists made.
> 
> It is not clear wether Mitanni spoke an archaic and yet undivided(IranoAryan vs Indo Aryan) form of Indo_Iranian or it was part of the Indo_Aryan group which one part went into indian subcontinent while the other into Mesopotamia.
> 
> However from what I have been reading it looks much more like Mitanni was a very archaic form of Indo_Iranian(the reason some linguists however classify it as Indo_Aryan is because overall Indo_Aryan is more archaic and akine to proto Indo Iranian than Iranic is) just like Hittite was of PIE. Another reason for me to wonder if the PIE homeland was not too far away.


OK you're just writing about languages for no reason here. No one's impressed.

I addressed the Hittite question. Interesting theory, but inconsistent with the rest of the universe.




> Someone who had been really interest in this would know it and not let himself be confused by the classification of Indo_Aryan *some* linguists made.


And what is this little bit? I think you're the one who's confused. I'm well aware of the origin of Indo-Iranian languages and none of the useless prating you just posted has any bearing on my use of the Mitanni example.

----------


## Alan

> Yeah I never said this. Nice try.


Nice try what?
Didn't you put Anatolian/West Asian highland together in one sentence as if there is no difference? 
Either you have not much idea or you are just playing around.

This is the traditional definition of Anatolia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...olieLimits.jpg

The West Asian highlands theory which is rather connected to the region between the Zagros and Taurus mountains has nothing to do with this.

The Anatolian hypothesis believes in a early farmer origin, the West Asian pastoralist theory not. There are some thousand years in between. 




> Although the only real difference between the two is that one is extremely unlikely and one is impossible.


Thats what you claim, contrary to scientists and as usual you don't give any arguments to dismis it but keep claiming it is impossible without any reasoning. 







> If you did the same you wouldn't be confused as to what I actually posted, and what I did not.
> 
> It actually does refute the "West Asian pastoralist highlands" theory.


Nope you didn't give a *single* reasonable argument. But nice try.





> I never said this either.


But you claim the pastoralist lifestyle came to Yamna via "cattle stealing". So how else do you explain the 50% West Asian ancestry of Yamna? And the obvious cultural influx.

Did they stole their genes and everything else too? The most logical explanation is a migration nothing less.






> Maykop is not a clone of Yamna. I don't necessarily disagree with most of your points here, except that the Leila Tepe comparison to the steppe is a huge reach for many of the same reasons that I would rule out Anatolia, or "West Asian pastoralist highlands" as a PIE homeland/language source or whatever people are trying to place there.


I wrote Yamna is a clone of Maykop, and for a large part it is. If you actually took a look at papers which appeared the last few years, you would know that Maykop has been partly build on cultural elements coming directly from NW Iran and Mesopotamia.
http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2013/06/...ngularity.html




> I've actually emphasized the likely hood of his first possibility several times on these forums, however the resulting language is not consistent with one that would have arisen in the neolithic Near East, so I disagree with notion that the "proto-proto-language" (or whatever we're even talking about here) somehow originated among these "West Asian highland pastoralist".



The point is you are making the mistake that you think horse domestication in PIE is the ultimate proof that it emerged on the Steppes which is simply wrong, because by that time horse domestication was widespred and even known to ancient Sumerians by 3000 BC.

I doubt to that time there was any Steppe migration into Mesopotamia to explain this occurence. Even the first Chariots (Yes it doesn't matter if two or four wheeled because at the end of the day 2 wheels are just a modified version) occur in Western Asia.

http://sumerianshakespeare.com/media...bfffffe415.jpg





> OK you're just writing about languages for no reason here. No one's impressed.


Thats why I wrote* on a sidenote*.  :Laughing: 



> I addressed the Hittite question. Interesting theory, but inconsistent with the rest of the universe.


Thats your opinion. 






> And what is this little bit? I think you're the one who's confused. I'm well aware of the origin of Indo-Iranian languages and none of the useless prating you just posted has any bearing on my use of the Mitanni example.


My friend you called the language of the Mitanni Elite "Indic" simply out of the fact that you thought Indic is equivalent to Indo_Aryan. But there are Indo_Aryan tongues outside India. The only thing I get out from this, is you are using phrases you have catched up without actually background knowledge.

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=Alan;450624]Yamna is said by all authors to have been broader faced meso_Dolichocephalic. 
CM is extremly broad faced *Brachycephalic.*

I have not the time to answer about the whole question here, I'll try to do it after - and I want not to seem focalizing only about metrics anthropology -
BUT 'Cro-Magnon' WAS NOT BRACHYCEPHALIC / he was DOLICHO-MESOCEPHALIC!!! I would be glad to can post you some pictures but I can no more post pictures on this forum for an unkown reason (I had a lot of pictures to illustrate some of my posts...) - AND bORREBY IS NEVER ROUND FACED: the true ones are SQUARE FACED showing some links with Cro-Magnon...

----------


## Expredel

> I meant that pre IE Norwegians had ~25% WHG. And the rest of their WHG was added with the incoming Yamna. Sometimes more sometimes less depending on the populations.


Western Norway has a different population structure than Sweden, quite a bit of R1a, so it should be seen as an abnormality.

Is anything known about when R1a and R1b populations diverged based on autosomal DNA? The maps I've seen so far suggest R1b reached Western Europe through North Africa. This however poorly explains the common root of IE languages which suggests a recent common origin of R1a and R1b.

----------


## LeBrok

> I have not the time to answer about the whole question here, I'll try to do it after - and I want not to seem focalizing only about metrics anthropology -
> BUT 'Cro-Magnon' WAS NOT BRACHYCEPHALIC / he was DOLICHO-MESOCEPHALIC!!! I would be glad to can post you some pictures but* I can no more post pictures on this forum for an unkown reason* (I had a lot of pictures to illustrate some of my posts...) - AND bORREBY IS NEVER ROUND FACED: the true ones are SQUARE FACED showing some links with Cro-Magnon...


 Go ahead and PM Maciamo, only he can solve this problem.

----------


## Angela

Since we have been discussing the Caucasus-Gedrosia component in relation to the "Near Eastern" half of the Yamnaya people, and how that relates to the EEF component, I thought that these results for an LBK farmer (Stuttgart of LBK _is_ EEF_)_, which were sent to me earlier today might be interesting. 

Dodecad K12b Oracle results:

Kit F999916

Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	Atlantic_Med	54.92
2	Caucasus	30.3
3	Southwest_Asian	10.78
4	Northwest_African	3.79
5	North_European	0.14
6	Southeast_Asian	0.06

Single Population Sharing:

#	Population (source)	Distance
1	Sardinian (HGDP)	17.48
2	TSI30 (Metspalu)	24.05
3	Tuscan (HGDP)	24.21
4	North_Italian (HGDP)	24.41
5	Andalucia (1000Genomes)	24.7
6	C_Italian (Dodecad)	24.93
7	Murcia (1000Genomes)	25.93
8	Sicilian (Dodecad)	26.56
9	Baleares (1000Genomes)	26.69
10	S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)	26.83
11	Canarias (1000Genomes)	27.05
12	N_Italian (Dodecad)	27.08
13	Morocco_Jews (Behar)	27.9
14	Castilla_La_Mancha (1000Genomes)	28.41
15	Castilla_Y_Leon (1000Genomes)	28.62
16	Spaniards (Behar)	28.69
17	Extremadura (1000Genomes)	28.8
18	Galicia (1000Genomes)	28.86
19	Valencia (1000Genomes)	28.96
20	Sephardic_Jews (Behar)	28.99

----------


## Alan

> Since we have been discussing the Caucasus-Gedrosia component in relation to the "Near Eastern" half of the Yamnaya people, and how that relates to the EEF component, I thought that these results for an LBK farmer (Stuttgart of LBK _is_ EEF_)_, which were sent to me earlier today might be interesting. 
> 
> Dodecad K12b Oracle results:
> 
> Kit F999916
> 
> Admix Results (sorted):
> 
> # Population Percent
> ...


Thanks Angela, but we already had that, the portion showing up here as "Caucasus", is the part of the Caucasus component which is "Southern". This is why no Gedrosia appears.

Since we both agreed that Caucasus_Gedrosia and EEF are pred. ENF. It is quite logical that they will share some identical genes. Which in some calculators appear like EEF and in other Caucasus.

----------


## LeBrok

> Thanks Angela, but we already had that, the portion showing up here as "Caucasus", is the part of the Caucasus component which is "Southern". This is why no Gedrosia appears.
> 
> Since we both agreed that Caucasus_Gedrosia and EEF are pred. ENF. It is quite logical that they will share some identical genes. Which in some calculators appear like EEF and in other Caucasus.


Well, you would need to explain more eloquently and a lot to prove existence of Gedrosia in EEF or ENF. This 12b calculator contains Gedrosia as an admixture along Caucasus and others. It is not one and the same as Caucasus and seems to be non-existent during Neolithic in Europe, at least in Stuttgart sample.
As I said before, Gedrosia has pattern of Bronze Age expansion from Central Asia together with R1b IEs.

However, Yamnaya samples are Bronze Age, so who knows, perhaps Gedrosia reached them already? Though I doubt it.

This chart shows Gedrosia on a different branch than Caucasus. Caucasus here is closely related with South Asian, Atlantic Med (all components of EEF I guess) and even closer to North Euro, but not to Gedrosia.

----------


## Alan

> I have not the time to answer about the whole question here, I'll try to do it after - and I want not to seem focalizing only about metrics anthropology -
> BUT 'Cro-Magnon' WAS NOT BRACHYCEPHALIC / he was DOLICHO-MESOCEPHALIC!!! I would be glad to can post you some pictures but I can no more post pictures on this forum for an unkown reason (I had a lot of pictures to illustrate some of my posts...) - AND bORREBY IS NEVER ROUND FACED: the true ones are SQUARE FACED showing some links with Cro-Magnon...


Moesan the Cromagnon man is an upper paleolithic man and has died out even by mesolithic, let alone Bronze Age.

And I am pretty convinced you didn't meant the Cromagnon men but the Cromagnon type of the classical anthropology, because CM type is described in classical antrophology, by all means as brachy to mesocephalic (in this case you are right). But Yamna was dolicho-mesocephalic similar to Mediterranean and Nordic types who are often dinarized. And since they were darker pigmented. Nordic is out of choice. The Cromagnon on the other hand is extremely broad faced, broad and concave nosed, usually light eyed.
http://yachts.monacoeye.com/yachtsby..._coulthard.jpg


Borreby is brachycephalic and broud-round faced since it is considered as a sub type of the Alpine race.

see here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_race


And here is a description of borreby.




> An actor that could represent a present example may be Kurtwood Smith, who played 'Red' on That 70's Show 
> 
> 
> BORREBY 
> 
> Height and build 
> typically very tall, 
> broad-shouldered, 
> with big bones and heavy musculature 
> ...



Just a few borreby charecteristics which don't fit Yamna.

1. Borreby is Brachycephalic, Yamna is meso_dolichocephalic
2. forhead broad and slightly curved (roundish), while Yamna has often a low or sloping forhead.
3. Borreby mostly concave nosed, Yamna almost completely straight or convexed nosed. Convex noses are unthinkable on Borreby.
4. Borreby face short, broad and flattish, Yamna face is average broad, oftern *longer* and has *characteristic depth*
5. Borreby hair color is blond to medium brown, Yamna hair color is typically dark.
6. Borreby eye color typicall blue, Yamna eye color typically brown

Thats just a few of many differences.

typical examples of Borreby.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/...20111004234245
http://s1d4.turboimagehost.com/t1/4095706_borreby_1.jpg


Kurgan types
http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploa...z3r2ubptdc.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a_cultdure.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...na_culture.jpg

----------


## Drax

An interesting comment from Razib Khan about the genetic comparaison to Russians/Norwegians with Yamna; you can follow the discussion here:

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-holocene...ne-alien-years

"well, proportionally it turn out the norwegians have the most yamna. the russians less for two reasons

1) WHG type resurgence it looks like 
2) non-trivial siberian admixture via finns who were russified and later turks
the russians are basically lithuanians + the northern finns & tatars"

----------


## MOESAN

> Moesan the Cromagnon man is an upper paleolithic man and has died out even by mesolithic, let alone Bronze Age.
> 
> And I am pretty convinced you didn't meant the Cromagnon men but the Cromagnon type of the classical anthropology, because CM type is described in classical antrophology, by all means as brachy to mesocephalic (in this case you are right). But Yamna was dolicho-mesocephalic similar to Mediterranean and Nordic types who are often dinarized. And since they were darker pigmented. Nordic is out of choice. The Cromagnon on the other hand is extremely broad faced, broad and concave nosed, usually light eyed.
> http://yachts.monacoeye.com/yachtsby..._coulthard.jpg
> 
> 
> Borreby is brachycephalic and broud-round faced since it is considered as a sub type of the Alpine race.
> 
> see here.
> ...


Well, very unseasy....
of course when I sepak f 'Cro-Magnon' I speak of the Paleolithic man - in fact the modern derived types are 'cromagnoid' - never was 'Cro-magnon' brachycephalIC, NEVER NEVER NEVER OK? Some of his descendant types can be (Borreby which is not 'alpine ' but MAYBE a cousin type derived (as possibly 'alpine') from 'Cro-magnon' 
THAT SAID 'Borreby' face is square as C-M, not round (because to bony for it) - 
AND I WAS TRYING TO "CORRECT" YOU ABOUT CRO-MAGNON PARADYGME, NOT TAKING PART (AT LEAST IMMEDIATLY) IN THE YAMNAYA DEBATE
I'll do when I've time - at first sight if I rely on you, the Yamnaya you describes here evocate something where 'cappadocian mediterranean', 'eurafrican', or 'irano-afghan' (not stranger to some 'long barrows types') are present (maybe close to the Poland bronze Age man?): so South to Caucasus (Sumer) or South-East the Caspian? just from what you wrote here...
I hope I've been clear enough formy first post

read you (all) again - good evening

----------


## MOESAN

> BTW - here is an interesting paper, which reveals a correlation between genetics and linguistics among Indo-European speakers:
> 
> http://www.jolr.ru/files/(105)jlr2013-9(23-35).pdf
> 
> 
> 
> A very interesting chart from page 5 (genetic distances of *mitochondrial DNA* between major IE groups):
> 
> 
> ...



it's only mt DNa: interesting but doesn't do it, so some surprises - I would prefer an autosomes distances calculation - THANKS NEVERTHELESS

----------


## MOESAN

> I meant that pre IE Norwegians had ~25% WHG. And the rest of their WHG was added with the incoming Yamna. Sometimes more sometimes less depending on the populations.
> 
> Norwegians have roughly ~47% WHG. ~24% of it was added from Yamna. 
> 
> Yamna is said to have been ~50% EHG like and ~50% WA pastoralist. 
> 
> EHG is said to be 40/60% ANE/WHG. So ~60% /2 = ~30%
> 
> Until IE reached Norway their WHG and ANE probably decreased slightly. Remember Reich said pre Yamna WHG almost completely "died out" in Europe. So it must have become very weak and IE was what gave WHG new life. 
> ...


_
Alan, I need some brain dopping or I misunderstood something?
You say: Yamnaya = 50% EHG like + EHG = 60% WHG, divided /2 = 30% - until there OK I rely on you - divided / 2 to say Norwegians have 50% of Yamnaya? (proxi)
SO how Norwegians who had 25% of WHG before I-Ean (from Yamnaya) can go up to 47% WHG with a similar number of Yamnaya people carrying ONLY 30%
PERCENTAGES DON'T ADD!!! I repeat it !!! - 
with 100 men(women): roughly 50 pre-IE with 25% = 12,5% + 50 IE with 30% = 15% result for 100 new Norwegians: 27,5% NOT 47% ...
or ...
just calculation, without theory yet 
_

----------


## holderlin

> Nice try what?
> Didn't you put Anatolian/West Asian highland together in one sentence as if there is no difference? 
> Either you have not much idea or you are just playing around.
> 
> This is the traditional definition of Anatolia
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...olieLimits.jpg
> 
> The West Asian highlands theory which is rather connected to the region between the Zagros and Taurus mountains has nothing to do with this.
> 
> ...


The region includes Eastern Anatolia, and most proponents of this theory invoke the earliest evidence of cattle domestication found in the Taurus'. More importantly both theories are very problematic for many if not all of the same reasons. Reasons begotten from reasoning, which were contained in my posts.





> But you claim the pastoralist lifestyle came to Yamna via "cattle stealing". So how else do you explain the 50% West Asian ancestry of Yamna? And the obvious cultural influx.
> 
> Did they stole their genes and everything else too? The most logical explanation is a migration nothing less.


I never said this. You aren't reading what I wrote dude. And my point is that there isn't really evidence of a "cultural influx", much less an "obvious" one.




