# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  Estimating the Y-DNA and autosomal admixtures of Yamnaya samples

## Maciamo

We got the first mtDNA samples from the Yamna culture in 2014. These samples are being tested for autosomal DNA and Y-DNA, and the results should hopefully become available in the coming months. So if any of you want to venture a guess about the results, now is the time.

Angela posted this in another thread.




> Somewhere I saw a speculation that the Yamnaya people will turn out to be about 50% ENF, 30%ANE, and 20%WHG. Maybe it will be more like 45/30/25, who knows, but still those North Caucasus populations, especially the Lezghins, might be pretty close if those turn out to be the final figures.


I personally don't think that the Lezgins or any modern population can be used as a proxy to the Yamnaya Proto-Indo-European people. The Lezgins, North Ossetians and other North Caucasians with both relatively high percentages of ANE and R1b are at best one quarter Proto-Indo-European genetically, and possibly much less. 

I also disagree with the estimation of ENF, ANE, and WHG for Yamnaya people. I actually don't think that there was one homogeneous Yamanya population. The Yamanaya culture had emerged from the merger of three distinct ethnic groups: 

1) *R1a hunters-gatherers* (with I2a minority ?) in the forest-steppe to the north and Volga-Ural region associated with the Mesolithic Dnieper-Donets culture (c. 5000-3500 BCE). They carried a lot of mtDNA U2e, U4 and U5a1, but also with C4a, H6, H11 and W, and possibly H1b, H1c and H2a1 and T1a1a. Originally, before mixing with any other group, these people would have been very high on WHG, with some ANE and a little EEF. Perhaps 60 to 70% WHG and 30 to 40% ANE.

2) The *G2a3b1 and J2b2 farmers* (with T1a minority ?) from the Carpathians (Cucuteni-Tripyllian) and Balkans (Varna) who spread farming and copper metallurgy to southern Ukraine (Sredny Stog) and the Volga (Samara, Khvalynsk), and possibly also to the Northwest Caucasus (Nalchik). They would have carried the typical Neolithic + Mesolithic Balkanic mtDNA (H1, H5a, H7, H20, K, J1c, N1a, T1a, T2a1, T2b, X2). Originally, these people were probably 90% EEF and 10% WHG.

3)* R1b cattle herders* (with T1a minority ?) from eastern Anatolia, who migrated to the North Caucasus and the north of the Black Sea. This is the most enigmatic of the three populations as we have no idea of how much R1b people intermixed with local populations in South Asia and the Middle East before moving across the Caucasus, and how much they mixed with Caucasian people along the way and while they lived in the North Caucasus. Retracing mtDNA lineages associated with R1b was a very arduous task because R1b men migrated so much and mixed with completely different people every time they moved. By my own reckoning, the earliest R1b people that should appear north of the Caucasus should carry at least mtDNA haplogroup H8, H15, J1b1a and U5, but probably also J2b1 and some I, K, T and W subclades. If they arrived relatively unmixed with Caucasian populations, they could have something like 30-40% ANE, 30-40% WHG and about 30% EEF. But I admit that it's highly speculative compared to the two others.


It's very hard to give an estimate of percentages to expect in Yamnaya samples because it really depends how the location and period of the sample and much each group had already intermixed with the others. Since the intermingling of the three populations was happening at different rates in various part of the wide-ranging Yamnaya horizon, we could expect to find _very_ different admixtures in samples from Crimea, Cherkasy, Rostov, Volgograd or Samara.

Based on the few Yamna samples already tested, it seems like R1a tribes were not very much involved in the mix. U4 and C4a are much higher in the subsequent Catacomb culture, which implies a massive migration of R1a tribes to the southern steppe right after the Yamna period, perhaps to fill the vacuum left by the migration of R1b tribes to the Balkans and Central Europe. However, the Corded Ware also originated in the (northern) Yamna culture and was undeniably linked to R1a. This is why I think that northern and southern Yamna people could have had quite different DNA.


I have made a map to visualize better the merger of the three populations. This represents the situation in the 5th and early 4th century BCE, before the Yamna period.

----------


## Krefter14

Laz at a conference months ago said Yamna can be modeled as 50% Armenian and 50% EHG(Mesolithic East Euro). Based on other leaks, the mainstream view is that Yamna was around 55% EEF, 25% ANE, and 20% WHG, in Laz terms. In ANE K8 terms; 40% Near eastern, 35% WHG 25% ANE.

The youngest pre-IE samples from west Europe have alot of WHG, around as high as it gets today, and so Yamna doesn't have to have high WHG to explain current levals.

----------


## Krefter14

Obviously by the time IEs got to west Europe they weren't pure Yamna, and I think they were very similar to modern central-north Europeans. 

I think this because Bronze age Hungarians cluster in-between Basque and NW Europeans, and CWC and Bell beaker-Unetice(ancestral to Balto-Slavs, Germans, Italics, Celts) according to a leak cluster with North-central Europeans on PCAs. Because bronze age IEs hadn't migrated west to Ireland(for example), and are very similar genetically to Irish, Ireland was probably largely repopulated by IEs.

----------


## motzart

I think its interesting to include the anthropology too. Below is a post from the dienekes blog circa 2006.

The Corded Ware culture includes about twenty variants (Sveshnikov 1974) and occupies predominantly Central Europe, Scandinavia, Sub-Carpathia and also the Upper Volga (Fig. 1). It was formed in Central Europe, in an area of special concentration of qute distinct cultures of different origins, including those from Mediterranean and North-Baltic regions of Europe. Bearers of the southern LBK (Roessen, Tisza, Lengyel, etc) were engaged in cattle-breeding, had developed ceramic production, and were familiar with plastic arts. They buried their dead in the flexed position on the right or left side. Generally it was a comparatively gracile short people of the Mediterranean (South Europoid) anthropological type.

Peoples of the Baltic circle of cultures (Ertebo/lle) were hunters and fishermen, and produced only one or two pottery forms. This was a rather tall, broad-faced population of the North Europoid type, who buried their dead in the extended position on the back.

Certain cultures of syncretic appearance involving Northern and Southern features were formed in Central Europe and the Baltic during the 4th-3rd millennium BC, e.g. Comb Ware, TRB, and Globular Amphora cultures. During the Early Bronze Age these cultures were displaced by the Corded Ware (Battle Axe) culture characterized by flexed inhumation on the back or side under a barrow. Specifically, this culture embraces both bottle-like vessels and bowls with funnel-like neck of the Northern circle of cultures, and also vessels of the Danubian type. In an anthropological sense this population combines traits of southern gracile and northern massive types, in particular bearers of TRB culture (Schwidetzky 1978).

...

The Yamna culture of the Pontic-Caspian steppe is recorded for an enormous territory between the North-Western Pontic area and Trans-Uralia. Its sites are known here in the basin of the Emba and Tobol rivers, the Karaganda region and further eastward (Merpert 1974). The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90).

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2006/05/...rded-ware.html

----------


## bicicleur

It is logical to asume that Yamnaya were a mixture of several Y-DNA clades.
However it does not explain why R1b is so overwhelming in western Europe, and why the Indo-European bronze age spread eastward was so strong correlated with R1a.
Unless if there were tribes with different Y-DNA origins, but the tribes didn't interchange their Y-DNA.

----------


## bicicleur

> I think its interesting to include the anthropology too. Below is a post from the dienekes blog circa 2006.
> 
> The Corded Ware culture includes about twenty variants (Sveshnikov 1974) and occupies predominantly Central Europe, Scandinavia, Sub-Carpathia and also the Upper Volga (Fig. 1). It was formed in Central Europe, in an area of special concentration of qute distinct cultures of different origins, including those from Mediterranean and North-Baltic regions of Europe. Bearers of the southern LBK (Roessen, Tisza, Lengyel, etc) were engaged in cattle-breeding, had developed ceramic production, and were familiar with plastic arts. They buried their dead in the flexed position on the right or left side. Generally it was a comparatively gracile short people of the Mediterranean (South Europoid) anthropological type.
> 
> Peoples of the Baltic circle of cultures (Ertebo/lle) were hunters and fishermen, and produced only one or two pottery forms. This was a rather tall, broad-faced population of the North Europoid type, who buried their dead in the extended position on the back.
> 
> Certain cultures of syncretic appearance involving Northern and Southern features were formed in Central Europe and the Baltic during the 4th-3rd millennium BC, e.g. Comb Ware, TRB, and Globular Amphora cultures. During the Early Bronze Age these cultures were displaced by the Corded Ware (Battle Axe) culture characterized by flexed inhumation on the back or side under a barrow. Specifically, this culture embraces both bottle-like vessels and bowls with funnel-like neck of the Northern circle of cultures, and also vessels of the Danubian type. In an anthropological sense this population combines traits of southern gracile and northern massive types, in particular bearers of TRB culture (Schwidetzky 1978).
> 
> ...
> ...


Bearers of the southern LBK (Roessen, Tisza, Lengyel, etc) were engaged in cattle-breeding

I don't agree. Roessen, Tisza, Lengyel, etc were not LBK
LBK were probably G2a as proven by anciant DNA
Roessen, Tisza, Lengyel, etc involved arrival of new tribes, probably cattle breeders from Anatolia introducing dairy products, as lactose persistence hadn't spread yet.
This being said, LBK people probably didn't disapear with the arrival of the newcomers and probably got incorporated in the new cultures.

----------


## Alan

Laz wrote that the Yamnaya people would be something between 50% "Armenian" and 50% of some Northeast European population. Considering the close to zero WHG in Armenians, the ~50% WHG in Northeast Europeans, That would make some 25% WHG. Early Neolithic farmer in Armenians is ~78% and in the "purest" Northeast Europeans it would be ~25%. Thats ~51% ENF on average. The rest must have been ANE like.

----------


## Goga

> 1) *R1a hunters-gatherers* (with I2a minority ?) in the forest-steppe to the north and Volga-Ural region associated with the Mesolithic Dnieper-Donets culture (c. 5000-3500 BCE).


Well, the first R1a in Europe were farmers too. They arrived in Europe after the last Ice Age. R1a in Europe came from West Asia and then heavily mixed with N1c1, I2a, I1 etc. hunters-gatherers. Even before Indo-European R1b and J2a arrived in Europe R1a farmers were alredy mixed with native European N1c1, I1 and I2a folks. I think R1a was already 50% farmers and 40% hunters-gatherers. R1b brought more Central Asian/Gedrosia/ANE component into Europe.

----------


## Goga

> It is logical to asume that Yamnaya were a mixture of several Y-DNA clades.
> However it does not explain why R1b is so overwhelming in western Europe, and why the Indo-European bronze age spread eastward was so strong correlated with R1a.
> Unless if there were tribes with different Y-DNA origins, but the tribes didn't interchange their Y-DNA.


Indo-Europized R1a farmers from Yamna never spread eastward during the Bronze Age. R1a-Z93 in Central Asia is from the Iranian Plateau (BMAC).


_"The prevailing Y-chromosome lineage in Pashtun and Tajik (R1a1a-M17), has the highest observed diversity among populations of the Indus Valley [46]. R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India."


_from: Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0034288

----------


## Goga

> Laz wrote that the Yamnaya people would be something between 50% "Armenian" and 50% of some Northeast European population. Considering the close to zero WHG in Armenians, the ~50% WHG in Northeast Europeans, That would make some 25% WHG. Early Neolithic farmer in Armenians is ~78% and in the "purest" Northeast Europeans it would be ~25%. Thats ~51% ENF on average. The rest must have been ANE like.


Yamnaya folks were for a huge parts not Armenian, but basically Iranoid, since proto-Indo-Europeans originally came Leyla-Tepe (South of the Caspian Sea) and not from the Anatolian Plateau! Modern Armenians are hugely mixed with Iranoid folks...

----------


## Aberdeen

> It is logical to asume that Yamnaya were a mixture of several Y-DNA clades.
> However it does not explain why R1b is so overwhelming in western Europe, and why the Indo-European bronze age spread eastward was so strong correlated with R1a.
> Unless if there were tribes with different Y-DNA origins, but the tribes didn't interchange their Y-DNA.


Here's the problem. There is one main European and one main Asia subclade of R1a, with the dividing line being about where Yamnaya was, so the distribution of R1a is easy to understand in terms of IE. However, there are two main subclades of R1b in Europe and the largest one has five subdivision that tend to be concentrated in specific geographic areas. Unless we assume very young ages for all this diversity, it's difficult to make sense of the distribution except by assuming a very old age for R1b that so far isn't supported by old DNA samples, since the oldest R1b found in Europe to date is about 4800 years old. So it will be very interesting when we finally get some Yamnaya samples - I'm expecting R1a and J2 but am very curious as to whether R1b will be there. If there is any R1b there, I hope we get subclade information.

----------


## Goga

> Here's the problem. There is one main European and one main Asia subclade of R1a, with the dividing line being about where Yamnaya was, so the distribution of R1a is easy to understand in terms of IE.


There's another problem.  :Laughing:  R1a in Asia predate Yamnaya by thousands of years. R1a was already in SouthCentral Asia before Yamnaya Culture ever existed. I'm R1a and my R1a type is native to West Asia, much, much older than Yamnaya...

----------


## Angela

I think I'll just wait until the results are published. :)

I may be wrong, but I would suggest that the papers we are awaiting might not be very definitive (as definitive as Eurogenes, for example) in terms of an "early near eastern farmer" cluster unless they've gotten hold of an appropriate ancient sample. That would not seem to be very Reich and company like.

Actually, one would think the Bean project, at least, might have provided one by now, but they seem to want to milk their research and give their graduate students publishable material for the next twenty years!

I would just add that finding a "proxy" for the Yamnaya Indo-Europeans would be, in my opinion, as difficult as finding a proxy for the early Near Eastern farmers, as they no longer exist as a population. However, it seems to me that Gamba et al shows that the Bronze Age people in Central Europe are pretty far from "50% Armenian like/50% ancient Karelian like". A whole lot of mixing had gone on in those close to 1000 years. 

When we're speaking of the "Indo-Europeans" I think we have to be careful to delineate the time period and also the area under discussion. We've been told that the people of the steppe changed over time. I would think there would be variations in terms of area as well within the huge Yamnaya horizon. We'll just have to wait and see. 

If we're going to talk about the leaks from the papers, wasn't there something to the effect that the movement of ANE into western and northwestern Europe was different than could be explained by Corded Ware? Also, if ANE is so easy to delineate, why did Reich say they were having a hard time sorting it out in the EHG?

Oh, according to Anthony the steppe people borrowed cattle breeding from the farming cultures of Old Europe. He writes about it quite extensively. It was actually illuminating re-reading him. (I would think that there was some genetic exchange along that border in addition to whatever flowed from the Caucasus or Central Asia. )

----------


## bicicleur

> Here's the problem. There is one main European and one main Asia subclade of R1a, with the dividing line being about where Yamnaya was, so the distribution of R1a is easy to understand in terms of IE. However, there are two main subclades of R1b in Europe and the largest one has five subdivision that tend to be concentrated in specific geographic areas. Unless we assume very young ages for all this diversity, it's difficult to make sense of the distribution except by assuming a very old age for R1b that so far isn't supported by old DNA samples, since the oldest R1b found in Europe to date is about 4800 years old. So it will be very interesting when we finally get some Yamnaya samples - I'm expecting R1a and J2 but am very curious as to whether R1b will be there.  If there is any R1b there, I hope we get subclade information.


indeed, IMO R1b expansion into Europe postdated Corded Ware.
most R1a in Europe seems to be connected with even later Baltic and Slavic expansions.
however proto Balt and proto Slav may very well be corded ware, and both are connected with R1a. Is this a coincidence?

----------


## Angela

> indeed, IMO R1b expansion into Europe postdated Corded Ware.
> most R1a in Europe seems to be connected with even later Baltic and Slavic expansions.
> however proto Balt and proto Slav may very well be corded ware, and both are connected with R1a. Is this a coincidence?


