# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early Europea

## arvistro

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...822(16)31542-1

*Highlights*


•A degree of genetic continuity from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Baltic•Steppe-related genetic influences found in the Baltic during the Neolithic•No Anatolian farmer-related genetic admixture in Neolithic Baltic samples•Steppe ancestry in Latvia at the time of the emergence of Balto-Slavic languages

----

Have not read this yet, but in the picture I see R1b1b in Latvia before 7000 years, together with Narva culture and earliest pottery??

----------


## Tomenable

Fresh news from Anthrogenica, Mesolithic sample of R1b haplogroup in Latvia:

*Parastais* wrote: "Guys, more fun, more fun -
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php...h-Early-Europea
Mesolithic R1b in Latvia, Zvejnieki burial :)

Link: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fullte...9822(16)31542-1

*Highlights:*

• A degree of genetic continuity from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Baltic
• Steppe-related genetic influences found in the Baltic during the Neolithic
• No Anatolian farmer-related genetic admixture in Neolithic Baltic samples
• Steppe ancestry in Latvia at the time of the emergence of Balto-Slavic language"

----------


## Tomenable

Amazing, *two samples out of three* in Mesolithic Latvia were R1b1b:




> Further, the Y chromosomes of two of our Latvian Mesolithic samples were assigned to haplogroup R1b (the maximum-likelihood sub-haplogroup is R1b1b), which is the most common haplogroup found in modern Western Europeans [36].

----------


## Tomenable

Latvian Mesolithic hunters with R1b were *White* (unlike Mesolithic hunters in Western Europe):

*"tentative evidence for progressive skin depigmentation in Mesolithic Latvia based on mutations in the SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 genes (rs1426654 and rs16891982, respectively"*

----------


## Tomenable

*R1a* in Karelia and Russia, *R1b* in Latvia and Russia.

Baltic Sea to Russia = Proto-Indo-European homeland.

*Check also:*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ba...9;s_Epic_Tales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ar...e_in_the_Vedas

----------


## arvistro

> Latvian Mesolithic hunters with R1b were *White* (unlike Mesolithic hunters in Western Europe):
> 
> *"tentative evidence for progressive skin depigmentation in Mesolithic Latvia based on mutations in the SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 genes (rs1426654 and rs16891982, respectively"*


Blue eyes too.
So, we have white blue eyed R1b1b guys chilling out near Burtnieks lake (Zvejnieki) in Latvia 7000 years ago. 

Must re-read on Narva culture, where it came from.

----------


## MarkoZ

This definitely confirms two of my long-held prejudices. The well-founded one that North-Eastern Europeans made the transition to agriculture by themselves, and the more contentious one that R1b1 became a Villabrunna-WHG marker in the European context.

----------


## arvistro

> This definitely confirms two of my long-held prejudices. The well-founded one that *North-Eastern Europeans made the transition to agriculture by themselves*, and the more contentious one that R1b1 became a Villabrunna-WHG marker in the European context.


This is not really confirmed that they did it by themselves, it is more about that it did not come from Anatolia, but later with Corded Ware.

----------


## Tomenable

> Blue eyes too.
> So, *we have white blue eyed R1b1b guys chilling out near Burtnieks lake (Zvejnieki) in Latvia 7000 years ago. 
> *
> Must re-read on Narva culture, where it came from.


Sounds almost like a study written by Straight White Male Northern European Supremacist Patriarchs! 

ROTFL

----------


## Tomenable

I think we can merge my thread into your thread.

----------


## MarkoZ

> This is not really confirmed that they did it by themselves, it is more about that it did not come from Anatolia, but later with Corded Ware.


I should have said 'without demic impact from Anatolia'. Although it might turn out to be quite a bit more complex at the regional level.

----------


## Tomenable

So 3 out of 3 oldest samples of R1b are from *Pre-Neolithic* Europe.

Is there anyone who still believes in West Asian origin of R1b crap?

Moreover, I think R1b-V88 were descended from Villabruna WHG.

Meanwhile, R1b-M269 clade emerged in [North-]Eastern Europe.

----------


## Angela

> This definitely confirms two of my long-held prejudices. The well-founded one that North-Eastern Europeans made the transition to agriculture by themselves, and the more contentious one that R1b1 became a Villabrunna-WHG marker in the European context.


 Sorry, Marko, where do you get that they made the transition "by themselves"? Wasn't it already known that the transition took place when Corded Ware arrived? I haven't yet had time to look at the paper. Do they have evidence that it took place before that migration occurred? Other than the R1b1 Mesolithic find, what is it that is new here?

Ed. A bit of a cross posting thing here. I see the issue has already been addressed.

----------


## Tomenable

> R1b1 became a Villabrunna-WHG marker in the European context.


Villabruna descendants live in Chad today, and are known as R1b-V88, who came from Paleolithic Europe.

They came to Africa together with Upper Paleolithic European women (such as U6 mtDNA haplogroup):

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U6_mtDNA.shtml

If I recall correctly, at least one sample of U6 was found in Upper Paleolithic, Pre-LGM, Europe.

----------


## Angela

> So 3 out of 3 oldest samples of R1b are from *Pre-Neolithic* Europe.
> 
> Is there anyone who still believes in West Asian origin of R1b crap?
> 
> Moreover, I think R1b-V88 were descended from Villabruna WHG.
> 
> Meanwhile, R1b-M269 clade emerged in [North-]Eastern Europe.


Stop jumping to all sorts of conclusions, as usual. Also, clean up your language.

----------


## bicicleur

The Neolithic transitions in the Baltic and Dnieper Rapids region of Ukraine show very different archaeological and genetic dynamics to those observed in Central and Western Europe. Although in central Europe pottery and agriculture arrive as a package, in the Baltic and Dnieper Rapids the onset of the Neolithic is characterized by the appearance of ceramics, with a definitive shift to an agro-pastoralist economy only occurring during the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age [13, 14, 15, 16, 19]. Although the prolonged and piecemeal uptake of Neolithic characteristics in these regions makes it challenging to attribute a definitive shift in ideology or lifestyle, it does, along with evidence for continuities in material culture and settlement patterns, suggest that Neolithic features were predominantly adopted by indigenous hunter-gatherers in this region [13, 14, 15, 16, 37]. We find genetic evidence in support of this in the affinity of the Latvian and Ukrainian Neolithic samples, Latvian_MN1 and Ukrainian_N1, to earlier Mesolithic samples from the same respective regions. However, we also find indications of genetic impact from exogenous populations during the Neolithic, most likely from northern Eurasia and the Pontic Steppe. These influences are distinct from the Anatolian-farmer-related gene flow found in central Europe during this period. It is interesting to note that even in outlying areas of Europe, such as Sweden and Ireland [38, 39], an Anatolian-farmer-related genetic signature is present by the Middle to Late Neolithic period (∼5,300–4,700 cal BP). We conclude that the gradual appearance of features associated with the Neolithic package in the Baltic and Dnieper Rapids was not tied to the same major genetic changes as in other regions of Europe. The emergence of Neolithic features in the absence of immigration by Anatolian farmers highlights the roles of horizontal cultural transmission and potentially independent innovation during the Neolithic transition.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31542-1

Some think that corded ware and later potapovka/sintashta originated from herders in the steppe/forest area or even further north.
This study makes that more likely.

----------


## MarkoZ

> Sorry, Marko, where do you get that they made the transition "by themselves"? Wasn't it already known that the transition took place when Corded Ware arrived? I haven't yet had time to look at the paper. Do they have evidence that it took place before that migration occurred? Other than the R1b1 Mesolithic find, what is it that is new here?
> 
> Ed. A bit of a cross posting thing here. I see the issue has already been addressed.


I just skimmed the admixture analysis - Latvia_LN1 (early Corded Ware) does have substantial farmer admixture. Which leaves me wondering why the authors would chose that headline. 

My earlier assumption was based on the dates of Corded Ware in Finland and Latvia.

----------


## Angela

> Villabruna descendants live in Chad today, and are known as R1b-V88, who came from Paleolithic Europe.
> 
> They came to Africa together with Upper Paleolithic European women (such as U6 mtDNA haplogroup):
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U6_mtDNA.shtml
> 
> If I recall correctly, at least one sample of U6 was found in Upper Paleolithic, Pre-LGM, Europe.


What on earth? The most probable estimate for the arrival of V88 deep in Africa is long after the paleolithic. It probably arrived with herders after the domestication of animals in the Near East. 

Perhaps you should contain your joy that another north-east European mesolithic hunter was WHITE skinned. It seems it has made you forget much of the information which has already been discussed here.

----------


## halfalp

Looks more like R1b with U5b Mtdna was more important in a " epigravettian " context in epipaleolithic / mesolithic than people think. U5b is the main mtdna haplogroup found in Baltic Mesolithic Kunda, Narva, Zedmar cultures, likely comes from south-west europe, maybe linked with R1b and solutrean culture, hypothesis that people would put in a hole, slowely came interessting.

----------


## bicicleur

> Villabruna descendants live in Chad today, and are known as R1b-V88, who came from Paleolithic Europe.
> 
> They came to Africa together with Upper Paleolithic European women (such as U6 mtDNA haplogroup):
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U6_mtDNA.shtml
> 
> If I recall correctly, at least one sample of U6 was found in Upper Paleolithic, Pre-LGM, Europe.


Villabruna was pré-V88, not V88, it probably branched of from V88 abt 16 ka, while TMRCA of V88 is 11.8 ka
TMRCA of V88 in Africa is only abt 5.5 ka, just before the foundation of Egypt

----------


## Tomenable

Latvian hunters with R1b are not autosomally pure WHG. They are *EHG-WHG mixtures*:




> In keeping with their geographical origins,they are in an *intermediate* position between Western European hunter-gatherer samples (WHG; from Luxembourg, Hungary, Italy, France, and Switzerland) and Eastern European hunter-gatherer samples (EHG; from Russia).

----------


## MarkoZ

> Latvian hunters with R1b are not autosomally pure WHG. They are *EHG-WHG mixtures*:


You might want to quote the full text and look at the admixture analysis. Those Mesolithic hunters are less 'EHG' shifted than the hunters from Scandinavia.

----------


## Angela

> I just skimmed the admixture analysis - Latvia_LN1 (early Corded Ware) does have substantial farmer admixture. Which leaves me wondering why the authors would chose that headline. 
> 
> My earlier assumption was based on the dates of Corded Ware in Finland and Latvia.


We already know that Corded Ware had EEF, and we know they also had CHG, so how precisely could these Latvian Late Neolithic/Corded Ware admixed people not have had "farmer" ancestry? The admixture analysis is just further confirmation of what we would assume to be the case, yes? That's why I asked if the samples were from a period from before the Corded Ware folks arrived. If that were the case then the claim would make sense, but not this way. 

Well, I shouldn't say that until I carefully read the whole thing. Maybe there's something else in the paper that explains it. Or maybe they just mean it didn't arrive directly from Anatolia via Central Europe?