> I wrote Yamna is a clone of Maykop, and for a large part it is. If you actually took a look at papers which appeared the last few years, you would know that Maykop has been partly build on cultural elements coming directly from NW Iran and Mesopotamia.
> http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2013/06/...ngularity.html


I don't doubt this about Maykop, and I believe that this may have been the real "melding zone", but the Yamna horizon exhibits too much continuity from Dneiper-Donets/Samara->Khvalynsk/stredny-stog->Yamna to ascribe an external source of the culture. This is the problem. There seems to be a gradual transition to a more eneolithic culture distributed broadly across the PC region, but envelopment/superimposition from outside did not occur. Yamna is so huge that most archaeologists are reluctant to even call it a single culture. And yes, there were "kurgans" on the steppe by 5000BC in some shape or form. Yamna burials are no doubt related to preceding cultures in the regions. Some say Stredny-Stog and others argue for a volga connections, but regardless there is a clear local development leading up to what we see in Yamna. Pit graves beginning as early as 5000BC that become smaller and richer signaling the stratification and clan/class separation you see in any advancing society. 




> The point is you are making the mistake that you think horse domestication in PIE is the ultimate proof that it emerged on the Steppes which is simply wrong, because by that time horse domestication was widespred and even known to ancient Sumerians by 3000 BC.


The earliest evidence of horse domestication for transportation is on the Pontic Steppe, probably by 5000-4000BC. No one disputes this. By 3000BC Mesopotamia would have likely known of horse domestication. It's funny how you would be so quick to cite the earliest evidence of cattle domestication in the Taurus', and that the likely origins of R1b is Iran, but then you deny the consensus origin of horse domestication. 




> I doubt to that time there was any Steppe migration into Mesopotamia to explain this occurence. Even the first Chariots (Yes it doesn't matter if two or four wheeled because at the end of the day 2 wheels are just a modified version) occur in Western Asia.
> http://sumerianshakespeare.com/media...bfffffe415.jpg


You don't need a migration to learn about horses, or trade for them. Wheeled vehicles are attested very early on in Mesopotamia, there is no doubt. But the horse drawn war chariots that we all imagine when think of a chariot were developed on the steppe, and weren't attested in battle until the Hittites wrote of it in the 2nd mil BC.




> Thats your opinion.


Yes I know this.




> My friend you called the language of the Mitanni Elite "Indic" simply out of the fact that you thought Indic is equivalent to Indo_Aryan. But there are Indo_Aryan tongues outside India. The only thing I get out from this, is you are using phrases you have catched up without actually background knowledge.


I don't even know what you think you're saying here. Not only is it wrong, but there's no point to it.

What do you think "Indo" means? Indic = Indo-Aryan.

----------


## Expredel

> The earliest evidence of horse domestication for transportation is on the Pontic Steppe, probably by 5000-4000BC. No one disputes this. By 3000BC Mesopotamia would have likely known of horse domestication.


We know quite a bit about the behavior of horse tribes from the huns and mongols. By 3000BC Mesopotamia would likely already have been over-run several times. Climate change might have been a trigger for large migrations which would have happened about once each millennium. Populations could have changed drastically in a matter of decades.

I would say 4000 BC (whenever temperatures dropped in Siberia) is a good estimate for when horse tribes moved south in large numbers.

----------


## holderlin

> We know quite a bit about the behavior of horse tribes from the huns and mongols. By 3000BC Mesopotamia would likely already have been over-run several times. Climate change might have been a trigger for large migrations which would have happened about once each millennium. Populations could have changed drastically in a matter of decades.
> 
> I would say 4000 BC (whenever temperatures dropped in Siberia) is a good estimate for when horse tribes moved south in large numbers.


Exactly, who's to tell where early IEs may have swept through. The evidence for their expansion is uncontested and encompasses a massive radius. The key here is mobility on a scale never before seen, which is exactly why we see this cultural uniformity over such a massive expanse at such an early date. It's very odd, but can be explained by an epoch in mobility, and it just so happens we see the earliest evidence for horse domestication by the 5th millennium BC, before Yamna. The evidence that Stredny-Stog were horse riders is pretty strong.

----------


## Alan

> _
> Alan, I need some brain dopping or I misunderstood something?
> You say: Yamnaya = 50% EHG like + EHG = 60% WHG, divided /2 = 30% - until there OK I rely on you - divided / 2 to say Norwegians have 50% of Yamnaya? (proxi)
> SO how Norwegians who had 25% of WHG before I-Ean (from Yamnaya) can go up to 47% WHG with a similar number of Yamnaya people carrying ONLY 30%
> PERCENTAGES DON'T ADD!!! I repeat it !!! - 
> with 100 men(women): roughly 50 pre-IE with 25% = 12,5% + 50 IE with 30% = 15% result for 100 new Norwegians: 27,5% NOT 47% ...
> or ...
> just calculation, without theory yet 
> _



What on the word "roughly" is not understandable? I clearly wrote that the percentage of Yamna varied depending on where it landed. 

I also wrote that WHG without the Yamna ancestry in modern Norwegians is around ~25%.

You can look it up on the table. When I write roughly it means roughly. You can't expect Yamna to bring anywhere exactly the same amoung of WHG. In some regions they might have brought only 20% while in other up to 30%.

When they reached Norway they had probably already mixed with EEF.

The point is Norwegians minus Yamna are ~25% WHG. If we consider that modern Norwegians are ~47%. That means Yamna brought* roughly* ~27%.

And 27% is roughly 30%.

----------


## Alan

> The region includes Eastern Anatolia, and most proponents of this theory invoke the earliest evidence of cattle domestication found in the Taurus'. More importantly both theories are very problematic for many if not all of the same reasons. Reasons begotten from reasoning, which were contained in my posts.


So called "Southeastern Anatolia" is the crossing place of early farmers and pastoralists. But who said earliest pastrolsim evolved in "Eastern Anatolia"?

Pastoralism evolved on a wide territory from the Zagros to Taurus mountains. 

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpr...time-frame.jpg

But the major point is the Anatolian hypothesis has not much to do with the highland pastoralist one. 







> I never said this. You aren't reading what I wrote dude. And my point is that there isn't really evidence of a "cultural influx", much less an "obvious" one.


Is it normal for you to ignore scientific papers someone present close the eyes and claim "no there isn't anything like that because I didn't saw anything". It is a well established fact that Kurgan burials evolved in Western Asia. Do you believe the same type of burials (yes burials are a cultural thing) evolved independently in Western Asia and the Steppes. And if you add to that the genetic ancestry and pastoralism. It should be for any person with slight logic obvious. There was a migration into the Steppes from South. 





> I don't doubt this about Maykop, and I believe that this may have been the real "melding zone", but the Yamna horizon exhibits too much continuity from Dneiper-Donets/Samara->Khvalynsk/stredny-stog->Yamna to ascribe an external source of the culture.



Sorry to be harsh but that's just your opinion and "I doubt" does not work as argument. There is clear evidence of Caucasus influx into Yamna. Maciamo also thought there must be most influence from Dneiper-Donets culture but Yamna had no EEF. This dismisses it and Maciamo aknowledged it also. But how could Samara and Dneiper_Donets influx on Yamna exclude influx from Maykop? 

Is there any logical reason to believe that? No there isn't you are simply using your opinion. The whole point is we have pastoralism which is obviously linked to Western Asian ancestry just like farming is because both evolved there and are part of the agricultural system. And we have seen on Early European Farmers that the theory of "cultural exchange" doesn't hold.




> The earliest evidence of horse domestication for transportation is on the Pontic Steppe, probably by 5000-4000BC. No one disputes this. By 3000BC Mesopotamia would have likely known of horse domestication. It's funny how you would be so quick to cite the earliest evidence of cattle domestication in the Taurus', and that the likely origins of R1b is Iran, but then you deny the consensus origin of horse domestication.


It seems like you aren't reading what I wrote. I never claimed horse domestication started anywhere in Western Asia, now did I? But even this is highly disputed. Interesting that you didn't mention this.
I wrote that Already Sumerians knew the Horse (and probably even before them it was known), so what if by that time horse domestication had already become part of pastoralist lifestyle? 
But even than who tells that the horse wasn't simply added to Yamna from the H&G.





> You don't need a migration to learn about horses, or trade for them. Wheeled vehicles are attested very early on in Mesopotamia, there is no doubt. But the horse drawn war chariots that we all imagine when think of a chariot were developed on the steppe, and weren't attested in battle until the Hittites wrote of it in the 2nd mil BC.


Horse drawn chariots are attested in Mesopotamia already 3000 BC. I even gave you a source for that didn't you look at it?
As I said a "war chariot" is basically a wagon used for war. And the only difference between Hittite and Sumerian chariot was, 2 vs 4 wheels.









> I don't even know what you think you're saying here. Not only is it wrong, but there's no point to it.
> 
> What do you think "Indo" means? Indic = Indo-Aryan.



God, very little do you understand of linguism. "Indo" =Indic so conclusion Indic= Indo European. 

I am using your "logic". what you simply don't understand the terminology "Indo Aryan" was given because the Indo_Aryan branch is most prominent in India, not because it evolved there. Somewhere Indo_Iranian split into Indo_Aryan and Irano_Aryan. And certanly it wasn't India.

----------


## Alan

Thats my last replay in this thread for now. I am tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again.

Just let us wait for more samples from Western Asia, South_Central Asia and Yamna.

----------


## Expredel

> Pastoralism evolved on a wide territory from the Zagros to Taurus mountains.


Ancient cow DNA suggests migration from North Africa into Iberia before 1700 BC. Would be interesting if this could be pin-pointed to 3000 BC. Assuming we're still talking about PIE. Things would be a lot clearer if we had more accurate mtdna maps for women, kind of pointless to look at maps of lineages that go back more than 12000 years to find out what happened 5000 years ago.




> It is a well established fact that Kurgan burials evolved in Western Asia. Do you believe the same type of burials (yes burials are a cultural thing) evolved independently in Western Asia and the Steppes. And if you add to that the genetic ancestry and pastoralism. It should be for any person with slight logic obvious. There was a migration into the Steppes from South.


Do you mean the Middle East with West Asia? The Steppes and the Caucasus border each other, and the Kurgan could have domesticated the horse and moved into the Middle East by 4000 BC. I don't see anything about Kurgan burials south of the Caucasus on Wikipedia. If you have sources I'd suggest including them on Wikipedia kurgan articles.




> There is clear evidence of Caucasus influx into Yamna.


Wouldn't that mean an influx of haplogroup G? More likely that Yamna juveniles spent a month on horseback to get themselves some southern brides. Wherever horse tribes went there was widespread genocide, if the huns and mongols are an indication.




> I wrote that Already Sumerians knew the Horse (and probably even before them it was known), so what if by that time horse domestication had already become part of pastoralist lifestyle?


Sumerians had limited influence outside their cities which means they had no access to horses. Like the Chinese they may have build walls to keep the horsemen out. Alternatively the walls were there to keep slaves in (a Berlin wall of sorts) but I think a Chinese wall makes more sense. It's hard to imagine war and needing defensive walls without the horse. This also explains where the Indo-Europeans got bronze technology from, assuming they moved south before moving into Europe.

----------


## Angela

Anyone who wishes to really understand the implications of this paper, and the interplay between the statistics and admixture etc., should really read the comments of RK in this Eurogenes thread. Someone directed me to them, and they did not disappoint. 

http://www.eurogenes.blogspot.com/20...rn-russia.html

----------


## Alan

> Do you mean the Middle East with West Asia? The Steppes and the Caucasus border each other, and the Kurgan could have domesticated the horse and moved into the Middle East by 4000 BC. I don't see anything about Kurgan burials south of the Caucasus on Wikipedia. If you have sources I'd suggest including them on Wikipedia kurgan articles.


Wikipedia shouldn't be the ultimate source. But I already provided few times in this thread scientific papers from 2013 to 2014 about this matter. And I thought it was already widely known that the oldest Kurgans are found in the Middle East (South Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Iran and Anatolia). 




> Wouldn't that mean an influx of haplogroup G? More likely that Yamna juveniles spent a month on horseback to get themselves some southern brides. Wherever horse tribes went there was widespread genocide, if the huns and mongols are an indication.


Why G? J2 is as widespred in the North Caucasus as G. It is not even clear when G arrived there. But the fact that G2a is widespred in the regions once under Alanic control. (basically NW Caucasus) and we found G2a in Alanic burials. Makes me wonder if G2a was not brought into that region by Alans themselves. Or at least made it more widespred. 

However take in mind modern distrbution does not equal ancient distribution we should know this by now.





> Sumerians had limited influence outside their cities which means they had no access to horses. Like the Chinese they may have build walls to keep the horsemen out. Alternatively the walls were there to keep slaves in (a Berlin wall of sorts) but I think a Chinese wall makes more sense. It's hard to imagine war and needing defensive walls without the horse. This also explains where the Indo-Europeans got bronze technology from, assuming they moved south before moving into Europe.


Sumerians was just an example for an old population in Western Asia already knew the horse. Than others might have known it also earlier. However I don't believe Sumerians had no influence on other groups.

----------


## Alan

> Anyone who wishes to really understand the implications of this paper, and the interplay between the statistics and admixture etc., should really read the comments of RK in this Eurogenes thread. Someone directed me to them, and they did not disappoint. 
> 
> http://www.eurogenes.blogspot.com/20...rn-russia.html


I am just going to wait for more samples instead of taking the mascism from them, just like the nonsense some of them were spreading about Yamna genes. At the end of the day when it turns out like I am saying the same people will act like : "OH we didn't see that coming "  :Laughing: 

Mark my words. R1a* came either through the South_central Asia route or directly through the Caucasus and they had already picked up various female lineages such as H, U and T it's not like this mixture does not exist in this region already.

----------


## LeBrok

> I am just going to wait for more samples instead of taking the mascism from the just like the bullcrap they were spreading with Yamna genes. At the end of the day when it turns out exactly like I said the same people will again just be like : "OH we didn't see that coming " 
> 
> I wouldn't give too much into the comments They have been wrong in the past and they will be again.
> Mark my words. R1a* came either through the South_central Asia (more likely that) route or directly through the Caucasus and they had already picked up various female lineages such as H, U and T it's not like this mixture does not exist in this region already.


Let's make sure we are talking about R1a1a or even M417, the ones implicated in IE culture, and not any 20 ky old R1a who went up and down central Asia couple of times before neolithic.

----------


## Angela

> I am just going to wait for more samples instead of taking the mascism from them, just like the nonsense some of them were spreading about Yamna genes. At the end of the day when it turns out like I am saying the same people will act like : "OH we didn't see that coming " 
> 
> Mark my words. R1a* came either through the South_central Asia route or directly through the Caucasus and they had already picked up various female lineages such as H, U and T it's not like this mixture does not exist in this region already.


I don't know where it came from, Alan, and honestly it won't matter to me personally either way, but at the end of the day some of the people who have been determined to associate the "R" lineage more with "Europe" and to remove any hint of an origin elsewhere will just move the goalpost to a later clade if it's proven that R1 did indeed move out of Iran. It's already happening. Not every "Kurganist" is like that however. Jean Manco, for one, had R1 in that area for years, and of course, Maciamo's views on the origin of R1b are well known. 

Similarly, I don't really know how all that "Near Eastern" got into Yamna, and through them into Europe, but time and more adna should make it a little clearer. My problem is that I don't see a clearly archaeologically attested farmer population on the steppe that can be reliably tied to a specifically Caucasus population. I'm starting to think we should be looking perhaps at the Stans?

My point in referring to this other Blog was that once again an attempt was being made to explain away the significance of that component, or to make it somehow less "Near Eastern", and RK's in my opinion excellent analysis of the statistics in the Haak paper put an end to it, and also explained the confusing Gedrosia signals in Europe. I didn't know if it was kosher to lift whole long quotes from another blog, or I would have posted them here.

----------


## Angela

It's pointless, in my opinion, to try to deny the influence of the Caucasus and the European Neolithic civilizations on the steppe. Just review your Anthony book, for goodness sakes. Agriculture was definitely a _very_ late entry and not very significant.* The early people on the Pontic Caspian steppe had no domesticated animals**, their metallurgy was primitive and derivative of Balkan types to their west. The wheel came either from south of them through the Caucasus or from European Neolithic civilizations. War chariots*** definitely are first attested south of them. Pastoralism is a question mark in my mind. Their particular version of it may have been an adaptation once they got domesticated animals, but it could also have filtered through from the Stan countries. As to Kurgans, there is a dispute as to dating methods used, but the dates for Kurgans south of the steppe are so close to those of the ones on the steppe that to say the Kurgan style burial definitely came from the Steppe to the Caucasus is unwarranted, in my opinion.

What is most likely true is that they domesticated the horse. However, the earliest attested date for anything resembling the domestication of horses is 3600 BC although way over in the Botai. For long stretches of time their primary use was as _food_. They couldn't have been using them to herd animals because those people didn't _have_ any domesticated animals.The earliest record of a bridle is much later, as is the two wheeled chariot, which dates to _2,000 BC_ and all the way east in Sintashta. So, in the critical 4,000BC to 3,000 BC crucial period on the Pontic Caspic Steppe I don't know of any evidence for horse riding or two wheeled war chariots. In fact, if Anthony is correct, there weren't even any carts until at the earliest 3600 BC so the earliest migrations wouldn't have included them. If someone knows of any, it would of course change my point of view. 

You can find discussions of these matters, and links to relevant papers here:
David Anthony and metallurgy on the steppes:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...llurgy+steppes
(Other things are discussed besides metallurgy)

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...Kurgans+steppe
I don't endorse each and every post here but the discussions are interesting.

