# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  Ancient MtDna from Europe-Single Dispersal from Africa and Population Turnover

## Angela

These are complete mito-genomes. Some very interesting stuff.

See:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...showall%3Dtrue

*Pleistocene Mitochondrial Genomes Suggest a Single Major Dispersal of Non-Africans and a Late Glacial Population Turnover in Europe*Newly generated pre-Neolithic European mtDNA genomes triple the number available•Clade M found for the first time in Europe, prior to the Last Glacial Maximum bottleneck•Rapid single dispersal of all non-Africans less than 55,000 years ago•Previously unknown major population shift in Europe at the end of the Pleistocene
*"Summary*How modern humans dispersed into Eurasia and Australasia, including the number of separate expansions and their timings, is highly debated [ 1, 2 ]. Two categories of models are proposed for the dispersal of non-Africans: (1) single dispersal, i.e., a single major diffusion of modern humans across Eurasia and Australasia [ 3–5 ]; and (2) multiple dispersal, i.e., additional earlier population expansions that may have contributed to the genetic diversity of some present-day humans outside of Africa [ 6–9 ]. Many variants of these models focus largely on Asia and Australasia, neglecting human dispersal into Europe, thus explaining only a subset of the entire colonization process outside of Africa [ 3–5, 8, 9 ]. The genetic diversity of the first modern humans who spread into Europe during the Late Pleistocene and the impact of subsequent climatic events on their demography are largely unknown. Here we analyze 55 complete human mitochondrial genomes (mtDNAs) of hunter-gatherers spanning ∼35,000 years of European prehistory. We unexpectedly find mtDNA lineage M in individuals prior to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). This lineage is absent in contemporary Europeans, although it is found at high frequency in modern Asians, Australasians, and Native Americans. Dating the most recent common ancestor of each of the modern non-African mtDNA clades reveals their single, late, and rapid dispersal less than 55,000 years ago. Demographic modeling not only indicates an LGM genetic bottleneck, but also provides surprising evidence of a major population turnover in Europe around 14,500 years ago during the Late Glacial, a period of climatic instability at the end of the Pleistocene."

I've only skimmed it so far. I'll have more to post later. It seems great grandmama's U2 was once all over northwestern Europe but was replaced in good measure, only to re-emerge later further east. Of course, M was also replaced.

I had always suspected that U5a came from another refugium.

I'm not sure, as always, about the dating.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Loads of New mtDNA from Paleo-Europe

Paleo-Euro mtDNA results weren't totally unexpected. Pre-LGM mtDNA is all extinct: U5*, U2*, U8*, U2'3'4'7'8'9*, U*, M*, R*, N*. Post-LGM mtDNA is under deep subclades of U5b and U5a that are found today. The results from Italy are consistent with Central Europe, probably because it was not isolated by ocean back then. The same type of extinct U8(U8c) was found in Italy and Czech Republic dating over 30,000 years. 

*27,000 year old U2 from Belgium is pre-U2e


**EDIT*: Paleo-U2(27,000 years old) from Belgium shared 16092C with U2s from Neolithic Europe, but that might be a coincidence. I was wrong to assume this means they're related. The Paleo-U2s also share mutations with U2e(16129c, 16189C!) that the EEF U2s lack. It's possible the EEF U2s are also related to U2e, and therefore related to the Paleo-U2s. 


The Paleo-U2 from Belgium is pre-U2e. It shares T5426C, G16129c, T16189C!, and 217C with U2e. 217C according to phylotree markes U2e1'2'3, but these new samples prove this is false. 217C is apart of U2e and the U2e1'2'3 branch doesn't exist, it is just plain U2e.

----------


## LeBrok

I'm looking forward to your update. So we have a great expansion 55 thousand years ago and expansion of new people into Europe 14,500 years ago. I bet they are WHGs. :) Great, now we have to look for their source. Was it Spain or Anatolia?

----------


## Tomenable

> and expansion of new people into Europe 14,500 years ago


Or just within Europe (from one part to other regions).

----------


## bicicleur

it suggests the same as has been suggested Y-DNA in certain areas : sometimes a small tribe expands and occupies large territories at the expense of other tribes

I find 
(B) Post-LGM re-expansion in Europe while ice sheets retracted
and
(C) Late Glacial shift in mtDNA hg frequency.
most intriguing.

----------


## bicicleur

Motala 2 is Y-I2c2 and mt-U2e1, probably descending from post-LGM northward expanding reindeer hunters
the other Motala with known Y-DNA, Loschbour and Bichon are all Y-I2a1 and, with only 1 exception mt-U5, probably descending from tribes expanding with forest growth in Europe

so forest HG-Fishers (Azilian, Tardenoisian, Sauveterrian, Maglemosian, ...) are replacing (Magdalenean) reindeer hunters

----------


## Angela

In case everyone hasn't seen this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...16-GLOBAL-hoot

From the article:

"About 14,500 years ago, when Europe was emerging from the last ice age, the hunter-gatherers who had endured the chilly conditions were largely replaced by a different population of hunter-gatherers. 


Exactly where this new population came from is still unclear, but it seems likely that they came from warmer areas further south. “The main hypothesis would be glacial refugia in south-eastern Europe,” says *Johannes Krause* at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany, who led the analysis.

Lazaridis also chimed in:

"“The population turnover after 14,500 years ago was completely unexpected,” says *Iosif Lazaridis* at the Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It seems that the hunter-gatherers of Europe braved the worst of the ice age during the last glacial maximum but were then replaced when the ice age had begun to subside.”"

I'm not sure the data prove that, although Razib Khan also seems to be convinced.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/human-popula...medium=twitter

"*The ubiquity of population replacement is the reason I recent predicted that the first Aurignacian genome would show no relation to modern Europeans.* (I was correct for what it’s worth) That is, modern humans in Europe have no special relationship to the first modern humans that settled Europe 45,000 years ago. The work on ancient DNA does suggest that modern Europeans have hunter-gatherer ancestry…but how deep does this go? I hazarded that perhaps the Gravettians are the earliest candidates for being the direct ancestors of the “Western Hunter-Gatherers” (WHG), who contribute a substantial portion of their genes to modern Europeans through Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if the genomic character of European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers was determined _after_ the Last Glacial Maximum, ~20,000 years ago.

I think the first part may well be correct. As to the second part I'm really not sure. They seem to be saying that U5b is a signal of this replacement, and since they mention a possible Balkan refugia, that would mean very little role for the repopulation of Europe from Franco Cantabria, wouldn't it, other than perhaps the U2 that showed up in Motala, and the U8 clade that they seem to think is extinct? 

Yet this conclusion seems to me to be largely drawn from the changes in central Europe. There are whole swathes of Iberia unaccounted for, and parts of Italy, and, of course, the Balkans. These Central European scientists like Haak and Brandt and Krause have this tendency to see "Europe", and changes that effect "Europe" as being equal to what has happened in "Central Europe". I'm surprised that Lazaridis follows suit. Of course, the Reich Lab has a whole mess of ancient Dna from southeastern Europe upon which they're sitting, so perhaps they all know something we don't know?

Also, there was some U5 in Europe before the LGM, eastern Europe to be precise, so, taking both things together, I don't see why this couldn't just mean a population bottleneck, even in more central Europe, although I suppose it could be both. Khan does address that possibility but seems to believe it's not enough of an explanation.