Personally, I'd like to see a genome from the Baltic close to but before the time when there is a record of Yamnaya moving into the area so that we can see their levels of WHG and ANE. I'd be willing to bet they had no "EEF". I've also been searching for archaeology papers that give an estimate for the population levels of both the "indigenous" people and the newcomers.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I think I'll just wait until the results are published. :)
> 
> I may be wrong, but I would suggest that the papers we are awaiting might not be very definitive (as definitive as Eurogenes, for example) in terms of an "early near eastern farmer" cluster unless they've gotten hold of an appropriate ancient sample. That would not seem to be very Reich and company like.
> 
> Actually, one would think the Bean project, at least, might have provided one by now, but they seem to want to milk their research and give their graduate students publishable material for the next twenty years!
> 
> I would just add that finding a "proxy" for the Yamnaya Indo-Europeans would be, in my opinion, as difficult as finding a proxy for the early Near Eastern farmers, as they no longer exist as a population. However, it seems to me that Gamba et al shows that the Bronze Age people in Central Europe are pretty far from "50% Armenian like/50% ancient Karelian like". A whole lot of mixing had gone on in those close to 1000 years. 
> 
> When we're speaking of the "Indo-Europeans" I think we have to be careful to delineate the time period and also the area under discussion. We've been told that the people of the steppe changed over time. I would think there would be variations in terms of area as well within the huge Yamnaya horizon. We'll just have to wait and see. 
> ...


Well said. I can hope for a data set on the steppe people of 4000 years ago that will illuminate these issues, but that doesn't mean we'll get something illuminating any time soon. I just think it's a shame that the professionals don't have the same agenda as a hobbyist like myself.

----------


## Aberdeen

> indeed, IMO R1b expansion into Europe postdated Corded Ware.
> most R1a in Europe seems to be connected with even later Baltic and Slavic expansions.
> however proto Balt and proto Slav may very well be corded ware, and both are connected with R1a. Is this a coincidence?


I don't think that R1a Corded Ware presents a problem, since I see them as being part of the "ancient Karelian-like" population - N1c seems to have arrived somewhat later. My point is that if we see R1b as an IE phenomenon, how do we explain the somewhat geographic specific diversity of subclades? I think we have to either see the diversity as very recent or see R1b as being in Europe for much longer than we have any evidence for. And I'm not personally a fan of either explanation.

----------


## Angela

> Well said. I can hope for a data set on the steppe people of 4000 years ago that will illuminate these issues, but that doesn't mean we'll get something illuminating any time soon. I just think it's a shame that the professionals don't have the same agenda as a hobbyist like myself.


I was sort of kidding, although I think there is some proper concern for graduate students. :)

However, the most important factor, I think, is that for academicians there is going to be much more concern for accuracy and for not allowing any "bias" (in so far as they can help it) to enter into their analyses. Any hint of bias, or clue that the data is being "massaged" in any way, as in their choice of samples, for example, would mean death for their careers. I know we hobbyists also take our reputations seriously, of course, but it's not quite the same thing. :)

There's also the fact that, as I learned my first year "on the job", it doesn't do your professional reputation any good to get too far out ahead of the facts. (We still don't have all that many ancient samples, and for some areas and time periods we don't have any at all.) That's a mistake akin to charging a person based on circumstantial evidence when you don't yet have the forensics, or asking a question of a witness to which you don't already know the answer. Maybe not a career ender, but it certainly does you no good.

----------


## Robert6

> Here's the problem. There is one main European and one main Asia subclade of R1a, with the dividing line being about where Yamnaya was, so the distribution of R1a is easy to understand in terms of IE. However, there are two main subclades of R1b in Europe and the largest one has five subdivision that tend to be concentrated in specific geographic areas. Unless we assume very young ages for all this diversity, it's difficult to make sense of the distribution except by assuming a very old age for R1b that so far isn't supported by old DNA samples, since the oldest R1b found in Europe to date is about 4800 years old. So it will be very interesting when we finally get some Yamnaya samples - I'm expecting R1a and J2 but am very curious as to whether R1b will be there. If there is any R1b there, I hope we get subclade information.


It is too early to consider R1a as a haplogroup of Yamna culture, let's wait for ancient Y-dna

----------


## arvistro

Well, at least they could share facts. Blah, blah - 7 sceletons from x years ago from this geographic location. 3 had R1a, 1 I2, 2 N with xyz subclades.
No harm to career and million info for us to discuss another couple of months :)

----------


## Aberdeen

> It is too early to consider R1a as a haplogroup of Yamna culture, let's wait for ancient Y-dna


Unless you want to argue that the Indo-Europeans left little genetic trace in Iran, India and Eastern Europe, or unless you think Yamnaya culture wasn't Indo-European, I don't think it's premature to consider R1a to be the main Y haplogroup of Yamnaya culture.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Well, at least they could share facts. Blah, blah - 7 sceletons from x years ago from this geographic location. 3 had R1a, 1 I2, 2 N with xyz subclades.
> No harm to career and million info for us to discuss another couple of months :)


What every graduate student wants is to be able to write their thesis on material that wasn't previously available to the public, although they sometimes have trouble getting that because such material is also coveted by their professors, who often face a "publish or perish" dilemma. So releasing the raw data would in fact have a negative impact on careers. We may not like the fact that members of academia consider a little thing like their career future to be more important than the curiosity of hobbyists, but that's how the academic world works.

----------


## Robert6

> Unless you want to argue that the Indo-Europeans left little genetic trace in Iran, India and Eastern Europe, or unless you think Yamnaya culture wasn't Indo-European, I don't think it's premature to consider R1a to be the main Y haplogroup of Yamnaya culture.


Because I think that Yamna was most possibly proto-Indo-Iranian culture,
and there is almost no R1a-Z93 in Yamna territories, for that reason I think that proto-Indo-Iranians left little genetic trace in India

----------


## arvistro

> What every graduate student wants is to be able to write their thesis on material that wasn't previously available to the public, although they sometimes have trouble getting that because such material is also coveted by their professors, who often face a "publish or perish" dilemma. So releasing the raw data would in fact have a negative impact on careers. We may not like the fact that members of academia consider a little thing like their career future to be more important than the curiosity of hobbyists, but that's how the academic world works.


That does not sound very Grigori Perelman to me......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman 
_In August 2006, Perelman was awarded the Fields Medal[1] for "his contributions to geometry and his revolutionary insights into the analytical and geometric structure of the Ricci flow." Perelman declined to accept the award or to appear at the congress, stating: "I'm not interested in money or fame; I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo."[2] On 22 December 2006, the scientific journal Science recognized Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture as the scientific "Breakthrough of the Year", the first such recognition in the area of mathematics.[3]
_
_On 18 March 2010, it was announced that he had met the criteria to receive the first Clay Millennium Prize[4] for resolution of the Poincaré conjecture. On 1 July 2010, he turned down the prize of one million dollars, saying that he considered the award unfair and that his contribution to solving the Poincaré conjecture was no greater than that of Richard Hamilton, the mathematician who pioneered Ricci flow with the aim of attacking the conjecture.[5][6] He additionally turned down the prestigious prize of the European Mathematical Society.[7]_

----------


## motzart

I think out of the Yamnaya mtDNA we do have the distinct clades are I,J,K,N1a,T1a,T2a1b,U2e,U5a1,W, and X

Yamnaya
Bulgaria
5000–4500 y.a.
H

Yamnaya
Russia
5000–4500 y.a.
N1a

Yamnaya
Russia
5000–4500 y.a.
H

Yamnaya
Ukraine
5000–4500 y.a.
?

Yamnaya
Ukraine
5000–4500 y.a.
U5

Yamnaya
Ukraine
5000–4500 y.a.
X

Yamnaya
Russia
5000–4500 y.a.
T1a

Yamnaya
Russia
5000–4500 y.a.
H

Yamnaya
Russia
5000–4500 y.a.
T

Yamnaya
Russia
5000–4500 y.a.
J

Yamnaya
Bulgaria
5000–4500 y.a.
K

Yamnaya
Bulgaria
5000–4500 y.a.
U/K

Yamnaya
Russia
5000–4500 y.a.
U5a1

Yamnaya
Ukraine
5000–4500 y.a.
H

Yamnaya
Russia
5000–4500 y.a.
W

Yamnaya
Russia
5000–4500 y.a.
T

Yamnaya
Bulgaria
5000–4500 y.a.
T2a1b1a

Yamnaya
Bulgaria
5000–4500 y.a.
U2e1a

Yamnaya
Bulgaria
5000–4500 y.a.
U5a1

Yamnaya
Bulgaria
5000–4500 y.a.
K

Yamnaya
Ukraine
5000–4500 y.a.
I

Yamnaya
Ukraine
5000–4500 y.a.
H

Yamnaya
Ukraine
5000–4500 y.a.
H

Yamnaya
Ukraine
5000–4500 y.a.
H

Yamnaya
Moldova
5000–4500 y.a.
U

Yamnaya
Ukraine
5000–4500 y.a.
T1a

Yamnaya
Ukraine
5000–4500 y.a.
T1

----------


## Aberdeen

> Because I think that Yamna was most possibly proto-Indo-Iranian culture,
> and there is almost no R1a-Z93 in Yamna territories, for that reason I think that proto-Indo-Iranians left little genetic trace in India


Okaaay. I guess that's one way you could look at it.

----------


## Aberdeen

> That does not sound very Grigori Perelman to me......
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman 
> _In August 2006, Perelman was awarded the Fields Medal[1] for "his contributions to geometry and his revolutionary insights into the analytical and geometric structure of the Ricci flow." Perelman declined to accept the award or to appear at the congress, stating: "I'm not interested in money or fame; I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo."[2] On 22 December 2006, the scientific journal Science recognized Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture as the scientific "Breakthrough of the Year", the first such recognition in the area of mathematics.[3]
> _
> _On 18 March 2010, it was announced that he had met the criteria to receive the first Clay Millennium Prize[4] for resolution of the Poincaré conjecture. On 1 July 2010, he turned down the prize of one million dollars, saying that he considered the award unfair and that his contribution to solving the Poincaré conjecture was no greater than that of Richard Hamilton, the mathematician who pioneered Ricci flow with the aim of attacking the conjecture.[5][6] He additionally turned down the prestigious prize of the European Mathematical Society.[7]_


That individual may be a bit of an anomaly, even in the world of mathematics. And mathematicians are generally considered to be a bit different when compared to other academics. And even when dealing with a mathematician who was willing to give up a million dollars as a matter of principal, you might have a different response if you tried to get your hands on his data.

----------


## motzart

I took the Yamnaya mtDNA and combined it with all of the other aDNA tested so far and grouped it by haplogroup, then I sorted it by date. I'll add mtDNA J & K later.

----------


## LeBrok

I'm in agreement with Maciamo. Yamna was a fusion culture. It was located enough North to protect HGs against being overrun by EEF, but not too far North not to be in contact. Creating Yamna and consequent Corded culture was a long process, probably 1 or 2 thousand years, till new blend of "Farmers of the North" was created. Pretty much on equal genetic footing of farmers to hunters.

Angela will be right too, that picture we'll receive from the paper will be unclear, and it will bring more questions than answers. I hope, we are wrong, and paper will be rich in samples through time periods and locations, showing the full picture.

The Northern regions of Yamna and younger periods should be rich in R1a, probably some I2 in the South. When I look at recent numbers for admixtures, the ratio of 70% WHG to 30% ANE makes most sense for all IE who expanded into Europe, most likely from Yamna. However it could have been a big difference between West Yamna and East Yamna horizont where almost pure ANE could have resided, giving start to R1a Z93, the steppe herders, Indo-Iranians.

In the South by the Black Sea we should see more and more EEF, radiating from Cucuteni over millenia. By Corded period we should see similar ratios of admixtures as today in these areas. 
More farmer's haplogroups will be located in the South and West Yamna, G, E and J.
Yamna lasted 1,500 years. Long enough to be different genetically at the beginning than at the end.

----------


## motzart

What I just learned that is really interesting is that the red ochre burials of the Yamna was a custom that Neanderthals also practiced with their dead.

----------


## motzart

This works I think

----------


## arvistro

@motzart,

I think I might have understood what you did in the post above, but can you just give more details?
Is light blue the same thing we call WHG? If so you correlated it with R1A, I, R1B? Because where there are a lot of those groups there is also portion of WHG? (as in "No R1a/R1b without WHG component")?
Similarly you did for the others? The red circle is samish as EEF? So, there is no (or exceptionally rare) R1A, R1B, G2A without farming?
The yellowish circle is what? ANE? And ANE surprisingly merges only J2A and R1A? Why not R1B or N1C? Because there are R1B/N1C rich populations without ANE?

What are those colors for N1, E1B and J1? Also if we take N1C out of total N1 circle would it join the ANE/WHG circle? Meaning initial N1 careers might only hold this dark blue stuff, but when N1C1 was born they held also ANE/WHG?

Sorry for many questions. I just enjoyed your work and want to learn more and if I get it correct.

----------


## Maciamo

> @motzart,
> 
> I think I might have understood what you did in the post above, but can you just give more details?
> Is light blue the same thing we call WHG? If so you correlated it with R1A, I, R1B? Because where there are a lot of those groups there is also portion of WHG? (as in "No R1a/R1b without WHG component")?
> Similarly you did for the others? The red circle is samish as EEF? So, there is no (or exceptionally rare) R1A, R1B, G2A without farming?
> The yellowish circle is what? ANE? And ANE surprisingly merges only J2A and R1A? Why not R1B or N1C? Because there are R1B/N1C rich populations without ANE?
> 
> What are those colors for N1, E1B and J1? Also if we take N1C out of total N1 circle would it join the ANE/WHG circle? Meaning initial N1 careers might only hold this dark blue stuff, but when N1C1 was born they held also ANE/WHG?
> 
> Sorry for many questions. I just enjoyed your work and want to learn more and if I get it correct.


FYI, that is not his work. These are the graphs from Lazaridis et al. that I edited last year and posted on the forum. Motzart just reposted it here.

To answer your questions, yes blue represents WHG, pink EEF and beige ANE. 

The circles attempt to match these admixtures with Y-haplogroups, but looking at the region of origin of the haplogroups. That's why J2 is matched to ANE as it originated around Anatolia and Iran. It doesn't make sense if you look at other places with high percentages of J2 caused by a founder effect, like Crete or Sicily. I personally disagree with this approach as it makes it look like ANE originated with J2 people, which isn't the case. It's simply because the Indo-Europeans (eg. Hittites, Mitanni, Persians, Iranians, Scythians, Kurds) invaded Iran and Anatolia that these regions now have significant levels of ANE.

In Europe ANE overlaps with N1c1 (due to intermixing with R1a populations), but that is not true for all haplogroup N1.

----------


## arvistro

Thanks Maciamo. Of course, the more I understand, the more questions :)
1. On relating WHG to both R groups (I simply don't know that is why I ask). Is WHG admixture always present for R1A & R1B populations (say R1B in Africa, or R1A in India)? 
2. Same question for EEF?
3. Relating ANE to R1A I think seems straightforward on little that I know. But why is R1B outside ANE circle?

----------


## Maciamo

> Thanks Maciamo. Of course, the more I understand, the more questions :)
> 1. On relating WHG to both R groups (I simply don't know that is why I ask). Is WHG admixture always present for R1A & R1B populations (say R1B in Africa, or R1A in India)? 
> 2. Same question for EEF?
> 3. Relating ANE to R1A I think seems straightforward on little that I know. But why is R1B outside ANE circle?


Be it in India, Central Asia, Siberia or even Mongolia, there is always WHG and ANE admixture wherever R1a1a and R1b1a (M269 or M73) are found. However that is not true for the African R1b1c (V88), perhaps because it was too diluted on the way, or because R1b people did not acquire WHG until they mixed with the aboriginal Steppe people (R1a). 