Kurgans in the south Caucasus:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...Kurgans+steppe

There are many more, just use the search engine.

Ed.
* Anthony's explanation is that it filtered through from the "Old Europe" Neolithic cultures.
** According to Anthony, the earliest domesticated animals on the steppe were acquired from the Neolithic communities to their west. I'm still investigating whether there was also input in the eastern steppe from communities to _their_ south or west.
***Perhaps more properly called war wagons.

----------


## Silesian

> Let's make sure we are talking about R1a1a or even M417, the ones implicated in IE culture, and not any 20 ky old R1a who went up and down central Asia couple of times before neolithic.


Some experimental date ranges TMRCA of R1a and R1b and I.

R1b-Z2103- _Yamnaya cluster_
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/ _



R-Z2103S20902 * Z2103/CTS1078 * Z2105... 5 SNPsformed 6300 ybp, TMRCA 6200 ybp


_

_Polish/Russian cluster 9219+_



> R-Z2103*R-CTS1450CTS9219 * Y5594 * CTS1450... 6 SNPsformed 5600 ybp, _TMRCA 4400 ybp_


R1a-Z93 
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a



> _R-Z93Z93/F992/S202 * V3664/Z2479/M746/S4582formed 5000 ybp,_ _TMRCA 4600 ybp_


R1a-282



> _R-YP282YP287 * YP285 * YP283... 11 SNPsformed 3500 ybp, TMRCA 2000 ybp_


/http://www.yfull.com/tree/I2/

----------


## Expredel

> What is most likely true is that they domesticated the horse. However, the earliest attested date for anything resembling the domestication of horses is 3600 BC although way over in the Botai. For long stretches of time their primary use was as _food_. They couldn't have been using them to herd animals because those people didn't _have_ any domesticated animals.


The Native Americans effectively used horses to hunt, made their lives much easier, don't think they had any herd animals. They also used horses to raid. 

From Wikipedia:




> When Suvorovo graves appeared in the Danube delta grasslands, horse-head maces also appeared in some of the indigenous farming towns of the





> Tripolye and Gumelnitsa cultures in present-day Romania and Moldova, near the Suvorovo graves. These agricultural cultures had not previously used polished-stone maces, and horse bones were rare or absent in their settlement sites. Probably their horse-head maces came from the Suvorovo immigrants. The Suvorovo people in turn acquired many copper ornaments from the Tripolye and Gumelnitsa towns. After this episode of contact and trade, but still during the period 4200-4000 BCE, about 600 agricultural towns in the Balkans and the lower Danube valley, some of which had been occupied for 2000 years, were abandoned. Copper mining ceased in the Balkan copper mines,[57] and the cultural traditions associated with the agricultural towns were terminated in the Balkans and the lower Danube valley. This collapse of "Old Europe" has been attributed to the immigration of mounted Indo-European warriors.[58] The collapse could have been caused by intensified warfare, for which there is some evidence; and warfare could have been worsened by mounted raiding; and the horse-head maces have been interpreted as indicating the introduction of domesticated horses and riding just before the collapse.




By 4000 BC mounted steppe tribes would have been ready to move south.

----------


## LeBrok

> The Native Americans effectively used horses to hunt, made their lives much easier, don't think they had any herd animals. They also used horses to raid. 
> .


We can assume that they herded horses, the native animals there.

----------


## Aberdeen

> The Native Americans effectively used horses to hunt, made their lives much easier, don't think they had any herd animals. They also used horses to raid. 
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> By 4000 BC mounted steppe tribes would have been ready to move south.


The wild horse once existed in the Americas, but died out long before European contact, and no Native Americans used horses for riding until they acquired them from Europeans. Although historians assume that Native Americans captured and domesticated wild horses that escaped from settlers, it's actually far more likely that the Comanche and the Kiowa Apache acquired horses and the knowledge of how to use and care for them from the Spanish and that the use of horses by other Plains Indians was as a result of trade. Only the Plains Indians made extensive use of horses prior to coming under the control of settlers and they only began to do so after the Spanish moved into the American southwest in the 17th century.

As for Eurasia, where horses exist and are associated with humans but without wheeled vehicles in a prehistoric context, it's difficult to prove whether they were ridden or used for food. On the Eurasian steppe, the first association of horses with wheeled vehicles happened with the Sintasha and Petrovka cultures. And while the earliest historical records about the steppe people indicate their culture was built around riding, it wasn't that popular in Europe until the invention of the stirrup, which gave the rider much more control.

----------


## Alan

> I don't know where it came from, Alan, and honestly it won't matter to me personally either way, but at the end of the day some of the people who have been determined to associate the "R" lineage more with "Europe" and to remove any hint of an origin elsewhere will just move the goalpost to a later clade if it's proven that R1 did indeed move out of Iran. It's already happening. Not every "Kurganist" is like that however. Jean Manco, for one, had R1 in that area for years, and of course, Maciamo's views on the origin of R1b are well known. 
> 
> Similarly, I don't really know how all that "Near Eastern" got into Yamna, and through them into Europe, but time and more adna should make it a little clearer. My problem is that I don't see a clearly archaeologically attested farmer population on the steppe that can be reliably tied to a specifically Caucasus population. I'm starting to think we should be looking perhaps at the Stans?
> 
> My point in referring to this other Blog was that once again an attempt was being made to explain away the significance of that component, or to make it somehow less "Near Eastern", and RK's in my opinion excellent analysis of the statistics in the Haak paper put an end to it, and also explained the confusing Gedrosia signals in Europe. I didn't know if it was kosher to lift whole long quotes from another blog, or I would have posted them here.


Remember we also had no real evidence of genetic admixture into Europe during the Neolithic. Most scientist believed in neolithization through cultural contact. Until it turned out farmers were almost completely different from mesolithic H&G and had typical Near Eastern yDNA. 

Who would have thought that Haplogroup C* is mesolithic/neolithic European? Who would have thought that Haplgoroup N didn't came with Uralic speakers but was also found in Indo_European Steppe Nomads? Who would have thought to find yDNA H among farmers but no J2? We will have to change our view completely.

----------


## Alan

> Let's make sure we are talking about R1a1a or even M417, the ones implicated in IE culture, and not any 20 ky old R1a who went up and down central Asia couple of times before neolithic.



Maybe it was already m417, but maybe it was still R1a or R1a1 and evolved to R1a1a on the Steppes.

I don't know that. I am just saying that R1a at some point reached the Steppes with ANE H&G from South_Central Asia or from the Caucasus mountains as refugees who earlier reached the region from Iran. And they brought mtDNA H with them.

Either through the stan countries or caucasus. At least somewhere where they could have catched up a good chunk of neolithic lineages and genes because I simply don't by the bride exchange/kidnapping thing from "unrelated" cultures and even so far away. What I know about bride kidnapping is, since it was still pretty common decades ago, that the bride was always kidnapped from different communities or tribal groups in the same region. When the parents were not in agreement on a marriage (either not able to pay the price or other disputes). Kidnapping brides from communities you had disputes could even lead to wars. So people thinking of some EHG simply moving into the Caucasus kidnapping constantly brides for over thousand of years just out of fun have no idea.

It was not a game. This can work one time, two times. But the more it happened the more the people get cautious and when they saw a EHG dude come close they would have hunted him down. 
That alone would not make it worth kidnapping brides you didn't even knew personally, because bride kidnapping 90% of the cases happens between couples who love each others but the parents don't agree on. How can two people completely unknown to each have loved each other? Why should a person risk his life for some unknown girl (maybe when she was very beautiful ok but these kind of things wouldn't happen between two different cultures). And even if it happened what I don't believe, I doubt the southern pastotalist didn't became more cautios. People are confusing the war like mountain herders with "democratic" farmers.

Than we have the bride exchange/buying. It was common among my people to exchange females (even if the parents agreed, it was just a cultural thing) for gold. 

But the whole point is, this all was inner community/tribal thing. They didn't raid other *far* tribes let alone cultures to buy or kidnap brides. Means even if the Maykop and Yamna were related communities, it is unlikely that bride buying happened too often, because these kind of things are mostly inner community/tribal. 

And this has all been common in Caucasus too and is all *still* very common in Dagestan. What makes me think that these two communities were related (we should not forget how close North Caucasians are to Yamna not only on their Caucasus_Gedrosia part, but there is also some heavy North European genes going on), but even if related as I said bride kidnapping was more of a local community, at max tribal thing. You don't kidnap a girl you don't know of, especially not from different cultures, which also knew all these tricks and hunt you down for it.

----------


## Alan

> The Native Americans effectively used horses to hunt, made their lives much easier, don't think they had any herd animals. They also used horses to raid. 
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> By 4000 BC mounted steppe tribes would have been ready to move south.



But how does horses in native Americans proof horse domestication in Yamna prior to 2000 BC? It could have been even earlier maybe.

But horse domestication is also known at least as early as 3000 BC in the Near East.

I never thought of horse riding as an argument for PIE. I find horse riding a more typical Andronovo thing (Indo_Iranians).

----------


## Alan

Some People might have got the impression I am against a PC Steppe origin of Indo European. I am not, I am simply against the idea that all this 50%! "southern" impact on Yamna can be explained without a major migration.

I have only three theories remaining for PIE. 
1. Some pastoralist from Zagros_Taurus mountains moved either through the Caucasus or South_Central Asia into the Steppes, mixed with the local H&G and the Yamna-PIE were born there out of this fusion. 

2. PIE were the pastoralists from Zagros_Taurus mountains moved into every direction West, East and North and mixed with the communities there giving birth to local Indo European cultures, for example through the Caucasus one wave giving birth to Yamna and another to Corded Ware (this wouldn't necessary have to meanthat CW was descend of Yamna) , a wave through Iran giving birth to Tocharians+Andronovo and into Anatolia giving birth to Hittites and explaining why such an archaic IE language could reach Anatolia so early.

3. Pastoralists who moved very early into South_Central Asia mixed with the local H&G and gave birth to the first PIE and from there some branches moved into the PC Steppes and further, from the Eastern Caspian route, to give birth to Yamna, Andronovo and CW. Some other waves moved directly through Iran into Asia Minor giving birth to groups such as Hittites.

----------


## arvistro

Hmm, this makes me thinking. Bride swapping - if Latvians got part of wives from raids in Lithuania (and vice versa), and Estonians in raids in Latvia. And Karelians in raids in Estonia. Then in say century Lithuanian adna and mtdna gets into Karelia through chain of wife swaps. With y-dna same Karelian.
Add more scale to geography and compensate by increased time... 

This should work in both/all directions. That is as long as both/all cultures approve such actions (as in approve doing it themselves).

----------


## Alan

> Hmm, this makes me thinking. Bride swapping - if Latvians got part of wives from raids in Lithuania (and vice versa), and Estonians in raids in Latvia. And Karelians in raids in Estonia. Then in say century Lithuanian adna and mtdna gets into Karelia through chain of wife swaps. With y-dna same Karelian.
> Add more scale to geography and compensate by increased time... 
> 
> This should work in both/all directions. That is as long as both/all cultures approve such actions (as in approve doing it themselves).



I have explained why bride swapping would not work between two different cultures in large scale just that you claim exactly this did happen.  :Smile:  You seem to not have much knowledge about how bride swapping or kidnapping really works. But I do because it isn't so long ago for my culture that it was part of it. Bride swapping doesn't work in that romantic way as you think. especially not in that extents that it could change 50% of the genetics of a population.

If people do not want to accept a migration from South into the Steppes. Than the only explanation remaining is, we need to imagine that this Caucasus_Gedrosia genes are native to the Steppes since 43000 year old Kostenki was already closer to Caucasians genetically. If that makes people more happy than fine.

----------


## Aberdeen

> But how does horses in native Americans proof horse domestication in Yamna prior to 2000 BC? It could have been even earlier maybe.
> 
> But horse domestication is also known at least as early as 3000 BC in the Near East.
> 
> I never thought of horse riding as an argument for PIE. I find horse riding a more typical Andronovo thing (Indo_Iranians).


As I said in post #483, the use of horses by Native Americans began in the post Columbian period. And it's very difficult to figure out on the basis of archeology whether people are keeping horses for eating or riding, and only the use of horses for pulling vehicles can easily be identified archeology, so it's hard to know when riding started on the Eurasian steppe. Since Andronov culture seems to have come out of Sintasha culture, which is an offshoot of Yamnaya, it wouldn't be surprising if riding was part of the original Yamnaya culture, but it's difficult to know for certain.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Some People might have got the impression I am against a PC Steppe origin of Indo European. I am not, I am simply against the idea that all this 50%! "southern" impact on Yamna can be explained without a major migration.
> 
> I have only three theories remaining for PIE. 
> 1. Some pastoralist from Zagros_Taurus mountains moved either through the Caucasus or South_Central Asia into the Steppes, mixed with the local H&G and the Yamna-PIE were born there out of this fusion. 
> 
> 2. PIE were the pastoralists from Zagros_Taurus mountains moved into every direction West, East and North and mixed with the communities there giving birth to local Indo European cultures, for example through the Caucasus one wave giving birth to Yamna and another to Corded Ware (this wouldn't necessary have to meanthat CW was descend of Yamna) , a wave through Iran giving birth to Tocharians+Andronovo and into Anatolia giving birth to Hittites and explaining why such an archaic IE language could reach Anatolia so early.
> 
> 3. Pastoralists who moved very early into South_Central Asia mixed with the local H&G and gave birth to the first PIE and from there some branches moved into the PC Steppes and further, from the Eastern Caspian route, to give birth to Yamna, Andronovo and CW. Some other waves moved directly through Iran into Asia Minor giving birth to groups such as Hittites.


I've always believed that Yamnaya culture was a mixture of Mykop and Russian hunter gatherer. I just didn't expect the Mykop portion to be solidly R1b, and we can't conclude on the basis of samples from a single site that it was. But that would explain how R1b got to Anatolia (with the Hittites). And I still think Yamnaya evolved in situ, from a fusion of Mykop bronze makers and Russian hunter gatherers turned pastoralists (perhaps with the help of farmers from further west). The combination of pastoralism, bronze and chariots created a culture ripe to expand as soon as the steppes experienced any drought or the population outstripped local resources. But, IMO, that still doesn't tell us whether Proto-IE originated with Mykop or Yamnaya.

----------


## Angela

> From Wikipedia:
> Tripolye and Gumelnitsa cultures in present-day Romania and Moldova, near the Suvorovo graves. These agricultural cultures had not previously used polished-stone maces, and horse bones were rare or absent in their settlement sites. Probably their horse-head maces came from the Suvorovo immigrants. The Suvorovo people in turn acquired many copper ornaments from the Tripolye and Gumelnitsa towns. After this episode of contact and trade, but still during the period 4200-4000 BCE, about 600 agricultural towns in the Balkans and the lower Danube valley, some of which had been occupied for 2000 years, were abandoned. Copper mining ceased in the Balkan copper mines,[57] and the cultural traditions associated with the agricultural towns were terminated in the Balkans and the lower Danube valley*. This collapse of "Old Europe" has been attributed to the immigration of mounted Indo-European warriors.**[58] The collapse could have been caused by intensified warfare, for which there is some evidence; and warfare could have been worsened by mounted raiding; and the horse-head maces have been interpreted as indicating the introduction of domesticated horses and riding just before the collapse.
> *


I want to be clear here. I am_ not_ saying that it's _impossible_ for the western steppe people to have been riding horses around this time (4200 BCE). What I _am_ saying is that there is_ no evidence_ for it. The fact that some horse head maces were found in some graves in Tripoliye and Gumelnitsa does not even prove that they came from Yamnaya related cultures much less that the horses were being ridden and used for raiding at that time and place. The horse head mace could have been a totem emblem for an animal very important in their world (as totems of buffalo or lions or birds might appear in other kinds of primitive cultures) without their having been domesticated, much less ridden, and could have arrived from further afield. 

As I said upthread, the earliest _evidence_ of domestication and the use of a bridle is 3600 BC in Kazakhstan.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114345

Perhaps a new find is just around the corner that will change the picture, but in my opinion, as things stand now, to categorically state that Yamnaya migrations around 4200 BC were spearheaded by mounted raiders is unwarranted because it isn't supported by the evidence.

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=arvistro;451149]Hmm, this makes me thinking. Bride swapping - if Latvians got part of wives from raids in Lithuania (and vice versa), and Estonians in raids in Latvia. And Karelians in raids in Estonia. Then in say century Lithuanian adna and mtdna gets into Karelia through chain of wife swaps. With y-dna same Karelian.
Add more scale to geography and compensate by increased time... 