"The lineage that to a great extent has been canonical as that of European hunter-gatherers, U5, seems to have increased in frequency only late in the Pleistocene, during the above warm period. *Because of the nature of random genetic drift we do expect lineage to go extinct over time*. These are mtDNA, direct maternal lineages, so only one locus in the genome (though mtDNA is copious, so tends to be low hanging fruit for any new extraction technique). The combination of low long term effective population sizes and meta-population dynamics on the Eurasian fringe might mean that these are not unexpected results. But as suggested in the paper there is also a great possibility that the disruption of the interstadial resulted in some advantage to a particular subset of Pleistocene Europeans, who expanded rapidly, replacing their competitors. *Many of the hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic have relatively low genetic diversity in comparison to modern populations, suggestive of the small population sizes on the European frontier. The expansion of U5 at the expense of other lineages though around ~14,500 years ago does seem to not be attributable purely to chance according to the models tested within the paper. "
*
So, if it's not pure chance, and it's some advantage, was it in the tool kit? This would be the Gravettian tool kit we're talking about, yes? Where did that start?

Oh, only one mtDna "H" showing up. That brings up all those old questions about the reliability of those results for "H" in ancient Iberia.

----------


## bicicleur

there seems to have been replacement upon replacement upon replacement in Europe
even before the arrival of farmers and of Indo-Europeans the European population has been replaced several times

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Angela,

I agree with you. I've noticed the press will look for one big idea and act as if it is fact/proven. When in reality it's not proven and more complex. And you're right Central Europe=Europe in lots of ancient DNA studies. For the most part other regions went through the same stages, but we have nothing SouthEast of Hungary after or before Neolithic which is a huge hole in data. 

IMO, we'll get lots this year and we'll see differnt things were going on there. I remember after Laz 2014 and it seemed everything was figured out, some argued all data is from West Europe and we need data East of Germany to get a fuller picture(esp. ANE) of what changed after Neolithic. And this turned out to be very prophetic. I think the same will be true for data from SE Europe.

----------


## Promenade

> Motala 2 is Y-I2c2 and mt-U2e1, probably descending from post-LGM northward expanding reindeer hunters
> the other Motala with known Y-DNA, Loschbour and Bichon are all Y-I2a1 and, with only 1 exception mt-U5, probably descending from tribes expanding with forest growth in Europe
> 
> so forest HG-Fishers (Azilian, Tardenoisian, Sauveterrian, Maglemosian, ...) are replacing (Magdalenean) reindeer hunters


I think this is a sensible theory, that HG's who lived in a southern refuge expanded back north after the glaciers retreated and were possibly better adopted to handle the new climate in europe because their southern refuge resembled it while the native inhabitants struggled as their primary food source began to disappear.

----------


## Angela

> @Angela,
> 
> I agree with you. I've noticed the press will look for one big idea and act as if it is fact/proven. When in reality it's not proven and more complex. And you're right Central Europe=Europe in lots of ancient DNA studies. For the most part other regions went through the same stages, but we have nothing SouthEast of Hungary after or before Neolithic which is a huge hole in data. 
> 
> IMO, we'll get lots this year and we'll see differnt things were going on there. I remember after Laz 2014 and it seemed everything was figured out, some argued all data is from West Europe and we need data East of Germany to get a fuller picture(esp. ANE) of what changed after Neolithic. And this turned out to be very prophetic. I think the same will be true for data from SE Europe.


I just don't get how they can make statements like "It seems that the hunter-gatherers of Europe braved the worst of the ice age during the last glacial maximum but were then replaced when the ice age had begun to subside." This assumption that only Central Europe is Europe just rubs me the wrong way. If the early pre-U2e and U8 of western and central Europe did get overwhelmed by new U5b2, and they came from the Balkans, it's just one regional European group overwhelming another one. Both groups are European hunter-gatherers, although maybe *W*HG wouldn't fit anymore as a name.

Of course, I don't know that there's a consensus as to where the Gravettian formed. Perhaps in the east somewhere beyond whatever mystical line is chosen as the division between Europe and Asia, but also perhaps in the Near East somewhere, in which case they are "newer" to Europe, but do even serious scientists think in terms of which group was more "European"? It's ridiculous. If we go by chronology, the first and original Europeans might have been yDna "C" and mtDna M and U2e. If native equals first arrivals, then the number of modern Europeans who are descended from the natives is vanishingly small.

----------


## Tomenable

> "The ubiquity of population replacement is the reason I recent predicted that the first Aurignacian genome would show no relation to modern Europeans.


This has already been pretty much known before, that Gravettians largely replaced Aurignacians. 

Peștera cu Oase1 (mtDNA N, Y-DNA F) and Kostenki14 (Y-DNA C1, mtDNA U2) were Aurignacians, AFAIK. However, Y-DNA F (basal paragroup) and C1 as well as mtDNA U2 appear in Europe as minority lineages also in Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic times. So the extinction of Aurignacians was not complete but instead their descendants were partially assimilated by Gravettians (possibly also by First Farmers outside of Europe).

That Aurignacian Y-DNA probably still exists in Europe also today, but at extremely low frequencies:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/palaeolithicdna.shtml

The new genome with R* mtDNA is actually described as Proto-Aurignacian, not Aurignacian proper:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/palaeolithicdna.shtml




> About 14,500 years ago, when Europe was emerging from the last ice age, the hunter-gatherers who had endured the chilly conditions were largely replaced by a different population of hunter-gatherers.


I'm not sure - we have U5 before LGM, and more U5 after LGM - so why do they think that someone came from outside of Europe?

And why do they think that those M*, R*, N* etc. lineages had endured the LGM before getting replaced ???

Maybe they simply did not endure the LGM. Did I miss something in the article which says that they survived the LGM ???

Without *autosomal* and Y-DNA analyses of pre-LGM and post-LGM samples, they shouldn't be drawing such sweeping conclusions.

----------


## Tomenable

> If we go by chronology, the first and original Europeans might have been yDna "C" and mtDna M and U2e. If native equals first arrivals, then the number of modern Europeans who are descended from the natives is vanishingly small.


U2e is still present in Europe today.

BTW - Eurasians have ca. 3% Neanderthal admixture even though *no* Neanderthal Y-DNA and mtDNA survived to modern times.

This shows that part of our autosomal ancestry can be derived from a prehistoric group even if their uniparental markers got extinct.

And this is the case also with Aurignacians - for example - because their autosomal signatures are present in modern Europeans:

*Check these two articles:*

http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...;346/6213/1113

https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing...ean-population

Autosomal maps show that Kostenki14 was most closely related to West Eurasians, unlike Ust'-Ishim who was closer to East Asians:

*1) Kostenki14:*


*
2) Ust'-Ishim:*



This shows that the genetic split of ancestors of West Eurasians and ancestors of East Asians happened mostly before the lifetimes of those men.

----------


## Tomenable

> And you're right Central Europe=Europe in lots of ancient DNA studies.


Indeed.

It seems that Western-Central Europe was frequently being repopulated by migrations from Southern-Eastern Europe in prehistory. Yet, for some reason all these articles claim that "Europe was repopulated" - not that just parts of Europe were repopulated by groups from other parts of Europe and Russia. Also Northern Europe was being repopulated by groups from both South-West and South-East of Europe, as well as from Russia.

I have a suspicion that such narratives are politically motivated to fit nicely into the "Refugee Crisis" (they seem to be saying: "you see, Europeans were replaced so many times in the past, so why do you resist getting replaced too, it is not really so bad to get extinct and replaced").