You can see by yourself in the admixture above in which populations the blue, pink and beige admixtures are present.

----------


## arvistro

But why is not r1b in ANE circle then?

----------


## Maciamo

> But why is not r1b in ANE circle then?


I didn't make the circles. That's from Lazaridis.

----------


## Angela

> LeBrok:When I look at recent numbers for admixtures, the ratio of 70% WHG to 30% ANE makes most sense for all IE who expanded into Europe, most likely from Yamna.


How do you get from Yamnaya can be modeled as 50% Ancient Karelian/50% modern Armenian, and Corded Ware is 75% Yamnaya to this? Unless you think that most of the people speaking Indo-European languages who moved into Europe proper (or at least Northern Europe) were actually Indo-Europeanized Karelians?

----------


## motzart

> But why is not r1b in ANE circle then?


Take a look at the Basque admixture, they are about as homogenous as a population gets in terms of Y DNA, 85% R1b. If the original R1b entrants to Europe contained any of the beige admixture we would see it there even in some tiny trace, but we don't. The Basques are about 50/50 of the pink and light blue admixture which is why placing them in the Venn diagram between those two groups works so perfectly. Contrary to what Maciamo statead I did not intend for J2 to represent ANE, the term ANE is really just a catch all for all the European DNA we can't attibute to EEF or WHG (or Oetzi-Loschbour/Motala). All of the population admixtures listed there contain the beige admixture on par closely with the amount of J2 Y DNA they posess, in the absence of J2 the existence of R1a contributes a small amout. This is why we can see the beige admixture in Scots and Icelanders who do have R1a vs non in the Basques who have no R1a. 

The question posed was what we believe the genetic make up of the Yamna were, you can see from the mtDNA tables I made that there was a lot of the same mtDNA in the Yamna that existed in the Neolithic cultures of Europe. This is a lot of support for them containing high levels of EEF. Wether it is directly from an eastward expansion of Neolithic farmers, or a Northward expansion of Neolithic farmers from the same origin as the European ones is hard to pinpoint but I would say the latter is more likely.

----------


## Aaron1981

> I don't think that R1a Corded Ware presents a problem, since I see them as being part of the "ancient Karelian-like" population - N1c seems to have arrived somewhat later. My point is that if we see R1b as an IE phenomenon, how do we explain the somewhat geographic specific diversity of subclades? I think we have to either see the diversity as very recent or see R1b as being in Europe for much longer than we have any evidence for. And I'm not personally a fan of either explanation.



I'm not sure why this is an issue? Isn't R1a-M458 almost exclusively NE European/N Russian (aka Slavic) except when we see a light distribution in the Balkans from Slavic migration? 

P312 - Celtic/Celtiberian/Gaulish
U106- Germanic
U152 - Possibly Italic
L23/L51 - Illyrian/IE Greek/Italic(?)

Several papers have suggested both R1b, and R1a both experienced rapid expansion. The oldest branchings of R1b (xL389) are in India and Iran, and never found in the west. These were nomadic pastoralists. R1b need not have expanded in India for it to have been classified as part of PIE, especially if the earliest tribes were not innovators of farming, many lineages would have just died out.

----------


## Angela

> Take a look at the Basque admixture, they are about as homogenous as a population gets in terms of Y DNA, 85% R1b. If the original R1b entrants to Europe contained any of the beige admixture we would see it there even in some tiny trace, but we don't. The Basques are about 50/50 of the pink and light blue admixture which is why placing them in the Venn diagram between those two groups works so perfectly. Contrary to what Maciamo statead I did not intend for J2 to represent ANE, the term ANE is really just a catch all for all the European DNA we can't attibute to EEF or WHG (or Oetzi-Loschbour/Motala). All of the population admixtures listed there contain the beige admixture on par closely with the amount of J2 Y DNA they posess, in the absence of J2 the existence of R1a contributes a small amout. This is why we can see the beige admixture in Scots and Icelanders who do have R1a vs non in the Basques who have no R1a. 
> 
> The question posed was what we believe the genetic make up of the Yamna were, you can see from the mtDNA tables I made that there was a lot of the same mtDNA in the Yamna that existed in the Neolithic cultures of Europe. This is a lot of support for them containing high levels of EEF. Wether it is directly from an eastward expansion of Neolithic farmers, or a Northward expansion of Neolithic farmers from the same origin as the European ones is hard to pinpoint but I would say the latter is more likely.


I do follow your logic here (and presumably that of Lazaridis et al), but couldn't it also just be the case for the Basques, for example, that men from surrounding areas were accepted into a basically matrilineal group and R1b rose to these levels just through founder effect and some selective advantage? They can be modeled with some ANE, as well.

A similar situation must have occurred in my own area, where downstream clades of R1b are over 50%, but if these latest Eurogenes figures are to be believed, the people only carry 8% of ANE.

If R1b did _not_ carry ANE, what were they in terms of these three populations, and when did they enter Europe?

----------


## Angela

> I do follow your logic here (and presumably that of Lazaridis et al), but couldn't it also just be the case for the Basques, for example, that men from surrounding areas were accepted into a basically matrilineal group and R1b rose to these levels just through founder effect and some selective advantage? They can be modeled with some ANE, as well.
> 
> A similar situation must have occurred in my own area, where downstream clades of R1b are over 50%, but if these latest Eurogenes figures are to be believed, the people only carry 8% of ANE.
> 
> If R1b did _not_ carry ANE, what were they in terms of these three populations, and when did they enter Europe?


Ed. Upon reflection, this Venn Diagram _is_ getting out a little bit ahead of the facts for an academic paper, unless they had facts, or preliminary facts, to which we don't have access.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I'm not sure why this is an issue? Isn't R1a-M458 almost exclusively NE European/N Russian (aka Slavic) except when we see a light distribution in the Balkans from Slavic migration? 
> 
> P312 - Celtic/Celtiberian/Gaulish
> U106- Germanic
> U152 - Possibly Italic
> L23/L51 - Illyrian/IE Greek/Italic(?)
> 
> Several papers have suggested both R1b, and R1a both experienced rapid expansion. The oldest branchings of R1b (xL389) are in India and Iran, and never found in the west. These were nomadic pastoralists. R1b need not have expanded in India for it to have been classified as part of PIE, especially if the earliest tribes were not innovators of farming, many lineages would have just died out.


I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to say here. I'm aware of the apparent links of specific subclades to certain general areas and specific groups of people. My question was how those links came about. Are you saying that the subclades evolved in situ during the Bronze Age? I can't find anything solid about how old these various subclades are, but I doubt they're that recent. So why is DF27 centred in Iberia, for example?

The distribution of R1a isn't quite as restricted as you seem to think, but it has been focused in Eastern Europe for a long time so, as I said, there's nothing old about its current distribution. It's R1b that puzzles me. Too much geographic specific subclade diversity in an area where it's apparently been for less than 5000 years.

----------


## motzart

> Ed. Upon reflection, this Venn Diagram _is_ getting out a little bit ahead of the facts for an academic paper, unless they had facts, or preliminary facts, to which we don't have access.


I made that Venn diagram myself in MS paint lol.

----------


## Angela

> I made that Venn diagram myself in MS paint lol.


Ah, you got me! :Laughing:  It's you, then, that's gotten ahead of the facts, yes? I thought I must be entering early senility that I didn't remember it from the paper.  :Grin: 

We should see very shortly what yDna was involved.

----------


## Alan

> This works I think


This is what I think. gold ANE, blue WHG and violett Early Neolithic farmer.

----------


## Aberdeen

> This is what I think. gold ANE, blue WHG and violett Early Neolithic farmer.


I think I2 generally has more EEF than I1. Other than that, I think your diagram looks good.

----------


## Alan

> I think I2 generally has more EEF than I1. Other than that, I think your diagram looks good.


There is a reason for this. During mesolithic time there was no I1 it seems, because I1 is pretty young and probably evolved when the WHG people already mixed with the farmer and some ANE guys around Late Neolithic.

----------


## LeBrok

> How do you get from Yamnaya can be modeled as 50% Ancient Karelian/50% modern Armenian, and Corded Ware is 75% Yamnaya to this? Unless you think that most of the people speaking Indo-European languages who moved into Europe proper (or at least Northern Europe) were actually Indo-Europeanized Karelians?


I was only guessing proportions between WHG and ANE. They were not the only ones in the mix of course, unless we are talking about pre Yamna HGs there. When EEF comes in the mix during Yamna period, it probably fluctuated between 40% in the South and West to 10% in North and East.
I envision the fully fledged IE, or rather European part of them at ratio of 30/45/25 EEF/WGH/ANE respectively. While their cusins Indo/Iranians to the East were probably 10,10,80.

----------


## Sile

> This is what I think. gold ANE, blue WHG and violett Early Neolithic farmer.


Maybe you should test you theory and place people ( friends or collegues) inside these circles.

I will start you off with myself .........put me in next to I1 as per above as my WHG is double my ANE

----------


## motzart

> This is what I think. gold ANE, blue WHG and violett Early Neolithic farmer.



If you actually look at the venn diagram I made you will see that the colors correspond to the admixtures in the lazaridis study, I applaud your effort but you should try to model it after real data.

----------


## bicicleur

> There is a reason for this. During mesolithic time there was no I1 it seems, because I1 is pretty young and probably evolved when the WHG people already mixed with the farmer and some ANE guys around Late Neolithic.


It seems I1 was not a very succesfull hunter compared to I2. If it hadn't been picked up by EEF, it would probably be extinct, so I1 are EEF.

I'm not sure the genome that was constructed to represent EEF is 100 % representative. 
I1 is EEF but seems not to be represented by the EEF genome.

----------


## arvistro

When and where is the earliest I1 found?
Up to my knowledge oldest samples in hunters were I2 (Scandinavia) and I also think Hungarian farmer samples were I2?

----------


## Maciamo

> I think I2 generally has more EEF than I1. Other than that, I think your diagram looks good.


Are you trying to attribute admixtures to modern populations or to the ancient populations before they mixed with one another ? I2 people obviously have EEF now because almost all I2 lineages intermingled with G2a farmers during the Neolithic. But the point of ancient DNA tests is to be able to determine who brought which admixture. And I2 were pure WHG, while G2a were pure EEF, by definition since the WHG admixture corresponds to the Loschbour hunter-gatherer and EEF to the Stuttgart farmer.

----------


## Maciamo

> This is what I think. gold ANE, blue WHG and violett Early Neolithic farmer.


If you are looking only at ancient admixtures, then the European C1 (not the Japanese one) should be pure WHG. I am pretty sure that R1a people already had more WHG than ANE during the Mesolithic. R1a* might have been relatively pure ANE in the Paleolithic (just after the LGM), but they mixed with WHG when they arrived in eastern Europe. All modern R1a1a populations have WHG, even in India and Siberia.

As for I1, it was surely pure WHG at first but, like I2, it mixed with G2a farmers and absorbed EEF admixture. I1 would not have had any ANE until the Bronze Age. So in all logic I would place it with I2 and C1 in the blue circle only.

If you want to represent modern populations, then they are all in the middle, with all three admixtures.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Are you trying to attribute admixtures to modern populations or to the ancient populations before they mixed with one another ? I2 people obviously have EEF now because almost all I2 lineages intermingled with G2a farmers during the Neolithic. But the point of ancient DNA tests is to be able to determine who brought which admixture. And I2 were pure WHG, while G2a were pure EEF, by definition since the WHG admixture corresponds to the Loschbour hunter-gatherer and EEF to the Stuttgart farmer.


I believe that a Venn diagram is about relationships between different sets of data, not an attempt to show admixture percentages, although the two are obviously connected. I was merely suggesting that, in modern populations, there's a stronger relationship between I2 and EEF than there is between I1 and EEF, because the average I2 person has more EEF than the average I1 person.

----------


## bicicleur

> If you are looking only at ancient admixtures, then the European C1 (not the Japanese one) should be pure WHG. I am pretty sure that R1a people already had more WHG than ANE during the Mesolithic. R1a* might have been relatively pure ANE in the Paleolithic (just after the LGM), but they mixed with WHG when they arrived in eastern Europe. All modern R1a1a populations have WHG, even in India and Siberia.
> 
> As for I1, it was surely pure WHG at first but, like I2, it mixed with G2a farmers and absorbed EEF admixture. I1 would not have had any ANE until the Bronze Age. So in all logic I would place it with I2 and C1 in the blue circle only.
> 
> If you want to represent modern populations, then they are all in the middle, with all three admixtures.


IMO you should split I :

EEF : I1 and I2-CTS595 who beame EEF 8000 years ago, they have no WHG offspring
I1 expanded much later than 8000 years ago, so either the Hungarian neolithic I1 got extinct or the Hungarian neolithic I1 is ancestral to all present I1
I2 CTS-595 has never been detected in WHG skelletons, it is ancestral to I2-M26 the main component of Basque and Sardinian

as for the EEF genome, see http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autoso...lithic_farmers
I don't think this genome represents all EEF, there is no link with I1

as for European C1 , do you mean C1a2-V20 as oposed to Japanese C1a1?
IMO the La Brana WHG was a relict of Aurignacian, almost pushed out of Europe by Gravettian I-tribes.
The Hungarian EEF C1a2 came from the Levant, a surviving tribe from Levantine Aurignacian.
C1a2 is almost 50.000 years old, and La Brana WHG and Hungarian EEF C1a2 split more than 40.000 years ago IMO.
I would think La Brana WHG got extinct and present day European C1a2-V20 are descendants of Hungarian EEF C1a2

----------


## Alan

> I was only guessing proportions between WHG and ANE. They were not the only ones in the mix of course, unless we are talking about pre Yamna HGs there. When EEF comes in the mix during Yamna period, it probably fluctuated between 40% in the South and West to 10% in North and East.
> I envision the fully fledged IE, or rather European part of them at ratio of 30/45/25 EEF/WGH/ANE respectively.* While their cusins Indo/Iranians to the East were probably 10,10,80.*


Nah  :Big smile:  thats FAR too high ANE. I think both estimates are unlikely but the 80% ANE part is even too extreme. First of all we should stop using EEF for our estimations because it is not " real" component but more 1/5 WHG and 4/5 Near Eastern Farmer. Considering that the mtDNA of Yamnaya were very farmer like. And Yamnaya could be explained as Karelian/Armenian like. I think Proto Indo Europeans were like 30/25/45 WHG/ANE/ENF(Near Eastern farmer) in the West and 15/35/50 WHG/ANE/ENF in the East. When the Western part already arrived in Hungary they catched up additional WHG and the further West and North they went, the higher it became.

Later the Slavic expansion brought additional WHG to Ukraine and the Balkans.

----------


## bicicleur

forgot to tell,

neolithic La Treille were I2-CTS595

----------


## Angela

The first ancient I1 sample was found in an LBK context along with a G2a2b sample. 
See: Szecsenyi-Nagy et al 2014 (Guido Brandt is a co-author)
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...08664.full.pdf

Of course, we don't yet know, imo, and as Bicicleur pointed out, whether this particular "Hungarian neolithic I1 got extinct [and modern I1 descends from another group that expanded only after being incorporated by Indo-European speaking peoples]* or the Hungarian neolithic I1 is ancestral to all present I1.

* my insert

----------


## Angela

> Nah  thats FAR too high ANE. I think both estimates are unlikely but the 80% ANE part is even too extreme. First of all we should stop using EEF for our estimations because it is not " real" component but more 1/5 WHG and 4/5 Near Eastern Farmer. Considering that the mtDNA of Yamnaya were very farmer like. And Yamnaya could be explained as Karelian/Armenian like. I think Proto Indo Europeans were like 30/25/45 WHG/ANE/ENF(Near Eastern farmer) in the West and 15/35/50 WHG/ANE/ENF in the East. When the Western part already arrived in Hungary they catched up additional WHG and the further West and North they went, the higher it became.
> 
> Later the Slavic expansion brought additional WHG to Ukraine and the Balkans.


