# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Is "North European" a hunter gatherer or Steppic component?

## spongetaro

Is the North European component a legacy of the Hunter gaterers or a genetic input from the Steppe?
It is lacking in Ötzi but we now know that as early as 5000 bc, folks in southwest Europe were more "northern" than they are today.
Dienekes uses this fact to rule out a steppic homeland of the Proto Indo Europeans. According to him, the proto IE homeland is restricted to the mountainous areas of West Asia and the West Asian component ONLY is a genetic signature of the IE.

----------


## Knovas

It is both things, that simple. Even the Atlantic_Baltic at lower K's it's not fully a Hunter Gatherer component, but might be closer.

----------


## spongetaro

> It is both things, that simple. Even the Atlantic_Baltic at lower K's it's not fully a Hunter Gatherer component, but might be closer.


Thanks. This is what I was thinking too. It seems that mesolithic southwest europeans were already mixed between the Atlantic Med and North european components. The Atlantic Baltic of K7b and the "north western" component in euro 7 calculator are then a blend of Paleolithic and later steppic elements.

----------


## Knovas

This is what Dienekes' said concerning some of the Euro7 components:

Southwestern = Maritime Mediterranean Neolithic over a Mesolithic W European substratum.

Northwestern = LBK inland Neolithic over a Mesolithic W European substratum

Southeastern = more akin to original East Mediterranean Neolithic (minus any W European admixture).


And I add:

Northeastern is very close in the genetic distances to Northwestern, so it's really more or less the same even if slightly more representative for Hunter Gatherers. Caucasus in this analysis seems to have most of the affinities with West Asia and the Near East.

----------


## ElHorsto

I also think that it is both. 
In particular, it could be that proto Italo-Celtic assimilated North-Euro hunter-gatherers from eastern europe (Corded link?) before moving further west. Then gradually introduced North_euro admixture to the celtic West. The "Mesolithic substratum" could be from european hunter-gatherers that are today genetically absorbed by neolithic farmers in south europe, the actual LGM refuge area. If this theory is true, then the origin of "North_euro" admixture in the Ajv and Brana hunter-gatherers could be a post-LGM offshoot from north-eastern nomads instead of the famous palaeolithic Combe-Capelle/Cro-Magnon Altamira people. The Brana example in particular is already part Atlantic_med, but still nomadic (Brana = Cro-Magnon+Saami?).
The contemporary satem-speaking east europeans are possibly the same North europeans, just influenced by "Caucasus" Iranians or Scythians instead. Currently I'm thinking whether the contemporary North-Western North_euro admixture possibly could originally stem from even further east where centum and R1b was/is present as well. But this theory is still vague. It could also be that Dienekes is partially right in that some IE intrusions were not exclusively steppic or North_euro. Sorry in case I'm thinking too loudly again.

----------


## Taranis

I think overall I agree with what Knovas and ElHorsto said (that the North European component might be _both_ Mesolithic and Proto-Indo-European.

But, I'd like to point out a few issues:

- concerning the Saami, they are speakers of Uralic languages (the language family that also includes Finnish, Estonian and much more distantly, Hungarian). The Uralic languages are generally thought to be Mesolithic (or, lacking that, at least, the language of hunter-gatherers), but there's considerable reason to assume that the Uralic languages were not native to Europe. In the past there have been attempts to link the Uralic languages to the Turkic languages (Uralo-Altaic), and more recently (and perhaps more fruitful), the Yukaghir languages of Siberia. Regardless of this, _Haplogroup N_ (which is usually associated with the Uralic-speaking peoples) did evidently originate somewhere in Northeast Asia, and it would seem thus likely that the Proto-Uralic peoples arrived from the east across the taiga zone some time during the Mesolithic. If this is the case, then the Proto-Uralic peoples would have intermixed with the native hunter-gatherers of Europe (who, if we follow the idea, may have been bearers of the North European component).