Non-European immigration is more "trendy" and more politically correct nowadays than Eastern European one, for example. 

"We are all Russkies" is not what people in the European Union want to hear. But "we are all MENA peoples" - why not. :)

Of course sweeping migration waves from outside of Europe also played a huge role (especially early Neolithic farmers).

But let's not exaggerate and let's not - each time we find a change in haplogroup frequencies - claim that all of Europe was repopulated. As if migrations are only possible either into or out of Europe, and not within this huge continent (or rather just a western peninsula of Eurasia).

*We also really need more aDNA from outside of Europe (as well as from undertested parts of Europe) for comparison.*

----------


## Tomenable

> there seems to have been replacement upon replacement upon replacement in Europe
> even before the arrival of farmers and of Indo-Europeans the European population has been replaced several times


See my post above - some of those replacements could be "in situ" (groups expanding just *within Europe*, not from outside of Europe). 

For example the Corded Ware - all R1a, but subclades found in Central European CW were different than modern R1a subclades there. However, there is no doubt that modern subclades found there also originated from Corded Ware, just from another part of it. After all the Corded Ware horizon stretched from the Volga River in the east, all the way up to the Rhine River in the west. So those were expansions "within", not from outside.

----------


## LeBrok

> Non-European immigration is more "trendy" and more politically correct nowadays than Eastern European one, for example. 
> 
> "We are all Russkies" is not what people in the European Union want to hear. But "we are all MENA peoples" - why not. :)
> 
> Of course sweeping migration waves from outside of Europe also played a huge role (especially early Neolithic farmers).


No reason to be afraid. Look at Europeans repopulating America and Australia. That's how it goes in this world. After few centuries, what's left after you will be few short pieces of your DNA.

----------


## LeBrok

> I think the first part may well be correct. As to the second part I'm really not sure. They seem to be saying that U5b is a signal of this replacement, and since they mention a possible Balkan refugia, that would mean very little role for the repopulation of Europe from Franco Cantabria, wouldn't it, other than perhaps the U2 that showed up in Motala, and the U8 clade that they seem to think is extinct? 
> 
> Yet this conclusion seems to me to be largely drawn from the changes in central Europe. There are whole swathes of Iberia unaccounted for, and parts of Italy, and, of course, the Balkans. These Central European scientists like Haak and Brandt and Krause have this tendency to see "Europe", and changes that effect "Europe" as being equal to what has happened in "Central Europe". I'm surprised that Lazaridis follows suit. Of course, the Reich Lab has a whole mess of ancient Dna from southeastern Europe upon which they're sitting, so perhaps they all know something we don't know?
> 
> Also, there was some U5 in Europe before the LGM, eastern Europe to be precise, so, taking both things together, I don't see why this couldn't just mean a population bottleneck, even in more central Europe, although I suppose it could be both. Khan does address that possibility but seems to believe it's not enough of an explanation.


I think you are right. The severe bottlenecking effect on peripheries of Europe could look like population replacement with somewhat different type of HGs. Even more if these HGs received some extra admixture from Africa or Asia while in refugium.




> *Many of the hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic have relatively low genetic diversity in comparison to modern populations, suggestive of the small population sizes on the European frontier. The expansion of U5 at the expense of other lineages though around ~14,500 years ago does seem to not be attributable purely to chance according to the models tested within the paper. "
> *


In this case I can expect the refugium to be in South Balkans and Anatolia, for WHGs. In this case West should become East.




> So, if it's not pure chance, and it's some advantage, was it in the tool kit? This would be the Gravettian tool kit we're talking about, yes? Where did that start?


 Were they Magdalenians at this time? Sort of cousins of Gravettians?

Thanks for the summary Angela. I can't find time to read anything these days.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> No reason to be afraid. Look at Europeans repopulating America and Australia. That's how it goes in this world. After few centuries, what's left after you will be few short pieces of your DNA.


Tomenable isn't afraid of anything. Why would you think he's afraid? He's revealing the possible agenda of some in the media who writes about ancient European DNA. I agree because after DNA from ancient Ireland, I saw BS articles saying Irish are Middle Eastern and "Black Sea" as opposed to other Europeans. Other articles have called Yamnaya "Asian nomads"(images of Genghis Khan will wrongly come to mind). 

He brings up a good point, that it is difficult for us living today to understand that the world genetically/racially was differnt 1,000s of years ago. So, 8,000 years ago the Middle East wasn't an exotic place to Europeans. And it is hard for us to understand Europe and Asia are man made locations and we need to see them as continuous pieces of land when discussing genetics.

----------


## Fire Haired14

My prediction is: Y DNA I2, mtDNA U5b bearing WHGs came out of a SouthWest European refugium and migrated to West Asia giving modern West Asians. 

BTW, I've read leaks about upcoming paleo-European DNA. They don't tell much and have nothing to do with WHG AFAIK. But they suggest there's lots of Paleo-European ancestry in "Asia".

----------


## bicicleur

> This has already been pretty much known before, that Gravettians largely replaced Aurignacians. 
> 
> Peștera cu Oase1 (mtDNA N, Y-DNA F) and Kostenki14 (Y-DNA C1, mtDNA U2) were Aurignacians, AFAIK. However, Y-DNA F (basal paragroup) and C1 as well as mtDNA U2 appear in Europe as minority lineages also in Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic times. So the extinction of Aurignacians was not complete but instead their descendants were partially assimilated by Gravettians (possibly also by First Farmers outside of Europe).


I'm not sure about that.

Proto-Aurigancian was in Italy and Catalunia 45 ka, not in the Balkans.
43.5 ka Aurignacian emerged along the Danube in Austria. From there it spread into Schw¨bische Alp, south-Germany.
Only around 39.5 ka it spread further along the steppe-tundra areas till Kostenki. Before that there where allready people in Kostenki. We don't know from which Kostenki 14 descends, Aurignacian or those who were there before.

As for Oase1, it was in the Balkans and afaik no culture was identified. It appeares to be a line that got extinct without any traces. Both in Y- and mt-DNA it is an isolated branch. Also autosomal DNA doesn't fit.
Oase1 is the only proof of Neanderthal admixture that happened in Europe or just before entering Europe.
Neanderthal admixture happened in the Levant or the Zagors Mountains. I don't think Aurignacians or Gravettians admixed inside Europe. Aurignacians body type was more Neanderthal-like than Gravettians, but I think not much Aurignacian DNA is left alive today.

My theory is still that Aurignacians were C1a2-V20xV86 like La Brana.