Well, EEF has the benefit of being an actual ancient sample. It remains to be seen how much correlation there will be between the ENF figure in these most recent Eurogenes runs and an actual ENF genome.

I have seen a 39% Eurogenes ENF figure being discussed as a "guesstimate" for Yamnaya Indo-Europeans. Since the figure for Armenians is 78% and Yamnaya is supposedly 50% Armenian like, I can see the logic in that, I suppose. How do you arrive at a 45% guesstimate for the western Yamnaya areas?

Also, given the comment by Nick Patterson recently, do you think there is indeed WHG present in India, for example, to go along with all the R1a?

----------


## bicicleur

[QUOTE=Angela;447685
Also, given the comment by Nick Patterson recently, do you think there is indeed WHG present in India, for example, to go along with all the R1a?[/QUOTE]

re HG R1a in India ?
are these real anciant R1a clades or is this R1a which was not tested for subclades ?
there is R1a-Z93 in India too. I would be surprised if they were HG. They arrived much to late to find new virgin hunting grounds in India.

----------


## LeBrok

> Nah  thats FAR too high ANE. I think both estimates are unlikely but the 80% ANE part is even too extreme.


 At this moment 20/60/20 whg/ane/enf is likely too for East Yamna, supposed source of Indo-Iranians. Less than 60% ANE can't explain elevated ANE levels in Middle East where Indo-Iranians settled.





> First of all we should stop using EEF for our estimations because it is not " real" component but more 1/5 WHG and 4/5 Near Eastern Farmer.


 Maybe it is not pure admixture, but it is real, from a real person who lived 7k years ago. On other hand ENF doesn't come from a real physical source.





> Considering that the mtDNA of Yamnaya were very farmer like. And Yamnaya could be explained as Karelian/Armenian like. I think Proto Indo Europeans were like 30/25/45 WHG/ANE/ENF(Near Eastern farmer)


 I think it is still within a viable guess. 



> in the West and 15/35/50 WHG/ANE/ENF in the East.


I don't think they were much of farmers farther East. They were herders. Besides if they took farming from Cucuteni they should have gotten EEF as last and less, being farthest away. Therefore I don't see them having more ENF than 20%. When they have arrived to Middle East they didn't need to bring ENF there. It was already there in huge proportion.




> When the Western part already arrived in Hungary they catched up additional WHG


 Do you mean they caught more WHG from Neolithic Hungarian farmers? You know they came from part of Europe where WHG is still dominant today. 




> Later the Slavic expansion brought additional WHG to Ukraine and the Balkans.


 Right. Slavs came from place where used to be West part of Yamna. It might be proof how much WHG was there to start with. West Ukrainians and Belorussians might be a good proxy for West Yamna.

----------


## Aberdeen

> It seems I1 was not a very succesfull hunter compared to I2. If it hadn't been picked up by EEF, it would probably be extinct, so I1 are EEF.
> 
> I'm not sure the genome that was constructed to represent EEF is 100 % representative. 
> I1 is EEF but seems not to be represented by the EEF genome.


If I2 hadn't learned farming from EEF, it would have gone extinct. In fact, it pretty much did in Sweden.

----------


## motzart

It is impossible that I1 expanded with indo european farmers, look at the y dna of Finland.

----------


## arvistro

> It is impossible that I1 expanded with indo european farmers, look at the y dna of Finland.


I think I1 in Finland is IEan one.

----------


## motzart

> I think I1 in Finland is IEan one.


I1 is more diverse in Finland than anywhere else

----------


## Aberdeen

> It is impossible that I1 expanded with indo european farmers, look at the y dna of Finland.


Did anyone say that the Y haplogroup I1 didn't begin to expand until the European Bronze Age? Between the Mesolithic and the Bronze Age, there's a small period of time called the Neolithic, when EEF farmers entered Europe and some Mesolithic groups managed to learn farming from them. Whether or not us current I1 haplogroup folks are descended from that earliest I1 found in Hungary, Maciamo has suggested that at some point I1 adopted farming and therefore greatly increased in numbers. And, for whatever reason, I1 then moved north into Scandinavia, largely displacing the I2 hunters that had previously dominated the area. We don't have enough data yet to know exactly when I1 expanded in Scandinavia or the Baltic but the I1 adoption of agriculture that made the expansion possible probably happened during the Neolithic.

----------


## motzart

> Did anyone say that the Y haplogroup I1 didn't begin to expand until the European Bronze Age? Between the Mesolithic and the Bronze Age, there's a small period of time called the Neolithic, when EEF farmers entered Europe and some Mesolithic groups managed to learn farming from them. Whether or not us current I haplogroup folks are descended from that earliest I1 type found in Hungary, Maciamo has suggested that at some point I1 adopted farming and therefore greatly increased in numbers. And, for whatever reason, I1 then moved north into Scandinavia, largely displacing the I2 hunters that had previously dominated the area. We don't have enough data yet to know exactly when I1 expanded in Scandinavia or the Balkans but the I1 adoption of agriculture that made the expansion possible probably happened during the Neolithic.


That theory is more full if holes than swiss cheese. The only record of farmers moving in to Scandinavia is Funnelbeaker who were EEF autosomally, EEF admixture is completely absent in Finns with 40% I1.

----------


## Aberdeen

> That theory is more full if holes than swiss cheese. The only record of farmers moving in to Scandinavia is Funnelbeaker who were EEF autosomally, EEF admixture is completely absent in Finns with 40% I1.


So, what's your explanation for why I1 folk went from apparently not existing in Scandinavia to greatly outnumbering the I2 folk who had previously dominated the area? Any time a haplogroup has increased dramatically in numbers, agriculture has been part of it, since that permits larger families than the hunting and gathering lifestyle does. There are still a lot of gaps in our knowledge of exactly how the modern population of Scandinavia was created, and even more with respect to the Baltic, but can you show me any evidence of a large I1 population that was pre-agriculture?

----------


## sparkey

> I1 is more diverse in Finland than anywhere else


Where did you get that idea? Finnish I1 is dominated by I1 L22>L287, which is a young branch with a TMRCA of only 2000 years or so. The center of diversity of I1 is certainly south of Finland. The outlier branches (DF29-) are not present in Finland, but are rather found in Germany, Austria, France, Britain, the Czech Republic...

----------


## bicicleur

> I1 is more diverse in Finland than anywhere else


Is that so.
That would be interesting.
Do you have a source for that info?

2700 till 600 BC was a warm climate period, cattle farming was possible in southern Finland, corded ware came till southern Finland
600 BC climate became colder, farmers left southern Finland and Saami and Fennic hunters replaced them
German tribes,who were farmers started to move south

----------


## bicicleur

> If I2 hadn't learned farming from EEF, it would have gone extinct. In fact, it pretty much did in Sweden.


I1 and I2-CTS595 adopted farming 8000 years ago, together with EEF

I2a2 and I2a1b adopted farming much later, together with IE expansion

----------


## bicicleur

> Where did you get that idea? Finnish I1 is dominated by I1 L22>L287, which is a young branch with a TMRCA of only 2000 years or so. The center of diversity of I1 is certainly south of Finland. The outlier branches (DF29-) are not present in Finland, but are rather found in Germany, Austria, France, Britain, the Czech Republic...


Sparkey, if I recall well, you mentioned once I1 was most diverse in southern Denmark.
Is that correct? Do you have a source for that?

----------


## motzart

First of all I1 & I2 did not adopt farming, hunter gather societies lived side by side with farmers as late as 3000 B.C. do I need to post that study too?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-artic...d-side-by-side
_
"It is commonly assumed that the European hunter-gatherers disappeared soon after the arrival of farmers”, said Dr Ruth Bollongino, lead author of the study. “But our study shows that the descendants of the first European humans maintained their hunter-gatherer way of life, and lived in parallel with the immigrant farmers, for at least 2,000 years. The hunter-gathering way of life only died out in Central Europe around 5,000 years ago, much later than previously thought." - See more at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-artic....79K5Dnva.dpuf
_
That would mean Hunter Gatherers ceased to exist at the same time the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware cultures arose in Europe.


Here is the source for the diversity of I1 in Finland. 9/12 subclades listed here are present in Finland. You can see it is very diverse in Finland.

http://www.goggo.com/terry/Haplogrou...R_Branches.pdf

----------


## Angela

> That theory is more full if holes than swiss cheese. The only record of farmers moving in to Scandinavia is Funnelbeaker who were EEF autosomally, EEF admixture is completely absent in Finns with 40% I1.


I think you may be misremembering. Even in the new Eurogenes runs they are 26.7% ENF, although I understand there are only 3 samples. (The EEF was close to 30% to the best of my recollection.)

----------


## motzart

> So, what's your explanation for why I1 folk went from apparently not existing in Scandinavia to greatly outnumbering the I2 folk who had previously dominated the area? Any time a haplogroup has increased dramatically in numbers, agriculture has been part of it, since that permits larger families than the hunting and gathering lifestyle does. There are still a lot of gaps in our knowledge of exactly how the modern population of Scandinavia was created, and even more with respect to the Baltic, but can you show me any evidence of a large I1 population that was pre-agriculture?


I think that I1 were the hunters that moved into Scandinavia from Finland and lived along the North Coast, I2 were the continential ones that lived along the southern coast of Scandinavia and the North Sea. I2a2 isn't extinct in Scandinavia also, there is still I2a2 and some I2a1. I2a2 exists at in around 10% in some regions of Sweden as does I2a1, together they make up about 7% of the total population. This isn't much but consider that hunter gather mtDNA U5b/a also make up less than 10% of the overall total population. Mesolithic Scandinavia & Nothern Europe in general was entirely different geographically from modern day, maybe I1 even came from Doggerland who knows. The existence in Finland though shows that it expanded independent from any other group.

*The Nordic Bronze Age was characterized first by a warm climate that began with a climate change around 2700 BC (comparable to that of present-day central Germany and northern France). The warm climate permitted a relatively dense population and good farming; for example, grapes were grown in Scandinavia at this time. A wetter, colder climate prevailed after a minor change in climate between 850 BC and 760 BC, and a more radical one around 650 BC.*

*The cultural change that ended the Bronze Age was affected by the expansion of Hallstatt culture from the south and accompanied by a deteriorating climate, which caused a dramatic change in the flora and fauna. In Scandinavia, this period is often called the Findless Age due to the lack of finds. While the finds from Scandinavia are consistent with a loss of population, the southern part of the culture, the Jastorf culture, was in expansion southwards.* It consequently appears that the climate change played an important role in the southward expansion of the tribes, considered Germanic, into continental Europe [1]. There are differing schools of thought on the interpretation of geographic spread of cultural innovation, whether new material culture reflects a possibly warlike movement of peoples ("demic diffusion") southwards or whether innovations found at Pre-Roman Iron Age sites represents a more peaceful cultural diffusion. The current view in the Netherlands hold that Iron Age innovations, starting with Hallstatt (800 BC), did not involve intrusions and featured a local development from Bronze Age culture.[13] Another Iron Age nucleus considered to represent a local development is the Wessenstedt culture (800 - 600 BC).

The bearers of this northern Iron Age culture were likely speakers of Germanic languages. The stage of development of this Germanic is not known, although Proto-Germanic has been proposed. The late phase of this period sees the beginnings of the Germanic migrations, starting with the invasions of the Teutons and the Cimbri until their defeat at the Battle of Aquae Sextiae in 102 BC, presaging the more turbulent Roman Iron Age and Age of Migrations.

----------


## motzart

> I think you may be misremembering. Even in the new Eurogenes runs they are 26.7% ENF, although I understand there are only 3 samples. (The EEF was close to 30% to the best of my recollection.)


I don't know about Eurogenes, but in the admixtures published with the Kotenski study (see below) Gokhem & Stuttgart looks exactly Oetzi & Sardinia.

----------


## sparkey

> Sparkey, if I recall well, you mentioned once I1 was most diverse in southern Denmark.
> Is that correct? Do you have a source for that?


Back when we only had STRs, southern Denmark/northern Germany seemed to have the most diversity, because that area has a large variety of different L22 and Z58 subclades. Now we have lots of SNPs, though, which show that Z58 and L22 are more closely related to each other than they are to some other minor clades that tend to push the center of diversity a little south and/or east of there (Nordtvedt thinks Pomerania; I think that may be a bit too far north though given the outliers in Austria, the Czech Republic, etc.).

Robb's analysis, cited here by motzart, doesn't really address SNP outliers, nor the cline of the clades other than I1 L22>L287 in Finland (AFAIK they all point into Finland instead of out).

----------


## Angela

> I don't know about Eurogenes, but in the admixtures published with the Kotenski study (see below) Gokhem & Stuttgart looks exactly Oetzi & Sardinia.


Sorry, I obviously wasn't sufficiently clear...it's the Finns who are 26.7% Early Near Eastern Farmer on the Eurogenes ANE 8 run. (I think the estimate by Lazaridis et al was close to 30% for EEF, although they didn't fit into a three population model because of their Siberian.)

----------


## motzart

> Sorry, I obviously wasn't sufficiently clear...it's the Finns who are 26.7% Early Near Eastern Farmer on the Eurogenes ANE 8 run. (I think the estimate by Lazaridis et al was close to 30% for EEF, although they didn't fit into a three population model because of their Siberian.)


I guess that makes sense, they do have a lot of EEF mtDNA, but I still don't see I1 as a farmer population.

----------


## LeBrok

> I guess that makes sense, they do have a lot of EEF mtDNA, but I still don't see I1 as a farmer population.


I think, nobody disputes the fact that most man of I1, during Neolithic, were hunter, same as I2a hunter gatherers. They all eventually died off, and only few of the guys who got in contact with farmers transferred their paternal I1 or I2a, and restarted this haplogroups and made them successful. To this effect we can see quite strong bottlenecking in both groups. The other proof for it is that all of known and alive hg I carriers, you included, have a genome containing about 40% farmers genes. If you were only WHG/ANE I would say that you are right and I2a is not farmer population. However all of them are now, and it is true for all at least since bronze age. 
Do you know at least one hg I* person who is lacking the EEF component? Let's stay within European borders. ;)

----------


## Aberdeen

> I think that I1 were the hunters that moved into Scandinavia from Finland and lived along the North Coast, I2 were the continential ones that lived along the southern coast of Scandinavia and the North Sea. I2a2 isn't extinct in Scandinavia also, there is still I2a2 and some I2a1. I2a2 exists at in around 10% in some regions of Sweden as does I2a1, together they make up about 7% of the total population. This isn't much but consider that hunter gather mtDNA U5b/a also make up less than 10% of the overall total population. Mesolithic Scandinavia & Nothern Europe in general was entirely different geographically from modern day, maybe I1 even came from Doggerland who knows. The existence in Finland though shows that it expanded independent from any other group.
> 
> *The Nordic Bronze Age was characterized first by a warm climate that began with a climate change around 2700 BC (comparable to that of present-day central Germany and northern France). The warm climate permitted a relatively dense population and good farming; for example, grapes were grown in Scandinavia at this time. A wetter, colder climate prevailed after a minor change in climate between 850 BC and 760 BC, and a more radical one around 650 BC.*
> 
> *The cultural change that ended the Bronze Age was affected by the expansion of Hallstatt culture from the south and accompanied by a deteriorating climate, which caused a dramatic change in the flora and fauna. In Scandinavia, this period is often called the Findless Age due to the lack of finds. While the finds from Scandinavia are consistent with a loss of population, the southern part of the culture, the Jastorf culture, was in expansion southwards.* It consequently appears that the climate change played an important role in the southward expansion of the tribes, considered Germanic, into continental Europe [1]. There are differing schools of thought on the interpretation of geographic spread of cultural innovation, whether new material culture reflects a possibly warlike movement of peoples ("demic diffusion") southwards or whether innovations found at Pre-Roman Iron Age sites represents a more peaceful cultural diffusion. The current view in the Netherlands hold that Iron Age innovations, starting with Hallstatt (800 BC), did not involve intrusions and featured a local development from Bronze Age culture.[13] Another Iron Age nucleus considered to represent a local development is the Wessenstedt culture (800 - 600 BC).
> 
> The bearers of this northern Iron Age culture were likely speakers of Germanic languages. The stage of development of this Germanic is not known, although Proto-Germanic has been proposed. The late phase of this period sees the beginnings of the Germanic migrations, starting with the invasions of the Teutons and the Cimbri until their defeat at the Battle of Aquae Sextiae in 102 BC, presaging the more turbulent Roman Iron Age and Age of Migrations.