----------


## Tomenable

I still remember the _"one cannot learn how to farm without having farmer admixture"_ fallacy:  :Smile: 




> (...) *It is striking that we did not find evidence for early European or Anatolian farmer admixture in any of our Latvian Neolithic samples using both D statistics (Table 2) and ADMIXTURE (Figure 2A). This lack of admixture is also supported by the mitochondrial haplogroup of the Latvian Neolithic samples (all belong to U; Figure 1), which is prevalent in European hunter-gatherers [1, 35], including our Latvian Mesolithic samples, but not in early farmers. It is interesting that among the grave goods found in the burial of Latvia_LN1 was a chisel made from the bone of a domesticated goat or sheep [17, 21].* The presence of this tool made from a domesticate as well as dietary isotope data (δ15N and δ13C), which show greater reliance on terrestrial resources than in previous periods [17], is consistent with either the adoption of farming without early European farmer-related genetic admixture or the existence of trade networks with farming communities that were largely independent of genomic exchange. Although we find no genetic input from Anatolian or early European farmers in our time series, ADMIXTURE analysis of an Estonian Corded Ware sample [26] (Figure 2B) as suggested that this farmer genetic influence, which is present in contemporary Northern European populations (Figure S2), had arrived in the Baltic by at least the Bronze Age. (...)


I was insisting that cultural transition is possible without genetic admixture. So who was racist?

----------


## bicicleur

isn't R1b1b M335, a rare clade today a non existing in Europe ?
it is a very old clade, subclade of R1b1, TMRCA 18.8 ka

it confirms my theory of a homeland of R1a/R1b further east (Oxus & Jaxartes rivers) and split into 2 groups westbound, 1 north of the Caspian Sea into Europe and another south of the Caspian into Zagros/Transcaucasia/Eastern Anatolia

----------


## Angela

> The amount of ANE in Northern Europe is so high it needs a big chunk of EHG. Some methods aren't capable doing some models well. PCA isn't good at modelling CHG, EHG, WHG, EEF ancestry. The reason is West Eurasian diversity in PCAs is determined by Basal Eurasian, WHG, and ANE. Because of this Basal Eurasian in CHG can be absorbed by EEF and vice versa. Non-Basal Eurasian stuff in EHG can be absorbed by WHG. 
> 
> That's what happened in the results from Anthrogencia. HungaryHG is absorbing EHG ancestry and Kotias is absorbing EEF ancestry. Also Kotias is absorbing ANE from EHG. Formal stats will quickly reject 24%+ CHG ancestry in Northern Europe. 
> 
> We literally have documentation of extremely Yamnaya-like people all over Eastern Europe during the Late Neolithic; Corded Ware. I doubt the current narrative of Yamnya-like people bringing EHG and CHG to Europe will change. It has been a mystery why Late Neolithic/Bronze age Europeans need extra doses of WHG which can't be explained by Middle Neolithic farmers. UkraineHGs might help to explain this. So there might be some UkraineHG type stuff in Europe but the current narrative isn't going to change much.


I don't have to even check to know the source of this analysis. Think for yourself, FH, look at the data, and then come to a conclusion, tentative though it might be. Any analysis that starts with a pre-conceived point of view and then tries to fit in the facts is always going to be flawed. 

Sorry, but EHG is not the only story where the Indo-Europeans are concerned, much as some would like that to be the case.* A lot of WHG was picked up, and for now it doesn't seem as if it was from Ukrainian h-g people, or at least not these particular ones. This hyper-nationalistic stuff has to be taken out of genetic analysis. People should save it for football games or something. 

Plus, where have I ever personally denied that the major story is that Yamnaya like people brought EHG and CHG to Europe? That's a total straw man argument. The proportions need not have been identical in each case, however. 

There's also a big difference between CHG levels in these ancient samples, and the CHG levels now. 

*I'm also starting to think that this whole rigid division into WHG/SHG/EHG is flawed. It's basically the same people. It's just that as you move east they picked up more "other" ancestry.

----------


## Tomenable

> *I'm also starting to think that this whole rigid division into WHG/SHG/EHG is flawed. It's basically the same people. It's just that as you move east they picked up more "other" ancestry.


According to Chad Rohlfsen they were all Upper Paleolithic Europeans + various levels of ANE admixture.

Chad Rohlfsen (from Anthrogenica) thinks that WHG also had ANE - just not as much as SHG and EHG.




> This hyper-nationalistic stuff has to be taken out of genetic analysis.


For some reason it is nationalism only when you claim that there were migrations from North to South.

When you claim that there were migrations from South to North, it is no longer hyper-nationalism. Huh.

----------


## MarkoZ

> According to Chad Rohlfsen, they were all Upper Paleolithic Europeans + various levels of ANE admixture.
> 
> Chad Rohlfsen (from Anthrogenica) thinks that WHG also had ANE - just not as much as SHG and EHG.



None of these have admixture from Mal'ta - they inhabit an intermediate position in the PCA. This is useful information in the reconstruction general human history, and not detailed population dynamics. The analysis by Gravetto-Danubian is a prime example of this: if EHG was distinctive, why do these Bronze Age populations often prefer the Latvian Hunters in such an erratic manner? The answer is found in the paper: they are all quite similar, in that they have a basal affinity to something that was to become 'American' or 'Siberian' with varying degrees of subsequent input.

----------


## Tomenable

> None of these have admixture from Mal'ta


They have admixture from Afontova Gora, not from Mal'ta. 

Mal'ta could be ancestral only to ANE in Native Americans.

Afontova Gora is a better fit for ANE in Europe than Mal'ta.

----------


## MarkoZ

> For some reason it is nationalism only when you claim that there were migrations from North to South.
> 
> When you claim that there were migrations from South to North, it is no longer hyper-nationalism. Huh.


Believe it or not, primitive humans preferred to live in the south. If we're talking about the Mesolithic, most humans at northern latitudes would have been recent immigrants from the south who escaped the Younger Dryas. Earlier in the Upper Paleolithic this is doubly true. It's only because we don't have samples from the dinstincte sites in Spain, Serbia etc. yet that the general picture looks like it does now.

----------


## MarkoZ

> They have admixture from Afontova Gora, not from Mal'ta. 
> 
> Mal'ta could be ancestral only to ANE in Native Americans.
> 
> Afontova Gora is a better fit for ANE in Europe than Mal'ta.


It cannot be more than a few tiny percentages, then. Else this would be quite easy to detect.

----------


## bicicleur

we arrived at page 12 in this thread
I think we are starting to overanalyse

----------


## Angela

> According to Chad Rohlfsen they were all Upper Paleolithic Europeans + various levels of ANE admixture.
> 
> Chad Rohlfsen (from Anthrogenica) thinks that WHG also had ANE - just not as much as SHG and EHG.
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason it is nationalism only when you claim that there were migrations from North to South.
> 
> When you claim that there were migrations from South to North, it is no longer hyper-nationalism. Huh.


My dear young man, I have spent my entire professional life rigorously examining data from all possible angles, while equally rigorously removing my own personal feelings, inclinations, prejudices, if you will, from the equation, as much as humanly possible, at least. It's been my job, and my professional integrity demanded it. I do the same with this data. I start with the data and follow wherever it leads. You just don't like the conclusions I reach.

Oh, and as to the particulars, in so far as I can see, there was movement south to north, and north to south through the Caucasus. There was movement east to west and west to east across Europe too. Who can doubt it?

----------


## berun

> *It was surely Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) mtDNA:*
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post501250


The next step would be to check if SHG and EHG are WHG with less or more Siberian admixture so.

----------


## Alan

> I have created a proxy for Ukrain HG/N and Latvian HG in one of David's D-stat spreadsheets based on the EHG/WHG proportions David posted for them earlier.
> 
> D-stats do a better job at differentiating EEF, CHG, WHG, EHG than PCA and the ADMIXTURE test Basal rich K7. In those methods EEF absorbs WHG and CHG, CHG absorbs EEF and EHG. D-stats don't have that problem.
> 
> Here's a spreadsheet with results using Ukraine HG/N, Latvian HG.
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Ris/edit#gid=0
> 
> Corded Ware Germany scores 20% Ukraine N when modelled with early Neolithic/Mesolithic genomes. But they score only 6% when modeled with Yamnaya Samara and Esperstedt MN. Hungary BA probably has a lot of Ukraine HG-type stuff but we've already known that for a while.


FH EEF does not absorb WHG from my observation of past calculators, if some component absorbs another it is WHG that absorbs some of the WHG like ancestry in EEF. How can EEF absorb something it doesn't have? The point is WHG predates EEF so if you use EEF as a proxy component it will only take that WHG like ancestry that is already part of it since the beginning. It's the same story with CHG. CHG does not absorb EEF a little of shared Basal Eurasian ancestry in CHG get's absorbed by EEF and some of the ANE get's absorbed by EHG. As we know Anatolian_Neo does have some IranNeo/CHG like ancestry. This is the major issue here with confronting theories and what I have been explaining with the Khvalnysk samples. They had some CHG not CHG had some EHG. If anything EHG eats up some of the ANE like portion (Gedrosia like) of CHG/Iran_Neo.

----------


## LeBrok

> The next step would be to check if SHG and EHG are WHG with less or more Siberian admixture so.


Siberian admixture starts showing up in Late Bronze Age and Iron Age in the Steppe. Maybe sooner in North around Finland. The closest ancient genome in this area is Karelia EHG 5,000 BC, and he didn't have Siberian admixture yet.
Pure WHG, EHG, SHG didn't have it either.

M643041
I0061

Karelia, OleniyOstrov N Russia
7.25 kya

Run time
9.88

S-Indian
-

Baloch
9.46

Caucasian
-

NE-Euro
72.66

SE-Asian
-

Siberian
-

NE-Asian
-

Papuan
-

American
12.6

Beringian
5.16

Mediterranean
-

SW-Asian
-

San
-

E-African
-

Pygmy
0.07

W-African
-



American and Beringian is ancient for Central and North Eurasia and already existed in Siberia in Mal'ta boy 24kya.
F999914
R

Mal'ta
24kya

Run time
8

S-Indian
10.13

Baloch
24.09

Caucasian
-

NE-Euro
40.14

SE-Asian
-

Siberian
-

NE-Asian
-

Papuan
0.7

American
17.71

Beringian
6.74

Mediterranean
-

SW-Asian
-

San
0.3

E-African
-

Pygmy
0.19

W-African
-



But even he, a man from Siberia, didn't have Siberian admixture. Siberian admixture didn't show up sooner than Bronze age in Europe with N1c people in the North and Iron Age Scythians in the Steppe.

----------


## berun

You say it: even Malta was not Siberian... Don't mind but I don't rely much on autosomals, much less in autosomals with modern populations (to me is to try to put the actual English language in a branch: Romance? Germanic? Greek? Celtic? and so on; you would get crazy)

----------


## LeBrok

PCA graph points to other solution for composition of LN1, which could have been 2/3rd of Yamnaya and 1/3 of Latvia HG.
PCA Latvia 2.jpg
Did anyone find information what quality is the LN1 sample?