----------


## bicicleur

> See my post above - some of those replacements could be "in situ" (groups expanding just *within Europe*, not from outside of Europe). 
> 
> For example the Corded Ware - all R1a, but subclades found in Central European CW were different than modern R1a subclades there. However, there is no doubt that modern subclades found there also originated from Corded Ware, just from another part of it. After all the Corded Ware horizon stretched from the Volga River in the east, all the way up to the Rhine River in the west. So those were expansions "within", not from outside.


yes I agree, most replacements were probably from within, see also my next post

----------


## bicicleur

> My prediction is: Y DNA I2, mtDNA U5b bearing WHGs came out of a SouthWest European refugium and migrated to West Asia giving modern West Asians.


the archeological records suggests many expansions from the Franco-Iberian refugium, which was tundra with mamouth and reindeer during LGM 
mamouth got extinct in that area by the end of the LGM

my guess is that some of these reindeer hunters came from the Franco-Iberian refugium some 15.5 ka and moved north
some others stayed south and converted themselves from reindeer hunter into forest HG-Fishers
they expanded later, together with forest growth into the north and, according to this study replaced the earlier expansion of reindeer hunters

the Grotte du Bichon 13.6 ka man was Azilian, a culture then in the process of this conversion 

during LGM the Alp valleys were filled with glaciers and thereby formed a barrier that could not be crossed
the archeological records does not suggest expansions from Italy or the Balkans beyond the Carpathian Basin

----------


## bicicleur

> BTW, I've read leaks about upcoming paleo-European DNA. They don't tell much and have nothing to do with WHG AFAIK. But they suggest there's lots of Paleo-European ancestry in "Asia".


IMO the 55 ka expansion into Sundaland, Central Asia and Europe came out of Arabia.
There were also pré-55 ka expansions into Sundaland and SW China, but these were replaced by the 55 ka expansion.

----------


## Maciamo

I only saw this study now. I don't have time to read all, but if I understand well the authors found that mtDNA diversity became lower after 14,500 years ago as haplogrou U5 suddenly rose in frequency against other Palaeolithic haplogroups like M*, N*, R*, U*, U2 and U8. However II find it quite misleading as these Paleolithic lineages didn't all disappear. N1 (including hg I), N2 (including hg W), U2 and U8 all survived to this day. What may be true is that these four haplogroups (I, U2, U8, W) survived better in eastern Europe than elsewhere on the continent, and were brought back later by the Indo-European migrations. I don't see any mention of U4, which was the second most common haplogroup in Mesolithic Scandinavia, Ukraine and Russia, and the most common haplogroup of the Catacomb culture (Bronze Age southern Russia-Ukraine). The problem is that they didn't test any eastern European samples, apart from the previously sequenced Kostenki.

I am not sure of how useful it is to draw any conclusion based on a few scattered samples of nomadic hunter-gatherers in various parts of western Europe. The variations in haplogroups over time may simply be due to the fact that various tribes changed territory. The longer the time gap, the more likely tribes will have moved somewhere else. The first category of samples ranges from 45,000 to 25,000 years before present, so it's no wonder that with an enormous time frame they should find a lot of haplogroup diversity. The other categories of samples cover time frames from 3,000 to 5,000 years and exclude peripheral regions tested in the first category, like Britain, the Carpathians and Russia. Isn't it obvious that if the time frame is much smaller and the geographic area more restricted, then the haplogroup diversity should also be lower ? That's basic common sense. It doesn't mean that one population group replaced the other all over Europe, just that other groups moved to other regions. The fact that the other haplogroups still exist today is the best proof of that. 

The most interesting finding was perhaps about haplogroup M, which is the only one that truly disappeared from Europe. I expect that mtDNA M carriers belonged to the same ethnic tribe as Y-DNA C1a2, and represent the earliest Cro-Magnons (Aurignacian culture). MtDNA M survives mostly in South, Southeast and East Asia today, just like Y-DNA C, and represent the earliest Out-of-Africa migration.

----------


## Angela

@Tomenable,
I know U2e survived; I carry it. :) When these researchers talk about "replacement", I don't think they're saying it was a total wipe out. They're saying a substantial portion, sometimes most of the prior genetic signature was lost not by chance through the passage of time or through a bottleneck owing to environmental causes perhaps, but to a migration of different, even if only slightly different people. 

If the Aurignacian was, as has been suggested, yDna C and mtdna M, then I think we could say they were all but wiped out in most of Europe. For the other lineages it's not as clear. As you say, we still have U2e. However, that U2e, as Maciamo pointed out, probably survived not in western and central Europe where there was so much of it originally, but far to the east. So, indeed, if that's the case I suppose it could be said that most of the hunter-gatherers who survived the LGM in western and central Europe were "replaced" to come back to the Lazaridis statement. 




> Without *autosomal* and Y-DNA analyses of pre-LGM and post-LGM samples, they shouldn't be drawing such sweeping conclusions


. 

I totally agree with this. It may be, however, that they've actually done them already, which is why they have such certainty, a certainty that doesn't seem quite warranted from the data presented in this paper. 




> And why do they think that those M*, R*, N* etc. lineages had endured the LGM before getting replaced ???
> 
> Maybe they simply did not endure the LGM. Did I miss something in the article which says that they survived the LGM ???


Post LGM the only mtDna they find in the samples tested is U2e and some U5 far to the east.

Attachment 7616




> See my post above - some of those replacements could be "in situ" (groups expanding just *within Europe*, not from outside of Europe).


Indeed, although ultimately, of course, *everything* came from outside of Europe into Europe. It's just a question of *when*. The Aurignacians were first, then the Gravettians. Was the Gravettian just a local development in Europe? Maybe it depends where you draw this line in Eurasia separating Europe from Asia. The farmers do seem to have moved in from West Asia, although perhaps a similar population was already present in far southern Europe. We don't know yet. Then there is ANE. Were they really "European"? I don't think so. What about the ANE admixed EHG with their Eastern North Asian affinities? When did that population form? 

That's why I agree with this part of Fire-Haired's post.



> And it is hard for us to understand Europe and Asia are man made locations and we need to see them as continuous pieces of land when discussing genetics.





> Bicicleur:
> IMO the 55 ka expansion into Sundaland, Central Asia and Europe came out of Arabia.
> There were also pré-55 ka expansions into Sundaland and SW China, but these were replaced by the 55 ka expansion.


I agree with this.

I'm not sure what the authors of this paper are saying about the expansion from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge, i.e. whether they're saying most of their descendants in Central and Western Europe were replaced by hunter-gatherers from a more eastern refugia or not. I suppose the mtDna U8 survived. I don't know if all of the U2e in modern Europe is from that eastern refugia, or if the U2e in the SHG, for example, was from Franco-Cantabria.

----------


## bicicleur

> I'm not sure what the authors of this paper are saying about the expansion from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge, i.e. whether they're saying most of their descendants in Central and Western Europe were replaced by hunter-gatherers from a more eastern refugia or not. I suppose the mtDna U8 survived. I don't know if all of the U2e in modern Europe is from that eastern refugia, or if the U2e in the SHG, for example, was from Franco-Cantabria.


No, I haven't read anything about that in the paper, I refer to the 'archeological record', i.e. what is known about post LGM European cultures like magdalenian, azillian, tardenoisian, epigravettian etc. To me it seems likely that both groups (B) and (C) originated in the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.

----------


## Maciamo

> However, that U2e, as Maciamo pointed out, probably survived not in western and central Europe where there was so much of it originally, but far to the east. So, indeed, if that's the case I suppose it could be said that most of the hunter-gatherers who survived the LGM in western and central Europe were "replaced" to come back to the Lazaridis statement.


It's too early to tell. U2 could very well have survived in Iberia, in Britain, around Poland (hotspot in the Tatra Mountains) or in the Balkans (hotspot in Macedonia). There are just so many unexplored regions and periods in Palaeolithic Europe that we cannot draw any conclusion at all for any other non-U5 lineages. I for one have thought for many years that mtDNA H could have been in the Balkans and southern Italy at least since the immediate post-glacial period given the diversity of H subclades in southern Europe that were never found in Early European farmers.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Maciamo,

The N* from Paleo-Europe is not related to N1. The single guy who had it was equally related to all modern Eurasians(if you ignore Basal Eurasian influence), he was just an early non-African colonizer, that's why he had ambiguous N* and Y DNA F*. My opinon is that mtDNA N1a1b1(I) originated in West Asia and came to Steppe from Caucasus. All other N1 lineages, are basically exclusive to West Asia: N1a1a(came with EEF), N1b1(popular in West Asia), N1a3a(popular in West Asia).