That doesn't make sense to me. The oldest I found in Scandinavia is I and I2 in Sweden 6000 years ago, then there's a big time gap in the DNA data for the area. But the oldest I1 found so far is from the LBK culture in Hungary. And the LBK culture in northern Germany became the Funnel Beaker culture that brought farming to Scandinavia and it moved from there to the Baltic. That's how former LBK I1 got to Scandinavia and the Baltic.

The figures Maciamo has modern I2 are 2% for Denmark, 1.5% for Sweden, and zero for Norway and Finland (although we don't know if I2 was in either of those countries in the Mesolithic). That's why I said I2 was ALMOST completely replaced in Sweden.

----------


## motzart

> I think, nobody disputes the fact that most man of I1, during Neolithic, were hunter, same as I2a hunter gatherers. They all eventually died off, and only few of the guys who got in contact with farmers transferred their paternal I1 or I2a, and restarted this haplogroups and made them successful. To this effect we can see quite strong bottlenecking in both groups. The other proof for it is that all of known and alive hg I carriers, you included, have a genome containing about 40% farmers genes. If you were only WHG/ANE I would say that you are right and I2a is not farmer population. However all of them are now, and it is true for all at least since bronze age. 
> Do you know at least one hg I* person who is lacking the EEF component? Let's stay within European borders. ;)


If the only Y DNA I that existed today was the result of HGs being absorbed into farmer communities then Y DNA I should exist alongside G2a in a minority wherever it exists. Likewise we know that HGs were not absorbed into farmer communities and that they lived along side them.

----------


## motzart

> That doesn't make sense to me. The oldest I found in Scandinavia is I and I2 in Sweden 6000 years ago, then there's a big time gap in the DNA data for the area. But the oldest I1 found so far is from the LBK culture in Hungary. And the LBK culture in northern Germany became the Funnel Beaker culture that brought farming to Scandinavia and it moved from there to the Baltic. That's how former LBK I1 got to Scandinavia and the Baltic.


Then we would see a majority G2a Y DNA in Scandinavia with a minority I1. Look at the Trellis results, any HGs that were absorbed into farmer communities were exceptions and the minority. That doesn't explain a majority I1. Scandinavia was depopulated in the iron age so any modern ratios are completely irrelevant.

----------


## LeBrok

> If the only Y DNA I that existed today was the result of HGs being absorbed into farmer communities then Y DNA I should exist alongside G2a in a minority wherever it exists.


 Why in minority. It is obvious that uniparental haplogroups and their clades go through explosions and bottlenecking. Their proportions changed every thousand of years, sometimes dramatically. Otherwise you can find G2a and I* alongside through all modern Europe.

Let's make some example of hg C6. It was found in hunter gatherers in Spain, it was also found still doing well in Hungarian Neolithic Farmers. But where is it now?





> Likewise we know that HGs were not absorbed into farmer communities and that they lived along side them.


No doubt some resisted and persisted till they were all gone. Please present this one case of I* individual alive today who doesn't have EEF admixture. Otherwise you don't have a case.

----------


## Krefter14

Check out this, Davidski, got ANE K8 scores for his K15 components, of course only the west Eurasian ones. I don;t know how credible it is, but it makes alot of sense. I took my K15 scores and converted them into K8 scores, and it was almost exactly what I scored on K8, except WHG was a little low. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...#gid=510396291

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o...VxdGhBRUk/view

Here are his thoughts on the results

"Eastern Euro = Yamnaya

Baltic = Battle-Axe Corded Ware

North Sea = Single Grave Corded Ware

Atlantic = Bell Beaker

West Asian = Maikop"

----------


## Aberdeen

> Then we would see a majority G2a Y DNA in Scandinavia with a minority I1. Look at the Trellis results, any HGs that were absorbed into farmer communities were exceptions and the minority. That doesn't explain a majority I1. Scandinavia was depopulated in the iron age so any modern ratios are completely irrelevant.


No, we wouldn't see a majority of G2a in Scandinavia as a result of Funnel Beaker Culture. And the Trellis results have nothing to do with it. Funnel Beaker, IMO, represents I1 farmers breaking away from the majority G2 LBK culture, which may explain why I1 Funnel Beaker Culture expanded north into Scandinavia to displace the I2 hunter gatherer types there.

----------


## Angela

Absent ancient dna I don't know how we can have any certainty about these things. 

However, I personally feel that the conclusions in Bollongino et al were far too broad for what the data actually showed. This is one burial site and it was used by the two groups of people for a very short time period. To extrapolate from that to say that the hunter-gatherer people and the farmer people lived side by side in all of central Europe for thousands of years, and thereby implying, I think, that the hunter gatherer groups flourished in large numbers in central Europe throughout the Neolithic is a vast over-generalization. It might be true for all I know, but this study doesn't prove it. I also don't know of any proof for that in archaeological data showing thriving hunter/fisher camps throughout that area for thousands of years. 

That hunter-gatherer groups continued to live beyond the northern (and perhaps western) limit of the LBK and related groups does make sense. Occasional forays south by some bands to fishing grounds would explain the Bollongino data. That's how Jean Manco sees it, or at least she did, and I think it's the more conservative stance to take, given the current data.

That's why I said upthread that I wondered if there was a possibility that the I1 farmer lineage found at the western Hungary LBK site died out, and that the I1 which survived descends from a hunter gatherer group of the northern fringe which was picked up by Corded Ware groups and then underwent its expansion.

Ed. 
Whether it was LBK or Corded, the fact still remains that only the adoption of agriculture (and/or herding of domestic animals) allowed for major population growth. 

Also, there was clearly some incorporation of hunter-gatherer people by the EEF Neolithic farmers, both through mtDna and yDna.

----------


## Sile

> I think, nobody disputes the fact that most man of I1, during Neolithic, were hunter, same as I2a hunter gatherers. They all eventually died off, and only few of the guys who got in contact with farmers transferred their paternal I1 or I2a, and restarted this haplogroups and made them successful. To this effect we can see quite strong bottlenecking in both groups. The other proof for it is that all of known and alive hg I carriers, you included, have a genome containing about 40% farmers genes. If you were only WHG/ANE I would say that you are right and I2a is not farmer population. However all of them are now, and it is true for all at least since bronze age. 
> Do you know at least one hg I* person who is lacking the EEF component? Let's stay within European borders. ;)


What are the SNP's for this extinct I* ?

----------


## Aberdeen

> Absent ancient dna I don't know how we can have any certainty about these things. 
> 
> However, I personally feel that the conclusions in Bollongino et al were far too broad for what the data actually showed. This is one burial site and it was used by the two groups of people for a very short time period. To extrapolate from that to say that the hunter-gatherer people and the farmer people lived side by side in all of central Europe for thousands of years, and thereby implying, I think, that the hunter gatherer groups flourished in large numbers in central Europe throughout the Neolithic is a vast over-generalization. It might be true for all I know, but this study doesn't prove it. I also don't know of any proof for that in archaeological data showing thriving hunter/fisher camps throughout that area for thousands of years. 
> 
> That hunter-gatherer groups continued to live beyond the northern (and perhaps western) limit of the LBK and related groups does make sense. Occasional forays south by some bands to fishing grounds would explain the Bollongino data. That's how Jean Manco sees it, or at least she did, and I think it's the more conservative stance to take, given the current data.
> 
> That's why I said upthread that I wondered if there was a possibility that the I1 farmer lineage found at the western Hungary LBK site died out, and that the I1 which survived descends from a hunter gatherer group of the northern fringe which was picked up by Corded Ware groups and then underwent its expansion.
> 
> Ed. 
> ...


No, we don't have enough information to be certain, and your alternative scenario is certainly plausible. I just find it interesting that the oldest I1 found to date was found with LBK folk, Funnel Beaker seems to have grown out of LBK culture, and Funnel Beaker apparently brought agriculture to Scandinavia. So I think my scenario works, but I agree that any other plausible scenario that involve hunter gatherers in Denmark or Germany adopting agriculture then spreading north could also explain the I1 expansion.

----------


## Krefter14

> Check out this, Davidski, got ANE K8 scores for his K15 components, of course only the west Eurasian ones. I don;t know how credible it is, but it makes alot of sense. I took my K15 scores and converted them into K8 scores, and it was almost exactly what I scored on K8, except WHG was a little low. 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...#gid=510396291
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o...VxdGhBRUk/view
> 
> Here are his thoughts on the results
> 
> "Eastern Euro = Yamnaya
> ...


In west Asia ANE is mostly expressed by the "West Asia" component, while their other two components are pretty much pure ENF, with a little African. This might mean ANE came to west Asia through one main source, which distributed their ANE genes throughout most of the region.

In Europe there are three very similar components with significant ANE; Baltic, North Sea, and Atlantic, and it looks like all three were formed somewhere in east-central Europe during the early bronze age. Most European ANE is expressed via these components, suggesting most ANE in Europe spread out of east-central Europe during the bronze age. 

East Euro is basically the same as those three components, except it has extra ANE, and probably can be traced back to the proto-Indo Europeans and Yamna, and a good guess is that it spread along with the three other European-specific components during the bronze age. 

It's amazing how everything from PCAs based on genotype data, to ancient genomes, to parental markers are giving the same narrative. Yamna, WHG/BHG, and EEF mixed during the bronze age in east-central Europe to create central-north European-type populations, and then these admixed people spread to ever inch of Europe,and pretty much repopulated some regions.

----------


## Angela

QUOTE=Sile;447721]What are the SNP's for this extinct I* ?[/QUOTE]

See the following paper for the I1 found in the LBK site:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...08664.full.pdf

The results are discussed on page 12. It was M253.

There are also tables in the Supplementary Data through the link below, but the resolution isn't more precise.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664.figures-only

----------


## LeBrok

> See the following paper for the I1 found in the LBK site:
> http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...08664.full.pdf
> 
> The results are discussed on page 12. It was M253.
> 
> There are also tables in the Supplementary Data through the link below, but the resolution isn't more precise.
> http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664.figures-only


I remember Sparkey's comment that by his estimation most found I2a in Scandinavia (Ajvide?) HGs were of extinct kind.

----------


## Krefter14

> I remember Sparkey's comment that by his estimation most found I2a in Scandinavia (Ajvide?) HGs were of extinct kind.


Ajv58 was tested in a SNP for every I2a1-P37 clade, except I2a1c. So, maybe he doesn't belong to an extinct I2a1 clade.

Northern Europeans high WHG can't be explained by anything else except hunter gatherers like Ajv58, being a significant part of their ancestry. They can't be explained as a mix of late Neolithic central-north Euro and Yamna. I1, I2a2, I2a1b, and I2a1c are all clearly lineages from those high-WHG people(they could have been farmers or HGs), and U5b is found at a higher rate in modern central-west Euros than in Neolithic ones. 

C01 from copper age Hungary had around as much WHG as Basque, Gok2 from Neolithic Sweden had around as much as Balts and Scandinavians, and Gok4 probably had more than any modern Europeans. There were people running around in the Baltic and east European plain who were over 60% WHG as recently as 4,000 years ago. This is why there are people today like Balts, who are obviously mostly of Mesolithic east European decent, via IE or native non-IE ancestry.

----------


## Sile

> Ajv58 was tested in a SNP for every I2a1-P37 clade, except I2a1c. So, maybe he doesn't belong to an extinct I2a1 clade.
> 
> Northern Europeans high WHG can't be explained by anything else except hunter gatherers like Ajv58, being a significant part of their ancestry. They can't be explained as a mix of late Neolithic central-north Euro and Yamna. I1, I2a2, I2a1b, and I2a1c are all clearly lineages from those high-WHG people(they could have been farmers or HGs), and U5b is found at a higher rate in modern central-west Euros than in Neolithic ones. 
> 
> C01 from copper age Hungary had around as much WHG as Basque, Gok2 from Neolithic Sweden had around as much as Balts and Scandinavians, and Gok4 probably had more than any modern Europeans. There were people running around in the Baltic and east European plain who were over 60% WHG as recently as 4,000 years ago. This is why there are people today like Balts, who are obviously mostly of Mesolithic east European decent, via IE or native non-IE ancestry.


Sparkey stated in december 2011
*
I2a1* is very very old, nearly 20,000 years old per Nordtvedt's latest estimates. Its location and movement so long ago is too tough to guess right now IMHO. One thing that simplifies the "Y-I2a1* in N-E Italia" is that the only I2a1 clade that seem to be ancient there is the ~4000 year old I2a1c*-Alpine clade, which has a fairly close relative, I2a1c1-Western, which also has a center of diversity not too far from the Rhine. That makes me think that the haplogroup mixture along the Rhine just before the beginning of the Neolithic in the area was a pretty good mix of I2a1c, I2a2b, and I2c. As for I2a1a, who knows... it's about 18,000 years from I2a1c. I guess it would have just been a normal East-West walking migration.* 

Did he come from the I2a1c alpine area .............an Oetzi neighbour?

----------


## Krefter14

Ajv58 was from Gotaland Sweden. I've heard people who know alot about archaeology say his culture; PWC, migrated there from eastern Europe. Ajv58 is very similar to Mesolithic Scandinavians, but Mesolithic east Euros were also probably very similar to SHGs, so I guess maybe his I2a1 came from Scandinavia or east Europe. I2a1-P37 was the dominate paternal lineage of all WHGs, even as far southeast as Hungary.

----------


## bicicleur

> Back when we only had STRs, southern Denmark/northern Germany seemed to have the most diversity, because that area has a large variety of different L22 and Z58 subclades. Now we have lots of SNPs, though, which show that Z58 and L22 are more closely related to each other than they are to some other minor clades that tend to push the center of diversity a little south and/or east of there (Nordtvedt thinks Pomerania; I think that may be a bit too far north though given the outliers in Austria, the Czech Republic, etc.).
> 
> Robb's analysis, cited here by motzart, doesn't really address SNP outliers, nor the cline of the clades other than I1 L22>L287 in Finland (AFAIK they all point into Finland instead of out).


thank you Sparkey
where do you get the best info re geographical spread of subclades nowadays?

----------


## Goga

> East Euro is basically the same as those three components, except it has extra ANE, and probably can be traced back to the proto-Indo Europeans and Yamna, and a good guess is that it spread along with the three other European-specific components during the bronze age.


Proto-Indo-Europeans came from Leyla-Tepe, Yamna was astop between Leyla-Tepe/Mayko and Europe. ANE has been always present in WestAsia, since ANE is from Asia. The distribution of ANE was always like that in(West) Asia. West Asia borders Caucasus and SouthCentral Asia. ANE was a geneflow from those areas into West Asia for thousands of years, even before Indo-Europeansexisted. ANE in West Asia is much older than the Indo-Europeans.
While ANE in Europe came from Indo-Europeans. Becauseproto-Indo-Europeans who cam from Leyla-Tepe already had ANE in them. But aftermoving into Northern Caucasus they got even MORE ANE before migrating intoEurope.

1. Proto-Indo-Europeansareform Leyla-Tepe/Maykop.
2. ANE in West Asia(Leyla-Tepe) existed there thousands of years before proto-Indo-Europeans evenexisted.

  
Kurgans in Maykop and Leyla-Tepe are OLDER than in Maykop !!!