This should work in both/all directions. That is as long as both/all cultures approve such actions (as in approve doing it themselves).[/QUOTE

_It 's not to challenge your principal opinion but I think these stories of no end rapts of wives are a bit TV series myths, at high scale I want say - 
but yes, exchanges at the mergins between populations have surely occurred and long scale time can explain some erosion of autosomes differences between geofraphically close populations - that said, even today, out of big life centers, the regional differences take time to disappear even at very local scale... so in past? uneasy to answer, according to landscape and way of life? concerning Baltic SE shores, the today Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia populations (without Russians or Tatars) show still means differences spite their all time vicinity... these differences are badly illustrated by rough autosomes poolings -
just an opinion without attached theory
good forum_

----------


## Alan

Wasn't there just recently a linguistic/archeological paper published which stated Proto_Indo Europeans (based on the language) must have been "highlanders who lived close to a lake"?



http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...d-near-the-sea

----------


## Sile

[QUOTE=MOESAN;451422]


> Hmm, this makes me thinking. Bride swapping - if Latvians got part of wives from raids in Lithuania (and vice versa), and Estonians in raids in Latvia. And Karelians in raids in Estonia. Then in say century Lithuanian adna and mtdna gets into Karelia through chain of wife swaps. With y-dna same Karelian.
> Add more scale to geography and compensate by increased time... 
> 
> This should work in both/all directions. That is as long as both/all cultures approve such actions (as in approve doing it themselves).[/QUOTE
> 
> _It 's not to challenge your principal opinion but I think these stories of no end rapts of wives are a bit TV series myths, at high scale I want say - 
> but yes, exchanges at the mergins between populations have surely occurred and long scale time can explain some erosion of autosomes differences between geofraphically close populations - that said, even today, out of big life centers, the regional differences take time to disappear even at very local scale... so in past? uneasy to answer, according to landscape and way of life? concerning Baltic SE shores, the today Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia populations (without Russians or Tatars) show still means differences spite their all time vicinity... these differences are badly illustrated by rough autosomes poolings -
> just an opinion without attached theory
> good forum_


this "bride" business is ridiculous, ..........was there marriage in this period of history? ..............does anyone have proof?

The simple answer is that anyone bedded anyone, by force or not ..................we even see this much later in later etruscan society, that even though a couple was in union ( was their marriage ?), their was a agreement that anyone could bed anyone else without issue.....................which is why the man was never really sure if the child was really his.

The most likely scenario is that either the women moved with the men that could feed her and her children or she was taken against her will

----------


## Angela

[QUOTE=Sile;451445]


> this "bride" business is ridiculous, ..........was there marriage in this period of history? ..............does anyone have proof?
> 
> The simple answer is that anyone bedded anyone, by force or not ..................we even see this much later in later etruscan society, that even though a couple was in union ( was their marriage ?), their was a agreement that anyone could bed anyone else without issue.....................which is why the man was never really sure if the child was really his.
> 
> The most likely scenario is that either the women moved with the men that could feed her and her children or she was taken against her will


Where on earth do you get these ideas? The gossip of the ancient Greeks and Romans about their neighbors and competitors? There is actual _scholarship_ in this field, you know. 

If nothing else, at least start with Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_society
"The princely tombs were not of individuals. The inscriptional evidence shows that families were interred there over long periods, marking the growth of the aristocratic family as a fixed institution, parallel to the gens at Rome and perhaps even its model. It is not an Etruscan original, as there is no sign of it in the Villanovan. The Etruscans could have used any model of the eastern Mediterranean. That the growth of this class is related to the new acquisition of wealth through trade is unquestioned. The wealthiest cities were located near the coast.

The Etruscan name of the family was _lautn_.[1] At the center of the lautn was the married couple, _tusurthir_. The Etruscans were a monogamous society that emphasized pairing. The lids of large numbers of sarcophagi (for example, the "Sarcophagus of the Spouses") are adorned with sculpted couples, smiling, in the prime of life (even if the remains were of persons advanced in age), reclining next to each other or with arms around each other. The bond was obviously a close one by social preference
It is possible that Greek and Roman attitudes to the Etruscans were based on a misunderstanding of the place of women within their society. In both Greece and Republican Rome, respectable women were mostly confined to the house and mixed-sex socialising did not occur. Thus the freedom of women within Etruscan society could have been misunderstood as implying their sexual availability.
It is worth noting that a number of Etruscan tombs carry funerary inscriptions in the form 'X son of [father] and [mother]', indicating the importance of the mother's side of the family."


http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/vi...ruscan_studies

https://books.google.com/books?id=2O...ociety&f=false

Nothing was more sacred to the Etruscans than the family unit, and that included verified lines of descent from both father _and_
mother:
http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/at...ffewfpaper.pdf

Ancient Marriage in Both Myth and Reality:
http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/57805

In five more minutes I could compile a list of dozens of scholarly references, but an analysis of Etruscan marriage is off topic. If you wish to discuss Etruscan marriage habits perhaps you might care to open a thread about it or add to an existing thread on their culture. However, the scholarship is what it is and it bears no resemblance to what you stated in your post.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Wasn't there just recently a linguistic/archeological paper published which stated Proto_Indo Europeans (based on the language) must have been "highlanders who lived close to a lake"?
> 
> Doesn't sound very "Steppic" to me.
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...d-near-the-sea


That may not sound very "Steppic" but to me it sounds fairly "Uralic". IMO, the IE language could have originated with either R1b people from the Caucasus or with R1a Russian hunter gatherers, or a synthesis of the two, and we don't have enough evidence yet to decide.

----------


## Sile

[QUOTE=Angela;451447]


> Where on earth do you get these ideas? The gossip of the ancient Greeks and Romans about their neighbors and competitors? There is actual _scholarship_ in this field, you know. 
> 
> If nothing else, at least start with Wiki:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_society
> "The princely tombs were not of individuals. The inscriptional evidence shows that families were interred there over long periods, marking the growth of the aristocratic family as a fixed institution, parallel to the gens at Rome and perhaps even its model. It is not an Etruscan original, as there is no sign of it in the Villanovan. The Etruscans could have used any model of the eastern Mediterranean. That the growth of this class is related to the new acquisition of wealth through trade is unquestioned. The wealthiest cities were located near the coast.
> 
> The Etruscan name of the family was _lautn_.[1] At the center of the lautn was the married couple, _tusurthir_. The Etruscans were a monogamous society that emphasized pairing. The lids of large numbers of sarcophagi (for example, the "Sarcophagus of the Spouses") are adorned with sculpted couples, smiling, in the prime of life (even if the remains were of persons advanced in age), reclining next to each other or with arms around each other. The bond was obviously a close one by social preference
> It is possible that Greek and Roman attitudes to the Etruscans were based on a misunderstanding of the place of women within their society. In both Greece and Republican Rome, respectable women were mostly confined to the house and mixed-sex socialising did not occur. Thus the freedom of women within Etruscan society could have been misunderstood as implying their sexual availability.
> It is worth noting that a number of Etruscan tombs carry funerary inscriptions in the form 'X son of [father] and [mother]', indicating the importance of the mother's side of the family."
> ...


historians
*Many Greek and Roman authors including Theopompus of Chios and Plato referred to the Etruscans as immoral. During later Roman times, the word Etruscan was almost synonomous with prostitute, and Livy's histories moralise about the rape of Lucretia, where Roman women are seen as virtuous model wives in comparison to their liberated Etruscan counterparts. On this site we shall examine the evidence given by these sources and also from Necropolis art such as the "Tomb of the Bulls" in Tarquinia.

Sharing wives is an established Etruscan custom. Etruscan women take particular care of their bodies and exercise often, sometimes along with the men, and sometimes by themselves. It is not a disgrace for them to be seen naked. They do not share their couches with their husbands but with the other men who happen to be present, and they propose toasts to anyone they choose. They are expert drinkers and very attractive.* *The Etruscans raise all the children that are born, without knowing who their fathers are. The children live the way their parents live, often attending drinking parties and having sexual relations with all the women. It is no disgrace for them to do anything in the open, or to be seen having it done to them, for they consider it a native custom. So far from thinking it disgraceful, they say when someone ask to see the master of the house, and he is making love, that he is doing so-and-so, calling the indecent action by its name. 

When they are having sexual relations either with courtesans or within their family, they do as follows: after they have stopped drinking and are about to go to bed, while the lamps are still lit, servants bring in courtesans, or boys, or sometimes even their wives. And when they have enjoyed these they bring in boys, and make love to them. They sometimes make love and have intercourse while people are watching them, but most of the time they put screens woven of sticks around the beds, and throw cloths on top of them. 

They are keen on making love to women, but they particularly enjoy boys and youths. The youths in Etruria are very good-looking, because they live in luxury and keep their bodies smooth. In fact all the barbarians in the West use pitch to pull out and shave off the hair on their bodies. 
*
*
*
one of very many sites
http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/theopompus/

all have same conclusion

----------


## Angela

[QUOTE=Sile;451455]


> historians
> *Many Greek and Roman authors including Theopompus of Chios and Plato referred to the Etruscans as immoral. During later Roman times, the word Etruscan was almost synonomous with prostitute, and Livy's histories moralise about the rape of Lucretia, where Roman women are seen as virtuous model wives in comparison to their liberated Etruscan counterparts. On this site we shall examine the evidence given by these sources and also from Necropolis art such as the "Tomb of the Bulls" in Tarquinia.
> 
> Sharing wives is an established Etruscan custom. Etruscan women take particular care of their bodies and exercise often, sometimes along with the men, and sometimes by themselves. It is not a disgrace for them to be seen naked. They do not share their couches with their husbands but with the other men who happen to be present, and they propose toasts to anyone they choose. They are expert drinkers and very attractive.* *The Etruscans raise all the children that are born, without knowing who their fathers are. The children live the way their parents live, often attending drinking parties and having sexual relations with all the women. It is no disgrace for them to do anything in the open, or to be seen having it done to them, for they consider it a native custom. So far from thinking it disgraceful, they say when someone ask to see the master of the house, and he is making love, that he is doing so-and-so, calling the indecent action by its name. 
> 
> When they are having sexual relations either with courtesans or within their family, they do as follows: after they have stopped drinking and are about to go to bed, while the lamps are still lit, servants bring in courtesans, or boys, or sometimes even their wives. And when they have enjoyed these they bring in boys, and make love to them. They sometimes make love and have intercourse while people are watching them, but most of the time they put screens woven of sticks around the beds, and throw cloths on top of them. 
> 
> They are keen on making love to women, but they particularly enjoy boys and youths. The youths in Etruria are very good-looking, because they live in luxury and keep their bodies smooth. In fact all the barbarians in the West use pitch to pull out and shave off the hair on their bodies. 
> *
> ...


As I thought, the gossip of ancient authors. As for the internet link, if you consider the kind of internet sites written by uneducated, practically an-alphabet young men with smutty minds authoritative there is really nothing more to be said. Try to run that by a classics or history professor someday, or even an art historian. Good luck with that.

If you have any more such unimpeachably authoritative scholarly references, be sure to post them on a thread about the Etruscans, not here.

----------


## Alan

> That may not sound very "Steppic" but to me it sounds fairly "Uralic". IMO, the IE language could have originated with either R1b people from the Caucasus or with R1a Russian hunter gatherers, or a synthesis of the two, and we don't have enough evidence yet to decide.



Near a lake

As far as I know there is no lake in or close enough to the Urals.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Russia.svg.png

North of the Caspian or Black Sea would work, if it was mountainous, but it is Steppe land. 

South,East and West of the Caspian or South, East of the Black Sea is mountainous and near a lake.

However I do not disagree that Proto IE might have originated with a synthesis of herders from South and H&G from further North. But you are forgetting one thing. Typical for H&G have always been I and C.* Not* *R1b or R1a*.

In fact the only H&G from North who had these Haplogroups *were significantly Gedrosia admixed.* And no basal R1a found there yet.

IMO there are still three competing theories. West of the Caspian (West Asian highlands), PC Steppes or East of the Caspian(South_Central Asia).

----------


## LeBrok

[QUOTE=Sile;451445]


> this "bride" business is ridiculous, ..........was there marriage in this period of history? ..............does anyone have proof?
> 
> The simple answer is that anyone bedded anyone, by force or not ..................we even see this much later in later etruscan society, that even though a couple was in union ( was their marriage ?), their was a agreement that anyone could bed anyone else without issue.....................which is why the man was never really sure if the child was really his.


I'm not sure if there were no issues in their liberal ways. By nature men are rather possessive, especially the farmer men, and farmer women are very jealous beasts too. My point is that, if they were more liberal in their ways than Romans and others, it was on a small scale than some liberal authors want to believe.
However, I remember reading about rather interesting customs of Spartans. Often husbands were willing to let their wives to sleep around, if they were unable to conceive a child together. It might have been do to a high level of homosexuality in their society. Number of spartans were falling steadily through centuries till puff, they were gone.





> The most likely scenario is that either the women moved with the men that could feed her and her children or she was taken against her will


 I agree.

----------


## LeBrok

[QUOTE=Sile;451455]


> *
> 
> When they are having sexual relations either with courtesans or within their family, they do as follows: after they have stopped drinking and are about to go to bed, while the lamps are still lit, servants bring in courtesans, or boys, or sometimes even their wives. And when they have enjoyed these they bring in boys, and make love to them. They sometimes make love and have intercourse while people are watching them, but most of the time they put screens woven of sticks around the beds, and throw cloths on top of them. 
> 
> *
> one of very many sites
> http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/theopompus/
> 
> all have same conclusion


I don't know the ancient authors and how believable they are. We also need to understand that Etruscans were enemies of Rome. How would you describe culture of your enemy? It is easier to attack and conquer these strange and different people if they are immoral, homosexual, rotten, sinful people. The more you hate and alienate your enemy the easier it is to fight and kill them.

Consider this. Many people when learning about Kamasutra they immediately imagine that Indian society is very open and liberal in their ways. Well, try going to Indian village and show kamasutra pictures. You'll be lucky to escape alive. Indian villagers are very traditional and puritan people, with men very possessive and controlling women to the extreme. Women are covered from head to toes, and adultery is punished by death.

----------


## Tone

> historians
> *Many Greek and Roman authors including Theopompus of Chios and Plato referred to the Etruscans as immoral.*


Of course the Greeks and Romans referred to the Etruscans as immoral. They were enemies.

We still do that in our culture today - taunting those we dislike as being "gay" or being "whores."

----------


## LeBrok

> Of course the Greeks and Romans referred to the Etruscans as immoral. They were enemies.
> 
> We still do that in our culture today - taunting those we dislike as being "gay" or being "whores."


Exactly my observation too. And this is exactly how poster Ike (Yugoslavian) describes today's Western World.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Near a lake
> 
> As far as I know there is no lake in or close enough to the Urals.
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Russia.svg.png
> 
> North of the Caspian or Black Sea would work, if it was mountainous, but it is Steppe land. 
> 
> South,East and West of the Caspian or South, East of the Black Sea is mountainous and near a lake.
> 
> ...


There are in fact a lot of rather large lakes in the Ural Mountains. What we don't have from that area is sufficient testing of old DNA that would tell us the genetic makeup of Russian hunter gatherers. We cannot assume it would be the same as WHG, especially when the present distribution of R1a Z282 suggests that it was probably prevalent in eastern Europe in the past.

----------


## Aberdeen

[QUOTE=Sile;451455]


> historians
> *Many Greek and Roman authors including Theopompus of Chios and Plato referred to the Etruscans as immoral. During later Roman times, the word Etruscan was almost synonomous with prostitute, and Livy's histories moralise about the rape of Lucretia, where Roman women are seen as virtuous model wives in comparison to their liberated Etruscan counterparts. On this site we shall examine the evidence given by these sources and also from Necropolis art such as the "Tomb of the Bulls" in Tarquinia.
> 
> Sharing wives is an established Etruscan custom. Etruscan women take particular care of their bodies and exercise often, sometimes along with the men, and sometimes by themselves. It is not a disgrace for them to be seen naked. They do not share their couches with their husbands but with the other men who happen to be present, and they propose toasts to anyone they choose. They are expert drinkers and very attractive.* *The Etruscans raise all the children that are born, without knowing who their fathers are. The children live the way their parents live, often attending drinking parties and having sexual relations with all the women. It is no disgrace for them to do anything in the open, or to be seen having it done to them, for they consider it a native custom. So far from thinking it disgraceful, they say when someone ask to see the master of the house, and he is making love, that he is doing so-and-so, calling the indecent action by its name. 
> 
> When they are having sexual relations either with courtesans or within their family, they do as follows: after they have stopped drinking and are about to go to bed, while the lamps are still lit, servants bring in courtesans, or boys, or sometimes even their wives. And when they have enjoyed these they bring in boys, and make love to them. They sometimes make love and have intercourse while people are watching them, but most of the time they put screens woven of sticks around the beds, and throw cloths on top of them. 
> 
> They are keen on making love to women, but they particularly enjoy boys and youths. The youths in Etruria are very good-looking, because they live in luxury and keep their bodies smooth. In fact all the barbarians in the West use pitch to pull out and shave off the hair on their bodies. 
> *
> ...


The Romans talked similar crap about the Celts, in contradiction to what other people, such as the Greeks, had to say about the Celtic tribes. So that passage about the Etruscans just seems to me to be a propaganda piece used to justify Roman hostility toward Etruscans.

----------


## Tomenable

> Typical for H&G have always been I and C.* Not* *R1b or R1a*.


All haplogroups were at some point typical for H&Gs (because at some point all humans were hunter-gatherers).

The only question is where did H&Gs of each haplogroup live. And it seems that R1a and R1b lived in the east.

I made a map showing the distribution of Mesolithic and Neolithic Y-DNA haplotypes from Europe found so far:

----------


## Tomenable

> Roman authors including Theopompus of Chios and Plato referred to the Etruscans as immoral.