----------


## Sile

> @Maciamo,
> 
> The N* from Paleo-Europe is not related to N1. The single guy who had it was equally related to all modern Eurasians(if you ignore Basal Eurasian influence), he was just an early non-African colonizer, that's why he had ambiguous N* and Y DNA F*. My opinon is that mtDNA N1a1b1(I) originated in West Asia and came to Steppe from Caucasus. All other N1 lineages, are basically exclusive to West Asia: N1a1a(came with EEF), N1b1(popular in West Asia), N1a3a(popular in West Asia).


was this the guy which was originally classified as X* ............pre NO on the ydna tree?

----------


## Maciamo

> @Maciamo,
> 
> The N* from Paleo-Europe is not related to N1. The single guy who had it was equally related to all modern Eurasians(if you ignore Basal Eurasian influence), he was just an early non-African colonizer, that's why he had ambiguous N* and Y DNA F*. My opinon is that mtDNA N1a1b1(I) originated in West Asia and came to Steppe from Caucasus. All other N1 lineages, are basically exclusive to West Asia: N1a1a(came with EEF), N1b1(popular in West Asia), N1a3a(popular in West Asia).


I agree that mtDNA I was found among the Proto-Indo-Europeans and that it probably spread from the Caucasus region. Hg I has never been found in Europe before the Copper/Bronze Age. N1a, N1b and N1c are all found in the Caucasus. Nevertheless mtDNA I is rare in the Middle East, but common in Northeast Europe. It peaks in the British Isles, the eastern Baltic (Lithuania to Finland), Mordovia - three regions with higher than average Mesolithic European ancestry, and three regions that weren't been sampled by this study from 15,000 ybp onward. So I wouldn't rule out yet the possibility that mtDNA I was already present in Northeast Europe during the Mesolithic. Its presence in the British Isles could be explained by the heavy share of R1b Steppe ancestry. However the Indo-Europeans had only a minor impact in Finland, Estonia or even among the Uralic Mordovians, so that leaves only a Mesolithic dispersal, perhaps from the North Caucasus.

----------


## Tomenable

> However the Indo-Europeans had only a minor impact in Finland, Estonia or even among the Uralic Mordovians


Not sure about Mordovia but Western Finland and Estonia were parts of the Indo-European speaking Corded Ware culture. And the dispersal of Finno-Ugric languages towards the Baltic Sea took place after that of Indo-European languages - exactly as it was later the case in Hungary, where an Ugric language also replaced IE. So linguistic ancestors of both Estonians, Finns and Hungarians assimilated Indo-European substrates.

Studies such as Tömöry 2007, Csányi 2008 and Szécsényi-Nagy 2015 seem to indicate that there is surprisingly little genetic continuity between original Hungarians and modern Hungarians, though maybe this is due to unrepresentative conquest era or modern samples:

Tömöry 2007 (apparently lack of mtDNA continuity: "high-status individuals, presumably conquering Hungarians, show a more heterogeneous haplogroup distribution, with mtDNA haplogroups - N1a, X - which are present at very low frequencies in modern worldwide populations and are absent in recent Hungarian-speaking populations. Our findings demonstrate that significant genetic differences exist between 27 ancient Magyars and 177 modern Hungarian-speakers, and no genetic continuity is seen"):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17632797

http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/1088...isek-angol.pdf

Csányi 2008 (Y-DNA) - it indicates that among Magyars haplogroup N1c was common, but it is almost absent from modern Hungary *(two 10th century elite status Hungarians had Y hg N1c and mtDNA Tat C, but in a modern sample of 197 Hungarian-speakers just 1 had Tat C):*

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...440.x/abstract

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/medievaldna.shtml



2015 study (mtDNA: *see Table 8. on page 137 - it shows total lack of continuity of informative mtDNA haplotypes between a sample of 25 conquest era original Hungarians and a sample of 284 modern Hungarians; even continuity with Cumanians is greater*): 

http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte...75/pdf/doc.pdf

Also such a study on Cumanians: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596944

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

Possible explanations is that Magyars (original Hungarian-speakers) imposed their language on much more numerous locals. It is also possible that the original Magyar stock eventually got extinct, maybe due to being overrepresented compared to local subject stock among warriors and thus suffering high casualties in wars such as against the HRE, against Mongols, or against Turks. For example, after the battle of Lechfeld in 955, most of retreating Magyars were ambushed and slaughtered by local peasants (according to Bachrach's "Warfare in Tenth-Century Germany"):

According to Bachrach, the battle itself was inconclusive (they were halted, not defeated), only the withdrawal was disastrous:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt1x7355




Magyars fought so far and wide in Europe (map), that probably they decimated themselves while trying to conquer Europe:

----------


## Tomenable

*Angela,*




> So, indeed, if that's the case I suppose it could be said that most of the hunter-gatherers who survived the LGM in western and central Europe were "replaced" to come back to the Lazaridis statement.


And where did that replacing group come from? 

I suppose they could come from North-Western Africa crossing the Strait of Gibraltar (= ancestors of Franco-Cantabrian WHG ???).

Maybe this explains dark skin of Mesolithic WHG?

----------


## Angela

> *Angela,*
> 
> 
> 
> And where did that replacing group come from? 
> 
> I suppose they could come from North-Western Africa crossing the Strait of Gibraltar (= ancestors of Franco-Cantabrian WHG ???).
> 
> Maybe this explains dark skin of Mesolithic WHG?


It seems to me that they're proposing a large scale "replacement" (not necessarily total, but pretty severe) of the mtDna lineages in central, western, and northern Europe from a more southerly refugia which they tentatively place somewhere near the Balkans. 

That would be a regional replacement really, not one coming from outside of Europe. 

At least, that's how it reads to me.

----------


## arvistro

> However the Indo-Europeans had only a minor impact in Finland, Estonia or even among the Uralic Mordovians, so that leaves only a Mesolithic dispersal, perhaps from the North Caucasus.


Why do u think the impact was minor?
Fatyanovo culture was one of the base genetic components for Baltic Finns.

----------


## Maciamo

> Why do u think the impact was minor?
> Fatyanovo culture was one of the base genetic components for Baltic Finns.


Because the Fatyanovo culture was only present in the extreme south of Finland, and the Indo-Europeans never stayed long enough to have a lasting influence (i.e. on the modern population) on the language or Y-DNA. The Finns are Uralic speakers and have only 5% of R1a (and some of it could have come from Sweden in historical times).

With only 5% of R1a, it is unlikely that mtDNA I in Finland (4.2%) came with the Indo-Europeans. Even pure Proto-Indo-Europeans from the Corded Ware or Catacomb culture had only 3% of mtDNA I. Proportionally to R1a, we should expect only 0.1% or 0.2% of mtDNA I in Finland of Indo-European origin. It would have needed a huge founder effect to increase it 20 or 30 folds against other haplogroups to reach 4.2% today. Another possibility is that mtDNA confers a real and substantial adaptive advantage in cold climates. But then why would the neighbouring Saami, who have intermixed with their Finnish cousins for 5000 years since Corded Ware and Fatyanovo, have 0% of mtDNA I ?