----------


## Goga

> At this moment 20/60/20 whg/ane/enf is likely too for East Yamna, supposed source of Indo-Iranians. Less than 60% ANE can't explain elevated ANE levels in Middle East where Indo-Iranians settled.


 I think you're wrong! Proto-Indo-Europeans came from Leyla-Tepe, Yamna was just a stop between Leyla-Tepe/Mayko and Europe. ANE has been *always* present in West Asia, since ANE is from Asia. Proto-Iranians were originally also from Leyla-Tepe. When proto-Iranians evolved into proto-Iranians between Zagros and Leyla-Tepe there was already ANE in Leyla-Tepe. ANE is West Asia is older and predate proto-Iranians.

West Asia / *Iranian Plateau* borders Caucasus and SouthCentral Asia. ANE was a gene flow from those areas into the Iranian Plateau for thousands of years, way before Indo-Europeans existed. ANE around Iranian Plateau is much older than the Indo-Europeans.

----------


## arvistro

How do you explain whg in India/Iran? Or there is no such thing as whg in India/Iran?

----------


## Goga

> How do you explain whg in India/Iran? Or there is no such thing as whg in India/Iran?


It could come much later with East-Iranic tribes that lived in the Steppes. Like back migration of Sarmatians, Scythians. It has been proven that Scythians, Alanians etc. migrated back into the Western Iranian Plateau from the Northern Caucasus. There is some very recent Y-DNA hg. I2a and European R1a-Z282 in Kurdistan & Western Iran. These very young haplogroups came probably with the Sarmatians, Scythians. But the original proto-Iranians predate those Sarmatians, Scythians etc. by more than 1000 years. Although WHG around the Iranian Plateau could be also very, very ancient and predate proto-Indo-Europeans. We don't have ancient auDNA of West Asian people. Iranic tribes like the Medes, Persians etc were native to West Asia!

----------


## arvistro

Wait a sec. Would be interesting to see the exact subclades of I2a and Z282 in Iran to check when exactly they went there. If those are old enough and have no younger Euro counterparts (like Z282*) then it actually proves the opposite - that they came together with IEs.

----------


## Goga

> Wait a sec. Would be interesting to see the exact subclades of I2a and Z282 in Iran to check when exactly they went there. If those are old enough and have no younger Euro counterparts (like Z282*) then it actually proves the opposite - that they came together with IEs.


Sorry, stop dreaming. There is no I2a and Z282 in India and Central Asia at all, only in Kurdistan. But in Kurdistan R1a is very diverse. From very ancient R1a* to very recent ones of Iranic R1a-Z93 types and European types of R1a-Z282. The diversity and variation of R1a in Kurdistan is VERY high. There're many different types of R1a* in Kurdistan. I do belong to R1a* which is NEITHER Z93 NOR Z282. We have even R1a which is ancestral to both: Z93 and Z282. Could be best indication that R1a is actually from Kurdistan..

----------


## arvistro

So, Indian WHG arrived with IE-ans then?

----------


## Goga

> So, Indian WHG arrived with IE-ans then?


Do they have WHG? If so, how much? According to the latest scientific paper from HARVARD they have no WHG at all or very very little and that proto-Indo-Europeans came from the Maykop/Leyla-Tepe
: " _Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said._ " http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...-of-europeans/

----------


## arvistro

> Do they have WHG? If so, how much? According to the latest scientific paper from HARVARD they have no WHG at all or very very little and that proto-Indo-Europeans came from the Maykop/Leyla-Tepe
> : " _Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said._ " http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...-of-europeans/





> *Be it in India, Central Asia, Siberia or even Mongolia, there is always WHG and ANE admixture wherever R1a1a and R1b1a (M269 or M73) are found*. However that is not true for the African R1b1c (V88), perhaps because it was too diluted on the way, or because R1b people did not acquire WHG until they mixed with the aboriginal Steppe people (R1a). 
> 
> You can see by yourself in the admixture above in which populations the blue, pink and beige admixtures are present.


I see some contradiction in above statements. I am in no position to argue, hope some consensus is reached.

----------


## Goga

> I see some contradiction in above statements. I am in no position to argue, hope some consensus is reached.


There is ANE in India but no WHG. Maciamo is not from HARVARD and he didn't write the latest paper and he is not even part of any research team. He is just giving his own opinion and he is not the real authority on this field. That's all. I can say I'm Annunaki (Alien-GOD) from Nibiru and came down to earth and settled in Kurdistan during the Sumerian times. But do I have proves to this wild and crazy claims? People can say & claim whatever they want, but to be taken seriously they need to come up with real and hard evidences!

----------


## Krefter14

> Proto-Indo-Europeans came from Leyla-Tepe, Yamna was astop between Leyla-Tepe/Mayko and Europe. ANE has been always present in WestAsia, since ANE is from Asia. The distribution of ANE was always like that in(West) Asia. West Asia borders Caucasus and SouthCentral Asia. ANE was a geneflow from those areas into West Asia for thousands of years, even before Indo-Europeansexisted. ANE in West Asia is much older than the Indo-Europeans.
> While ANE in Europe came from Indo-Europeans. Becauseproto-Indo-Europeans who cam from Leyla-Tepe already had ANE in them. But aftermoving into Northern Caucasus they got even MORE ANE before migrating intoEurope.
> 
> 1. Proto-Indo-Europeansareform Leyla-Tepe/Maykop.
> 2. ANE in West Asia(Leyla-Tepe) existed there thousands of years before proto-Indo-Europeans evenexisted.
> 
>   
> Kurgans in Maykop and Leyla-Tepe are OLDER than in Maykop !!!


The East Euro component in K15 is probably of Yamna origin, whether we think they were PIE or not is up to debate. 

Yamna-type people caused a genetic turnover in Europe and probably brought Indo European languages, who the several different groups were who brought IE languages to west Asia is another debate. West and south Asians lacking WHG is why some think it came through the Caucasus into west and south Asia. 

I don't see how ANE in west Asia comes from the European steppe, like most European ANE, because Mesolithic Russians were around 50% WHG, while west Asians have little such ancestry, and more ANE than Europeans on average. Davidski at Eurogenes is confusing people to think all non-south Asian and Amerindian ANE is from a bronze age migration out of Russia. This doesn't work for west Asia. He hasn't considered the possibility that somewhere along Anatolia-India there was a mostly ANE population.

----------


## Goga

> The East Euro component in K15 is probably of Yamna origin, whether we think they were PIE or not is up to debate. 
> 
> Yamna-type people caused a genetic turnover in Europe and probably brought Indo European languages, who the several different groups were who brought IE languages to west Asia is another debate. West and south Asians lacking WHG is why some think it came through the Caucasus into west and south Asia. 
> 
> I don't see how ANE in west Asia comes from the European steppe, like most European ANE, because Mesolithic Russians were around 50% WHG, while west Asians have little such ancestry, and more ANE than Europeans on average. Davidski at Eurogenes is confusing people to think all non-south Asian and Amerindian ANE is from a bronze age migration out of Russia. This doesn't work for west Asia. He hasn't considered the possibility that somewhere along Anatolia-India there was a mostly ANE population.



Exactly, I believe that ANE from Kurdistan, Zagros Mountains and the Iranian Plateau up to Central Asia are just native to that region. Iranian Plateau and Central Asia are directly linked to each other and are actually part of the same region. Why should ANE in Central Asia be native and not native in Iran? There's no water/ocean in between. They are in the same region. ANE in Caucasus could be bottle-necked after it arrived from West Asia. But it also can be that ANE is just native all the way from Caucasus to Iranian Plateau up to Central Asia.

Indo-Europeans in Europe arrived from Yamnaya. But then again Yamna was in turn Indo-Europized by folks from Maykop / Leyla-Tepe. Therefore Europe-Indo-Europeans are from Yamna horizon, and Indo-Europeans in West Asia and India are directly from Maykop and Leyla-Tepe. Yamnaya acted just like an intermediate station between Maykop and Europe.


People from Eurogenes are plain idiots. They think that they can deceive people with their low intelligence and low education. They do underestimate people a lot, lol.

----------


## LeBrok

> Davidski at Eurogenes is confusing people to think all non-south Asian and Amerindian ANE is from a bronze age migration out of Russia. This doesn't work for west Asia. He hasn't considered the possibility that somewhere along *Anatolia-India there was a mostly ANE population*.


 So why ANE didn't come to europe with first ENF farmers?

----------


## sparkey

> Wait a sec. Would be interesting to see the exact subclades of I2a and Z282 in Iran to check when exactly they went there. If those are old enough and have no younger Euro counterparts (like Z282*) then it actually proves the opposite - that they came together with IEs.


I think that the amount of I2 in Kurds has been overstated a bit in the past. They seem to have low-single-digits I2, with the only well studied sample I know of being a Sorani Kurd who carries I2-M223>L1229, an otherwise quite European subclade. IIRC there was also a Kurd who likely carried I2c but didn't get enough testing done to confirm it. Alan has kept track of Kurdish Y-DNA, here and elsewhere.

Interestingly, I* has been found in a Hazara and IJ* has been found in a Persian, I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that. I discussed those samples in detail here.

----------


## Sile

> Exactly, I believe that ANE from Kurdistan, Zagros Mountains and the Iranian Plateau up to Central Asia are just native to that region. Iranian Plateau and Central Asia are directly linked to each other and are actually part of the same region. Why should ANE in Central Asia be native and not native in Iran? There's no water/ocean in between. They are in the same region. ANE in Caucasus could be bottle-necked after it arrived from West Asia. But it also can be that ANE is just native all the way from Caucasus to Iranian Plateau up to Central Asia.
> 
> .


Do you *really believe* that Kurds , armenians and assyrians will show the same levels of ANE ?................clearly as for Haplogroup percentages , they are different.

IMO, kurds came via central asia thourgh BMC and through northern iran and settled where they are now. They brought the ANE.

----------


## Goga

> Do you *really believe* that Kurds , armenians and assyrians will show the same levels of ANE ?................clearly as for Haplogroup percentages , they are different.
> 
> IMO, kurds came via central asia thourgh BMC and through northern iran and settled where they are now. They brought the ANE.


Kurds have much more ANE than Assyrians and Armenians, and Kurds should have even more ANE if there was no Scytho-Sarmatian migration into Kurdistan who brought I2a and R1a-Z282 (WHG) into Kurdistan. I mean I've at least 8 % of WHG, and I believe it's from them (Sarmatians). Because of those Sarmatians who brought WHG into Kurdistan we have even LESS ANE.
But Kurds have more ANE because Armenians and Assyrians are *NOT native* to Kurdistan / Zagros Mountains. Assyrians are Semitic people and are originally either from Southern Levant or Arabistan. Armenians were neighbours of the ancient Greeks and thus also lived in Western Anatolia and NOT in Zagros. ANE in Assyrians is actually from Kurds.
Kurds should have more ANE and at least same level of ANE as Northern Caucaus folks if there was no back migration of East-Iranic people into Kurdistan from the Northern Caucasus, Scytho-Sarmantians.

Assyrians and Armenians don't have as much R1a as Kurds, while Assyrians don't even have a lot of J2a. The most important haplogroups among Kurds are R1a AND J2a. Whie Assyrians and Armenians have different main haplogroups..

The Zagros Mountains (native homeland of Kurds, Kurdistan) are part of the Iranian Plateau. And Assyrians & Armenian are NOT from the Iranian Plateau / Kurdistan / Zagros Mountains. If Kurds were from BMAC we would have even much more South Asian auDNA. Kurds don't have much of South Asian Y-DNA like Y-DNA H, L etc. either..

----------


## Goga

> So why ANE didn't come to europe with first ENF farmers?


Very simple, the farmers that migrated into Europe were not from the Maykop, Zagros Mountains, Leyla-Tepe or the Iranian Plateau. Farmers that migrated into Europe lived much closer toward the The Mediterranen Sea, the Levant maybe even Northern Africa!!!

----------


## Goga

> I think that the amount of I2 in Kurds has been overstated a bit in the past. They seem to have low-single-digits I2, with the only well studied sample I know of being a Sorani Kurd who carries I2-M223>L1229, an otherwise quite European subclade. IIRC there was also a Kurd who likely carried I2c but didn't get enough testing done to confirm it. Alan has kept track of Kurdish Y-DNA, here and elsewhere.
> 
> Interestingly, I* has been found in a Hazara and IJ* has been found in a Persian, I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that. I discussed those samples in detail here.


I've at least 8% of WHG in me and most Kurds have between 8%-10% of WHG. Where is this from? Not from SouthCentral Asia, that's for sure, because there is nor WHG. And I'm sure WHG in Kurds has been diluted. It was more in the past, let say 2000 years ago, after Scytho-Sarmatians arrived and mixed with the Medes. So, I think that Kurds have *at least* 10% of I2a. According to Eupedia Kurds have between 17%-20 % of I2a. If you take into consideration that 8% of WHG in Kurds was a little bit higher in the past, I think in reality Kurds have more than 10%-15% of I2a. Scytho-Sarmatians were assimilated by the Medes and the Western Persian tribes and Scytho-Sarmatians were also only partly WHG partly ANE and partly ENF, because of their East Iranic origin in SouthCentral Asia...

----------


## arvistro

> Kurds should have more ANE and at least same level of ANE as *Northern Caucaus* folks if there was no back migration of East-Iranic people into Kurdistan from the *Northern Caucasus*, Scytho-Sarmantians.


Do you find this statement logical?

----------


## Goga

> Do you find this statement logical?


Yes when I wrote this I thought about it. Folks in Northern Caucasus have for about 5% more ANE than Kurds. But they are not Iranic (or even Indo-European). They speak Caucasian languages. East Iranic folks, like Scythians, came actually from SouthCentral Asia. SouthCentral Asia was homeland of the Scythians. They had a lot of ENF. But moving toward Europe they mixed with the native European population. So they picked up more WHG. So Scytho-Sarmatians were more WHG and more ENF than North Caucasian speaking people. Caucasian speaking people had much less WHG. That's why Caucasian speaking folks had MORE ANE than Scytho-Sarmatians. And those Scytho-Sarmatians migrated also into Kurdistan brought more WHG with them. And therefore Kurds get lesser ANE than people in Northern Caucasus and SouthCentral Asia. The Medes (proto-Kurds) and the ancient Western Persian tribes had more ANE, same level as Northen Caucaus and SouthCentral Asia, but they mixed with the Alanians and Scytho-Sarmatians and later even with the Semitic speaking peoples like Chaldeans (Babylonians) ...

----------


## Krefter14

> So why ANE didn't come to europe with first ENF farmers?


Because it wasn't in the Near east. There could have been very ANE-type people in eastern Iran. If ANE in west Asia came from Europe, we would see much more WHG in west Asia(Mesolithic Russians were as much or more WHG than ANE), if it came from south Asia, we should see much more south-Asian specific ancestry. It looks like a close to pure-ANE population or ANE+near eastern population, gave west Asians ANE.

----------


## arvistro

Interesting, 24000 years ago 100% ANE boy was in Irkutsk, Russia. I think ANE is actually defined as Mal'ta boy, right?
He was also R*, U*. 
Now you say ANE originated/peaked in Iran or in Kurds? Karitiana folk in Brazil have 40% ANE, hmm...

----------


## Goga

> Interesting, 24000 years ago 100% ANE boy was in Irkutsk, Russia. I think ANE is actually defined as Mal'ta boy, right?
> He was also R*, U*. 
> Now you say ANE originated/peaked in Iran or in Kurds? Karitiana folk in Brazil have 40% ANE, hmm...