- regarding the question of the Indo-Europeans, it should be pointed out that the Proto-Indo-European language is merely a reconstruction of a (essentially hypothetical) "point" from which all descendant branches of the proto-language (Proto-Italo-Celtic, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Armenian, Proto-Indo-Iranic, Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Tocharian etc.) all diverged. This point is usually assumed to have been in the late(st) Neolithic (most importantly, the Proto-Indo-Europeans are usually thought to have been in possession of wheeled vehicles). In reality, it would not have been a single point but a rather long time period (probably spanning centuries), and the Proto-Indo-Europeans must have had a history before that, one that (in however way) must go back into the early Neolithic (and Mesolithic before that). What this means for this context is that the Proto-Indo-Europeans may very well have been bearers of the North European component as a result of their pre-history.

----------


## ElHorsto

> - concerning the Saami, they are speakers of Uralic languages (the language family that also includes Finnish, Estonian and much more distantly, Hungarian). The Uralic languages are generally thought to be Mesolithic (or, lacking that, at least, the language of hunter-gatherers), but there's considerable reason to assume that the Uralic languages were not native to Europe. In the past there have been attempts to link the Uralic languages to the Turkic languages (Uralo-Altaic), and more recently (and perhaps more fruitful), the Yukaghir languages of Siberia. Regardless of this, _Haplogroup N_ (which is usually associated with the Uralic-speaking peoples) did evidently originate somewhere in Northeast Asia, and it would seem thus likely that the Proto-Uralic peoples arrived from the east across the taiga zone some time during the Mesolithic. If this is the case, then the Proto-Uralic peoples would have intermixed with the native hunter-gatherers of Europe (who, if we follow the idea, may have been bearers of the North European component).


Yes, when I mentioned Saami, I rather meant Saami-like because of their lifestyle. They are obviously part-asian today. The North_euro substrate population originally certainly was neither finnic, uralic or indo-european admixed. I think these peoples were continental hunter-gatherers who dwelled east of Scandinavia during the LGM. Part of the Atlantic_med peoples where rather maritime hunter-gatherers on the south-west side. The genetic separation could have emerged due to the glacial barrier in scandinavia.
LGM-Mangerud-2003.jpg

----------


## Yetos

North European is a DNA component, a geographical area, and some cultures.

as a component it can help us realize an origin or a genetic history, 
but we don't know if entered to population via patriarchical or a matriarchical line, 

my wondering is 
1) can we connect Saami with N Europeans via mtDNA? ( since N Hg probably has nothing to do with I )
2) a moving populations can spread diseases? so that the carriers of a component can survive and the rest almost eliminate?
( consider some anaimias that are connected with mallaria etc)

----------


## ElHorsto

> North European is a DNA component, a geographical area, and some cultures.
> 
> as a component it can help us realize an origin or a genetic history, 
> but we don't know if entered to population via patriarchical or a matriarchical line, 
> 
> my wondering is 
> 1) can we connect Saami with N Europeans via mtDNA? ( since N Hg probably has nothing to do with I )


Probably there are no exclusive North_euro Y-lineages. Concerning Y-HG I, it *possibly* could be that it is rather related to the hunter-gatherers of the mediterranean and the near-east.
The mtDNA of the Saami points to south-west europe and even north-west africa (mtDNA V), which - if true - further supports my theory about their unique cosmopolitical nomadic lifestlye, which possibly explains the K3 separation. Even today it is obvious that the Saami are part mongolic and part european.

----------


## MOESAN

> Probably there are no exclusive North_euro Y-lineages. Concerning Y-HG I, it *possibly* could be that it is rather related to the hunter-gatherers of the mediterranean and the near-east.
> The mtDNA of the Saami points to south-west europe and even north-west africa (mtDNA V), which - if true - further supports my theory about their unique cosmopolitical nomadic lifestlye, which possibly explains the K3 separation. Even today it is obvious that the Saami are part mongolic and part european.