----------


## Tomenable

> With only 5% of R1a, it is unlikely that mtDNA I in Finland (4.2%) came with the Indo-Europeans. Even pure Proto-Indo-Europeans from the Corded Ware or Catacomb culture had only 3% of mtDNA I. Proportionally to R1a, we should expect only 0.1% or 0.2% of mtDNA I in Finland of Indo-European origin.


Some mtDNA haplotypes could increase in frequency coincidentally with selection for other traits possesed by carriers of those haplotypes.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Maciamo,

Finnish might have little IE-admixture, but they're still very similar to Unetice, Corded Ware, etc. Finno-Urgics in the Urals have EEF, WHG, along with CHG and EHG. Maybe we shouldn't get stuck on language barrier. One way or another Uralics and early IEs share lots of ancestry.

----------


## arvistro

Lack of I in Saami who indeed largely lack IE admixture (despite mixing with Finns they are quite distant to Finns, more distant than IE folks to Finns if I recall things right) actually helps my point, does not it? 

Finns, more so Estonians are pretty much same genetically as Balts / Belorussians AND they have I.
Saami are quite distant from Balts/Belorussians and Finns AND have 0 of I.

Btw, Finns themselves most likely arrived into Finland from Estonia after AD. So, it does not even matter if Fatyanovo was deep into Finland.

Textile ceramics culture (alledged fathers of Baltic Finns) formed around modern Pskov before early iron age partially on ruins of post -Fatyanovo groups.

----------


## Kristiina

“The Finns are Uralic speakers and have only 5% of R1a”

This is not correct and most Uralic groups have very high amounts of R1a:
Finns: 7.9% (according to Zerjal et al) (the Finnish average should be rounded up to 10% and not to 5%)
Western Finns: 8.7% (according to Lappalainen et al)
Eastern Finns: 5.9% (according to Lappalainen et al)
Estonians: 37.3%
Saamis: 11%
Vepsans: 36% (mostly R-M458 and R-M558)
Karelians: 40% (mostly R-Z282, R-M458 and R-M558)
Mordvins: 26.5% 
Maris: 47.7% (mostly R-M558 and R-Z282)
Udmurts: 10.3% (mostly R-M558 and R-Z282)
Komi-Permyaks: Komi average 33% (mostly R-Z282, R-M458)
Komi-Zyrjans: Komi average 33% (mostly R-M458 and R-M558) 

“Because the Fatyanovo culture was only present in the extreme south of Finland, and the Indo-Europeans never stayed long enough to have a lasting influence (i.e. on the modern population) on the language or Y-DNA.”

Corded Ware (in Finnish ‘nuorakeramiikka’) lasted 700 years in Finland, i.e. 3200 - 2500 BC. According to Wikipedia Continental Corded Ware is dated c. 2900–2450/2350, which means that it started 300 years earlier in Finland! 
http://www.finnica.fi/keski-suomi/es...ly/elama3c.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture


Corded Ware covered most parts of the country and a high amount of battle axes have been found in Northern parts of the country. According to Eurogenes test, I am closer to Corded Ware than Germans or many Swedes and an Eastern Finnish male who did the same test was closer to Corded Ware than me and astonishingly close to Sintashta.

Eastern Finn.jpg

Uralic languages themselves are quite close to Proto-Indo-European language compared e.g. to Northwest or Northeast Caucasian languages, Paleo-Siberian, Eskimo-Aleut or Sino-Tibetan languages. The only big difference is the absence of gender, and the Armenian language as well as the ancient Hittite language did not have gender and it is suggested that Proto-IE did not have gender. All Uralic languages contain a big amount of words with a proto-IE status. 

Of course, all Uralic languages contain a Siberian substrate but we do not know at all the yDNA of these Siberian groups.

Arvistro, maybe Saamis are not so close to Corded Ware as Finns but, however, they are very close to EHG, Ma1, Andronovo, Afanasievo and Yamnaya. (http://eurogenes.blogspot.lu/2015/08...pop1-pop2.html)

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Kritiina,

Finno-Urgics are so similar to neighboring IE speakers that there must be common ancestry behind IE-Finno Urgic linguistic connections in 5000 BC. There's common ancestry deep in Europe outside of Russia where EEF/WHG was.

----------


## Kristiina

Thank you Fire Haired14!

Sintashta is often considered the point of departure of Indo-Iranian languages, and Uralic languages contain a high amount of so called Indo-Iranian loanwords. Now that I see how close to Sintashta an Eastern Finnish male with a typical Finnish N1c haplogroup is (let alone if we compare Sintashta to Indians!), I really call into question this eternal talk of loanwords into Finnish. Why should they be loanwords if there is a genetic continuity?

----------


## arvistro

> Thank you Fire Haired14!
> 
> Sintashta is often considered the point of departure of Indo-Iranian languages, and Uralic languages contain a high amount of so called Indo-Iranian loanwords. Now that I see how close to Sintashta an Eastern Finnish male with a typical Finnish N1c haplogroup is (let alone if we compare Sintashta to Indians!), I really call into question this eternal talk of loanwords into Finnish. Why should they be loanwords if there is a genetic continuity?


Whether something is loanword or not is not defined by genetic continuity... 
If North or North West Latvians are genetically same as extinct Liivi folk, it does not make Latvian "puika" (boy) a native Indo European, Baltic word. That would be absurdeus statement. It is properly recognized as a loanword of Baltic Finnic origin.
What could be argued is that Finnish folk besides loanwords borrowed also some Indo Iranian blood.

As to Indo-Iranic loanwords into FU there is so much academical reasearch, that only true question is when to date those borrowings and what kind of Indo Iranic was the source language. In this light Napolskich's arguments of Indo-ish character for earliest loanwords seems the most attractive to me.

----------


## Kristiina

“borrowed also some Indo Iranian blood”

It is very funny indeed that Indians or Sardinians who are genetically very far from Sintashta are considered Indo-Europeans and an Eastern Finn who is closer to Sintashta than any German or Swedish person is considered a person who has borrowed his genes and language/words. I do not believe in this any more.

The whole idea that you can borrow your own genes and blood is absurd and stupid.

----------


## MOESAN

> Not sure about Mordovia but Western Finland and Estonia were parts of the Indo-European speaking Corded Ware culture. And the dispersal of Finno-Ugric languages towards the Baltic Sea took place after that of Indo-European languages - exactly as it was later the case in Hungary, where an Ugric language also replaced IE. So linguistic ancestors of both Estonians, Finns and Hungarians assimilated Indo-European substrates.
> 
> Studies such as Tömöry 2007, Csányi 2008 and Szécsényi-Nagy 2015 seem to indicate that there is surprisingly little genetic continuity between original Hungarians and modern Hungarians, though maybe this is due to unrepresentative conquest era or modern samples:
> 
> Tömöry 2007 (apparently lack of mtDNA continuity: "high-status individuals, presumably conquering Hungarians, show a more heterogeneous haplogroup distribution, with mtDNA haplogroups - N1a, X - which are present at very low frequencies in modern worldwide populations and are absent in recent Hungarian-speaking populations. Our findings demonstrate that significant genetic differences exist between 27 ancient Magyars and 177 modern Hungarian-speakers, and no genetic continuity is seen"):
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17632797
> 
> http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/1088...isek-angol.pdf
> ...