If ANE is 24000 years old and it's from Irkuts ( you should have mentioned that Irkuts is not far from Mongolia and China) than ANE is actually a Mongoloid auDNA! Is ANE Mongoloid? I think that ANE is very old, but not that old. Mal'ta boy who lived not far from Mongolia was related (distant cousin of) to the ancient ancestor of ANE. That would make sense, since humans are originally from Africa and humans in far East Asia (Mongoloid people) who are originally from Africa (like everybody) migrated into far East Asia through the Iranian Plateau. People in Irkutsk, Mogolia couldn't fly, you know. Somehow they ended up there. The question is how, and the most reasonable answer is through the Iranian Plateau! Some people went to far East Asia, but people who stayed behind in (South)Central Asia or Eastern Iranian Plateau could be responsible for ANE!

----------


## motzart

Sorry I meant to reply to Arvistro not Goga, I agree with Goga. 




> Interesting, 24000 years ago 100% ANE boy was in Irkutsk, Russia. I think ANE is actually defined as Mal'ta boy, right?
> He was also R*, U*. 
> Now you say ANE originated/peaked in Iran or in Kurds? Karitiana folk in Brazil have 40% ANE, hmm...



The problem with all that is, that ANE is an invetion to describe all the European genetics that aren't a result from a combination of a Loschbour type Hunter Gatherer and an Oetzi/Stuttgart type farmer. Malta boy doesn't help with that because Europeans show basically no affinity to Malta boy other than the R DNA. This means that the R1b/R1a groups went through an extremely drastic evolution before they even reached Europe, otherwise Europeans would show some affinity to Kalash/Eskimo like Malta does. So even though Malta technically is a definition of ANE, he is too old to be helpful in determinig who this third group is.

----------


## arvistro

Whatever you call ANE Kurds don't have much more than Finns of it. And Karintians (Brazil natives) or some Syberian folk have twice as much. So, claiming it was born or on its peak in Kurdistan/Iran is kind of....

----------


## Krefter14

Goga, you should be more conservative and open-minded when thinking through these things, and not jump to conclusions. MA-1 is 24,000 years old, and is ANE. All that is known is he was from a brother branch of WHG, and his people contributed genes to everyone in the world except Africans and east Asians. ANE is not east Asian. 

Exactly what east Asian is, is unknown, so to call it mongoloid is like saying it is a pure form of ancestry, and I think we should call it east Asian because that is where it is geographically. A few years ago people thought what was call "West Eurasian" or "Caucasian" represented a pure form of ancestry. Because of ancient genomes we discovered that the reason middle easterns and Europeans are so related is because they are a mix of the same 3 distinct stone age populations, not because they descend from a single branch.

----------


## Robert6

Well the only Caucasoid is ENF
Europoid is a mix of ENF WGH/UGH and little ANE
ANE, Mongoloid, ASE and WGH/UGH are Eurasian

Look to that Kalash girl to her nose, this nose isn't Caucasoid
http://www.manuelgago.org/blog/wp-co...ds/kalasha.jpg

And also look to that Swedish girl(many WGH) her nose also do not have high bridge
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs49/f/20...y_tronador.jpg

----------


## Aberdeen

> Sorry I meant to reply to Arvistro not Goga, I agree with Goga. 
> 
> 
> The problem with all that is, that ANE is an invetion to describe all the European genetics that aren't a result from a combination of a Loschbour type Hunter Gatherer and an Oetzi/Stuttgart type farmer. Malta boy doesn't help with that because Europeans show basically no affinity to Malta boy other than the R DNA. This means that the R1b/R1a groups went through an extremely drastic evolution before they even reached Europe, otherwise Europeans would show some affinity to Kalash/Eskimo like Malta does. So even though Malta technically is a definition of ANE, he is too old to be helpful in determinig who this third group is.


No. Read the paper about MA1 (Mal'ta Boy) and what people such as Dienekes have to say about him. The DNA of MA1 is used as ANE, because he's related to both Europeans and Native Americans but not East Asians. So a close relative of his must have been the source of ANE in various populations. The extent to which the DNA of R1a and R1b folk still consists of ANE depends on how much their ANE ancestors mixed with other groups.

----------


## Robert6

> Well the only Caucasoid is ENF
> Europoid is a mix of ENF WGH/UGH and little ANE
> ANE, Mongoloid, ASE and WGH/UGH are Eurasian
> 
> Look to that Kalash girl to her nose, this nose isn't Caucasoid
> http://www.manuelgago.org/blog/wp-co...ds/kalasha.jpg
> 
> And also look to that Swedish girl(many WGH) her nose also do not have high bridge
> http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs49/f/20...y_tronador.jpg


Also look to that Lebanon girl her nose is with very high bridge
http://earabgirls.com/wp-content/upl...t-Pictures.jpg

And to this Cretan girl
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs19/f/20...7a345f9f7c.png

----------


## Goga

> Whatever you call ANE Kurds don't have much more than Finns of it. And Karintians (Brazil natives) or some Syberian folk have twice as much. So, claiming it was born or on its peak in Kurdistan/Iran is kind of....


My friend, I'm not saying that ANE has been born in Kurdistan or Iran, I'm just saying that ANE was already in Kurdistan and Iran even thousands of years before proto-Indo-Europeans ever existed. Even if ANE is originally not from the Iranian Plateau/Kurdistan, Iranian Plateau (with Kurdistan) lies between the Caucasus and SouthCentral Asia, don't you think people in between (which live actually on the Iranian Plateau) wouldn't be affected by those folks, even through a minor gene flow, for all these thousands of years ... ?

----------


## Goga

> Goga, you should be more conservative and open-minded when thinking through these things, and not jump to conclusions. MA-1 is 24,000 years old, and is ANE. All that is known is he was from a brother branch of WHG, and his people contributed genes to everyone in the world except Africans and east Asians. ANE is not east Asian. 
> 
> Exactly what east Asian is, is unknown, so to call it mongoloid is like saying it is a pure form of ancestry, and I think we should call it east Asian because that is where it is geographically. A few years ago people thought what was call "West Eurasian" or "Caucasian" represented a pure form of ancestry. Because of ancient genomes we discovered that the reason middle easterns and Europeans are so related is because they are a mix of the same 3 distinct stone age populations, not because they descend from a single branch.


I do agree with you. I think that chance that ANE was born somewhere between Central and SouthCentral Asia is very high. But I believe that ANE around the Iranian Plateau and Northern Caucasus predate and is much older than proto-Indo-Europeans...

----------


## Krefter14

> Well the only Caucasoid is ENF
> Europoid is a mix of ENF WGH/UGH and little ANE
> ANE, Mongoloid, ASE and WGH/UGH are Eurasian
> 
> Look to that Kalash girl to her nose, this nose isn't Caucasoid
> http://www.manuelgago.org/blog/wp-co...ds/kalasha.jpg
> 
> And also look to that Swedish girl(many WGH) her nose also do not have high bridge
> http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs49/f/20...y_tronador.jpg


La Brana-1 was WHG and had Caucasoid features. Mesolithic Karelians were a mix of east Asian and WHG-ANE, and had a mix of Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Also, Bronze age hunter gatherers in Siberia had a mix of east Asian and WHG-ANE mtDNA, and had a mix of Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Exactly where Caucasoid features come from(could have been selected for in Middle east and Europe at different times), I think it's likely WHG had it.

----------


## Robert6

> La Brana-1 was WHG and had Caucasoid features. Mesolithic Karelians were a mix of east Asian and WHG-ANE, and had a mix of Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Also, Bronze age hunter gatherers in Siberia had a mix of east Asian and WHG-ANE mtDNA, and had a mix of Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Exactly where Caucasoid features come from(could have been selected for in Middle east and Europe at different times), I think it's likely WHG had it.


Look to the Skull it is a wrong reconstruction
http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www....?itok=5p4llYOA

----------


## Robert6

Mesolithic European woman
http://i.imgur.com/GYwwt.jpg

----------


## motzart

> Well the only Caucasoid is ENF
> Europoid is a mix of ENF WGH/UGH and little ANE
> ANE, Mongoloid, ASE and WGH/UGH are Eurasian
> 
> Look to that Kalash girl to her nose, this nose isn't Caucasoid
> http://www.manuelgago.org/blog/wp-co...ds/kalasha.jpg
> 
> And also look to that Swedish girl(many WGH) her nose also do not have high bridge
> http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs49/f/20...y_tronador.jpg


Posting pictures of random people when trying to make inferences about a population is stupid. It maked you sound like a moron and discredits everything you have written.

----------


## Robert6

Cro magnon sculpture on Mamouth Ivory
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...1&d=1387594904

----------


## Krefter14

I know, but you can't deny there are WHG-ANE remains with Caucasoid features. Physical appearance can change quickly, so there could be a complicated answer for Caucasoid features being dominate from India-Ireland-Morocco. 

My nose is wide like that, and that guy could pass as Caucasoid, it's not like everyone in west Eurasia has a super thin nose.

----------


## Sile

> Well the only Caucasoid is ENF
> Europoid is a mix of ENF WGH/UGH and little ANE
> ANE, Mongoloid, ASE and WGH/UGH are Eurasian
> 
> Look to that Kalash girl to her nose, this nose isn't Caucasoid
> http://www.manuelgago.org/blog/wp-co...ds/kalasha.jpg
> 
> And also look to that Swedish girl(many WGH) her nose also do not have high bridge
> http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs49/f/20...y_tronador.jpg


There is also EGH of which Ust was one,

----------


## Robert6

> I know, but you can't deny there are WHG-ANE remains with Caucasoid features. Physical appearance can change quickly, so there could be a complicated answer for Caucasoid features being dominate from India-Ireland-Morocco. 
> 
> My nose is wide like that, and that guy could pass as Caucasoid, it's not like everyone in west Eurasia has a super thin nose.


I am not talking about wide or thin nose.
The nose with high bridge is something else 
"Greek nose" google it, half of them have very high bridge
https://www.google.gr/search?noj=1&b...17.SviqMOS6By8


Sardinian people
https://www.google.gr/search?noj=1&b...20.EUMoObxcSD4


compare to Swedish people
https://www.google.gr/search?noj=1&b...77.sAmX-AetIsc

----------


## Robert6

Another example nose with high bridge
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/imag...ft+profile.jpg

and nose with relatively low  bridge
http://blog.edeninstitute.com.au/wp-...Line-Image.jpg

----------


## LeBrok

> Because it wasn't in the Near east. There could have been very ANE-type people in eastern Iran. If ANE in west Asia came from Europe, we would see much more WHG in west Asia(Mesolithic Russians were as much or more WHG than ANE), if it came from south Asia, we should see much more south-Asian specific ancestry. It looks like a close to pure-ANE population or ANE+near eastern population, gave west Asians ANE.


Right. That's why I think the Yamna was a hodgepodge of few distinct populations. West Yamna was more WHG than East Yamna. East Yamna being around Caspian Sea and beyond to the East. East part was ANE dominant and where R1a Z93 comes from, the herders, the Indo-Iranians. Originally they both came from R1a people of same culture and language, but with time grew apart, spread wide and assumed different cultural characters. West part mixed more with Cucuteni farmers and expanded into Europe, the East developed good herding and horse riding practices and expanded into rest of the Steppe and into Middle East, as Indo-Iranians.
I'm hoping to see some of Z93 in on East side of Yamna only, and Z283 on West side only. I think Z283 expanded dramatically on base of farming, and Z93 on the base of successful herding on horseback.

----------


## motzart

> No. Read the paper about MA1 (Mal'ta Boy) and what people such as Dienekes have to say about him. The DNA of MA1 is used as ANE, because he's related to both Europeans and Native Americans but not East Asians. So a close relative of his must have been the source of ANE in various populations. The extent to which the DNA of R1a and R1b folk still consists of ANE depends on how much their ANE ancestors mixed with other groups.


The purpose of ANE as I understand it is that it is part of a 3 way model to describe modern Europeans, at least that is how the theory was presented by Lazaridis when he created it. You can't model Europeans as a 3 way mixture between Oetzi, Loschbour, and Mal'ta Boy. Yamna will be a good definition for ANE in my opinion and I think in the new paper they will be able to very accurately describe Europeans in terms of a Yamna genome, a Beaker genome, and of course the exsting WHG and EEF ones. Using Mal'ta boy is a bad fit, its like trying to model yourself as a 4 way model between your 4 grandparents, but using the existing mesolithic & neolithic genomes and Mal'ta is like using 3 grandparents and 1 guy from 24,000 years ago. I know people have tried but I don't think it has value.

----------


## arvistro

Oetzi and Loshbour are also not exactly grandparents, right? Why is 7000 years ago cool, but 24,000 years ago not cool? Where is the limit?

----------


## Aberdeen

> The purpose of ANE as I understand it is that it is part of a 3 way model to describe modern Europeans, at least that is how the theory was presented by Lazaridis when he created it. You can't model Europeans as a 3 way mixture between Oetzi, Loschbour, and Mal'ta Boy. Yamna will be a good definition for ANE in my opinion and I think in the new paper they will be able to very accurately describe Europeans in terms of a Yamna genome, a Beaker genome, and of course the exsting WHG and EEF ones. Using Mal'ta boy is a bad fit, its like trying to model yourself as a 4 way model between your 4 grandparents, but using the existing mesolithic & neolithic genomes and Mal'ta is like using 3 grandparents and 1 guy from 24,000 years ago. I know people have tried but I don't think it has value.


My point was that ANE is not an artificial construct that someone pulled out of the air, which is what I thought you were suggesting. It refers to actual data taken from a real person and, as I understand it, is part of a three way model that is being used to explain the genetic makeup of modern Europeans because that's the most useful model the experts have at the moment. It has been discussed in blogs by knowledgeable people who have suggested that the reality is probably more complicated than that, but nobody seems to have a more useful model at the moment.

We won't know the genetic makeup of IE people until results are released but some of what's been leaked suggests that they are a mixture of steppe people and Caucasian farmers so would generally be some mixture of WHG, EEF and ANE, just as many people have assumed. Although there have also been suggestions that researchers are looking for a model that doesn't include WHG, which doesn't make sense to me.

----------


## Silesian

> Do you *really believe* that Kurds , armenians and assyrians will show the same levels of ANE ?................clearly as for Haplogroup percentages , they are different.
> 
> IMO, kurds came via central asia thourgh BMC and through northern iran and settled where they are now. They brought the ANE.


Two out of the three examples you give; only two qualify for having connections with PIE speaking people. _Ar_-menians and _Kur_-ds.
Perhaps the following two rivers were named from PIE who knows ?
_Kura_ and _Araxes_ river valleys are in the region of _Caucasian Albania [Ardhan-Arran-Alan]_.
The region of _Kohistan- [Persian/Mede-__Western Branch]_ _Persian: کوہستان‎ 'mountainous land'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan#mediaviewer/Fileagestan.png
_

----------


## Alan

> Well the only Caucasoid is ENF
> Europoid is a mix of ENF WGH/UGH and little ANE
> ANE, Mongoloid, ASE and WGH/UGH are Eurasian
> 
> Look to that Kalash girl to her nose, this nose isn't Caucasoid
> http://www.manuelgago.org/blog/wp-co...ds/kalasha.jpg
> 
> And also look to that Swedish girl(many WGH) her nose also do not have high bridge
> http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs49/f/20...y_tronador.jpg


ANE is pred. West Eurasian. ANE is closer to other West Eurasian groups such as WHG and even ENF than East Eurasian.

ANE is between modern West Eurasians and Amerindians, that also because Amerindians are half ANE (West Eurasian like) and half East Eurasian.

----------


## Robert6

> ANE is pred. West Eurasian. ANE is closer to other West Eurasian groups such as WHG and even ENF than East Eurasian.
> 
> ANE is between modern West Eurasians and Amerindians, that also because Amerindians are half ANE (West Eurasian like) and half East Eurasian.


No, the West Eurasian(WGH/UGH + ANE) is closer to East Eurasian than to ENF(Basal Eurasian)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jlF6eSOWmn...0/F2.large.jpg

----------


## Alan

> No, the West Eurasian(WGH/UGH + ANE) is closer to East Eurasian than to ENF(Basal Eurasian)
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jlF6eSOWmn...0/F2.large.jpg


The graph you have linked to, it shows ANE beeing direclty descend of West Eurasian upper paleolithic.