I 'll try to post some thoughts about these very confusing pools of autosomals variatating according to the different choices and "resolutions" (pixels!) -
just a detail for today: I agree concerning the mt DNA of Saami - their only heavy asiatic (geographically) component is on the Y DNA side - 
phenotypically, in spite of the common affirmations, and even when speaking about the genuine Saami (the present Saami of Sweden by instance are very far from being "pure" Saami), the mongolid influence was very very tiny -but it is true that the mongolid element that surely took part in the crossings was a North and central Siberian one, it is to say, not the farthest evolved elements on the way to typical mongolids - in a hungarian study about the Magyar remote ancestors of the Ural regions, the most of the oldest phenotypes of finno-ugric tribes was YET a mix of cromagnids, proto-nordics (typical too to steppic I-Eans!) and slighty mongolid elements

----------


## Yetos

My point is if North European component exists in Saami and is by Y-Dna, and since Saami are not IE speakers then what?
if North European component exists in Saami and is after MtDNA then what?

I am asking, if Uraloid speakers also carry the North European component what exclusivity we have?

----------


## Malsori

North European is a Mesolithic native European component.PIE people acquired through mixing with these people.

----------


## zanipolo

your can have speakers who are purely finnic or purely uralic and not always the known finno-uralic type.
The hungarians have no finnic but have uralic, while IIRC livonians, kvens and letts are only finnic

----------


## zanipolo

> I also think that it is both. 
> In particular, it could be that proto Italo-Celtic assimilated North-Euro hunter-gatherers from eastern europe (Corded link?) before moving further west. Then gradually introduced North_euro admixture to the celtic West. The "Mesolithic substratum" could be from european hunter-gatherers that are today genetically absorbed by neolithic farmers in south europe, the actual LGM refuge area. If this theory is true, then the origin of "North_euro" admixture in the Ajv and Brana hunter-gatherers could be a post-LGM offshoot from north-eastern nomads instead of the famous palaeolithic Combe-Capelle/Cro-Magnon Altamira people. The Brana example in particular is already part Atlantic_med, but still nomadic (Brana = Cro-Magnon+Saami?).
> The contemporary satem-speaking east europeans are possibly the same North europeans, just influenced by "Caucasus" Iranians or Scythians instead. Currently I'm thinking whether the contemporary North-Western North_euro admixture possibly could originally stem from even further east where centum and R1b was/is present as well. But this theory is still vague. It could also be that Dienekes is partially right in that some IE intrusions were not exclusively steppic or North_euro. Sorry in case I'm thinking too loudly again.


these North-Euro hunter-gatherers what time frame we speaking about?

Take myself for instance , I did the dodecad hunters - farmers autosmal and got 
56.2% bantu farmer ( west-africa)
22.8% north baltic hunter gatherer
all the rest are below 5%
With this in mind , how does one get from west africa to scandinavian lands?

If this is over a great period of time, then, is there a need to count the first marker of anyones autosmal in this type of analysis?

----------


## ElHorsto

> these North-Euro hunter-gatherers what time frame we speaking about?


With regards to major migrations to northern europe:
- 1. the time right after the Last Glacial Maximum (Holocene). My assumption is the existence of a separate north-eastern refuge area in addition to the southern. 
- 2. the Bronze-age.




> Take myself for instance , I did the dodecad hunters - farmers autosmal and got 
> 56.2% bantu farmer ( west-africa)
> 22.8% north baltic hunter gatherer
> all the rest are below 5%
> With this in mind , how does one get from west africa to scandinavian lands?


I'm afraid I don't know enough about this analysis in order to judge.




> If this is over a great period of time, then, is there a need to count the first marker of anyones autosmal in this type of analysis?


[/QUOTE]

But the autosomal distribution of today could provide insight about the past.

----------


## zanipolo

> With regards to major migrations to northern europe:
> - 1. the time right after the Last Glacial Maximum (Holocene). My assumption is the existence of a separate north-eastern refuge area in addition to the southern. 
> - 2. the Bronze-age.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I don't know enough about this analysis in order to judge.