Another Roman author - Tacitus - called Germanic people lazy and living in dirtiness and sloth.




> And this is exactly how poster Ike (Yugoslavian) describes today's Western World.


And today's Western World looks down on Yugoslavians in a similar way as Tacitus did on Germanic tribes.

Etruscans were (at the time of each of those descriptions) more civilized than Romans, while Germanic tribes less civilized.

So perhaps we tend to call ones more civilized than ourselves "immoral", while ones less civilized "lazy and dirty".

----------


## LeBrok

> Another Roman author - Tacitus - called Germanic people lazy, and living in dirtiness and sloth.


Soon we'll open a thread "Were Romans racist?".

----------


## Tomenable

> Livy's histories moralise about the rape of Lucretia, where Roman women are seen as virtuous model wives in comparison to their liberated Etruscan counterparts.


And - ironically - Tacitus described Germanic women as virtuous and faithful model wives in comparison to liberated Roman women *of his time* (even though the same Tacitus called Germanic people, especially their men, lazy and dirty).

There is a documentary (link) about Americans who hunt for wives in Ukraine and claim that Ukrainian women are virtuous model wives in comparison to liberated American women. But they do not speak highly of Ukrainian men.

Some things don't change over thousands of years, it seems.

============================

The documentary in question:

----------


## Angela

@Aberdeen, Tome, LeBrok,
This is exactly what I was getting at when I said that the quoted piece was "ancient gossip"; it is ancient gossip written by their commercial and territorial competitors. 

The study of Etruscan culture is a huge discipline in and of itself. To my knowledge, no modern scholar specializing in the study of them adheres to the view of their culture espoused in that "hit piece". 

However, it is true that their culture differed in some ways from that of the Greeks and the early Romans with whom they came into contact, most specifically in terms of their view of sexuality and openness about it, and in the role of women in their society, which left them open to these kinds of scurrilous attacks. For people among whom women were expected to stay in the home and rarely come into contact with males other than those who were members of their families, to see women at banquets, or exercising, or having any role outside the home etc. was scandalous. There are lots of other examples. 

If you have some time, the sources to which I linked are quite interesting. One of them explores the specific issue of marriage in Etruscan society and the central place that the husband/wife bond occupied in that society. Their art, which often features funerary statuary showing husband and wife in an embrace reflects that reality, a reality which didn't have that centrality in the societies of their contemporaries. 


As to LeBrok's point about the Kamasutra, a celebration of sensuality can co-exist in a society along with societal norms that limit it to marriage or other socially controlled arrangements. Likewise, it can exist alongside very strong territoriality in terms of one's "spouse". Sexual jealousy, sometimes in quite extreme forms, can and does exist in such societies. It is not necessarily true that the most promiscuous societies are the most "sensual". In fact it's sometimes the exact opposite. 

Here, however, I'm wandering afield. :)

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=LeBrok;451524]


> I'm not sure if there were no issues in their liberal ways. By nature men are rather possessive, especially the farmer men, and farmer women are very jealous beasts too. My point is that, if they were more liberal in their ways than Romans and others, it was on a small scale than some liberal authors want to believe.
> However, I remember reading about rather interesting customs of Spartans. Often husbands were willing to let their wives to sleep around, if they were unable to conceive a child together. It might have been do to a high level of homosexuality in their society. Number of spartans were falling steadily through centuries till puff, they were gone.
> 
> 
> I agree.


_
NOT AN ANSWER // JUST TO REMARK THE POST UNDER MY NAME OF 'MOESAN' WAS NOT WRITTEN BY MYSELF !!! SAME ERROR ALREADY OCCURRED BEFORE IN SOME THREAD HELAS
_

----------


## MOESAN

correction: the quotes are not completely false, but confusing -
not too much important, doesn't perturb world march
good night , gud nicht,oidhche vath

----------


## Aberdeen

> Soon we'll open a thread "Were Romans racist?".


Instead of asking "Were Romans racist?", I think it would be more useful to ask "If any race or nation describe another race or nation as bad, evil, lazy, promiscuous, or as deserving other negative descriptions, is that evidence that they're trying to justify bad behavior toward the group they criticize?" The answer would seem to be yes.

----------


## Sile

[QUOTE=MOESAN;451587]


> _
> NOT AN ANSWER // JUST TO REMARK THE POST UNDER MY NAME OF 'MOESAN' WAS NOT WRITTEN BY MYSELF !!! SAME ERROR ALREADY OCCURRED BEFORE IN SOME THREAD HELAS
> _


Where did you get this quote under my name...............I do not recall ever writing this, it is not my format :Annoyed:

----------


## LeBrok

> Instead of asking "Were Romans racist?", I think it would be more useful to ask "If any race or nation describe another race or nation as bad, evil, lazy, promiscuous, or as deserving other negative descriptions, is that evidence that they're trying to justify bad behavior toward the group they criticize?" The answer would seem to be yes.


Of course we are trying to justify our behavior, our wants and possessiveness, and it comes so easy to us, because it is our nature. The hardwire group defending instinct, to vindicate us and diminish others.

----------


## LeBrok

> Where did you get this quote under my name...............I do not recall ever writing this, it is not my format


Can't you see that the quotes are messed up in your post too? Are you quoting Moesan or me?

----------


## Aberdeen

> Of course we are trying to justify our behavior, our wants and possessiveness, and it comes so easy to us, because it is our nature. The hardwire group defending instinct, to vindicate us and diminish others.


Yes, I agree that it seems to be human nature. We approve of and defend and support other members of our tribe, however that's defined, and find excuses to hate and criticize "those other people". Differences in race, religion or nationality are just the easiest way to define "us versus them". Perhaps such behaviour has or had an important evolutionary value for ensuring the survival of one's group.

----------


## Sile

> Can't you see that the quotes are messed up in your post too? Are you quoting Moesan or me?


why is that...............who started this mix-up?

----------


## srbo

> For example slightly darker, this French man looks Yamna like too.


Haha he has similiar facial structures like a friend of mine. He is from Ukraine. I can also find similarity with my face. Iam from Serbia and iam definetily not Y-R1b  :Laughing: . This kind of example shows that the most modern Europeans shares the same origin.

----------


## MOESAN

I took time to read the most of the posts in this thread, and yes, I find the quote system very confusing; almost impossible to know who is answering and who is being answered to !!! maybe it would be good when answering someone who already answered somebody else in the previous post, to erase the part written by the answered forumer (the first one)? very confusign sometimes -
concerning females rapts, I wrote 'wives' (mistake) in place of 'women' (maybe Arvisto did the same?) without precising my thought, but rapted females very often enough became "wives", did they not?

concerning southern elements in Steppes people, I think they reached the Steppes from every direction if not at everytime (someones by West (tripolje), someones by S-C Asia East Caspian, someones across Caucasus (Maykop), not at the same time - the problem is: long time scale osmosis or well determined emigrations /colonization, or both? to be continued

----------


## Greying Wanderer

Agree on the ancient gossip thing - people saying rude things about their enemies is normal. However at the same time I think the *type* of rude things said will follow set patterns so it is still useful info e.g. the things Romans said about Etruscans probably does reflect Etruscan women having more freedom than Roman women (at the time).




> Wasn't there just recently a linguistic/archeological paper published which stated Proto_Indo Europeans (based on the language) must have been "highlanders who lived close to a lake"?


Just messing but

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/search...,77.6223995,7z

----------


## noUseForAname

> Norwegians have a higher combined percentage of R1a + R1b than Belarussians and Ukrainians. Plenty of Central Asians invaded eastern Europe over the last 5000 years, almost completely eliminating R1b in the region. I explained 5 years ago that this was why R1b was so low today in its original homeland. 
> 
> The huge Neolithic population of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture didn't just vanish in thin air. They were gradually absorbed by PIE people (probably already since the Globular Amphora culture). Don't forget that Cucuteni-Trypillian towns were the largest in the world at the time. That explains the very significant percentage of both male and female Near Eastern lineages in western Ukraine and southern Belarus today.
> 
> Additionally, Ukrainians also have partial Greek ancestry in the south (lots of J2a).
> 
> It is especially northern Belarus and eastern Ukraine that are very high in R1a, and that is just a sign of higher recent Slavic ancestry, not a sign of more surviving Yamna ancestry. The Slavic branch descends from the Corded Ware and Abashevo cultures, not from Yamna.



Are you saying that most of Greeks are descends of J2a?....if so any more info related to this?....i would gladly appreciate it....

----------


## noUseForAname

> I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.


Would this table had an explanation as the following below?

1: Most of Early Neolithic (9,000 years) - were already populated and lived (majority) at the current modern populations (and locations) such as: Sardinian, Tuscan, Greek, Albanian, Bergamo, Spanish, South French, Basque, Bulgarian, Croatian. it looks like, more* south is more ancient*. Doesn't that explain that all the R1b or R1a expansion came much later to Europe?..then it would look like the R lineage came from central Asia above the baltic and through steppe as Maciamo noted (and not through Asia minor). and J2 migrated even much later towards Europe?

Then would anyone argue *which is the major Y Dna* in these south regions already within early Neolithic?

2. There are 2 hypothesis for the *roots* of indoEuropean language (9,000 years): north of Black sea and *south west Anatolia*....recent study is pretty conclusive about the south west Anatolia. This might correlate with migrations and Cultures spreading from south west Anatolia to east forming *Mesopotamia* (5,000 years) and west possibly forming *Vinca* Culture (7,500 years)? 

I suppose after migration to Mesopotamia, at the same time another big migration went through Caucus above Black Sea and through the Steppe around 5,000 years ago (Maciamo noted 4,000 years ago) (probably majority of R1b and R1a)
Now if this is correct then the predecessors of Hittites or Hittites from Anatolia might be R1b (in majority) and migrated through the steppe. But at the same time, hod did an R1b1 end up in Spain 7,000 ybp? maybe just an individual or individuals got there and not through some massive migrations

On the other side if there was a migration from south west Anatolia through *south east Anatolia* years ago possibly forming Vinca culture, although there is no evidence yet that they spoke indo european. And it looks like Vinca scripts is Archaic and has no relation to PEI then it might be that Vinca culture is neither R* lineage *only possibility would be I2a1 G2a2 or E-V13?* 


http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/ite...kaert_2012.pdf
https://theoreticalecology.wordpress...nguage-family/

----------


## noUseForAname

> If you look at the chart on page 25, the division is very clear. The orange is Neolithic Farmer, although I don't know if it's exactly the same as the component in the prior Lazardis paper. Here, the standard is Starcevo and LBKT, and thus Stuttgart shows a little WHG, as does the Spanish early Neolithic. Still, it's Early Neolithic Farmer in Europe and EEF is the closest term, as Alan pointed out above. The blue is, of course, WHG, based on Loschbour. The green is Yamnaya. That component is not based on the R1b1 hunter gatherer who was so similar to the R1a1 hunter gatherer but who was, indeed, found in the Samara Valley. The green Yamnaya component is based on the later and downstream R1b samples from Yamnaya, and thus autosomally are half Eastern Hunter Gatherer and half "Near Eastern". I agree with Alan that this is the "West Asian" component that Dienekes has been chasing all these years. In my opinion, however, it should not be seen as some totally foreign component. I think they could have extracted the majority EEF like component. 
> 
> 
> (Alan is also right that ENF has no place in the discussion. That is a component found through modeling by Eurogenes. It is not, unlike these components, based on an ancient set of genomes.)
> 
> It's interesting that a little sliver of Yamnaya made it into the Gamba samples. You can also see how the blue WHG component made something of a comeback in the MN of Germany. Obviously, that didn't happen in other areas. Then there's the big explosion of it with Corded Ware, and lower levels in Bell Beaker. 
> 
> There are all sorts of questions that arise as to why individual groups have their own particular set of percentages, as well. The Greeks (I believe the samples were taken in a northern part of the mainland) and the Albanians, for instance, why do they have less Yamnaya, when in addition to what might have come originally, they were invaded by Slavic speaking tribes who would have carried some with them? Also, why do they have more WHG than their immediate neighbors? The PCA is also interesting:
> 
> ...


Great point *Angela*...
Greeks and Albanians have less later Yamna *maybe cause* (if we can suppose this way) as the predominant % of their dna is E-V13 (over 40%), if we add another Ie2 by 15% then we have over 65% EEF and WHG. 
Yamna is only 15% (graph above) and it could be mainly through R1b and R1a, however it tops 25% (Greek and Albanian), we miss the 10%, maybe the 10% (R1b or R1a) was already at those regions *before Yamna?*  
Then how about J2 which has 18%?...i don't have any comments here for now...

Albanians have mostly E-V13 (39%) Modern Greeks (19%), then R1b (18.6%) Modern Greeks (11.7%) migrated from steppe, then J2 (18.6%) Modern Greeks (17%) from middle east and in the end slavic tribes R1a (5%) Modern Greeks (16%)
now historically speaking modern greeks were slavinized (R1a) much more than the Albanians*


*

----------


## Sile

> Would this table had an explanation as the following below?
> 
> 1: Most of Early Neolithic (9,000 years) - were already populated and lived (majority) at the current modern populations (and locations) such as: Sardinian, Tuscan, Greek, Albanian, Bergamo, Spanish, South French, Basque. it looks like, more south is more ancient. Doesn't that explain that all the R expansion came much later to Europe?..then it would look like the R lineage came from central Asia above the baltic and through steppe as Maciamo noted (and not through Asia minor). and J2 migrated even much later towards Europe?
> 
> Then would anyone argue *which is the major Y Dna* in these south regions already within early Neolithic?
> 
> 2. There are 2 hypothesis for the *roots* of indoEuropean language (9,000 years): north of Black sea and *south west Anatolia*....recent study is pretty conclusive about the south west Anatolia. This correlates with Cultures spreading from south west Anatolia to east forming *Mesopotamia* (5,500 years) and west possibly forming *Vinca* Culture (7,500 years). 
> 
> I suppose after migration to Mesopotamia another big migration went through Caucus above Black Sea and through the Steppe around 4,000 years ago as Maciamo noted (probably majority of R1b and R1a)
> ...


in summary , the paper states that there was one set of haplogroups in central Europe prior to 4500BC and then another different set came in....the older set comprises of I2 , G2 and T1, C and others from what I recall .............corded ware was the others .............R1 came in the younger set of migrations

*Culture*
*Country*
*YBP*
*Hg*
*Simple hg*
*N*

Mesolithic_HG
Luxembourg
8'000
I2a1b-L178
I2
1

Early_Neolithic
Hungary
7'700
I2a-L460
I2
1

Hunter_Gatherer
Sweden
7'700
I2a1-P37.2
I2
1

Hunter_Gatherer
Sweden
7'700
I2a1a1a-L672
I2
1

Hunter_Gatherer
Sweden
7'700
I2a1b-M423
I2
1

Hunter_Gatherer
Sweden
7'700
I2a1b2a1-L147.2
I2
1

Hunter_Gatherer
Sweden
7'700
I2c2-PF3827
I2
5

Early_Neolithic
Hungary
7'600
H2-L281
H2
1







Early_Neolithic
Spain
7'300
F*-P135
F*
1

Early_Neolithic
Spain
7'300
I2a1b1-L161.1
I2
1

Early_Neolithic
Germany
7'200
T1a-PF5604
T
1

Early_Neolithic
Germany
7'100
G2a2a-PF3147
G2a
1

Early_Neolithic
Germany
7'100
G2a2a-PF3185
G2a
1

Early_Neolithic
Germany
7'100
G2a2a1-PF3170
G2a
1

Early_Neolithic
Hungary
7'100
C1a2-V20/V184
C1
2

Early_Neolithic
Spain
7'100
R1b1-M415
R1b1
1

Early_Neolithic
Germany
7'000
G2a2a1-PF3155
G2a
1

Early_Neolithic
Spain
7'000
E1b1b1a1b1a-V13
E1b1b
1

Early_Neolithic
Spain
7'000
G2a-P15
G2a
5

Early_Neolithic
Spain
6'900
C1a2-V20
C1
1

Early_Neolithic
Hungary
6'400
I2a-L460
I2
1

Early_Neolithic
Germany
6'300
F-M89
F*
2

Early_Neolithic
Germany
6'200
G2a2b-S126
G2a
1

----------


## noUseForAname

> in summary , the paper states that there was one set of haplogroups in central Europe prior to 4500BC and then another different set came in....the older set comprises of I2 , G2 and T1, C and others from what I recall .............corded ware was the others .............R1 came in the younger set of migrations
> 
> *Culture*
> *Country*
> *YBP*
> *Hg*
> *Simple hg*
> *N*
> 
> ...



So if Maciamo haplogroup timeline is correct, and according to *early neolithic skeletons found*:

_1:_ Can we say that the early Neolithic people indigenous natives of Europe (at least as per ybp noted) are *E-V13* (10,000 ybp) *G2a2* (9,000) and *I2a1* (8.000 ybp) ? 

Current populations with highest I2a are:

Bosnian Croats 71%
Bosnians 56%
Sardinians 42.3%
Norwegians 40.2%
Swedes 40%
Danes 38.7%
Slovenians 38.7%
Croats 37%
Serbians 33%
Bosnians Serbs 31%
Icelanders 34%
Dutch 32.9%
Sami 31%
Peak or *roots of I2a1* seems to be current Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and south west Serbia
However no ancient I2a1 is found yet at these areas except the 5 of them in Sweeden.