----------


## LeBrok

> You say it: even Malta was not Siberian... Don't mind but I don't rely much on autosomals, much less in autosomals with modern populations (to me is to try to put the actual English language in a branch: Romance? Germanic? Greek? Celtic? and so on; you would get crazy)


You mean you don't rely on DNA to learn what kind of people they were?

----------


## Fire Haired14

Alan, of course doesn't WHG contains EEF and CHG doesn't contains EEF and so on. But a PCA has only a certain number of PCs. In PCAs of West Eurasia which include ancient genomes there are three primary directions the samples go. These directions samples go are so precise they're comparable to components in ADMIXTURE tests. 

These are the primary directions the samples go...
South: The more basal Eurasian the farther south a sample goes.
North: The least basal Eurasian a sample has the farther north it goes.
West: The more WHG and EEF a sample has the farther west it goes.
East: The more ANE; EHG and CHG, a sample has the farther east it goes.

EEF and WHG can cause samples to go one of the same directions. EEF and CHG can do the same. WHG and EHG can do the same. WHG, EEF, CHG, EHG are made up of the same "directions" aka components. Therefore a southern directional pull EEF ancestry gives a modern sample can be confused as CHG ancestry. I could give other examples of how EHG is confused as CHG, how CHG is confused as EEF, how WHG is confused as EHG.

The argument I made and still stand by is that ancestry proportions drawn from PCAs give less relaible WHG, EHG, EEF, EHG ancestry proportions than formal stats. This is because formal stats better differentiate between those four types of ancestry.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> *I'm also starting to think that this whole rigid division into WHG/SHG/EHG is flawed. It's basically the same people. It's just that as you move east they picked up more "other" ancestry.


The divisions were never rigid. We always knew there was ANE was higher the further east you went and WHG higher the further west you went. They might basically be mixtures of the same two things but that doesn't mean we can't determine if a modern population has ancestry from one of them and not the other. The non-EEF and non-CHG ancestors of modern Europeans had more ANE than SHG, LatvianHG, and it seems UkrainianHG. That's what tests say.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Plus, where have I ever personally denied that the major story is that Yamnaya like people brought EHG and CHG to Europe? That's a total straw man argument. The proportions need not have been identical in each case, however.


I agree with this. The proportions were probably pretty similar though.

----------


## berun

> You mean you don't rely on DNA to learn what kind of people they were?


For ancient DNA compared with more ancient DNA I rely more as more samples are available (to prevent partial results), for actual pops as source pops for ancient DNA... doing so I could link English with medieval Romanian and suggest weird migrations or sharing sources.

----------


## bicicleur

> *I'm also starting to think that this whole rigid division into WHG/SHG/EHG is flawed. It's basically the same people. It's just that as you move east they picked up more "other" ancestry.


WHG develloped in Gravettian Europe
I suspect till 12 ka it was all over Europe ; by then Y-DNA I was reduced to I2 and some pockets of I from which later I1 emerged.
12 ka EHG entered via the Volga basin
then mixing started
Loschbourg is still 100 % WHG
SHG 7.5 ka Motala with pottery is actualy a simple mixture of WHG and EHG with maybe a dash of Siberian
Samara is in the Volga basin where EHG entered and which was scarcely populated before.
Karelia and Latvia was populated by Swiderian tribes before EHG entered.
Samara HG has very little WHG, Karelian has some more and Latvia a lot more. 
There is some logic in all this, but I don't know why Latvia has more WHG than SHG has.

WHG U5a, U4 and U2e wives must have been very popular. U5a even made it till lake Bajkal in 8 ka Lokomotiv.

----------


## MOESAN

> FH EEF does not absorb WHG from my observation of past calculators, if some component absorbs another it is WHG that absorbs some of the WHG like ancestry in EEF. How can EEF absorb something it doesn't have? The point is WHG predates EEF so if you use EEF as a proxy component it will only take that WHG like ancestry that is already part of it since the beginning. It's the same story with CHG. CHG does not absorb EEF a little of shared Basal Eurasian ancestry in CHG get's absorbed by EEF and some of the ANE get's absorbed by EHG. As we know Anatolian_Neo does have some IranNeo/CHG like ancestry. This is the major issue here with confronting theories and what I have been explaining with the Khvalnysk samples. They had some CHG not CHG had some EHG. If anything EHG eats up some of the ANE like portion (Gedrosia like) of CHG/Iran_Neo.


what a demonstration! with all these "somethings" and "somethinglikes" we can go very far - everyone holds on with his personal theory... I find it very uneasy to define the directions of some DNA sharings, so we can all of us keep on with our prejudices...

----------


## bicicleur

this is K = 13 from Genetiker

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017...inian-genomes/
Sample Period Culture Date BC
Latvia_HG1 Mesolithic Kunda 6467–6249
Latvia_HG2 Mesolithic Narva 5841–5636
Latvia_HG3 Early Neolithic Unassigned 5302–4852
Latvia_MN1 Middle Neolithic Unassigned 4251–3976
Latvia_MN2 Middle Neolithic Comb Ware 4229–3800
Latvia_LN1 Late Neolithic Corded Ware 3089–2676
Ukraine_HG1 Mesolithic Unassigned 9193–8641
Ukraine_N1 Neolithic Dnieper-Donets 4519–4343

K = 13 Latvia & Dnjepr Rapids.jpg

navy blue = WHG like
medium blue = EHG like
light blue = EEF like
red = Karitiana like
teal = CHG like

he ascribes MN2 to comb ware culture, hence the Karitiana component, which is also in Karelia and Samara HG and in Khvalynsk

Latvia is the only CW without EEF

corded ware, sintashta, bell beaker, Unetice and Nordic LN are all quite similar

----------


## berun

I also was looking at this K13; it confirms some thinkings: 3 HG R1b were WHG (Villabruna and two Latvians), no trace of EHG or Siberian; for such people there was not a detectable Asian origin. The promised western steppe HG grandfather-of-all-Europeans was R1a being half WHG half EHG, he was not even able to provide a seed for their eastern steppe brethren of Yamnaya (80% EHG, 20% CHG). A (2nd?) Siberian footprint is in red in the Latvian Corded Ware, Karelian HG and Samara HG. The sure Indoeuropean cultures display a chunk of WHG and EEF admixture (CW, Sintashta, Andronovo).

----------


## johen

> I also was looking at this K13; it confirms some thinkings: 3 HG R1b were WHG (Villabruna and two Latvians), no trace of EHG or Siberian; for such people there was not a detectable Asian origin. The promised western steppe HG grandfather-of-all-Europeans was R1a being half WHG half EHG, he was not even able to provide a seed for their eastern steppe brethren of Yamnaya (80% EHG, 20% CHG). A (2nd?) Siberian footprint is in red in the Latvian Corded Ware, Karelian HG and Samara HG. The sure Indoeuropean cultures display a chunk of WHG and EEF admixture (*CW, Sintashta, Andronovo)*.


I think CW people and the others are totally different people. CW R1a-M417 people is not related with even horse-riding, unlike the others. Moreover, CW people looks like modern Nordic people, the others archaic cromagnon type. 
R1a-93 Srubna, sintashta and andronovo are culturally and anthropologically connected to Afanasievo-okunevo. 
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...t-paleo-people

----------


## LeBrok

> this is K = 13 from Genetiker
> 
> https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017...inian-genomes/
> Sample Period Culture Date BC
> Latvia_HG1 Mesolithic Kunda 6467–6249
> Latvia_HG2 Mesolithic Narva 5841–5636
> Latvia_HG3 Early Neolithic Unassigned 5302–4852
> Latvia_MN1 Middle Neolithic Unassigned 4251–3976
> Latvia_MN2 Middle Neolithic Comb Ware 4229–3800
> ...


Does that mean that genomes of Latvians were publically released? Can we get them in GedMatch, please.

----------


## LeBrok

> I also was looking at this K13; it confirms some thinkings: 3 HG R1b were WHG (Villabruna and two Latvians), no trace of EHG or Siberian; for such people there was not a detectable Asian origin. The promised western steppe HG grandfather-of-all-Europeans was R1a being half WHG half EHG, he was not even able to provide a seed for their eastern steppe brethren of Yamnaya (80% EHG, 20% CHG). A (2nd?) Siberian footprint is in red in the Latvian Corded Ware, Karelian HG and Samara HG. The sure Indoeuropean cultures display a chunk of WHG and EEF admixture (CW, Sintashta, Andronovo).


 Berun, stop obsessing with uniparental haplogroups. All it takes is one traveler to the tribe or one adopted child from another tribe to get new haplogroups. In smaller tribes of few hunter gatherers one haplogroup can become very dominant very quickly if bottleneck or founder effect happens. Imagine, there are 10 warriors in a tribe of many haplogroups. After a battle with other tribe only two warriors are alive, and it happened that they are brothers. When they "rebuild" the tribe all of the future males will have their haplogroup, and only this one haplogroup. Small tribes, under some circumstances, can change their dominant Y haplogroup in couple of generations. Keep it in mind.

----------


## berun

> I think CW people and the others are totally different people. CW R1a-M417 people is not related with even horse-riding, unlike the others. Moreover, CW people looks like modern Nordic people, the others archaic cromagnon type. 
> R1a-93 Srubna, sintashta and andronovo are culturally and anthropologically connected to Afanasievo-okunevo. 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...t-paleo-people


IE is a family language that spread demicaly but also culturaly, so racial types are not more a track, but masculine haplos can display even little migrations that would set up a new elithe capable to change local language. Just take as example the expansion of Arab.

----------


## bicicleur

> Does that mean that genomes of Latvians were publically released? Can we get them in GedMatch, please.


yes they are, but I don't have the URL
If you search the internet, you'll find them

----------


## MarkoZ

> The divisions were never rigid. We always knew there was ANE was higher the further east you went and WHG higher the further west you went. They might basically be mixtures of the same two things but that doesn't mean we can't determine if a modern population has ancestry from one of them and not the other. The non-EEF and non-CHG ancestors of modern Europeans had more ANE than SHG, LatvianHG, and it seems UkrainianHG. That's what tests say.


Do you not see problem at all with modelling moderns with a single 24000 year old genome from a population that doesn't seem to have been very succesful? The issue must be either that you don't know how to interpret statistics f&d or that you have a certain narrative that you hold onto. Have you ever wondered why of all Eurasians, South Asians & Caucasian show the strongest affiniy to Mal'ta?

----------


## berun

> Berun, stop obsessing with uniparental haplogroups. All it takes is one traveler to the tribe or one adopted child from another tribe to get new haplogroups. In smaller tribes of few hunter gatherers one haplogroup can become very dominant very quickly if bottleneck or founder effect happens. Imagine, there are 10 warriors in a tribe of many haplogroups. After a battle with other tribe only two warriors are alive, and it happened that they are brothers. When they "rebuild" the tribe all of the future males will have their haplogroup, and only this one haplogroup. Small tribes, under some circumstances, can change their dominant Y haplogroup in couple of generations. Keep it in mind.