_often, a striking phenomenon has cumulative causes; what you say here can be one of them; but in front of the amazing constat of a so foreign language in Central Europe almost without any apparent support in DNA I'm tempted to think GENUINE EARLIERLIKE Magyars were only a warriors elite when they reached Europe; texts seem confirming it; as very often in these warlike periods among barbaric tribes, the buryings we find are the elites ones. I 've hard work to imagine these nomads of the 900's without any linguistic support around them could have "teached" magyaric to vainquished population of Central Europe; so I imagine a progressive acculturation on their road from East towards Europe, and among the incorporated sets of tribes taken by them, an heavy Slavic element, among others (Turkic more than Iranic, I bet).
Sorry for a topic a bit outside the very thread
_

----------


## MOESAN

- concerning language, the tempting link between Finnic-Ugric and Indo-European doesn't tell us when possible community brake off; a lot of genetic crossings and internal evolution could have taken place since;
- Finns of Finland are - if I rely upon what I red -very north-east-european concerning mt DNA and autosomes; only Y DNA is an exception (and other European Finns are very less "asiatic";
- even if physical types can mistake us about real genetic links, it seems the Post LGM times saw new types coming into Central and Western Europe from East (far? close? I don't know) - at least if their features were only the result of mesologic selection, what I don't think, these types had passed a while in other regions than where they arrived. The question is: where they came from at first? Ukraina? Caucasus? farther? their links to archeologic artefacts are unkown to me helas; But from what I know (little!) Balkans were not the denser occupied region during LGM in Europe.

----------


## MOESAN

concerning types (slipping track?) La Brana1 showed very more links to old 'cromagnoid' types than to 'brünnoid-capelloid" ones I consider as come later in Europe. the recent other HGs seems closer to 'brünnoid' type, at least for the skull; but at their time crossings between the two ligneages were surely already at work, when I look at Loschbour's face and at diverse regional metric features and indexes of Late Mesolithic. The fact La Brana was Y-C1 when almost all the others are Y-I(2) could be hazard (ridiculously "small" sample for La Brana = 1; laughings) but it could also point to a difference of proportion in diverse HGs ligneages betwen Atlantic Europe and other places. I think more than a move took place after LGM as archeology seems showing, a recolonization from the Franco-Cantabrics region towards North-East, and other ones from other directions, towards West among others directions.
I think the North Caucasus and South Caucasus regions could have send people northwards after LGM, population which where separated so different in some degree before meeting later in Steppes (more than a "caucasus" type of DNA in fact)
after climatic improvement we can suppose more than a move occurred on more than a direction

----------


## gyms

> Lack of I in Saami who indeed largely lack IE admixture (despite mixing with Finns they are quite distant to Finns, more distant than IE folks to Finns if I recall things right) actually helps my point, does not it? 
> 
> Finns, more so Estonians are pretty much same genetically as Balts / Belorussians AND they have I.
> Saami are quite distant from Balts/Belorussians and Finns AND have 0 of I.
> 
> Btw, Finns themselves most likely arrived into Finland from Estonia after AD. So, it does not even matter if Fatyanovo was deep into Finland.
> 
> Textile ceramics culture (alledged fathers of Baltic Finns) formed around modern Pskov before early iron age partially on ruins of post -Fatyanovo groups.


 The second most common haplogroup is I, which is found almost exclusively among those of European ancestry. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...cs_of_the_Sami

I is not IE! 

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19998#f4

The Uyghur samples exhibited one primary haplogroup M429 containing 84 samples (out of 95 Uyghur samples used for the analysis) mixed with samples from mainly Eastern Asia and Europe, with the rest of the samples distributed in haplogroups M89 and M2. 

IJ= M429

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...inno-Ugric-DNA

https://kalmistopiiri.wordpress.com/...uinaisgenomia/

----------


## arvistro

> “borrowed also some Indo Iranian blood”
> 
> It is very funny indeed that Indians or Sardinians who are genetically very far from Sintashta are considered Indo-Europeans and an Eastern Finn who is closer to Sintashta than any German or Swedish person is considered a person who has borrowed his genes and language/words. I do not believe in this any more.
> 
> The whole idea that you can borrow your own genes and blood is absurd and stupid.


Indo-European is linguistic concept not a genetic. So, you cant consider Finns or Basques or Jews or Georgians or Turks as Indo-Europeans. 
Michael Jordan is an Indo-European.

As to borrowing own genes. ~50% of my genes are borrowed from my dad and another 50 from mom. If my dad was Lithuanian and I considered myself Latvian, I could argue that I am Latvian who has borrowed genes from Lithuanians :)

----------


## gyms

http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA14_23.pdf

Finnic traits in Russian

http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/...n-russian.html

Bibliography of Slavic-Finno-Ugric language contacts


http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna...o/slfubib.html

Interpretations and misinterpretations of Finno-Ugric language relatedness

http://www.academia.edu/1896628/Inte...ge_relatedness

Review of Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations

http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews...fm?SubID=10710

*Slavicization was not always a function of genetic replacement, but in part one of assimilative absorption of local substratum.* 

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/01...ame-the-slavs/



*



Toponymy and linguistics




*http://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/U..._Tichelaar.pdf

----------


## Kristiina

However, in this case, there is an archaeological link (Corded Ware, Fatyanovo), linguistic link (similar structure with loads of so called loanwords) and genetic link (e.g. Finns are genetically closer to Corded Ware/ Sintashta than most IE groups and most Uralic groups have loads of R1a). It is just too much. N1c probably has a similar relationship to IE as I2 to Slavics, and its origin is still unresolved.

If my mother were Saami, which is not true, I would not say that I have borrowed half of my genes from Saamis but I would say that I am of admixed ancestry. It is obvious that Uralic groups have in any case heavily mixed with IE groups.

----------


## Angela

> Indo-European is linguistic concept not a genetic. So, you cant consider Finns or Basques or Jews or Georgians or Turks as Indo-Europeans. 
> Michael Jordan is an Indo-European.
> 
> As to borrowing own genes. ~50% of my genes are borrowed from my dad and another 50 from mom. If my dad was Lithuanian and I considered myself Latvian, I could argue that I am Latvian who has borrowed genes from Lithuanians :)




I agree in large part. If, as does David Anthony, you think that the "Indo-Europeans" are the people on the Pontic Caspian steppe from approximately 4200-3000 BC who put together both the Indo-European cultural package and the language, then they were, at least according to the current thinking, a mixed group ethnically, with approximately 40-50% of their genetic data resembling that of the CHG. 

Now, as their cultural package (and language) spread, perhaps both *with* gene flow and *without*, and reached people who very much resembled one or the other part of their genetic ancestry, does it make the "recipient" people "Indo-Europeans"? Yes, in a sense in does, so long as you don't claim they're the "original" Indo-Europeans. 

However, if you call people who were largely only genetically related to part of the "original" group of "Indo-Europeans", but received the package late, and either abandoned or never adopted the language at all, "Indo-Europeans", doesn't the term lose all significance?

As for Sintashta, that's a later group with a somewhat different ethnogenesis. I'd also be cautious with some of the formal stats that have been done with them, although some of Kurd's work is interesting. I'll wait for the Reich Lab and groups of equal stature to opine before making up my mind.

Anyway, that's how it seems to me.