I think you are confusing basal Eurasian for West Eurasian. That is the only explanation for why you think ANE beeing between Basal Eurasian and East Asian means it is non West Eurasian.

Just for the notification basal Eurasian is not neolithic farmer. Farmer DNA itself is basal Eurasian+ H&G like DNA.

----------


## Robert6

> The graph you have linked to, it shows ANE beeing direclty descend of West Eurasian upper paleolithic.
> 
> I think you are confusing basal Eurasian for West Eurasian. That is the only explanation for why you think ANE beeing between Basal Eurasian and East Asian means it is non West Eurasian.
> 
> Just for the notification basal Eurasian is not neolithic farmer. Farmer DNA itself is basal Eurasian+ H&G like DNA.


No, 
I mean that "West Eurasian" in the graph, is not Caucasoid
for example here is North European Mesolithic http://i.imgur.com/GYwwt.jpg

----------


## Robert6

The ENF(Basal Eurasian) is very high among Druze(close group and they do not take others) 
Here are Druze people
http://www.druzehistoryandculture.co...e%20Elders.jpg
http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/imag...ruze-women.jpg
http://www.jihadwatch.org/WP001/wp-c...oads/Druze.jpg
http://i-cias.com/e.o/slides/druze.people01.jpg

----------


## Alan

> No, 
> I mean that "West Eurasian" in the graph, is not Caucasoid
> for example here is North European Mesolithic http://i.imgur.com/GYwwt.jpg


That reconstruction is completely caucasoid in the sense that her look (minus eye and hair color) appears in all modern West Eurasian groups. Certanly she doesn't look East Eurasian.

Caucasian doesn't mean narrow nose/eyes just like East Eurasian doesn't mean broad nose/eyes. Or do you think this Japanese is Caucasian?

----------


## Robert6

> Caucasian doesn't mean narrow nose/eyes just like East Eurasian doesn't mean broad nose/eyes. Or do you think this Japanese is Caucasian?


*Yakonid Japanese
*

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ni_NIcolao.jpg

http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/nichiro/img3/mutsu.jpg


Yakonid Japanese and Ainu(North Japan) possibly are partly Basal Eurasians
Possibly also there is trace of Basal Eurasian among Melanesians and Polynesians


Many "Basal Eurasian" is in eastern Africa.


Not all who have "East Eurasian" are Mongoloid
Also not all who have "Basal Eurasian" are Caucasoid.


Caucasoid is only a part of "Basal Eurasian"
Mongloid is only a part of "East Eurasian"


Europoid/Caucasian is a mix of Caucasoid + West Eurasian




> That reconstruction is completely caucasoid in the sense that her look (minus eye and hair color) appears in all modern West Eurasian groups. Certanly she doesn't look East Eurasian.


She is close to Europoids/Caucasians becauce her people are partly ancestors of Europoids/Caucasians. 
But pure "West Eurasians" are closer to East Eurasians than to "Basal Eurasian"

----------


## Angela

> Robert6:No, the West Eurasian(WGH/UGH + ANE) is closer to East Eurasian than to ENF(Basal Eurasian)
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jlF6eSOWmn...0/F2.large.jpg


I do see what you're getting at based on the graph as both West and East Eurasian seem to come from a separate non-African branch. Here is the Lazaridis et al visual for comparison:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YbYK8NzQNA...1600/model.png

As has already been pointed out, ENF is not equivalent to "Basal Eurasian" however that will ultimately be defined. (Also, although I know I'm being pedantic here, the following is not precisely correct: "Farmer DNA itself is basal Eurasian+ H&G like DNA". All of them were hunter gatherers initially, including the "Basal Eurasian" group. )

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in a three way division of humanity, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and SSA, "Basal Eurasian" is the "component" most closely related to "Caucasoid", and since "Basal" is in ENF rather than in WHG or ANE, "ENF" can stand for Caucasoid. (Just as an aside, you do all realize that we don't have an actual early Neolithic farmer from the Near East for comparison, yes?)

Well, the old anthropologists thought that area of the world was the source for "Caucasoids", hence their choice of the name. Quite an irony that they should turn out to be so closely related to the people of the Middle East. 

As a point of interest, where do you think "Basal" was geographically at different stages?

Ed. to add link and for grammar.

----------


## Alan

> *Yakonid Japanese
> *
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ni_NIcolao.jpg
> 
> http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/nichiro/img3/mutsu.jpg
> 
> 
> Yakonid Japanese and Ainu(North Japan) possibly are partly Basal Eurasians
> ...


Ainu are genetically close to 100% East Eurasian and even this is a confirmation for my claim that phenotype does not equal genotype entirely. So a broad nosed, broad faced West Eurasian is still no East Eurasian such as a narrow nosed/eyed East Eurasian is not a West Eurasian.

----------


## Sile

> Two out of the three examples you give; only two qualify for having connections with PIE speaking people. _Ar_-menians and _Kur_-ds.
> Perhaps the following two rivers were named from PIE who knows ?
> _Kura_ and _Araxes_ river valleys are in the region of _Caucasian Albania [Ardhan-Arran-Alan]_.
> The region of _Kohistan- [Persian/Mede-__Western Branch]_ _Persian: کوہستان‎ 'mountainous land'
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan#mediaviewer/Fileagestan.png
> _


My issue is ...if assyrians and armenians are suppose to be similar, then how did the kurds arrive where they reside now , late in time or where they there first.

Note that according to herodotus and strabo, the areas between the caspian and aral seas ( modern turkmenistan and uzbekistan ) where under water. There was no immigrational avenue . So either the kurds came via eastern persia or from yamnaya northern caucasus

----------


## Goga

> So either the kurds came via eastern persia or from yamnaya northern caucasus


It has been told by many that Kurdish (Mitanni, Medes/Mada) race was born around the Lake Urmia. Other name for Lake Urmia is Lake Matiene. And Matiene is another name for Mitanni, Medes or Mada. Mitanni, Mede (Mada), Kassites and other ancient Iranic peoples that called themselves Aryans came from this place. Lake Urmia or Lake Matiene is in the Zagros Mountains and is located at the center / *heart of Kurdistan*. Lake Matiene is not located in Yamnaya Horizon, nor in BMAC. Neither Assyrians, nor Armenians are from the Zagos Mountains, the Urmia (Matiene) Area. Lake Urmia = birthplace and homeland of Mitanni & Medes/Mada. Kurds are natives to the NorthWestern Zagros Mountains = END, case solved.

----------


## Robert6

> Ainu are genetically close to 100% East Eurasian and even this is a confirmation for my claim that phenotype does not equal genotype entirely. So a broad nosed, broad faced West Eurasian is still no East Eurasian such as a narrow nosed/eyed East Eurasian is not a West Eurasian.


I do not doubt that Ainu are 100% East Asian.
But what about more ancient components?
How many "Basal Eurasian" (or yet unknown Pre-"Basal Eurasian") , EGH, ASI, etc do they have?

----------


## Robert6

> As has already been pointed out, ENF is not equivalent to "Basal Eurasian" however that will ultimately be defined. (Also, although I know I'm being pedantic here, the following is not precisely correct: "Farmer DNA itself is basal Eurasian+ H&G like DNA". All of them were hunter gatherers initially, including the "Basal Eurasian" group. )


Yes ENF is not the only "Basal Eurasian", also some "Basal Eurasian" as you know was in Paleolithic west Russia.




> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in a three way division of humanity, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and SSA, "Basal Eurasian" is the "component" most closely related to "Caucasoid", and since "Basal" is in ENF rather than in WHG or ANE, "ENF" can stand for Caucasoid.


I think that "Basal Eurasian" is more than just ENF, and also older than ENF.
So only the ENF is Caucasoid, and Caucasoid is a branch of those who had "Basal Eurasian" in the Paleolithic era.




> (Just as an aside, you do all realize that we don't have an actual early Neolithic farmer from the Near East for comparison, yes?)


We don't, but in calculators the ENF is more among Druze Sicilians and Saudis than among EEF(Early European Farmers).





> As a point of interest, where do you think "Basal" was geographically?


S.W. Asia and W.Asia

----------


## Dagne

Let‘s have some guessing what will be the Y-haplogroups of the new Corded Ware/Yamnaya paper?



According to recent comments by Nick Patterson (Board) (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3469924062250225189&blogID=412355 9132014627431&isPopup=true&page=2)



a) There's a question of how ANE is defined but Yamnaya are about 50% EHG and 50% something else rich in ANE. 



b) For the Yamnaya we have 9 samples, 7 Males.

----------


## Dagne

My guess is that among those 7 males of Yamnaya there will be 
N1c (or some other N)
R1a
C or some other "strange" Y Haplos
and G

----------


## Dagne

and I forgot there will be R1b, too

----------


## Aberdeen

> My guess is that among those 7 males of Yamnaya there will be 
> N1c (or some other N)
> R1a
> C or some other "strange" Y Haplos
> and G


My guess is that N1c hadn't crossed the Urals at that point and that C was always rare, so the "Russian hunter gatherer" component was likely all R1a. The "Armenian" component would have included J2 and G, and possibly but not necessarily R1b.

----------


## Templar

Hmm my guess would have to be that the results will be about 50% ANE, 25% WHG, and 25% EEF. I think all of the Y DNA will be R1a with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions.

----------


## motzart

I think there are going to be some big surprises in the paper :)

----------


## kosmonomad

The west-Asian component should have been brought in by R1b and Maykop J2. The R1b folks probably still had quite a bit of ANE. R1a was there certainly. G2 and I2 in the westernmost part. The culture was too big. I just hope they have chosen the sort of samples to give a good representative coverage.

----------


## Aberdeen

> The west-Asian component should have been brought in by R1b and Maykop J2. The R1b folks probably still had quite a bit of ANE. R1a was there certainly. G2 and I2 in the westernmost part. The culture was too big. I just hope they have chosen the sort of samples to give a good representative coverage.


Now that you mention this issue, it wouldn't surprise me if all of the samples are from a single site, so while I think the Yamnaya population as a whole was a mixture of R1a, J2, G and possibly R1b, those few samples may not be representative and may skew toward one or two haplotypes, depending on how well mixed the Yamnaya population was. And the bias toward R1a in northeastern Europe is either mostly Corded Ware without as much IE impact as we assumed or a result of the more northerly Yamnaya being biased toward R1a because they were less mixed with the "Armenian" component. So, depending on where the dividing line was for the Yamnaya population, these few samples could be all R1a or no R1a, or a mix.

----------


## LeBrok

> The west-Asian component should have been brought in by R1b and Maykop J2. The R1b folks probably still had quite a bit of ANE. R1a was there certainly. G2 and I2 in the westernmost part. The culture was too big. I just hope they have chosen the sort of samples to give a good* representative coverage*.


Exactly my sentiments. People of East Yamna might have different admixture proportions than West Yamna.

----------


## MOESAN

> Now that you mention this issue, it wouldn't surprise me if all of the samples are from a single site, so while I think the Yamnaya population as a whole was a mixture of R1a, J2, G and possibly R1b, those few samples may not be representative and may skew toward one or two haplotypes, depending on how well mixed the Yamnaya population was. And the bias toward R1a in northeastern Europe is either mostly Corded Ware without as much IE impact as we assumed or a result of the more northerly Yamnaya being biased toward R1a because they were less mixed with the "Armenian" component. So, depending on where the dividing line was for the Yamnaya population, these few samples could be all R1a or no R1a, or a mix.


I agree for the most you wrote - OK too concerning Y-N1 - wait and see - Yamanya was surely not homogenous everyplace...

----------


## kosmonomad

Out of R1a there should be only Z93 in Yamnaya, which is my bet.

I think the answer may be more interesting. The type of burials with legs flexed position body lying on side facing south was an R1a cultural thing. Such burials are found in Maykop and in C-T, for example. The respective types of burials for R1b and J2 are also found outside their main realms. R1b in supine position. Those times had lots of interaction between cultures.
Exogamy must have been the way of gene flow.
Can somebody verify if the publication will have description of tested burials, because that way we sort out quickly who was where.

----------


## Alan

> My guess is that among those 7 males of Yamnaya there will be 
> N1c (or some other N)
> R1a
> C or some other "strange" Y Haplos
> and G


My guess some R1a, R1b and even R2, J's, G, N, C and possibly T* or even L*.

There was for sure J's and N as seen from Bronze-Iron Age samples in Hungary.

----------


## ElHorsto

Yamna would probably reveal mostly unspecific HGs like R1a, I2, J2, G, and to minor extent also a bunch of random other HGs.
R1b keeps puzzling me. Even if there is no R1b in Yamna, it still is very likely linked to IEan expansion to a large extent. I think it is very much possible that R1b cattle-herders very early also went through Iran to the east of the Caspian sea and then up to Samara/Urals and then to the west via Baltic, possibly creating Urnfield or alike. But additional other R1b routes are likely too (Iran-Anatolia-Balkans, Mycenea).
So R1b is probably also present in Yamna, but if not, it still doesn't imply it to be non-IEan.

----------


## Alan

In some of the recent Reich statements he called Yamna as the origin of *some of the Indo Europeans.* Doesn't sound to me like they are convinced Yamna is the ultimate homeland of PIE. They must know something.

They probably think Yamna was just a layover for some Indo European tribes who went into Europe.

----------


## Robert6

ENF EEF EHG WGH UGH ANE and Western Eurasia
http://forumdna.org/forum/uploads/mo...1423252725.jpg

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Let‘s have some guessing what will be the Y-haplogroups of the new Corded Ware/Yamnaya paper?
> 
> 
> 
> According to recent comments by Nick Patterson (Board) (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3469924062250225189&blogID=412355 9132014627431&isPopup=true&page=2)
> 
> 
> 
> a) There's a question of how ANE is defined but Yamnaya are about 50% EHG and 50% something else rich in ANE. 
> ...


There's a bunch of plausible possibilities but picking just one for fun I'll say

all R1a (or possibly all R1b) with the non-steppe component being all or almost all female mediated

----------


## Angela

> There's a bunch of plausible possibilities but picking just one for fun I'll say
> 
> all R1a (or possibly all R1b) with the non-steppe component being all or almost all female mediated


So what happened to the men who brought them over the Caucasus, who would have belonged to a more advanced civilization? Or did the steppe men go all the way into the Caucasus mountains and/or south of them to get women? It seems like an awful lot of trouble. Was something wrong with their own women? I mean, I can see it happening occasionally, but enough times to lead to subsequent generations being 50% Near Eastern like?

I do see what you're getting at, but doesn't the sort of thing you're talking about happen when an invading group encounters a group they subjugate and the subjugated men have less opportunity to mate?

We're talking about Samara here. The steppe people encountered EEF women when they went into Europe, but this is before that and all the way to the east. Or are you suggesting Samara people went to CT type areas to get women? I don't know if that would work, because they didn't have ANE.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> So what happened to the men who brought them over the Caucasus, who would have belonged to a more advanced civilization? Or did the steppe men go all the way into the Caucasus mountains and/or south of them to get women? It seems like an awful lot of trouble. Was something wrong with their own women? I mean, I can see it happening occasionally, but enough times to lead to subsequent generations being 50% Near Eastern like?
> 
> I do see what you're getting at, but doesn't the sort of thing you're talking about happen when an invading group encounters a group they subjugate and the subjugated men have less opportunity to mate?
> 
> We're talking about Samara here. The steppe people encountered EEF women when they went into Europe, but this is before that and all the way to the east. Or are you suggesting Samara people went to CT type areas to get women? I don't know if that would work, because they didn't have ANE.


It's just one possibility and probably not the most likely so I'm suggesting it mostly for fun but i think it's *possible* (no more than that) that the process was the result of a polygamous steppe herder culture where the wealthy males monopolized the wives so younger lower status men stole wives from neighboring settled populations in places like the Caucasus.

----------