Ancient cultures seem "monohaploid" and so define quite well migrations. For actual HG the Y DNA diversity is low, it is in the last millenia with new advances and increasing of population that there is more admixture and genetic mutations.

----------


## Northener

> Alan, of course doesn't WHG contains EEF and CHG doesn't contains EEF and so on. But a PCA has only a certain number of PCs. In PCAs of West Eurasia which include ancient genomes there are three primary directions the samples go. These directions samples go are so precise they're comparable to components in ADMIXTURE tests. 
> 
> These are the primary directions the samples go...
> South: The more basal Eurasian the farther south a sample goes.
> North: The least basal Eurasian a sample has the farther north it goes.
> West: The more WHG and EEF a sample has the farther west it goes.
> East: The more ANE; EHG and CHG, a sample has the farther east it goes.
> 
> EEF and WHG can cause samples to go one of the same directions. EEF and CHG can do the same. WHG and EHG can do the same. WHG, EEF, CHG, EHG are made up of the same "directions" aka components. Therefore a southern directional pull EEF ancestry gives a modern sample can be confused as CHG ancestry. I could give other examples of how EHG is confused as CHG, how CHG is confused as EEF, how WHG is confused as EHG.
> ...


Sharp and thanks fire haired, makes my K7 very clear (N and W):

Ancient_North_Eurasian 16.58 
Basal-rich 24.59 
East_Eurasian 0 
Oceanian 0 
Southeast_Asian 0.1 
Sub-Saharan 0 
Villabruna-related 58.73 

So the almost 60% Villabruna Hunter-Gatherer R1b = familiar to just published R1b HG in the Balticum? Or misinterpretation?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Do you not see problem at all with modelling moderns with a single 24000 year old genome from a population that doesn't seem to have been very succesful? The issue must be either that you don't know how to interpret statistics f&d or that you have a certain narrative that you hold onto. Have you ever wondered why of all Eurasians, South Asians & Caucasian show the strongest affiniy to Mal'ta?


Someone who lived 20,000 years ago can potentially be closely related to many modern people. His people could potentially be a creator of modern genetic diversity. That's what Mal'ta boy is. His people are a source of a lot of the genetic diversity in South Asia, Western Asia, Europe, and especially the Americas. 

The label 20,000 years ago means nothing. Age's relation with genetics is relative. We don't know if modern population's genetic markers which distinguish them from other modern populations formed 5,000 or 40,000 years ago. A lot of modern human genetic diversity could have began to form 10,000s and 10,000s of years ago. Actually we know for a fact that a lot of genetic diversity in modern Europe is determined by different ancestry proportions from ancient populations who lived 10,000-15,000 years ago.

ANE could have survived in its pure form up until 2000 BC in Northern Asia. One of the Bronze age Srubnaya genomes probably has admixture from an almost pure ANE populations which continued to exist 20,000 years after Ma'lta boy died. She looks like a mixture of Srubnaya and Ma'lta. She has more ANE than EHG, less WHG than EHG, more CHG.

----------


## MarkoZ

> Someone who lived 20,000 years ago can potentially be closely related to many modern people. His people could potentially be a creator of modern genetic diversity. That's what Mal'ta boy is. His people are a source of a lot of the genetic diversity in South Asia, Western Asia, Europe, and especially the Americas.


Weird then that his distinctly derived mtDNA and Y-DNA both became extinct. If I had to guess, the relatives of the poor boy probably didn't make it through the Last Glacial Maximum.




> The label 20,000 years ago means nothing. Age's relation with genetics is relative. We don't know if modern population's genetic markers which distinguish them from other modern populations formed 5,000 or 40,000 years ago. A lot of modern human genetic diversity could have began to form 10,000s and 10,000s of years ago. Actually we know for a fact that a lot of genetic diversity in modern Europe is determined by different ancestry proportions from ancient populations who lived 10,000-15,000 years ago.


When talking about timeframes of 20,000 years, the relation becomes increasingly non-relative. That's why population geneticists were able to reconstruct human history without extant samples from each period.




> ANE could have survived in its pure form up until 2000 BC in Northern Asia. One of the Bronze age Srubnaya genomes probably has admixture from an almost pure ANE populations which continued to exist 20,000 years after Ma'lta boy died. She looks like a mixture of Srubnaya and Ma'lta. She has more ANE than EHG, less WHG than EHG, more CHG.


I'm not sure what your source of information is, but 'ANE admixture' really isn't a thing. Just look at the ADMIXTURE analyses in every recent major publication. The WHG-SHG-EHG continuum has been predicted to have widely differing levels of admixture from Mal'ta, yet they always turn out to be at least 90% identical at even at >15 K. As for why this is so, the wife stealing crowd is probably not very interested in finding this out (especially if the answer doesn't fit the narrative). My guess would be that the non-West-Eurasian ancestry for which we haven't got a very good proxy just yet creates a greatly exaggerated pseudo-affinity to Mal'ta.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Weird then that his distinctly derived mtDNA and Y-DNA both became extinct. If I had to guess, the relatives of the poor boy probably didn't make it through the Last Glacial Maximum.


Technically speaking my great great great great great great great great grandmother's mtDNA is basically nonexstent. You'd have to sample millions of Germans to find someone who is apart of her mtDNA lineage. Most mtDNA lineages never become popular, most remain extremely rare, or become replaced by founder effects. The extinction of Mal'ta boy's mtDNA and Y DNA says almost nothing about the contribution his relatives or even his own tribe made to modern people. 

It is true Mal'ta boy's mtDNA extnction and my greatx6 grandmother's mtDNA's rarity aren't directly comparable. He belonged to a U haplogroup which had accumulated many SNPs and certainly many subclades. There's probably no one alive today or very few are even a distant relative to his mtDNA. In contrast there are plenty of people today with U5b2a2b1. Nonetheless Mal'ta boy's mtDNA and Y DNA extinction aren't good evidence his relatives didn't contribute ancestry to many modern humans.

Afora Gora, 17,000 year old ANE individual, belonged to mtDNA haplogroup R1b1. It is not extinct. A Mesolithic Hungarian belonged to R1b1, two Bronze age individuals from Russia belonged to R1a, several individuals from Unetice belonged to R1, and R1 is found throughout Europe and Asia today. R1 today peaks in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus mountains, two locations with lots of ANE ancestry.






> When talking about timeframes of 20,000 years, the relation becomes increasingly non-relative. That's why population geneticists were able to reconstruct human history without extant samples from each period.


Why does the relation become non-relative? Who are we to determine how far back in time is when ancient humans aren't closely related to any modern humans? Before science no one thought humans had been around for 10,000s of years. Time is relative. To one person 1,000 years ago is a very long time ago, to another person 20,000 years ago is long time ago. I don't see why someone who lived 24,000 years ago can't be ancestral to many modern humans.






> I'm not sure what your source of information is, but 'ANE admixture' really isn't a thing. Just look at the ADMIXTURE analyses in every recent major publication. The WHG-SHG-EHG continuum has been predicted to have widely differing levels of admixture from Mal'ta, yet they always turn out to be at least 90% identical at even at >15 K. As for why this is so, the wife stealing crowd is probably not very interested in finding this out (especially if the answer doesn't fit the narrative). My guess would be that the non-West-Eurasian ancestry for which we haven't got a very good proxy just yet creates a greatly exaggerated pseudo-affinity to Mal'ta.


WHG-SHG-EHG form a ADMIXTURE component because they share shiz loads of ancestry. It doesn't mean they're genetic branch as opposed to Mal'ta. Formal stats say EHG is about as related to Mal'ta as to WHG. 





> My guess would be that the non-West-Eurasian ancestry for which we haven't got a very good proxy just yet creates a greatly exaggerated pseudo-affinity to Mal'ta.


The relation EHG, modern Europeans have to Mal'ta(and as a result Native Americans) is real. This relation was detected before Mal'ta boy's genome was sequenced. David Reich noticed modern Northern Europeans share common ancestry with Native Americans back in 2012; Native Americans and Northern Europeans more closely related than previously thought. 

Intelligent geneticist like David Reich wouldn't make the mistake of fasley claiming Mal'ta boy's people are an ancestor Native Americans and Europeans share. They know what they're doing. 

The relation EHG has to Mal'ta boy is extremely high, there's no way it is pseudo anything.

----------


## bicicleur

> Technically speaking my great great great great great great great great grandmother's mtDNA is basically nonexstent. You'd have to sample millions of Germans to find someone who is apart of her mtDNA lineage. Most mtDNA lineages never become popular, most remain extremely rare, or become replaced by founder effects. The extinction of Mal'ta boy's mtDNA and Y DNA says almost nothing about the contribution his relatives or even his own tribe made to modern people. 
> 
> It is true Mal'ta boy's mtDNA extnction and my greatx6 grandmother's mtDNA's rarity aren't directly comparable. He belonged to a U haplogroup which had accumulated many SNPs and certainly many subclades. There's probably no one alive today or very few are even a distant relative to his mtDNA. In contrast there are plenty of people today with U5b2a2b1. Nonetheless Mal'ta boy's mtDNA and Y DNA extinction aren't good evidence his relatives didn't contribute ancestry to many modern humans.
> 
> Afora Gora, 17,000 year old ANE individual, belonged to mtDNA haplogroup R1b1. It is not extinct. A Mesolithic Hungarian belonged to R1b1, two Bronze age individuals from Russia belonged to R1a, several individuals from Unetice belonged to R1, and R1 is found throughout Europe and Asia today. R1 today peaks in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus mountains, two locations with lots of ANE ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


AF2 was Q-F746
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L472/

Malta was R* and got extinct in Siberia.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/

The oldest R1a/R1b/R2 have nothing Mongoloid.
They didn't appear in Siberia but in Eastern Europe and SW Asia.

I think Malta was a lost branch of R in a territory full of Q.
He was related to the 17 ka AF1 & AF2. He was admixed with Q.

The autosomal of AF and Malta is not ancestral to any Eurasian branch, it is ancestral to West-Siberian.
And right after LGM their DNA got admixed with HG tribes coming in from eastern Siberia.

To much modeling with autosomal happens without knowing the real context of the components.
Autosomal DNA is very unstable. Unless the tribe is isolated for a long time, autosomal DNA exist only local and for a small period of time.

----------


## Tomenable

> Weird then that his distinctly derived mtDNA and Y-DNA both became extinct.


*In every single generation:*

- some men don't have children
- some men have only daughters
- some men have a lot of sons

If you go even just few thousand years back, only a relatively small fraction of men who lived at that time have modern Y-DNA descendants. This is why in ancient DNA we find a lot of rare basal paragroups intermixed with common modern subclades. Just because Malta Boy has no modern Y-DNA descendants, doesn't mean that we are not descended from that "tribe".

----------


## Angela

> *AF2 was Q-F746
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L472/
> 
> Malta was R* and got extinct in Siberia.
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/
> 
> The oldest R1a/R1b/R2 have nothing Mongoloid.
> They didn't appear in Siberia but in Eastern Europe and SW Asia.
> 
> ...