But the autosomal distribution of today could provide insight about the past.[/QUOTE]

I have advice from some managers on this topic and they stated:

your T haplogroup Y chromosome has been inherited virtually intact for generations. That's why the Y chromosome is so useful for genealogy.
However, the rest of our chromosomes are subject to recombination every generation. After 5 generations or so, we don't inherit any detectable DNA from some of our ancestors. Wherever your T ancestors came from, it's likely so far back your Y chromosome is probably the only genetic inheritance you got from them.
Genetic analyses like "farmer vs. hunter gatherer," comparing to neanderthal, etc. are for novelty purposes only.
Since T is only 6000 years old your marker was K and F before T, so farmer and hunter gatherers are useless.
Autosomal DNA tests have nothing to do with haplogroups. The tests from 23andMe, FTDNA, and Ancestry all use essentially the same chip, with a few differences between their product offerings: 23andMe added several thousand custom SNPs, which actually do test a few Y-DNA and mtDNA SNPs, plus they specifically display medically relevant SNPs. On the other hand, FTDNA actually strips the data of some medically relevant SNPs in an effort to preemptively avoid FDA scrutiny.
Both companies give you data about segments shared with matches, and allow you to download your raw data. That's what you can use for the 3rd party bio-geographical ancestry (BGA) analyses. FTDNA also allows importing the data from others into their database (only from 23andMe presently).
So far, Ancestry neither gives any information on shared segments, nor how much DNA you share with matches; they won't even let you download your own raw data.

Then more information , with a note to check the Heruli people who settled in Concordia Friuli in around 460CE, they have the T markers, but more R1a1 markers

so, there it is , doing any admixture tests others than a european one ( if your european ) is useless

----------


## Mkk

Most likely hunter gatherers with haplogroup I.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I have advice from some managers on this topic and they stated:
> 
> your T haplogroup Y chromosome has been inherited virtually intact for generations. That's why the Y chromosome is so useful for genealogy.
> However, the rest of our chromosomes are subject to recombination every generation. After 5 generations or so, we don't inherit any detectable DNA from some of our ancestors. Wherever your T ancestors came from, it's likely so far back your Y chromosome is probably the only genetic inheritance you got from them.
> Genetic analyses like "farmer vs. hunter gatherer," comparing to neanderthal, etc. are for novelty purposes only.
> Since T is only 6000 years old your marker was K and F before T, so farmer and hunter gatherers are useless.
> 
> Autosomal DNA tests have nothing to do with haplogroups.


It is clear that Haplogroups and autosomals are different things, like pottery is different from hair color.
But this does not at all exclude the possibility of correlations, as with everything else. And the sample size (number of tested individuals) is extremely important for detecting corellations. Ones individual genealogy alone is almost useless for making bold statements about mankind's history in general.




> The tests from 23andMe, FTDNA, and Ancestry all use essentially the same chip, with a few differences between their product offerings: 23andMe added several thousand custom SNPs, which actually do test a few Y-DNA and mtDNA SNPs, plus they specifically display medically relevant SNPs. On the other hand, FTDNA actually strips the data of some medically relevant SNPs in an effort to preemptively avoid FDA scrutiny.
> Both companies give you data about segments shared with matches, and allow you to download your raw data. That's what you can use for the 3rd party bio-geographical ancestry (BGA) analyses. FTDNA also allows importing the data from others into their database (only from 23andMe presently).
> So far, Ancestry neither gives any information on shared segments, nor how much DNA you share with matches; they won't even let you download your own raw data.
> 
> Then more information , with a note to check the Heruli people who settled in Concordia Friuli in around 460CE, they have the T markers, but more R1a1 markers
> 
> so, there it is , doing any admixture tests others than a european one ( if your european ) is useless


An Euro analysis would be certainly more useful. If you just have an exotic haplogroup, it does not at all mean that you need to do an exotic admixture analysis, exactly because you are one person only where one haplogroup has almost zero significance.

----------


## Taranis

(I have moved the discussion about tree names into a separate thread, it can be found here)

----------