Current Populations with highest G2a2 are:
Osetians 60%
Georgians 32%
Although G2a2 already in Europe at the early Neolithic its roots looks like its current Georgia and Osetia (caucasus mountains)
And it has much lower numbers with that of E-V13 and !2a1


Current populations with highest E-V13 are:
Albanians in Kosovo 47.3%
Albanians in Macedonia 39%
Albanians in Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania 39%
Greeks in Greece 31%
Italians in Sicily 27.3%
Peak or *roots of E-V13* seems to be current borders of Kosovo, west Macedonia, Albania, Greece (especially Peloponnese and south Greece with higher %)
However no ancient E-V13 is found yet at these areas except the one in Spain


_2:_ Then came the migrations at early 5,000 ybp with R1 across black sea through *Yamna

3:* Then looks like *J2* migrated the latest from middle east to Europe

----------


## noUseForAname

This is why i meant that more south is more ancient in current Europe, as far as we are talking about early Neolithic, and if we are talking about indigenous *natives of European DNA* (at least for Early Neolithic period), not taking into account current Russia


*Haplogroup*
*Possible time of origin*
*Possible place of origin*



I2
17,000 years ago
Balkans







I2b
13,000 years ago
Central Europe







I2a
11,000 years ago
Balkans












E1b1b-V13
8,500 years ago
Balkans


I2b1
9,000 years ago
Germany


I2a1
8,000 years ago
Sardinia


I2a2
2,500 years ago
Poland, Central Europe


E1b1b-M81
5,500 years ago
Maghreb


I1
5,000 years ago
Scandinavia


R1b-L21
4,000 years ago
Central or Eastern Europe


R1b-S28
3,500 years ago
around the Alps


R1b-S21
3,000 years ago
Frisia or Central Europe


I2b1a
< 3,000 years ago
Britain







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_h...an_populations

----------


## Fire Haired14

I've got almost all Ancient West Eurasian Y DNA right here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12G2cfjG0wHWarsl5bB99ridFmvUWzqlZfZ6_e_R6oIA/edit#gid=898544046

It's got the same pattern as mtDNA, see here.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HcAhe7QvggT792VruuoZX6IsTg4LhWXV-Z_ZfTk2KGA&authuser=0

Autosomal DNA says the same. There were 2 migration events that changed the genetics of Europe between 8,000-4,000 years ago. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but still it's neat to see how consistent mtDNA, Y DNA, and autosomal DNA are with each other. 

1. *Migration of Balkan/West Asian farmers*. Brand new mtDNA: R*(HV, JT, U3, U8a1a, U8b1a1, K) and N*(N1a1a, N1a1b(Not found in West Europe, only East), X, W). And Brand new Y DNA(G2a, T1a, H2, E1b-V13). The newcomers were made up of the same very ancient mtDNA haplogroups which are exclusive to western Eurasia today(split from what's in the East 45,000YO>, and makeup almost 100% of modern European and Middle Eastern mtDNA). They also carried relatives of the U clades which existed in the natives of Europe.  The new Y DNA they brought are also Western and believed to have originated in West Asia. 

Autosomal DNA says the farmer immigrants and modern West Asians descend mostly from the same ancient West Asian population. And that they were a mix of Basal Eurasian and something similar to the natives of Europe, which is consistent with mtDNA. Between 7,000-5,000 years ago they became about 25% native West European in most regions, but some were probably over 50%. In mtDNA and Y DNA we can during that time period native lineages rose in popularity. 

2.*Migration from Eastern Europe into the rest of Europe*: New mtDNA: U5a, U4, U2e, T1a, J1b, J2b, J2a1a, H2a, H6, H13a, N1a1b, and maybe more. New Y DNA: R1b-L23, R1a-M417.

Autosomally they introduced ancestry related to Mesolithic Russians and Upper Paleolithic Siberians, who both had Y DNA R. They also lowered West Asian affinities.

----------


## MOESAN

> Would this table had an explanation as the following below?
> 
> 1: Most of Early Neolithic (9,000 years) - were already populated and lived (majority) at the current modern populations (and locations) such as: Sardinian, Tuscan, Greek, Albanian, Bergamo, Spanish, South French, Basque, Bulgarian, Croatian. it looks like, more* south is more ancient*. Doesn't that explain that all the R1b or R1a expansion came much later to Europe?..then it would look like the R lineage came from central Asia above the baltic and through steppe as Maciamo noted (and not through Asia minor). and J2 migrated even much later towards Europe?
> 
> Then would anyone argue *which is the major Y Dna* in these south regions already within early Neolithic?
> 
> 2. There are 2 hypothesis for the *roots* of indoEuropean language (9,000 years): north of Black sea and *south west Anatolia*....recent study is pretty conclusive about the south west Anatolia. This might correlate with migrations and Cultures spreading from south west Anatolia to east forming *Mesopotamia* (5,000 years) and west possibly forming *Vinca* Culture (7,500 years)? 
> 
> I suppose after migration to Mesopotamia, at the same time another big migration went through Caucus above Black Sea and through the Steppe around 5,000 years ago (Maciamo noted 4,000 years ago) (probably majority of R1b and R1a)
> ...


I'm not sure it would be of too big interest but here I answer you and myself (in a former post I claimed southern elements in Steppes were come from every direction: west South and east, but it 's no more sure according to last works)
the Yamnaya people we have their DNA, in Samara, so maybe it's not truth for every steppic tribe, had not too much 'west-asian' component and in certain runs (poolings) their 'west-asian' is not accompagnied by 'mediterranean' nor by 'red-sea' nor any other south-Caucasus/Anatolian component - but they show a bit of 'south-asian' (what kind: ANI or ASI, ANI almost sure!) and in other runs they show a lot of 'gedrosia' with very few 'caucasus', coming to confirm their rather east caspian origin than Cucuteni western or ancient Armenian of whatever South Caucasus/Anatolian population - by the way, the most of their physcial features, variated, lack the 'danubian' gentle mediterranean' type of first West-Anatolia/Danube/Greece farmers - when qualified "southern", the types are more 'cappadocian' with a bit of 'cromagnoid' (the Catacomb types?), showing maybe and more northern types (Dnieper) and more eastern Caspian tendancies ('cappadocian' is a variety of 'indo-afghan' with less of the more robust ancient 'eurafrican-brünnoid'-'capelloid' tendancies - others types are other mixes where everytime the old elements ('cromagnoid', 'brünnoid' and 'even 'borrebylike' brachys' are present - I recall the most of the steppic people were of high stature between 1m69 and 1m74 as means (only higher: a serie of Harappa: 1m76) - 'proto-europoid', (discutable term, 'borrebylike') and eastern southerners were all of them of bigger stature than the most of Europeans of the time, proving the strong imput of steppic I-Eans in North Europe until today. Corded were tall, BBs were tall, even Globular Amphoras were neatly taller than Lengyel people, at first sight. 
I know that doesn't answer the question of first proto-I-Ean place because steppic tribes could have been later indo-europeanized population (maybe all the satem ones?) if we accept the Anatolian hypothesis I have some difficulty to adopt for now. 
the DNA we have, if the analysis are not contradicted in future, are not supporting a South-Caucasus hypothesis for Steppic people: the eastern DNA seems arriving there later than the period we can expect for a proto-I-Ean genesis: and Maykop people physically were very apart from the most of teppic people (I long to DNA from Maykop)

----------


## MOESAN

It's true Catacombes people showed more "southern" imput physically but their mt DNA if I red well showed contacts with more northeastern or eastern populations: so 2 solutions:
1- (preferred for now): came from Eastern North the Caspian - 2- from South Caucasus, but passed across it in a "short" journey fromSouth- East Caspian, without too much contacts with Anatolian/S-Caucasus/Near-Eastern predecessors. Grigoryev, a partizan of the Anatolian hypothesis, believes in a Neolithic diffusion of I-Eans in West, through Balkans, and South the Caspian, a proto-Aryan diffusion, all from the Kurdistan. I don't agree for now based on what we have at hand (profanes), but what could be interesting is that he thinks Catacombs people (based upon supposed placenames) were proto-Indo-ryan come through North the Caspian. Could explain some differences between Catacombes and certain Pit Grave people of Yamnaya or others horizons... I think DNA from more niverous Pit Grave subcultures or descendants could help more.
I recall Maykop and Armenia people seemed phoenotypically very apart from the different Pontic tribes according to Kozmintsev and contrary to Armenians scientists! But with the unprecise that Scientists could be sometimes on the matter, this does not exclude a participation of them in the genesis process; what would please me: what DNA and what phoenotypes had these first "Armenians", aside the eternal obscure plottings distances (and TOO: were they already I-Eans??? or Hurrians?): the several new types in Anatolia and South Caucasus, for i red, seem arrived lately, about the 2500 BC or not very earlier... perhaps my agenda dates are false?!?

----------


## MOESAN

I could have posted it in a lot of threads all of them turning around the same basic problem

a puzzling hypothesis more
*THE SINTASHTA CULTURE AND SOME QUESTIONS OF INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINS
S.A. GRIGORIEV*
only 3 pages but striking!

----------


## arvistro

> I could have posted it in a lot of threads all of them turning around the same basic problem
> 
> a puzzling hypothesis more
> *THE SINTASHTA CULTURE AND SOME QUESTIONS OF INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINS
> S.A. GRIGORIEV*
> only 3 pages but striking!


Interesting. If he added map with movement arrows and dates would be more easy to follow his theory.
According to him Corded was not ancestors of known IEs right?

----------


## Brennos

> *Culture*
> *Country*
> *YBP*
> *Hg*
> *Simple hg*
> *N*
> 
> Mesolithic_HG
> Luxembourg
> ...


I found on Ancestral Journeys this new: that R1b-M415 from Els Trocs is now positive for V88 equivalent SNP PF6279.

See: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/eur...ithicdna.shtml

----------


## Angela

> I found on Ancestral Journeys this new: that R1b-M415 from Els Trocs is now positive for V88 equivalent SNP PF6279.
> 
> See: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/eur...ithicdna.shtml


So, no connection with modern western European R1b then.

It would seem then that V88 was in a geographic position to hitch a ride on the Neolithic Express.

----------


## MOESAN

*
Y Chromosome Haplogroup R1b-V88 - Academia.edu* 
www.academia.edu/.../*Y*_Chromosome_Haplogroup_...

above, to google... interesting and not too surprising at the light of the Els Trocs DNA

----------


## MOESAN

Eurogenes seems having found something of importance about Y-R1a and Y-R1b diffusion in Northern Europe, more or less, rather more, linked to Steppes
in Sweden, and in Denmark, it seems the Battle Axes people cited by Allentoft show neatly different positions in autosomals the ones from the others when compared to modern populations:
Y-R1b among aDNA Northenr Europe, Y-R1a among East Russia/Mordvins!

----------


## MOESAN

_​Just a point, but not a detail: the today majority of Y-I in Scandinavia is Y-I1, not Y-I2, even if at Mesolithic it seems I2 was there and not I1..._

----------


## MOESAN

> Interesting. If he added map with movement arrows and dates would be more easy to follow his theory.
> According to him Corded was not ancestors of known IEs right?


I agree: he links Corded to a mix of first I-Ean wave into Europe (from where? West Anatolia, during late Neolithic?) with former neolitihic non-I-Ean people. Doesn't seem linking them to later Germanic or Baltic-Slavic people; he sees these last ones coming into Europe after a concretion of Fedorovo (what precise culture? again an South-East-Caspian-Sumbar-Culture, for him) with other cultures already I-Ean(?), from Irtych river to Kama-Volga region.
I avow his demonstration has something of straight-away-short-cut and he seems forgetting that some artefacts and even mortuary habits can been passed after long contacts between two foreign cultures. I'm sure a southern human element, culturally linked to the most advanced cultures concerning agriculture, architecture and metals, took part, demically and culturally, in the I-Ean steppic cultures. But I 've some difficulty to admit so easily that some obscure tribes of the mountainous regions of North Mesopatamia, could have created their own language, so different from any other family of languages there AND already broken off into different enough dialects spite their proximity, and expand towards every directions except South, and colonize a so vaste territory, showing here some huge might and skill and demography but without staying the master in its cradle; and no mention of a possible PIE language in Near-East (cradle!) until the rising of Hittites which seem a handful of warlike rulers rather than autochtonous people... Grigoryev in this digest doesn't speak of Hittites, nor of satemization. the only interesting cultures in the genesis of an Anatolian-South-Caucasus cradle are of people we know they didn't speak I-Ean of any sort.
Bt who knows, at this stage? I 'll read again abstracts of Allentoft survey about Sintashta (Indo-iranian too, as Catacomb, for Grigoryev)
&; what is interesting is the statement of maintain of different sepultures modes in some cultures, showing the possibility of incomplete and social classes biased osmosis. It was the case in central Europe too at Bronze Age.

----------


## Fluffy

[QUOTE=Sile;457633]in summary , the paper states that there was one set of haplogroups in central Europe prior to 4500BC and then another different set came in....the older set comprises of I2 , G2 and T1, C and others from what I recall .............corded ware was the others .............R1 came in the younger set of migrations

*Culture*
*Country*
*YBP*
*Hg*
*Simple hg*
*N

*

Mesolithic_HG
Luxembourg
8'000




Surprised to find Haplogroup T in there. Thought they would of come later. C was expected, as were G2 and I2.

----------


## MOESAN

*Metric affinities and differences among bronze Age Steppes populations, according to Kazarnitzky*_: to compare with autosomes and linguistic/culture results:_ 
_The Neolithic people of Dnieper region (and others) were a bit heterogenous but not too much: they showed some affinities to -a) the Mesolithic people of the region –b) the Pit Grave people of Kalmykia/Astrakhan region, N-W the Caspian sea. People of Kalmykia/Astrakhan showed big affinities to these "Neolithic" people but very less with their neighbors of Maykop. Compared to others, Maykop and Armenians people were a bit marginal, and at the opposite side compared to Neolithic people. Curiously the Mesolithic people were not as far from Maykop-Armenians as Neolithic ones were… The other Pit Grave (Yamnaya) people had all a middle in position between all other groups. Curiously too they were closer to Maykop/Armenia than the Kalmykia/Astrakhan people, and closer to Mesolithic than to Neolithic Dnieper. As a whole the other Pit Grave are between Maykop/Armenians and Mesolithic people, not too much shifted towards Neolithic Dnieper people._
_Some cases: people Sredny Stog closest to Maykop/Armenians._
_Khvalynsk I was very close to Sredny Stog, showing same affinities, and Pit Grave Kherson (near Crimea) is close too.._
_At the contrary, Khvalynsk II is far, among Mesolithic people variations, and merging wit the Neolithic people the most shifted towards Mesolithic._
*What can we deduce from these “distances”?*
_The people of the oldest post-Neolithic cultures are the closest to or less far from Maykop/Armenians people. The subsequent Yamnaya people showed more Northern and Eastern influences of ancient pre-Neolithic populations; WHG (EHG?) and (less) ANE possible aDNA , except Kherson : … the settlements of N-W Caspian showed more affinities with Neolithicized ancient populations, but not so much with Mesolithic ones nor southern Chalcolithic, so some of the “Neolithic” population (regrouping in fact Ukrainian, N. Russian and Latvian ones) got down to South and had an imput upon the N-W Caspian Pit Grave people: maybe the signature of previous Cucuteni-Tripolye first imput upon northern Mesolithic people, with subsequent demic inversion of preponderances farmers/gatherers. By the way, I doubt more and more that all so called “Neolithic” mt DNA would be come from South… we have to wait for more mt-DNA and subclades from ancient Anatolia S-Caucasus to be sure.
I notice Mesolithic people were not all of the very same stock, and at Neolithic times, there has been a change not due only to southern people, far from that.
the cultural major impulse at Chalcolithic came from South before being passed to Steppes populations of different kinds.what does not exclude later reversed moves. that said, language and artefacts do not run always in the same direction so...
_

----------


## MOESAN

in my post #534 I took the name of Kozmintsev out of my hat! Some obtured synapse in my brain! it was Karnitzky! Sorry

----------


## arvistro

> in my post #534 I took the name of Kozmintsev out of my hat! Some obtured synapse in my brain! it was Karnitzky! Sorry


Can you give a link to the source?
It is just our English is very different :) Latvian English has one structure and French English another, and it is difficult for me to follow you :)

----------


## Sile

[QUOTE=Fluffy;461855]


> in summary , the paper states that there was one set of haplogroups in central Europe prior to 4500BC and then another different set came in....the older set comprises of I2 , G2 and T1, C and others from what I recall .............corded ware was the others .............R1 came in the younger set of migrations
> 
> *Culture*
> *Country*
> *YBP*
> *Hg*
> *Simple hg*
> *N
> 
> ...