I agree with your bolded comments. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this means that none of that autosomal admixture is in modern West Eurasians or that it wasn't brought into Europe by people carrying R1 lineages. It just wasn't brought by that particular branch because it was stranded and went extinct.

----------


## MarkoZ

> Afora Gora, 17,000 year old ANE individual, belonged to mtDNA haplogroup R1b1. It is not extinct. A Mesolithic Hungarian belonged to R1b1, two Bronze age individuals from Russia belonged to R1a, several individuals from Unetice belonged to R1, and R1 is found throughout Europe and Asia today. R1 today peaks in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus mountains, two locations with lots of ANE ancestry.


Let's first clear up the factual mistakes: there was no mtDNA R1b1 in Hungarian Mesolithic hunters. The KO1 individual had R3. Why you'd relate R1a and even R1 in general to R1b1 is a mystery to me. We already have mtDNA R in the Ust'Ishim specimen, so tying the whole macro-group to Mal'ta makes absolutely no sense. As it looks, Afontova Gora's mtDNA did indeed largely go extinct, though there's always the possibility that it might have survived in some corner of the world - who knows. Again the uniparental haplogroups don't look like those of a population who contributed to Eurasian diversity in a major way.






> Why does the relation become non-relative? Who are we to determine how far back in time is when ancient humans aren't closely related to any modern humans? Before science no one thought humans had been around for 10,000s of years. Time is relative. To one person 1,000 years ago is a very long time ago, to another person 20,000 years ago is long time ago. I don't see why someone who lived 24,000 years ago can't be ancestral to many modern humans.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but 24,000 years constitute even by the most conservative estimates more than 1/5 of Homo Sapiens' history in Eurasia. It is a given that all humans are very closely related - but this reinforces my view that a gap like this shouldn't be ignored.





> WHG-SHG-EHG form a ADMIXTURE component because they share shiz loads of ancestry. It doesn't mean they're genetic branch as opposed to Mal'ta. Formal stats say EHG is about as related to Mal'ta as to WHG.


If you didn't notice, I took issue with the claim that there are substantial levels of 'ANE admixture' in Mesolithic Europeans. Since the European hunters sprang from a common Epi-Gravettian or Magdalenian core, the exotic parts of Mal'ta boy's ancestry would surely show up in a subtantial way in those Mesolithic Karelians & Scandinavians. Affinity to Mal'ta is a different thing altogether, which might point to a mixed origin of the Mal'ta-Bouret population. In this context, consider the f2-, f3-, f4- analyses in Ex. Fig. 4. by Fu et al. (right click to enlarge):



In all three models the Mal'ta population constitute a divergent branch of a non-West-Eurasian population whose descendants would constitute the genetic backbone of the later Caucasus Hunter Gatherers. Why is Mal'ta divergent? Considering the archaeological context in which Mal'ta boy was found - which is very much Gravettian - I would say that a population from the west influenced those Siberians to a significant extent. We now know that this population wasn't strongly related to Dolní Věstonice, so it must have been something else. This is consistent with all three models shown above. I think that the Gravettian epicenter in Ukraine and Bulgaria will likely be very important in this regard.

As for why d-statistics reveal widely differing levels of relatedness to Mal'ta between WHG and EHG, I am convinced this has to do with the non-West-Eurasian ancestry in the latter. In ADMIXTURE analyses, the non-West-Eurasian ancestry is identified as Caucasus & American/Siberian. This is because the parent population of this non-West-Eurasian clade, which contributed more to the 'CHG' branch than to the 'Mal'ta' branch, is what made the latter distinctive.






> The relation EHG, modern Europeans have to Mal'ta(and as a result Native Americans) is real. This relation was detected before Mal'ta boy's genome was sequenced. David Reich noticed modern Northern Europeans share common ancestry with Native Americans back in 2012; Native Americans and Northern Europeans more closely related than previously thought. 
> 
> Intelligent geneticist like David Reich wouldn't make the mistake of fasley claiming Mal'ta boy's people are an ancestor Native Americans and Europeans share. They know what they're doing.


This is because at the time this was the best explanation for the American contribution to Europeans. However, in a wider context this doesn't really hold. See for example in Lazaridis ADMIXTURE analysis at K=6, Georgians who have a stronger affinity to ANE than any European population have almost none of the American admixture:



That's precisely because it wasn't the Mal'ta population that contributed to their ancestry.

----------


## Angela

I knew it was either the case that the title was misleading or that even the Pinhasi lab can get it wrong. 

See:
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue...t-dna-suggests

Still the same mix-up because of the strange naming of hunter-gatherers as Neolithic when they only have ceramics, and no seeming understanding that the first "farmer" was a Corded Ware newcomer with different genetics, i.e. migration.

What a mess.

----------


## Megalophias

> The KO1 individual had R3.


R3 is the old term for R1b. It was reclassified by Autosomal and uniparental portraits of the native populations of Sakha (Yakutia): implications for the peopling of Northeast Eurasia, which was followed by PhyloTree.

----------


## LeBrok

Sample
Site
Context
Burial
Aligned Reads
Aligned Reads (%)
MT Coverage
MT Contamination (c+md/c−md)
X Contamination (Test 1/Test 2)

Latvia_HG1
Zvejnieki
Mesolithic; Kunda culture
313
54,784,565
49.26
47.83
0.68/0.04
−

Latvia_HG2
Zvejnieki
Mesolithic; Narva culture
93
172,707,718
55.99
114.97
0.94/0.19
0.92 ± 0.08/0.88 ± 0.17

Latvia_HG3
Zvejnieki
Mesolithic/Early Neolithic
121
37,749,963
45.51
40.29
0.77/0.10
0.99 ± 0.26/0.72 ± 0.37

Latvia_MN1
Zvejnieki
Middle Neolithic
124
6,648,453
5.22
8.14
0.97/0.50
−

Latvia_MN2
Zvejnieki
Middle Neolithic; Comb Ware culture
221
59,800,396
37.51
48.54
0.69/0.10
−

Latvia_LN1
Zvejnieki
Late Neolithic; Corded Ware culture
137
9,222,060
7.48
9.58
1.09/0.00
−

Ukraine_HG1
Vasilyevka
Mesolithic
37
9,528,908
4.30
5.49
0.29/0.29
−

Ukraine_N1
Vovnigi
Neolithic; Dnieper-Donets culture
2
10,741,415
12.04
6.06
1.06 0.28
−



Do any of these numbers can tell us about samples' quality? Do anyone know when can we expect them in GedMatch?

----------


## bicicleur

> I agree with your bolded comments. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this means that none of that autosomal admixture is in modern West Eurasians or that it wasn't brought into Europe by people carrying R1 lineages. It just wasn't brought by that particular branch because it was stranded and went extinct.


Indeed, we don't know. Probably, as Q and R both descend from P, and both didn't get to much admixture from other tribes right after they split, Mal'ta and AF were a similar brother clade of the R which is ancestral to R1a/R1b/R2.
My point is that in analysing with autosomal DNA one can make many false conclusions.
Especially when there are several levels of admixture.
Ever since say 8 ka different levels of admixture followed very frequently in Eurasia and even in Northern Africa in ever smaller time intervals.

----------


## MarkoZ

> R3 is the old term for R1b. It was reclassified by Autosomal and uniparental portraits of the native populations of Sakha (Yakutia): implications for the peopling of Northeast Eurasia, which was followed by PhyloTree.


I stand corrected. Weird, I had always considered R3/R1b to be West Asian specifically.

Edit: Heh, strange distribution of R1b1. I wonder if it's indigenous in Trinidad.

http://haplogroup.org/mtdna/rsrs/l12...r/r1/r1b/r1b1/

----------


## LeBrok

> I knew it was either the case that the title was misleading or that even the Pinhasi lab can get it wrong. 
> 
> See:
> http://popular-archaeology.com/issue...t-dna-suggests
> 
> Still the same mix-up because of the strange naming of hunter-gatherers as Neolithic when they only have ceramics, and no seeming understanding that the "farmer" was a Corded Ware newcomer with different genetics, i.e. migration.
> 
> What a mess.


Either they want fame by archeological "showbiz" or they want to vindicate h-g of Europe. One of biggest crime in this paper is overemphasizing Kotias and diminishing Yamnaya heritage. Kotias genome in LN1 would need to be transmitted via contemporary, to LN1, groups. One of these, with strong dominant position in close proximity, is Yamnaya. However, if they modeled LN1 as part of Yamnaya then they would have suggested that LN1 contained farmer genes, either Yamnaya farmer or Iranian Neolithic/Copper. If they split Yamnaya into Kotias and Samara, then "farmer problem" goes away. They can proclaim LN1 as hunter gatherer only, and make their paper revolutionary and famous.
Following this way of reasoning, way we can "prove" that EEF was a hunter gatherer too. A mixture of Natufian HG, Anatolian HG and WHG.

----------


## bicicleur

> I knew it was either the case that the title was misleading or that even the Pinhasi lab can get it wrong. 
> 
> See:
> http://popular-archaeology.com/issue...t-dna-suggests
> 
> Still the same mix-up because of the strange naming of hunter-gatherers as Neolithic when they only have ceramics, and no seeming understanding that the "farmer" was a Corded Ware newcomer with different genetics, i.e. migration.
> 
> What a mess.


they talk about nomadic HG while these HG were sedentary

furthermore there is doubt about when 'farming' started
they should talk about 'herders' and not 'farmers' and I think it is very dificult for archeology to discern herders from HG

----------


## Angela

> Either they want fame by archeological "showbiz" or they want to vindicate h-g of Europe. One of biggest crime in this paper is overemphasizing Kotias and diminishing Yamnaya heritage. Kotias genome in LN1 would need to be transmitted via contemporary, to LN1, groups. One of these, with strong dominant position in close proximity, is Yamnaya. However, if they modeled LN1 as part of Yamnaya then they would have suggested that LN1 contained farmer genes, either Yamnaya farmer or Iranian Neolithic/Copper. If they split Yamnaya into Kotias and Samara, then "farmer problem" goes away. They can proclaim LN1 as hunter gatherer only, and make their paper revolutionary and famous.
> Following this way of reasoning, way we can "prove" that EEF was a hunter gatherer too. A mixture of Natufian HG, Anatolian HG and WHG.


Exactly. I'm honestly shocked that a lab with the standing of Pinhasi's would be guilty of this kind of biased analysis, because it's either that or it's an equally shocking lack of logic and knowledge of the archaeology. I hold out some hope that the journalists just got it wrong.

Well, I guess I shouldn't be so surprised and shocked that it could happen, even if in this case it's journalists getting it wrong. Look at that appalling paper from China trying to re-arrange the mtDna phylogeny in order for China to be "the" source for modern humans. If it weren't so laughable it would be tragic.