----------


## arvistro

> Now, as their cultural package (and language) spread, perhaps both *with* gene flow and *without*, and reached people who very much resembled one or the other part of their genetic ancestry, does it make the "recipient" people "Indo-Europeans"? Yes, in a sense in does, so long as you don't claim they're the "original" Indo-Europeans.


IE is a linguistic term like Slavs, Celts, Germans, Iranians. 
If a population speaks IE derived language does not matter how, they are IEs per definition. We accept that Hindu monk in India is IE and Sweddish atheist Marketing Manager is IE, despite their "cultural packages" or their genetic differences.

"Original IEs" would be a tribe that spoke original IE that is ProtoIE (PIE) many 1000s years ago. No modern folk is original IE. 
But of course that does not forbid arguments as to how similar modern pops are to that tribe linguistically, culturally or genetically OR as in your case whether genetical similarity is causual or just by having same ingredients.




> However, if you call people who were largely only genetically related to part of the "original" group of "Indo-Europeans", but received the package late, and either abandoned or never adopted the language at all, "Indo-Europeans", doesn't the term lose all significance?


Of course. You must speak IE to be IE.

----------


## Tomenable

Any archaeological "cultural packages" are only of secondary importance to the study on Proto-Indo-European origins. This field of science is about the spread of a language family and of people who spoke it. The beginning of Indo-European studies can be traced back to 1653 when Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn published a proposal for a common ancestral proto-language of Germanic, Romance, Greek, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic and Iranian language families. He initially suggested to call that proto-language "Scythian". In 1786 William Jones added Sanskrit to the list, providing the basis for the name "Proto-Indo-European". Later more languages were also found to be related. The only reason why investigating archaeological cultures is helpful in Indo-European studies, is because it helps in tracing ancestors of modern Indo-European peoples. For example an Indo-Aryan ritual described in Rig Veda, was discovered in one of graves of the Potapovka archaeological culture, which - alongside other evidence - means that we can perhaps link Potapovka with Proto-Indo-Aryans:

https://sites.google.com/a/sudiptoda.../thearyantrail

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/1...0-1500-bc.html

*"Excavations conducted from 1985-1988 in Potapovka exposed four burial mounds, or kurgans, dated between 2200-2000 BC. Beneath kurgan 3 the central grave pit had remains of a man buried with at least two horse heads and the head of a sheep, in addition to pottery vessels and weapons. After the grave pit was filled, a human male was decapitated, his head was replaced with the head of a horse, and he was laid down over the filled grave shaft. This unique ritual provides a convincing antecedent for the Rig Vedic myth of Dadhyac Atharvan who knows the secret of making Soma juice, the nectar of immortality. The Asvins insist that Dadhyac tell them the secret. He refuses. They cut off his head and replace it with the head of a horse, through which he becomes an oracle and tells them the secret."

*Rig Veda was written in the 2nd millennium BC.

This grave, showing evidence of an identical ritual as that described later in Rig Veda, dates back to the 4th millennium BC.

----------


## Kristiina

Currently, (but I may change my mind when we get ancient DNA from the relevant areas,) I think that Uralic languages arose when the modernity reached Northeastern European forest area. In my thinking, Uralic languages are not an IE daughter language but a sibling language (cf. 'Indo-Uralic'). However, there must have been continuous interactions for thousands of years, and a Corded Ware language was surely spoken In Estonia and Finland during the Corded Ware period and it has in any case greatly influenced all Finnic languages.

----------


## bicicleur

> Currently, (but I may change my mind when we get ancient DNA from the relevant areas,) I think that Uralic languages arose when the modernity reached Northeastern European forest area. In my thinking, Uralic languages are not an IE daughter language but a sibling language (cf. 'Indo-Uralic'). However, there must have been continuous interactions for thousands of years, and a Corded Ware language was surely spoken In Estonia and Finland during the Corded Ware period and it has in any case greatly influenced all Finnic languages.


what do you mean by modernity?
could there be a link between Uralic and Seima-Turbino?


*N1c (L729)*
*N1c1* (M46/Page70/Tat)
N1c1a (M178): found in Siberia (Khakass-Daurs)
N1c1a1 (L708): found in Siberia (Anayins)
N1c1a1a (P298): found in Siberia (Yakuts)
*N1c1a1a1 (L392, L1026): Finno-Ugric branch*; found throughout north-east Europe
*N1c1a1a1a (CTS2929/VL29): Baltic-Finnic branch*
*N1c1a1a1a1 (L550): West Finnic branch*; found around the Baltic Sea and in places settled by the Vikings
N1c1a1a1a1a (L1025)
*N1c1a1a1a1a1 (M2783)*: found especially in Balto-Slavic countries, with a peak in Lithuania and Latvia*N1c1a1a1a1a2 (Y4706)*: found mostly in Finland and Scandinavia
*N1c1a1a1a2 (CTS9976): East Finnic branch*; found among the Chudes (Karelia, Estonia)N1c1a1a1a2a (L1022)
*N1c1a1a1a2a1 (Z1936): Finno-Permic branch*; found in the Volga-Ural region and among the Karelians and Savonians
N1c1a1a1a2a1a (Z1925): found in Finland, Lapland, Scandinavia, the Volga-Ural and the Altai
N1c1a1a1a2a1a1 (Z1933)
N1c1a1a1a2a1a1a (Z1927): found among the KareliansN1c1a1a1a2a1a1b (CTS8565): found among the Savonians
*N1c1a1a2b (L1034): Ugric branch*; found in and around Hungary and in Central Asia (Kazakhstan)



Haplogroup N1c1 is strongly associated with Uralic peoples, whis is divided in the following families.
Samoyedic (Nganasans, Enets, Nenets and Selkups)Finno-Ugric
Finno-Permic
Baltic Finnic (Finnish, Karelian, Estonia, etc.)Permic (Komi, Udmurt)Saamic (Saami)Volgaic (Mari, Mordvin)
Ugric
HungarianOb-Ugric (Khanty, Masi)
The Samoyedic branch on northern Siberia split the earliest and correspond to the N1c1* and N1c1a* subclades.Permic and Volgaic speakers have a wide diversity of N1c subclades, including N1c1a1 (L708), N1c1a1a (L1026), N1c1a1a1 (VL29), N1c1a1a2a (Z1935), and N1c2b (P43).

What do you think about the Yakuts?
They speak Turkic now.
But are they original Turkic or where they Uralic who switched language in Siberia?
[/LEFT]

----------


## Kristiina

With modernity I mean the Bronze Age upheavals. 

That Wikipedia tree is not the only phylogenetic tree available. These phylogenetic trees from the paper “A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture” are better: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/supp...al_Figures.pdf

N1c a.jpg

N1c b.jpg

According to the trees above, Ananyin branch (L708) is not Siberian as it is found in Volga (Udmurts and Maris) and in Altai.

This tree is even more detailed and more recent but the geographic references are missing so it is probably less informative: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups...out/background

Samoyeds have mostly N1b, and their N1c is not the earliest split but falls into the West Siberian branch Z1936 and more specifically to the Ugric branch which is shared with Hungarians. The whole Z1936 is shared between Estonians, Finns, Kazakhs and the above mentioned Ugrics.

With so little ancient yDNA we have, I do not know about Yakuts. Everything is possible. The oldest split is that of Shors and Khakass, and IMO they have never been Uralic speakers, and they geographic area is South Siberia.

----------