I do not know why you think T should come later, the latest ages of origins are noted as

LT = 44500

L = 42500
T = 42500

and I is 42800 ....................so I is only 300 years earlier ( in forming )than T

----------


## MOESAN

> Can you give a link to the source?
> It is just our English is very different :) Latvian English has one structure and French English another, and it is difficult for me to follow you :)


_
it's not french english but MY personal bad english!!! (too long sentances?)_

ACADEMIA EDU
Alexey Kazarnitsky (sorry for my error):i*On the bilogical distinctness of Pit Grave (Yamnaya) in the North-West Caspian - cranial evidence -
*_if you have not the same analysis as me, let me know - it could be interetsing - good reading!_*
*

----------


## MOESAN

By the way, in Eurogenes I red an abstract (maybe based upon kazarnitsky's works) where it was said Maikop culture people were not so homogenous (in the study I mentioned above they were grouped in an unic spot). some of them showed some crossings with more robust populations typical of previous Steppes populations...

----------


## LeBrok

> By the way, in Eurogenes I red an abstract (maybe based upon kazarnitsky's works) where it was said Maikop culture people were not so homogenous (in the study I mentioned above they were grouped in an unic spot). some of them showed some crossings with more robust populations typical of previous Steppes populations...


Interesting. In this case we better get few samples of Mykop, from few communities.

----------


## MOESAN

> I could have posted it in a lot of threads all of them turning around the same basic problem
> 
> a puzzling hypothesis more
> *THE SINTASHTA CULTURE AND SOME QUESTIONS OF INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINS
> S.A. GRIGORIEV*
> only 3 pages but striking!


I answer myself
classical anthropologist Komintsev criticized Grigoryev's work - he estimates based upon crania and post-crania metrics that Sintashta people had more in common with Western and Central Europeans what was a bit icinoclastic at first sight - it is funny seeing this Konitsev was right when we read the aDNA paper of Allentoft's team... at least that Corded have something to do with Sintashta...

----------


## LeBrok

> I answer myself
> classical anthropologist Komintsev criticized Grigoryev's work - he estimates based upon crania and post-crania metrics that Sintashta people had more in common with Western and Central Europeans what was a bit icinoclastic at first sight - it is funny seeing this Konitsev was right when we read the aDNA paper of Allentoft's team... at least that Corded have something to do with Sintashta...


Good science is always confirmed and lasts.

----------


## Tomenable

> for example Herodotus:
> 
> "The Budini for their part, being a large and numerous nation, are all mightily blue-eyed and ruddy."
> 
> Or for arabic source Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, just to prove not every nations or peoples think themselves like perfect or the best:
> 
> "I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Itil. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blond and ruddy; "
> 
> We can say what we want, but in general peoples in other countries find Europeans extremely atractives.


Not all of them.

Early Medieval (9th century) Muslim author Al-Gahiz did not find Northern European pigmentation attractive - he wrote:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...h-centuries%29

*"(...) Tell me friend, after how many generations a Zang [Sub-Saharan African] became black, and a Slav became white? (...) Among Slavic people, abominable and ugly are smoothness and delicateness of their hair [as opposed to curly and thick hair], as well as blond or ruddy colour of their hair and beards, and also their whiteness (...)"*

As for Ahmad Ibn-Fadlan, above you quoted only the part where he admired how athletic / sporty were the Rusiyyah.

But - apart from admitting that they were athletic / sporty - Ibn-Fadlan did not really find them "sexy", as the next part of his account shows.

Below is another excerpt from "Journey of Ahmad Ibn-Fadlan to the Itil River and Adoption of Islam in Bulgaria". This book describes the journey of Ahmad Ibn-Fadlan, Chief of the Embassy of the Baghdad Caliph Al-Muktadir to the Volga River, to the realm of Volga Bulgars (now in central Russia), in years 921-922 CE, in regard to their adoption of Islam. This excerpt describes hygiene of people whom Ibn-Fadlan calls the Rusiyyah: 

*"(...) The Rusiyyah are the filthiest of Allah's creatures: t**hey do not purify themselves after excreting or urinating, nor do they wash themselves when in a state of impurity after coitus and do not even wash their hands after food. Indeed they are like wild asses that roam in the fields. They arrive from their land and moor their boats by the Itil, which is a great river, building on its banks large wooden houses. They gather in each house in their tens and twenties, sometimes more, or less. Each of them has a couch on which he sits. They are accompanied by beautiful slave girls for trading. One man will have intercourse with his slave-girl while his companions look on. Sometimes a group of them comes together to do this, each in front of the other. Sometimes indeed a merchant will come in to buy a slave-girl from one of them and he will chance upon him having intercourse with her, but a Rus will not leave her alone until he has satisfied his urge. They cannot, of course, avoid washing their faces and their heads each day, which they do with the filthiest and most polluted water imaginable. I shall explain. Every day a slave-girl arrives in the morning with a large basin with water, which she hands to her owner. He washes his hands, then his face and his hair in the water, then he dips his comb in the water and brushes his hair, blows his nose and spits in the basin. There is no filthy impurity which he will not do in this water. When he no longer requires it, the slave-girl takes the basin to the man beside him and he goes through the same routine as his friend. She continues to carry it from one man to the next until she has gone round everyone in the house, with each of them blowing his nose and spitting into the basin, then washing his face and hair in the basin. (...)"
*
So I really do not think that Ibn-Fadlan considered the Rusiyyah as more perfect than the Arabs (i.e. his own nation)... 

=============================

And the next part of Ibn-Fadlan's account about the Rusiyyah (just for the sake of it):
*
"(...) As soon as their boats arrive at this port [the city of Bulgar], each of them disembarks (...) and prostrates himself before a great idol, saying to it: 'Oh my lord, I have come from a far country and I have with me such and such a number of young beautiful slave girls, and such and such a number of sable skins (...) I would like you to do the favour of sending me a merchant who has large quantities of dinars and dirhams and who will buy everything that I want and not argue with me over my price. (...)"*

----------


## Tomenable

> I answer myself
> classical anthropologist Komintsev criticized Grigoryev's work - he estimates based upon crania and post-crania metrics that Sintashta people had more in common with Western and Central Europeans what was a bit icinoclastic at first sight - it is funny seeing this Konitsev was right when we read the aDNA paper of Allentoft's team... at least that Corded have something to do with Sintashta...


Sintashta people do not cluster autosomally with Western Europe, but with North-Eastern Europe.

Check this autosomal comparison from Davidski's blog:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/0...oft-et-al.html

I've added some descriptions so it is more transparent:

http://oi61.tinypic.com/33bflzn.jpg

----------


## Tomenable

*MOESAN,*

Comparing DNA is more reliable than comparing crania metrics.

This study illustrates how misleading physical racial anthropology can sometimes be:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get...FULLTEXT01.pdf

Check pages 39 - 41 of the link above. When anthropologists under Sholts examined bones and skulls of crew members of Swedish ship "Kronan" (which sank in June 1676 in the Baltic Sea), they concluded based on skull shapes, that among crew members there were: a Chinese, an Egyptian, and a native Patagonian. Yet DNA shows, that those presumed Chinese, Egyptian and Patagonian, were in fact all Europeans.

Presumed Native American (A. - "Patagonian skull") and presumed Asian (B. - "Chinese skull") genetically cluster with Europe:

http://oi59.tinypic.com/jr8y2r.jpg



This is similar to the story of Kennewick Man, who was claimed to be Ainu, Polynesian, European, or anything but Native American, based on his skull. Skull shape may be quite unreliable in determining "racial" affinities of individuals, due to *"too large within-population craniometric variation"*:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14625.html




> (...) It has been asserted that “…cranial morphology provides as much insight into population structure and affinity as genetic data”2. However, although recent and previous craniometric analyses have consistently concluded that Kennewick Man is unlike modern Native Americans, they disagree regarding his closest population affinities, the cause of the apparent differences between Kennewick Man and modern Native Americans, and whether the differences are historically important (for example, represent an earlier, separate migration to the Americas), or simply represent intra-population variation2, 3, 7, 10, 26, 27, 28. These inconsistencies are probably owing to the difficulties in assigning a single individual when comparing to population-mean data, without explicitly taking into account within-population variation. Reanalysis of W. W. Howells’ worldwide modern human craniometric data set29 (Supplementary Information 9) shows that biological population affinities of individual specimens cannot be resolved with any statistical certainty. While our individual-based craniometric analyses confirm that Kennewick Man tends to be more similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples than to Native Americans, Kennewick Man’s pattern of craniometric affinity falls well within the range of affinity patterns evaluated for individual Native Americans (Supplementary Information 9). For example, the Arikara from North Dakota (the Native American tribe representing the geographically closest population in Howells’ data set to Kennewick), exhibit with high frequency closest affinities with Polynesians (Supplementary Information 9). Yet, the Arikara have typical Native-American mitochondrial DNA haplogroups30, as does Kennewick Man. We conclude that the currently available number of independent phenetic markers is too small, and within-population craniometric variation too large, to permit reliable reconstruction of the biological population affinities of Kennewick Man. In contrast, block bootstrap results from the autosomal DNA data are highly statistically significant (Extended Data Fig. 3), showing stronger association of the Kennewick man with Native Americans than with any other continental group. (...)


In other words there is greater variation between individuals from the same population, than between distinct populations:

*"Reanalysis of W. W. Howells’ worldwide modern human craniometric data set29 (Supplementary Information 9) shows that biological population affinities of individual specimens cannot be resolved with any statistical certainty."*

----------


## Alan

> Sintashta people do not cluster autosomally with Western Europe, but with North-Eastern Europe.
> 
> Check this autosomal comparison from Davidski's blog:


Coincidence, different admixture propotions putting them in the same place. Andronovo is like Central-North Europeans +Tajiks. Since "technically" Northeast Euros are in between North Euros and North_Caucasians and Tajiks, they are close on pca plots. With other words Northeast Euros and Sintashta/Andronovo are related and very close based on fst distance but it's different autosomal DNA creating similar results. Related but not of the same stock.


Same case with Yamna based on fst Distance they cluster close with Mordovians/Lezgians/Russians but based on their autosomal signature they are more like a mixture of Northwest Euros and Georgians/Tajiks(minus the East Eurasian).

----------


## Tomenable

> Related but not of the same stock.


Not of the same stock? Definitely of the same ancestral stock, when it comes to paternal lineages.

Both groups actually are largely of the same Y chromosomal stock, namely descended from R1a-Z645 subclade.

Currently YFull estimates TMRCA of Z645 as having taken place around year 2900 BC, give or take few centuries:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/

Sintashta sample RISE386 (dated 2298-1760 BC) belonged to its subclade, R1a-Z2124 (YFull estimate: 2700 BC):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2124/

Sintashta sample RISE392 (dated 2126-1611 BC) belonged to its subclade, R1a-Z2123 (YFull estimate: 1800 BC):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2123/

Those people lived relatively short time after TMRCAs of their respective subclades occured, if we believe YFull.

----------


## Alan

> Not of the same stock? Definitely of the same ancestral stock, when it comes to paternal lineages.
> 
> Both groups actually are largely of the same Y chromosomal stock, namely descended from R1a-Z645 subclade.
> 
> Currently YFull estimates TMRCA of Z645 as having taken place around year 2900 BC, give or take few centuries:
> 
> http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/
> 
> Sintashta sample RISE386 (dated 2298-1760 BC) belonged to its subclade, R1a-Z2124 (YFull estimate: 2700 BC):
> ...



modern distribution of yDNA is not necessary a good indiciation for autosomal DNA but even than. R1a predominantly z93 (includes z2124/3) vs predominantly z283. There are thousands of years in between.

But as I said this is yDNA it only shows that both groups derived from a proto ancestor but this could and was probably thousand years before Sintashta and proto Northeast Europeans formed. This why Sintashta and Northeast Europeans very similar but still different stock. In German there are two ways to describe something what is equal and something what is the same.

"Das Gleiche" =/= "Das Selbe"


I have seen both SIntashta and Andronovo autosomal results, multiple populations oracle and single population results. North Europeans such as Norwegians always come on top before every other populations.

----------


## Tomenable

> R1a predominantly z93 (includes z2124/3) vs predominantly z283. There are thousands of years in between.


What are you talking about? What "thousands of years"? Common ancestor of both R1a Z93 and R1a Z283, was of course R1a Z645 - and according to YFull, TMRCA of Z645 was ca. 4900 years ago, Z283 formed ca. 4900 years ago, and Z93 formed also ca. 4900 years ago. It doesn't necessarily mean, that first Z93 and first Z283 were brothers, but definitely there were not many generations between them, and they both formed from their common ancestral Z645 population *around the same time*:

There were likely not even hundreds of years in between. There were just "years", maybe "dozens of years" in between:

http://s14.postimg.org/zf7z4qq0h/Z645.png






> I have seen both SIntashta and Andronovo autosomal results, multiple populations oracle and single population results. North Europeans such as Norwegians always come on top before every other populations.



Lithuanians and other North-Eastern Europeans come on top before Norwegians.

Pashtuns descend to a large extent (ca. 40-50%) from Sintashta, and they also score 66% Lithuanian-like in ADLER - quotes:

Pashtun autosomal DNA can be modelled as 43% Sintashta, their Y-DNA is even more Sintashta (perhaps mtDNA is less so):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...ll=1#post93179




> Also, the IBD links [of ancient Sintashta people and modern Pashtuns] are pretty strong, despite the fact that the samples aren't of ideal quality for IBD analysis, and despite the fact that it is very hard to detect IBD over the time scale which currently concerns us. I don't know where this notion stems from.
> 
> In addition, Sintashta have the right R1a1a subclades. We can be 100% certain that 50%-70% of Pashtun males are direct descendants of Sintashta and/or it's descendant/related steppe cultures. Even the mtDNA shows links. Taking this into consideration, it is of no real surprise that Pashtuns are predominantly steppe-derived in terms of genome-wide ancestry.





> 3) The Pashtun-Sintashta fits are always the best fits produced by this software, probably because Sintashta are directly ancestral to Pashtuns and company (a fact borne out by the presence of R1a1a lineages in Sintashta which are the exact same lineages found in anywhere from around 50% to 70% of Pashtun males. Also, Sintashta and Andronovo in Allentoft et al. have a hefty share of mtDNA U2 lineages, which constitute the largest share of the modern Pashtun mtDNA gene pool). If they were a broad proxy for general steppe admixture, the fits would be great, but not as amazingly excellent as they are now.


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...ll=1#post93441




> I have used an input ancestral population with similar admixture as modern Armenians. This change from above results in repositioning of Population X. Under this scenario, Pashtuns can be modeled as 43% Sintashta + 38% BA [Bronze Age] population similar in admix to modern Armenians + 19% Pop X, with Pop X's position being shifted from above.


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...ll=1#post93179




> Edit: Everest once used ALDER (another piece in the ADMIXTOOLS package) on the HGDP Pashtuns. With Lithuanians, he got Pashtuns to be 66% Lithuanian-admixed. That is quite close to the Sintashta percentages. Here is what he wrote to me:
> 
> "Interesting. Alder can calculate admixture % using just 1 reference samples. I tried computer admixture % for Pashtuns using Georgians, Sindhis and then Lithuanians. The admixture using Lithuanian was a whopping 66%."



Also check for example the Dodecad Ancestry Project - Lithuanians are much more North_European than Norwegians:

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/...lculators.html

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...s9M/edit#gid=0

North_European admixture in Dodecad K12b (Lithuanians and Finns have the highest scores out of populations included):

Lithuanians - 77,1%
Finnish people - 75,5%
Lithuanians (another sample) - 73,7%
Finns (another sample) - 73,5%
(...)
Poles - 63,3%
(...)
Swedes - 56,8%
Norwegians - 54,7%
(...)
Orcadians - 46,4%
(...)
French people - 36,9%
French (another sample) - 36,5%
(...)
Spanish people - 23%
Spaniards (another sample) - 22,7%

New study on British DNA also has Finns much more northern than Norwegians (PC1 shows north-south patterns). ED Figure 3 from this study confirms the pattern shown by Dodecad K12b (from north to south: Finns, Norwegians, Orcadians, French, Spanish):

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...22723.full.pdf

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...1/022723-1.pdf

----------


## Tomenable

> Lithuanians and other North-Eastern Europeans come on top before Norwegians.