----------


## bicicleur

> Either they want fame by archeological "showbiz" or they want to vindicate h-g of Europe. One of biggest crime in this paper is overemphasizing Kotias and diminishing Yamnaya heritage. Kotias genome in LN1 would need to be transmitted via contemporary, to LN1, groups. One of these, with strong dominant position in close proximity, is Yamnaya. However, if they modeled LN1 as part of Yamnaya then they would have suggested that LN1 contained farmer genes, either Yamnaya farmer or Iranian Neolithic/Copper. If they split Yamnaya into Kotias and Samara, then "farmer problem" goes away. They can proclaim LN1 as hunter gatherer only, and make their paper revolutionary and famous.
> Following this way of reasoning, way we can "prove" that EEF was a hunter gatherer too. A mixture of Natufian HG, Anatolian HG and WHG.


check my post nr 296
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post501346
none of the 8 samples have teal admixture, except the Latvian corded ware
the comb ware (MN2) doesn't have teal but red (karitiana-like)

on the other hand, as I mentioned in earlier post, 1 of the Khvalynsk genomes has teal, but contrary to all other EHG in Estern Europe, no WHG-like admixture, which indicates he was a newcomer

----------


## LeBrok

> check my post nr 296
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post501346
> none of the 8 samples have teal admixture, except the Latvian corded ware
> the comb ware (MN2) doesn't have teal but red (karitiana-like)
> 
> on the other hand, as I mentioned in earlier post, 1 of the Khvalynsk genomes has teal, but contrary to all other EHG in Estern Europe, no WHG-like admixture, which indicates he was a newcomer


It is more like it, because anyone till LN1 is pure hunter gatherer. LN1 is the first farmer/herder who showed up there. Rudimentary farmer, but still. I'm questioning their presentation of LN1 as pure hunter gatherer, from admixture and composition side.

----------


## MarkoZ

> check my post nr 296
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post501346
> none of the 8 samples have teal admixture, except the Latvian corded ware
> the comb ware (MN2) doesn't have teal but red (karitiana-like)
> 
> on the other hand, as I mentioned in earlier post, 1 of the Khvalynsk genomes has teal, but contrary to all other EHG in Estern Europe, no WHG-like admixture, which indicates he was a newcomer


Something appears to be amiss in Genetiker's analysis here. The tell-tale sign is that the Caucasus 'pine green' component is completely absent in modern Europeans like Lithuanians. Not sure what he did to have them turn out like this.

His 'mid blue' component seems to be a synthesis of Caucasus & Eurohunter. I've never seen this happen.

----------


## Angela

> Something appears to be amiss in Genetiker's analysis here. The tell-tale sign is that the Caucasus 'pine green' component is completely absent in modern Europeans like Lithuanians. Not sure what he did to have them turn out like this.
> 
> His 'mid blue' component seems to be a synthesis of Caucasus & Eurohunter. I've never seen this happen.


It's a hot mess is what it is. You can structure these things to point in the direction you choose. For example, many of the Eurogenes calculators will give people inflated "Eastern European". Even if the reference populations are ancient samples, some of these "creators" never tell you the confidence intervals, or give you all the possible combinations with that information attached, or, they're absurd mixes of populations from wildly differing eras, or combinations of ancient samples with modern samples, or groups for whose movement there's absolutely no archaeological or historical proof. You have to be like a jaded and totally skeptical prosecutor in examining these things. Said prosecutors have the attitude that virtually everyone will shade or fudge the truth if not outright lie. Never accept what anyone says or "evidence" anyone gives you until you check for it yourself.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Angela, you have consistently claimed David Wesoloski adjusts his tests in a way for his agenda but have no evidence. You assume he does because he's a little Steppe and R1a bias. That isn't a good reason

----------


## Angela

> Angela, you have consistently claimed David Wesoloski adjusts his tests in a way for his agenda but have no evidence. You assume he does because he's a little Steppe and R1a bias. That isn't a good reason


A _little_ biased? I'd tell you to do some research on pertinent sites but what do you know, they've all been scrubbed.

Nor did I mean to point to one particular blogger, and posters should be put into the mix as well.

I'm not saying that a lot of people don't have preferences. The question is do they try to massage every piece of data to fit a pre-determined narrative? Is there any balanced analysis whatsoever?

Also, if you don't know that calculators and statistical analysis in general can be done to lean toward certain results depending on which samples, which reference populations are used, how the cluster is formed and on and on, then you don't understand these programs as well as you think you do.

Haven't you been following the controversy because a project trying to replicate the results of dozens and dozens of psychology and even medical and medical genetics papers found that the majority of the results couldn't be replicated? The stats weren't totally accurate. Maybe it was just error, a lack of understanding of certain choices that were made, but the fact remains that the results weren't accurate.

Grow up, Fire-Haired. You're getting too old to be so naive.

----------


## bicicleur

> It's a hot mess is what it is. You can structure these things to point in the direction you choose. For example, many of the Eurogenes calculators will give people inflated "Eastern European". Even if the reference populations are ancient samples, some of these "creators" never tell you the confidence intervals, or give you all the possible combinations with that information attached, or, they're absurd mixes of populations from wildly differing eras, or combinations of ancient samples with modern samples, or groups for whose movement there's absolutely no archaeological or historical proof. You have to be like a jaded and totally skeptical prosecutor in examining these things. Said prosecutors have the attitude that virtually everyone will shade or fudge the truth if not outright lie. Never accept what anyone says or "evidence" anyone gives you until you check for it yourself.


that is why I'm telling autosomal can be very misleading
I think those calculators who compare anciant DNA with modern populations are even worse
autosomal can give you a hint at best, but it is never solid proof

It looks like in this study they've mixed up CHG with Siberian (Karitiana)

----------


## bicicleur

> It is more like it, because anyone till LN1 is pure hunter gatherer. LN1 is the first farmer/herder who showed up there. Rudimentary farmer, but still. I'm questioning their presentation of LN1 as pure hunter gatherer, from admixture and composition side.


what I understand is that LN1 is proto-corded ware, judging from the burial sites
and it is important to note he had CHG but he didn't have EEF contrary to later corded ware

----------


## bicicleur

> A _little_ biased? I'd tell you to do some research on pertinent sites but what do you know, they've all been scrubbed.
> 
> Nor did I mean to point to one particular blogger, and posters should be put into the mix as well.
> 
> I'm not saying that a lot of people don't have preferences. The question is do they try to massage every piece of data to fit a pre-determined narrative? Is there any balanced analysis whatsoever?
> 
> Also, if you don't know that calculators and statistical analysis in general can be done to lean toward certain results depending on which samples, which reference populations are used, how the cluster is formed and on and on, then you don't understand these programs as well as you think you do.
> 
> Haven't you been following the controversy because a project trying to replicate the results of dozens and dozens of psychology and even medical and medical genetics papers found that the majority of the results couldn't be replicated? The stats weren't totally accurate. Maybe it was just error, a lack of understanding of certain choices that were made, but the fact remains that the results weren't accurate.
> ...


they call it 'alternative truth', it is not something new Trump now just invented, it is everywhere  :Wink: 
these kind of alternative truths are much worse, because they are 'scientific alternative truths'
they used to formulate these in religion, but as that don't work anymore they hide it in a lot of 'science'
and I'm not talking about archeology and genetics here, I'm talking about all those 'social and environmental studies' those 'serious' politcians like to use as arguments

----------


## bicicleur

> Something appears to be amiss in Genetiker's analysis here. The tell-tale sign is that the Caucasus 'pine green' component is completely absent in modern Europeans like Lithuanians. Not sure what he did to have them turn out like this.
> 
> His 'mid blue' component seems to be a synthesis of Caucasus & Eurohunter. I've never seen this happen.


by pine green,do you mean teal or something else?
this is K = 13 from Genetiker
before I studied K = 14 which he published last summer
in K = 14 the distinction between WHG and EHG is clearer

----------


## Fire Haired14

> A _little_ biased? I'd tell you to do some research on pertinent sites but what do you know, they've all been scrubbed.


Yes only a little biased.





> Also, if you don't know that calculators and statistical analysis in general can be done to lean toward certain results depending on which samples, which reference populations are used, how the cluster is formed and on and on, then you don't understand these programs as well as you think you do.


People can do this for ADMIXTURE and PCA but not formal stats like F3 or D-stats or qpadm.

----------


## MarkoZ

> People can do this for ADMIXTURE and PCA but not formal stats like F3 or D-stats or qpadm.


Formal three- or four population models still require certain assumptions about the ancestral populations. Why that's a problem with the generally skewed sampling of prehistoric populations should be obvious. That's why I'm inclinced to distrust amateurs whom I know to have a certain ideological tinge. They usually don't even make an attempt to work out the best model and tend to settle with whatever best fits their narrative.

A prime example of the three population model done right is, in my opinion, the Cassidy et al. paper on Irish ancient DNA. The results have been quite surprising, but are generally ignored by amateurs in favor of their own models.




> by pine green,do you mean teal or something else?
> this is K = 13 from Genetiker
> before I studied K = 14 which he published last summer
> in K = 14 the distinction between WHG and EHG is clearer


Yes, I think we're talking about the same thing. The component that peaks in the Neolithic Iranians.

----------


## LeBrok

> Formal three- or four population models still require certain assumptions about the ancestral populations. Why that's a problem with the generally skewed sampling of prehistoric populations should be obvious. That's why I'm inclinced to distrust amateurs whom I know to have a certain ideological tinge. They usually don't even make an attempt to work out the best model and tend to settle with whatever best fits their narrative.
> 
> A prime example of the three population model done right is, in my opinion, the Cassidy et al. paper on Irish ancient DNA. The results have been quite surprising, but are generally ignored by amateurs in favor of their own models.
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I think we're talking about the same thing. The component that peaks in the Neolithic Iranians*.


I'm suspecting that this is an indication of Neolithic Iranian too. A farmer signature in LN1 after all.

----------


## Northener

> 'tend to settle with whatever best fits their narrative.'.


It's the best thing scientist can do! It's always a model wit basic assumption. It never equals reality. So it's at his best a narrative, a metaphor. History of populations isn't mathematics.....



Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Angela

> It's the best thing scientist can do! It's always a model wit basic assumption. It never s equals reality. So it's at his best a narrative, a metaphor. History of populations isn't mathematics.....
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum


So scientists should start with the narrative and try to force the facts to fit it instead of looking at the facts as objectively as possible and coming up with a logical narrative?

No, thank you.

----------


## Northener

> So scientists should start with the narrative and try to force the facts to fit it instead of looking at the facts as objectively as possible and coming up with a logical narrative?
> 
> No, thank you.


No! 
The past is gone. So only we can do is reconstruct it, by a narrative, as accurate as possible. But it never correspondences with the reality of the past. So there always be room for discussion and progressing views.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Sile

> No! 
> The past is gone. So only we can do is reconstruct it, by a narrative, as accurate as possible. But it never correspondences with the past reality. So there always be room for discussion and progressing views.....
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum


the reconstruct should be then that these are the first Balts because IIRC the area found was only free from the ice-age 500 years before the age of these finds . 
They should not be referred to as proto-slavs .............

----------


## arvistro

That CW guy was neither Balt nor Slav.
He most likely spoke late PIE. Balts came later to these lands, from Trzciniets, which was apparently in big lines a mix of those late PIE (not from Latvia but from same place Latvian CW came) plus Euro farmers.
That is my current narrative.

----------


## MOESAN

> Either they want fame by archeological "showbiz" or they want to vindicate h-g of Europe. One of biggest crime in this paper is overemphasizing Kotias and diminishing Yamnaya heritage. Kotias genome in LN1 would need to be transmitted via contemporary, to LN1, groups. One of these, with strong dominant position in close proximity, is Yamnaya. However, if they modeled LN1 as part of Yamnaya then they would have suggested that LN1 contained farmer genes, either Yamnaya farmer or Iranian Neolithic/Copper. If they split Yamnaya into Kotias and Samara, then "farmer problem" goes away. They can proclaim LN1 as hunter gatherer only, and make their paper revolutionary and famous.
> Following this way of reasoning, way we can "prove" that EEF was a hunter gatherer too. A mixture of Natufian HG, Anatolian HG and WHG.


Agree - problems of historical perspective with basic ancient components and their presence(s) in more recent pops: how and from where newer pops acquired their diverse components compared to their cultural transformations...

----------


## MOESAN

> No! 
> The past is gone. So only we can do is reconstruct it, by a narrative, as accurate as possible. But it never correspondences with the reality of the past. So there always be room for discussion and progressing views.....
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum



TO try to go closer to reality is not a sin, and honest scientists can do it, pace by pace, for the most in using pluridisciplinary methods - the problem is some scientists and some more numerous "amateurs" are biased...

----------


## Tomenable

Good points from Anthrogenica:




> Originally Posted by rms2
> 
> *Where did all that R1b hide during the Neolithic?*
> 
> 
> 
> *P297, M269 etc did not expand barely at all above bare survival until the steppe branch took off around 4000BC and the indeed the branch that covers most of Europe L23-L51-L11 also did not apparently expand above bare survival levels until L11 probably little before 3000BC. That clearly places them in a non-farmer area before those dates because we dont see the branching that the benefits of the huge increase in population farming would permit. There are not many areas of Europe (except really tiny pockets) where farming had not penetrated by 4000BC and very few by 3000BC and the only large blocks where farming barely grazed the economy were the steppe and north-east Europe areas.
> 
> Now that is established I firmly believe P297 was located in that zone as of course would its early M269 and other main branch. The presence of P297 is of course now proven in late hunters in the Baltic and Volga areas. Now what archaeological element do the hunters in both NE Europe and the steppes have in common?* This is key IMO. Ukraine and south Russia, the Carpathians, Balkans etc did not host cultures which are traced back through the chain to the western Magdallenians (I looked heavily into this). Western Europe did, west-central Europe did, north-central Europe did, the Baltics did, Scandinavia did and the extreme NW of Russia did. So the western strand of hunters is not a common denominator between P297 late hunters of NE Europe and the P297 Volga hunters who are both proven by ancient DNA. So P297 did not come to those areas with the hunters spreading across Europe from the south-western refugia. 
> ...

----------


## johen

> Good points from Anthrogenica:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by *rms2
> **Where did all that R1b hide during the Neolithic?*


The genetics related question is the same as the following anthropological fact, isn't it?

_



Debetz (1936), and Alexeev and Gokhman (1987) identified a so-called CroMagnon variety among the Bronze and Iron Age skeletal materials of European Russia and southern Siberia. This variety that combined the cranial robustness with a broad face, had its roots in the local Upper Palaeolithic


-_ Antropologia, E.N. Chrisanfova, I.V. Perevozchikov, 2005 : PaleoEuropid type spread in steppe zone of Eurasia from Dnieper to Altaye-Sayan region in 3-2 milleniums B.C.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...145#post501145 (#203)

----------


## Northener

> TO try to go closer to reality is not a sin, and honest scientists can do it, pace by pace, for the most in using pluridisciplinary methods - 
> 
> the problem is some scientists and some more numerous "amateurs" are biased...


First part: hear, hear!

Second part: we are all, scientist or not, biased. In historical matters is objectivity something different than for a natural scientist or mathematician. Subjectivity is always the case. It's like a painter who paints a painting. The painting can give a detailed image of reality, as close as it gets, but never equals reality.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## bicicleur

> First part: hear, hear!
> 
> Second part: we are all, scientist or not, biased. In historical matters is objectivity something different than for a natural scientist or mathematician. Subjectivity is always the case. It's like a painter who paints a painting. The painting can give a detailed image of reality, as close as it gets, but never equals reality.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum


in nature and maths, there is no room for bias

social studies which today are produced by the dozen, I'd say are 95 % ruled by bias

history, archeology are somewhere in the middle
in history, archeology more objective proof is available than in social and enveronmental studies
but always there remains room for interpretation

----------


## MarkoZ

What's the evidence for P297 emerging at the Urals anyway? All of this sounds very speculative.

----------


## MOESAN

> First part: hear, hear!
> 
> Second part: we are all, scientist or not, biased. In historical matters is objectivity something different than for a natural scientist or mathematician. Subjectivity is always the case. It's like a painter who paints a painting. The painting can give a detailed image of reality, as close as it gets, but never equals reality.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum


to me "biased" is strongest than "subjective" - I can suffer of a bit of subjectivity but I'm not biased - in my life i have been obliged to change my prejudices according to reality, even if it was not pleasant - by the way, concerning FAR IN PAST History I had NO prejudice, only curiosity - you can see that by reading some of my posts where I admit my confusion or uncertainty (sorry for my "french" english) and where sometimes - as do some others - I propose more than a "solution" - sometimes I have NO solution...
As you know perhaps I am not interested in comparisons about "levels" or superiority/inferiority between populations, not that I say everybody is "equal" but I am not interested in this stuff - my ancestors were diverse as for others and I suppose they were not holly people or noble people or Nobel prized people all of them, if any. I find more pleasure like that, without anything to prove.
You are not obliged to believe me, of course! 
Good evening all the way!

----------


## MOESAN

> in nature and maths, there is no room for bias
> 
> social studies which today are produced by the dozen, I'd say are 95 % ruled by bias
> 
> history, archeology are somewhere in the middle
> in history, archeology more objective proof is available than in social and enveronmental studies
> but always there remains room for interpretation


Agree but room for interpretation is not the same as twisting or discarding "unfitting" elements. Concerning social studies I agree: often more politic than science, it's why I seldomly look at the threads concerned by them -
-

----------


## bicicleur

> Agree but room for interpretation is not the same as twisting or discarding "unfitting" elements. Concerning social studies I agree: often more politic than science, it's why I seldomly look at the threads concerned by them -
> -


it's what a told before

this room of interpretation is abused all the time by 'serious' politicians who argue with 'scientific' studies
it's not so dificult for them to find a friended 'scientist' who will write a paper acording to their requirements

----------


## Angela

Interesting given what we've been discussing, yes? Some scientists obviously want to clean up the process, thank goodness.

"#SLAS2017 Bioinformatics at @bmsnews adopted the @PLOS editorial's "10 simple rules for reproducibility" http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285 …


See also:

"Misinterpretation and abuse of statistical tests, confidence intervals, and statistical power have been decried for decades, yet remain rampant. A key problem is that there are no interpretations of these concepts that are at once simple, intuitive, correct, and foolproof. Instead, correct use and interpretation of these statistics requires an attention to detail which seems to tax the patience of working scientists. This high cognitive demand has led to an epidemic of shortcut definitions and interpretations that are simply wrong, sometimes disastrously so—and yet these misinterpretations dominate much of the scientific literature. In light of this problem, we provide definitions and a discussion of basic statistics that are more general and critical than typically found in traditional introductory expositions. Our goal is to provide a resource for instructors, researchers, and consumers of statistics whose knowledge of statistical theory and technique may be limited but who wish to avoid and spot misinterpretations. We emphasize how violation of often unstated analysis protocols (such as selecting analyses for presentation based on the _P_ values they produce) can lead to small _P_ values even if the declared test hypothesis is correct, and can lead to large _P_ values even if that hypothesis is incorrect. We then provide an explanatory list of 25 misinterpretations of _P_ values, confidence intervals, and power. We conclude with guidelines for improving statistical interpretation and reporting."

https://link.springer.com/article/10...654-016-0149-3

----------


## holderlin

> Since no one seems to be asking, what's the verdict regarding the reliability of those results? Did the White God disclose which program he uses for variant calling?


 :Laughing:

----------


## holderlin

wow I missed all the fun.

Tomenable bant? wtf

I just needed to say that i was right about the role of the Baltic.

And when we get Sredny Stog we'll see that I was right about the ukraine too. The Dnieper Donets sample is a preview. It sits right underneath Sredny Stog where we first see cord imprinted pottery. PIE is earlier than Yamnaya.

----------


## holderlin

I swear I'm gonna buy one of those European chicks who keep popping up on this site. I'll have her register a handle and start posting as one of the Eupedia ad girls.

----------


## berun

Ok so there were I2 and R1b in Narva culture. This was derived from Kunda culture and this one from the Swiderian around Poland. The first people to colonize the Baltic area so. From which refuge they came from? From Italy (Villabruna) or from the Balkans (the intervening region between Italy and Anatolia)?

----------


## johen

> _ 
> 
> 
> 
> The two earliest samples in our Baltic time series, Latvia_HG1 (8,417–8,199 cal BP), associated with the Kunda culture, and Latvia_HG2 (7,791–7,586 cal BP), associated with the Narva culture, derive from the Late Mesolithic period [17, 21].
> 
> 
> _
> 
> ...





> Bird bones have been found in a number of Mesolithic and Neolithic burials in northern Europe, but they are seldom studied in a wider perspective
> (Gurina 1956; Jaanits 1957; Guminski 2005; Mannermaa 2006; 2008). A famous and
> often cited archaeological find is the grave from the Late Mesolithic Vedbæk Bøgebakken site in Denmark (Fig. 1) that contained the remains of a young woman and a newborn baby who was buried on a whooper swan wing (Albrethsen & Brinch Petersen 1976).





> Certain birds are perceived as helping or guardian spirits in Saami religion (Karsten 1955; Hultkrantz 1987; Schanche 2000). Animal bones in Saami graves and offering places may represent the dead animal’s spirit (Schanche 2000: 299). *Bones hold a metaphorical relation to power and the spirit of the animal*. By putting the bones of a spirit animal in a grave, its power accompanied the dead person (Schanche 2000: 296). Wing bones have perhaps symbolized
> complete wings or a living bird. This might indicate that animal body parts used in burial rituals referred to those elements that were important in the animal’s relation with humans (see Schanche 2000: 295; Fowler 2004: 136–7). It is also possible that parts of important animals were fastened to the death costumes as decorations
> and symbols. The use of parts of totem animals or implements depicting them in dress decoration is a common practice among recent hunter-gatherer societies in Siberia. For example, a Yakut shaman (Altai) wore a costume which resembles a golden eagle, a leader (Lönnquist 1986: 84; Siikala 2002: 44). *The Nganasan shaman’s costume had motifs of the most powerful birds* (Taksami 1998: 21).