^ This also applies to Yamnaya, not only to Sintashta:*

Kit M020637 (Yamnaya_Sok_River individual I0443):*

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5774979/1/

*Dodecad K12b Oracle:*

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Mordovians (Yunusbayev) 23.89
2 Russian (HGDP) 25.52
3 Russian (Dodecad) 26.42
4 Mixed_Slav (Dodecad) 28.08
5 Russian_B (Behar) 28.23
6 FIN30 (1000Genomes) 28.49
7 Belorussian (Behar) 29.25
8 Ukranians (Yunusbayev) 29.42
9 Finnish (Dodecad) 29.52
10 Lithuanian (Dodecad) 29.59
11 Polish (Dodecad) 29.74
12 Chuvashs (Behar) 29.98
13 Lithuanians (Behar) 30.6
14 Swedish (Dodecad) 31.29
15 Hungarians (Behar) 33.49
16 Norwegian (Dodecad) 33.71
17 German (Dodecad) 34.02
18 Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) 37.46
19 Dutch (Dodecad) 37.68
20 Argyll (1000Genomes) 38.36

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 70.6% Lithuanians (Behar) + 29.4% Brahui (HGDP) @ 11.63
2 71.6% Finnish (Dodecad) + 28.4% Brahui (HGDP) @ 12.05
3 69.6% Lithuanians (Behar) + 30.4% Balochi (HGDP) @ 12.38
4 70.5% Finnish (Dodecad) + 29.5% Balochi (HGDP) @ 12.38
5 72.7% FIN30 (1000Genomes) + 27.3% Brahui (HGDP) @ 12.75
6 71.7% FIN30 (1000Genomes) + 28.3% Balochi (HGDP) @ 13.07
7 70.6% Finnish (Dodecad) + 29.4% Makrani (HGDP) @ 13.1
8 69.7% Lithuanians (Behar) + 30.3% Makrani (HGDP) @ 13.2
9 72% Lithuanian (Dodecad) + 28% Brahui (HGDP) @ 13.39
10 71.8% FIN30 (1000Genomes) + 28.2% Makrani (HGDP) @ 13.73
11 71.1% Lithuanian (Dodecad) + 28.9% Balochi (HGDP) @ 14.18
12 71.2% Lithuanian (Dodecad) + 28.8% Makrani (HGDP) @ 14.97
13 78.6% Mordovians (Yunusbayev) + 21.4% Brahui (HGDP) @ 15.38
14 76.8% Russian (HGDP) + 23.2% Brahui (HGDP) @ 15.44
15 66.7% Finnish (Dodecad) + 33.3% Pathan (HGDP) @ 15.61
16 68% FIN30 (1000Genomes) + 32% Pathan (HGDP) @ 16.07
17 76.2% Russian (HGDP) + 23.8% Balochi (HGDP) @ 16.1
18 78.2% Mordovians (Yunusbayev) + 21.8% Balochi (HGDP) @ 16.12
19 71% Finnish (Dodecad) + 29% Sindhi (HGDP) @ 16.16
20 65.8% Lithuanians (Behar) + 34.2% Pathan (HGDP) @ 16.18

*Dodecad K12b 4-Ancestors Oracle:*

Using 1 population approximation:

1 Mordovians @ 26.117958
2 Russian @ 27.766514
3 Russian @ 28.903084
4 Mixed_Slav @ 30.708838
5 Russian_B @ 30.943394
6 FIN30 @ 30.961552
7 Chuvashs @ 30.993589
8 Belorussian @ 31.977346
9 Finnish @ 32.122631
10 Ukranians @ 32.236179
11 Lithuanian @ 32.296879
12 Polish @ 32.407936
13 Lithuanians @ 33.380260
14 Swedish @ 33.754078
15 Norwegian @ 36.340675
16 Hungarians @ 36.471939
17 German @ 36.782593
18 Mixed_Germanic @ 40.382317
19 Dutch @ 40.600632
20 Argyll @ 41.286118

Using 2 populations approximation:

1 50% Finnish +50% Tajiks @ 20.027649

Using 3 populations approximation:

1 50% Finnish +25% Lithuanians +25% Makrani @ 14.506863

Using 4 populations approximation:

1 Brahui + Finnish + Lithuanians + Lithuanians @ 12.911041
2 Brahui + Finnish + Finnish + Lithuanians @ 12.946719
3 Brahui + FIN30 + Lithuanians + Lithuanians @ 12.991430
4 Brahui + FIN30 + Finnish + Lithuanians @ 13.056005
5 Brahui + FIN30 + FIN30 + Lithuanians @ 13.190562
6 Brahui + Finnish + Lithuanians + Mordovians @ 13.302384
7 Brahui + Finnish + Lithuanian + Lithuanians @ 13.320297
8 Brahui + Finnish + Finnish + Lithuanian @ 13.321767
9 Brahui + Lithuanians + Lithuanians + Lithuanians @ 13.329762
10 Brahui + FIN30 + Lithuanian + Lithuanians @ 13.431521
11 Brahui + Finnish + Finnish + Finnish @ 13.435610
12 Brahui + FIN30 + Finnish + Lithuanian @ 13.461216
13 Brahui + Finnish + Finnish + Mordovians @ 13.499441
14 Brahui + FIN30 + Lithuanians + Mordovians @ 13.523365
15 Brahui + Lithuanians + Lithuanians + Mordovians @ 13.550054
16 Brahui + Finnish + Lithuanians + Russian @ 13.567525
17 Brahui + FIN30 + Finnish + Finnish @ 13.568962
18 Brahui + FIN30 + FIN30 + Lithuanian @ 13.624578
19 Brahui + Finnish + Lithuanians + Russian @ 13.675117
20 Brahui + Lithuanians + Lithuanians + Russian @ 13.679604

----------


## Tomenable

^ Back to the issue of "northernness" discussed above:

That North-Eastern Europeans score more North_European in Dodecad, than do North-Western Europeans (including Scandinavians), is correct. This is confirmed by fact, that North-Eastern Europeans score more WHG and more ANE, but less ENF, than North-Western Europeans. As you can see North-Eastern Europeans are shifted to the east (towards ANE) and also to the north (towards WHG), compared to North-Western Europeans, while North-Western Europeans are shifted more to the south (towards ENF):

Iranian-speakers are shifted east towards ANE, and also a bit north towards WHG, compared to Non-IE Near Easterners:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o...BFS21FREE/view

----------


## MOESAN

> Sintashta people do not cluster autosomally with Western Europe, but with North-Eastern Europe.
> 
> Check this autosomal comparison from Davidski's blog:
> 
> http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/0...oft-et-al.html
> 
> 
> I've added some descriptions so it is more transparent:
> 
> http://oi61.tinypic.com/33bflzn.jpg


_Tomenable, I was not expressing myself but the Kozintsev words: I was not precise enough in namings: I agree (I've seen these surveys) Sintashta is closer to Corded than to today Western Europe - But as a whole Kozintsev was right, against every evidence from archeology (see Grigoryev). I believe he thought Northern and NorthCentral Europeans (= Western EurASIA) of the Metals ages, what is not too wrong; Sintashta is drifted towards West compared to Yamanya and towards North compared to Caucasus Central Asia... That said it does not prove Sintashta came from North Europe, but only that it could share a close common source with Corded.
That said I appreciate your good illustrated/documented posts
_

----------


## MOESAN

> Coincidence, different admixture propotions putting them in the same place. Andronovo is like Central-North Europeans +Tajiks. Since "technically" Northeast Euros are in between North Euros and North_Caucasians and Tajiks, they are close on pca plots. With other words Northeast Euros and Sintashta/Andronovo are related and very close based on fst distance but it's different autosomal DNA creating similar results. Related but not of the same stock.
> 
> 
> Same case with Yamna based on fst Distance they cluster close with Mordovians/Lezgians/Russians but based on their autosomal signature they are more like a mixture of Northwest Euros and Georgians/Tajiks(minus the East Eurasian).


Sorry but for me your "coïncidences" are NOT "coïncidences"; your "mixture of Northwest Euros/Georgians or Tadjiks" is an artifice of calculation, I think (I'm not sure, but these couplings of reference populations to produce a mean close to the studied population are artifices and can be replaced by other arbitray couplings)
Even that said, the coïncidences are for a big part justified by common ancestors in farther past in eveyr kind of analysis system. It seems to me autosomals, in these ways of analysis, are not sufficient by themselves to prove the time depth of common ancestry and chronology of crossings so to prove historic facts. But the combination or physical traits and autosomes and haplogroups can help to prove something... we are all blind people trying to find the door opening on daylight... (poetic!)

----------


## MOESAN

Tomenable,

I've the impression you are taking me for a child discovering old books of old physical anthropology, without any distance with them (humor); some points:
- there are bad anthropologists and good anthropologists
- there are sometimes agendas and modes in the universities
- measurings cannot exclude shapes observations
- I think since a long time changes/differences of morphology within or between close populations (close by geography and time) had some sense when I have more doubts about ressemblances in far separate populations (what does not signify some ressemblances are everytime due to hazard; the first reason for this thought of mine is the ancient links we have all of us one to the other;
- mesologic causes have some imput upon morphology: detailed shapes observations here are more useful than raw measures
- morphology has to be studied and individually and statistically; when two populations show metrically and typologically big statistical ressemblances we are almost sure there is some proximity in past, it is not as studying a few individuals and doing bets
- concerning Amerindians, the unique common origin begins to be questioned, if I red well some abstyracts
- without willing be to unpleasant I had more than a time the impression that American criterias for morphology were a bit simplistic and quickconcluding; maybe I am wrong?
- I consider morphology as a worthful tool when associated to other analysis tools, and used with caution; classical anthropology is not my Bible but a center of interest as an amateur of drawing!
- I think it is stupid not use what classical anthropology can give us, at the level it can do it!

autosomals analysis have their own problems of classification!

no opposition against you, as you know from my precedent posts.

----------


## MOESAN

I saw today a post of EUROGENES with comparisons between ancient Armenians and current Armenians: it seems confirming mt thought about the mixed nature of ancient Armenians, taken by someones as possible ancestors of Steppes tribes.
I don't give any link because it's very easy to go on Eurogenes: if we can rely on these comparisons of auDNA, we can state:
- today Armenians of diverse places are rather close to today Turcs of Anatolia;
- the Iron Age Armenian clusters with today Georgians and Abkhazians;
- the same for Late Bronze Age Armenians;
- the Middle Bronze Age Armenians (so the first ones) are close to today Lezgins and Chechens, North Cuacasus people, even a bit shift towards far Steppic people of Afanasyevo, Sintashta, Yamnaya and also today Kalashs;
so I'm tempted to suppose Bronze Age Armenians were rather "steppicized" Armenians and that Steppic people owes very little to South-Caucasus Armenians ot their time.
The fact that later BA Armenians were closer to todat Armenians could confirm the dilution of steppic "blood" with time and reverse the direction of genetic imputs?
said like that, at first thought... maybe someone could explain it otherwise?

----------


## bicicleur

> Sintashta people do not cluster autosomally with Western Europe, but with North-Eastern Europe.
> 
> Check this autosomal comparison from Davidski's blog:
> 
> http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/0...oft-et-al.html
> 
> I've added some descriptions so it is more transparent:
> 
> http://oi61.tinypic.com/33bflzn.jpg


can this be explained simply because both north-east Europe and Sintashta are R1a
or is there more to it?

----------


## arvistro

Interesting hole in the middle of this PCA graph.

----------


## LeBrok

> Interesting hole in the middle of this PCA graph.


Because the continents are not very well connected for vast movements, and this one is more general but there are connections:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...765#post450765

----------


## MOESAN

> Interesting hole in the middle of this PCA graph.


_I agree. There is a lacko of "bridge" populations between Armenians, S-Caucasians an LN Early BA Steppes populations, and of course with N-E Europe...
The Y-R1a link between Corded, Sintashta and Andronovo seems very possible (but it deserves being backed by phylogeny. 
concerning the "cousin" Y-R1b, Yamnaya cannot be the link between a supposed cradle and W-Europe; but the lack of auDNA link with ancient Armenians seems at first sight exclude an important South >> North move through Caucasus; so the Y-R-L23 people could have turned North the Caspian, coming from East or South-East? the auDNA of ANCIENT Western Y-R1b elites seems showing an East >> West trail in Europe, so after crossing Steppic lands, not by force after a Caucasus tour... the L23 of Southern Europe could be a males populations stayed long enough in a small number when their more northern brothers were more numerous? maybe a very different story??? uneasy to answer, so dense the W>>E / E>>W movements had been in History! 
_

----------


## Rethel

> What are you talking about? What "thousands of years"? Common ancestor of both R1a Z93 and R1a Z283, was of course R1a Z645 - and according to YFull, TMRCA of Z645 was ca. 4900 years ago, Z283 formed ca. 4900 years ago, and Z93 formed also ca. 4900 years ago. It doesn't necessarily mean, that first Z93 and first Z283 were brothers, but definitely there were not many generations between them, and they both formed from their common ancestral Z645 population *around the same time*:


This shows very clearly, that is no need for tens of thousands of
years between subhaplotypes as some people trying to convince.

----------


## Tone

> Interesting hole in the middle of this PCA graph.


I believe the "hole" is geographic. The Black Sea, Caucus Mountains, Caspian Sea, Karakum Desert, and Altai Mountains form a roughly continuous barrier between the Iranian/Kurdish peoples and the peoples of Europe. There is definitely gene flow but the population centers remain largely separate.

For example, the Yamnaya, as a blend of a Caucus population and EHG, seem to be in the right spot on the chart.

----------


## MOESAN

> I believe the "hole" is geographic. The Black Sea, Caucus Mountains, Caspian Sea, Karakum Desert, and Altai Mountains form a roughly continuous barrier between the Iranian/Kurdish peoples and the peoples of Europe. There is definitely gene flow but the population centers remain largely separate.
> 
> For example, the Yamnaya, as a blend of a Caucus population and EHG, seem to be in the right spot on the chart.


_OK a s a whole even if the (imperfect) mapping of genetical distances is not a geographic map - 
you say EHG and Caucasus, not Armenians: I agree!
concerning the "hole", geography does not explain anything here; look at Sintashta among N-E-Europeans! Even Andronovo, not so far, genetically closer than geographically closer Yamnaya! there is not geographic barrier for Man - how had I-Ean languages travelled? through phone? (LOL)
_

----------


## Tone

> _there is not geographic barrier for Man - how had I-Ean languages travelled? through phone? (LOL)
> _


Lately every time I post on a board somewhere the response is invariably rude and sarcastic. People suck.

----------


## LeBrok

> Lately every time I post on a board somewhere the response is invariably rude and sarcastic. People suck.


Keep in mind that for most people on Eupedia English is a second language. People, me included, make silly mistakes or can't express themselves precisely in English. Also it is hard to convey intentions, some humor and sarcasm in written form on blogs. Many of us are geeks, which by definition is a socially awkward creature, and we can hurt someone not realizing it.
I know Moesan for some time and I can swear he is the nicest person in the world.

----------


## MOESAN

Thanks Lebrok. I'm surprised by the Tone 's reaction, apparently not used to humor; my tentative of "humor" concerned facts, and not Tone himself. If Tone read well my post, he 'll see I was agreeing with him for the most. I see I 'll have to be carefull in choosing my words in future.

----------


## MOESAN

> Lately every time I post on a board somewhere the response is invariably rude and sarcastic. People suck.


_I'm sorry you took my post as a sarcasm. Do read my answer to Lebrok. My post was not a "tackle" to your one._

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Thanks Lebrok. I'm surprised by the Tone 's reaction, apparently not used to humor; my tentative of "humor" concerned facts, and not Tone himself. If Tone read well my post, he 'll see I was agreeing with him for the most. I see I 'll have to be carefull in choosing my words in future.


It's hard to avoid doing it by accident online as irl people judge words spoken with facial expressions etc.

----------


## Jovialis

*Distribution of the 'Yamnaya' genetic component in the populations of Europe (data taken from Haak et al., 2015). The intensity of the colour corresponds to the contribution of this component in various modern populations. The scale of intervals is to the right. The purple line represents the borders of the Yamnaya area. The brown arrow shows the direction of migration postulated by the proponents of a Yamnaya origin for the Indo-Europeans of Europe. The red arrows show the direction of the movement of the 'Yamnaya' component in accordance with the gradient shown on this distribution. The map shows that the 'Yamnaya' genetic component is hardly Yamnaya in origin; rather it is a more ancient component originating in the populations of northern Europe from whence it spread both to the steppes and to the cultures of central Europe and elsewhere. Map by O.P. Balanovsky.* https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig2_318751121

What's up with the spike of yellow in Molise/North Apulia?

Distribution of Yamnaya, along with neo/ChL Italian farmer groups:

----------


## Pax Augusta

> What's up with the spike of yellow in Molise/North Apulia?


The data, as written, were taken from Haak 2015. So the data was largely adjusted, and invented to make the map and a point, because in Haak 2005 the results were based on only a few samples, and many national and regional populations were not even present.


The results of Haak 2015 are those published many times over.

----------


## torzio

> *Distribution of the 'Yamnaya' genetic component in the populations of Europe (data taken from Haak et al., 2015). The intensity of the colour corresponds to the contribution of this component in various modern populations. The scale of intervals is to the right. The purple line represents the borders of the Yamnaya area. The brown arrow shows the direction of migration postulated by the proponents of a Yamnaya origin for the Indo-Europeans of Europe. The red arrows show the direction of the movement of the 'Yamnaya' component in accordance with the gradient shown on this distribution. The map shows that the 'Yamnaya' genetic component is hardly Yamnaya in origin; rather it is a more ancient component originating in the populations of northern Europe from whence it spread both to the steppes and to the cultures of central Europe and elsewhere. Map by O.P. Balanovsky.* https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig2_318751121
> 
> What's up with the spike of yellow in Molise/North Apulia?
> 
> Distribution of Yamnaya, along with neo/ChL Italian farmer groups:



yellow spike is linked with liburnian and histrian lands in the north adriatic sea..........follows the Daunian paper explanations and the later J2b ancient samples from the area which also link with Foggia j2b samples

----------


## Jovialis

FWIW, my haplogroup is from the Balkans in the Bronze Age.

----------


## Angela

To the best of my recollection, Lazaridis, in response to a query, said that Spain-North in Haak et al is Spanish Basque. It's by no means half of Spain. In fact the rest of Spain doesn't even look like it's 20%, so I don't know what the heck Kristiansen is doing.

----------