- another shaman in Bolshemys culture where R1b-p297 was found recently



==> I think Narva and Bolshemys culture belong to the yellow zone






> V. Bunak identified one of unconsolidated complexes in varying anthropological variations in the Eurasian north-western forest zone as a separate racial community, which he called “Northern Eurasian Anthropological Formation” (Bunak, 1956, p. 101). To that anthropological community belong the Neolithic population groups of the Baraba steppe adjacent to the Altai-Sayan upland (Creek, Sopka-2/1) 
> The area of the Northern Eurasian Anthropological Formation enormous area: the main finds were obtained in the north-western (Onega lake, southern basin of the White Sea, Karelia, Baltics) and southeastern (northern Baraba) fringes, and also in the northern forest zone of the East European Plain (Pit–Comb Ware Cultural-Historical Community)


I think the ancient people in the yellow zone were intermediate between caucasoid and mongoloid.
They seems to have the following trait combinations, which continued to only modern Karelians. Those combinations have make russian anthropologists to be confused so far:
1. Mesobrachycrany/ a relatively short, wide, robust/ extremely high braincase. 
2. The face : medium high and medium wide 
3. The flattened upper horizontal facial profile, but the midfacial profile is sharp. 
4. sharply protruding and convex nose.

----------


## johen

And the Narva culture was connected to the neolithic Dvina region where recetly R1a and N1c were found



> The main site, dating from the Early Neolithic, is Rudnya Serteiskaya, with two Early Neolithic cultures (Dolukhanov and Mikliaev 1989) . Rudnenskaya pottery of the middle phase exhibits some features characteristic ofthe Narva culture from the Baltic late phase which has parallels with the Upper Volga cultures, indicating that the region was a link between the Baltic and Upper Volga region


THE OCCUPATION HISTORY OF THE REGION BETWEEN THE DVINA AND LOVAT
RIVERS IN RELATION TO THE DYNAMICS OF ENVIRONMENTALCHANGE

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2015/02...rn-russia.html

----------


## Ukko

> And the Narva culture was connected to the neolithic Dvina region where recetly R1a and N1c were found
> 
> THE OCCUPATION HISTORY OF THE REGION BETWEEN THE DVINA AND LOVAT
> RIVERS IN RELATION TO THE DYNAMICS OF ENVIRONMENTALCHANGE
> 
> http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2015/02...rn-russia.html



They need to confirm that N1c soon and place it in the Y tree, many people have strong doubts about it.

----------


## holderlin

> Ok so there were I2 and R1b in Narva culture. This was derived from Kunda culture and this one from the Swiderian around Poland. The first people to colonize the Baltic area so. From which refuge they came from? From Italy (Villabruna) or from the Balkans (the intervening region between Italy and Anatolia)?


 These are the people who hunted and fished near the ice. They came from epigravittian I suppose.

----------


## Tomenable

Latvian hunter-gatherers were R1b-M269 (not just P297), has this been mentioned?:

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorx...12714.full.pdf

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post217483




> two Latvian hunter gatherer Y chromosomes have been characterized as belonging to R1b-M269 clade 39


Reference-39: Jones, E. R. et al. _The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early European Farmers._ Curr. Biol. CB 27, 576–582 (2017).

Has this new Saag et. al. 2017 Estonian paper been discussed on Eupedia? I apparently missed the thread about it (assuming that there was one). There is also a Mittnik, Reich, Haak et. al. 2017 paper, "An eastern Baltic refugium of European hunter-gatherers."

----------


## Brennos

> Latvian hunter-gatherers were R1b-M269 (not just P297), has this been mentioned?:
> 
> http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorx...12714.full.pdf
> 
> http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post217483
> 
> 
> 
> Reference-39: Jones, E. R. et al. _The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early European Farmers._ Curr. Biol. CB 27, 576€“582 (2017).
> ...


Are you sure they were M269+? I remember that Genetiker styled them as pre-M73... but I could be wrong...

This is the line of the reference, but I don't remember to have read about M269 in Jones' paper:

39. Jones, E. R. et al. The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early European Farmers. Curr. Biol. CB 27, 576 (2017)

----------


## LeBrok

> Are you sure they were M269+? I remember that Genetiker styled them as pre-M73... but I could be wrong...
> 
> This is the line of the reference, but I don't remember to have read about M269 in Jones' paper:
> 
> 39. Jones, E. R. et al. *The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early European Farmers. Curr.* Biol. CB 27, 576 (2017)


Actually, South and West Baltic saw the presence of EEF, but not the East side where Latvia is.

----------


## Brennos

> Actually, South and West Baltic saw the presence of EEF, but not the East side where Latvia is.


You are right... but the most shocking thing, for me, is that M269 of those two Latvian foragers. Are we really sure about that?

----------


## LeBrok

> You are right... but the most shocking thing, for me, is that M269 of those two Latvian foragers. Are we really sure about that?


Before arrival of M269 we had R1a h-gs there, more of WHG type. It seems that R1b M269 EHG moved from East pushing R1a out. It was just before CW herders showed up. So perhaps M269 was pushed into Latvia by wave of farmers from Yamnaya. The pressure of population expansion pushed M269 EHGs into Latvia, which in turn pushed R1a farther North (a guess). 
We need samples from West Yamnaya and North Yamnaya to understand their mix of population much better. It is a big cultural area, we can expect dramatic genetic differences within.

----------


## arvistro

> Before arrival of M269 we had R1a h-gs there, more of WHG type. It seems that R1b M269 EHG moved from East pushing R1a out. It was just before CW herders showed up. So perhaps M269 was pushed into Latvia by wave of farmers from Yamnaya. The pressure of population expansion pushed M269 EHGs into Latvia, which in turn pushed R1a farther North (a guess). 
> We need samples from West Yamnaya and North Yamnaya to understand their mix of population much better. It is a big cultural area, we can expect dramatic genetic differences within.


R1a in Latvia? Only came with CW.

----------


## Brennos

> Before arrival of M269 we had R1a h-gs there, more of WHG type. It seems that R1b M269 EHG moved from East pushing R1a out. It was just before CW herders showed up. So perhaps M269 was pushed into Latvia by wave of farmers from Yamnaya. The pressure of population expansion pushed M269 EHGs into Latvia, which in turn pushed R1a farther North (a guess). 
> We need samples from West Yamnaya and North Yamnaya to understand their mix of population much better. It is a big cultural area, we can expect dramatic genetic differences within.


I see that there was R1a in Baltic area before Corded Ware as per the last paper about ancient Estonian results (and the authors, if I remember correctly, stated that R1 subclades were already present together in the area before Corded Ware expansion). But now, I'm not that sure that R-M269 was an EHG lineage. Probably, it was WHG in the direction of EHG. I remember to have read by Chad Rohlfsen months ago that another paper about Ukrainian neolithic is yet to come... and it will contain - as Chad said - many R-M269 and R-L23 samples. Still waiting for that paper....

----------


## LeBrok

> I see that there was R1a in Baltic area before Corded Ware as per the last paper about ancient Estonian results (and the authors, if I remember correctly, stated that R1 subclades were already present together in the area before Corded Ware expansion). But now, I'm not that sure that R-M269 was an EHG lineage. Probably, it was WHG in the direction of EHG. I remember to have read by Chad Rohlfsen months ago that another paper about Ukrainian neolithic is yet to come... and it will contain - as Chad said - many R-M269 and R-L23 samples. Still waiting for that paper....


So far all the clades seems to be mixed up around big territory of Yamnaya. Surely we need more samples to figure out who came from what place in Yamnaya. Maybe there was a strong bottleneck effect during CW period or even later giving a springboard to just few lucky clades?

----------


## bicicleur

> I see that there was R1a in Baltic area before Corded Ware as per the last paper about ancient Estonian results (and the authors, if I remember correctly, stated that R1 subclades were already present together in the area before Corded Ware expansion). But now, I'm not that sure that R-M269 was an EHG lineage. Probably, it was WHG in the direction of EHG. I remember to have read by Chad Rohlfsen months ago that another paper about Ukrainian neolithic is yet to come... and it will contain - as Chad said - many R-M269 and R-L23 samples. Still waiting for that paper....


In western Europe haplo I was replaced by the Villabrunan I2 clade around 14 ka.
Something similar happened between 6.7 and 5 ka in eastern Europe, where R1b-P297 and R1a1 were replaced by R1b-M473, R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 + maybe some I2a2 clades in western Ukraine.

----------


## MOESAN

> In western Europe haplo I was replaced by the Villabrunan I2 clade around 14 ka.
> Something similar happened between 6.7 and 5 ka in eastern Europe, where R1b-P297 and R1a1 were replaced by R1b-M473, R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 + maybe some I2a2 clades in western Ukraine.


Can we everytime say that an upstream SNP is "replaced" by a downstream one of same haplo? with the meaning of a completely new pop? only a big sample for every period can tell us who are the descendants stayed around and who are the ones came from far so having developped different story and auDNA, I think - Just to split hairs.

----------


## Apsurdistan

Wait so if same R1b is found in Europe from mesolithic period found in west europe today that means what I've been reading so far from a lot of posters on here was pretty much crap. The romanticized R1s arrived in Europe in the bronze age and conquered and killed half the male population and raped half of the female population?

----------


## Alan

> Something appears to be amiss in Genetiker's analysis here. The tell-tale sign is that the Caucasus 'pine green' component is completely absent in modern Europeans like Lithuanians. Not sure what he did to have them turn out like this.
> 
> His 'mid blue' component seems to be a synthesis of Caucasus & Eurohunter. I've never seen this happen.


I have tried to tell him this several times on this board already. But it kinda appears like he is ignoring it and keeps posting Genetikers admixture analysis which are allot of times bogus. With all due respect to bicicleur and his opinion (Most of his theories make allot of sense) but in this case I simply don't understand why he keeps staying on a obviously flawed admixture algorythm of Genetiker. In Genetikers admixture runs "Near Eastern/West Asian" components always come short, because he doeasn't use ancient samples and in case of a doubt (shared ancestry) He always favors European over West Asian which makes historically little sense in most cases.

----------


## Alan

> by pine green,do you mean teal or something else?
> this is K = 13 from Genetiker
> before I studied K = 14 which he published last summer
> in K = 14 the distinction between WHG and EHG is clearer


Genetikers "teal" component is based on modern populations of the Caucasus. It does compose of CHG/Iran_Neo as well Anatolian_Neo and Levant_Neo. It lacks some of the CHG ancestry that is nowadays typical for East Europeans and therefore gets eaten up in the "East European" components in his admixture runs. This is why Latvians show very little to non CHG despite actually having at least around 20% CHG. 
This is because his admixture runs always prefer European over West Asian when it comes to shared ancestry while at least in CHG point of case the opposite makes archeologically and historically more sense. And also the peer reviewed papers see it that way. This is why I am saying Genetikers admixture runs are extremely flawed.

----------

