Genetic study The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[Anfänger]

By the way, I am not saying that Nganasans genetically represent the Proto-Uralic population but they have preserved the Siberian ancestry the most compared to other Uralic people.

 

[Jaska]

By the way, I am not saying that Nganasans genetically represent the Proto-Uralic population but they have preserved the Siberian ancestry the most compared to other Uralic people.

...or they have lost the European ancestry. It all comes to the question: what was the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers? To know that, we should take the linguistic results as the starting point. We cannot just decide that they consisted of 100 % Yakutia ancestry. And even less we can then argue circularly that because of that 100 % Yakutia ancestry, Proto-Uralic was spoken in Yakutia. Unfortunately internet is full of such unscientific circular reasoning by laymen who believe they can see language from DNA or genetic continuity, when that is impossible in this shared reality.

Yes, I wrote it.

 

[Tautalus]

Pdf version of the paper recently published in Nature.

The genetic origin of the Indo-Europeans

Is also available in the David Reich Lab website, this one can be downloaded.

The genetic origin of the Indo-Europeans

 

[Tautalus]

Another related paper available on the David Reich Lab website.

A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age

 

[—BoNe—]

El R1b-Z2103 más antiguo (en realidad, Z2103 > M12149 > Y467276 > Z2106) de este estudio proviene de la región del Caspio Interior (EBA Yamnaya) y data de 5577 años antes del presente (c. 3600 a. C.). Se trata de la muestra I33307. Curiosamente, es incluso más antiguo que el R1b-M269 y el R1b-L23 de este estudio.

Existe un R1b-BY95094 aún más antiguo (R-M269 > PF7562 > FGC31929 >...> BY95094) que data de 6100 AP (c. 4100 a. C.). Pero según Y-Full, este clado profundo solo se formó hace 1100 años. Por lo tanto, se trata de una contaminación o de un error.

Finalmente tenemos R1b-L51 (ancestro del R1b itálico, celta y germánico) en la EBA Yamna. No hay muchas muestras en comparación con R1b-Z2103, pero esto confirma que R1b-L51 también se originó en la cultura Yamna. Se encontraron en lugares muy diferentes: Kalmykia (4900 años antes del presente), la región del Don (4600 años antes del presente), la región del Volga (4600 años antes del presente), pero también en la extensión de Yamna hasta Rumanía (4850 años antes del presente) y Serbia (4710 años antes del presente). La muestra serbia es la única que también es positiva para L52, por lo que podría ser el primer clado surgido fuera de la estepa póntica.

La muestra I3525 se reporta como R1b-Y132510 (¡corriente abajo de L21 y DF13!). Proviene de Hungría y data de hace 4600 años, pero también es extremadamente improbable, ya que se estima que ese clado tiene solo 2900 años. EDITADO : Tras una doble verificación, la muestra está claramente contaminada.

Las muestras R1a más antiguas son dos R1a* (5M459) procedentes de Golubaya Krinitsa, en el Don Medio, que datan de hace 7400 años (Neolítico). Solo existen otras dos muestras R1a, ambas Z93, procedentes de la cultura MBA Fatyanovo, más al norte (una rama de la cultura de la cerámica cordada).

En realidad, había muchos más I2a1b-L699 (descendientes de ucranianos neolíticos) en la región del Don durante el período Yamna que R1b-L51 o R1b-L23.

Se encontraron más de 300 muestras esteparias, pero no se encontró ni un solo haplogrupo E1b1b y solo un haplogrupo G2a (Neolítico G2a-L91 > Z42565) de Hungría. Asimismo, solo se encontró un haplogrupo J2b2a (L283) de Moldavia. Esto confirma que estos tres

The oldest R1b-Z2103 (actually Z2103 > M12149 > Y467276 > Z2106) in this study comes from the Inland Caspian region (EBA Yamnaya) and dates from 5577 years before present (c. 3600 BCE). It is sample I33307. Interestingly it is even older than the R1b-M269 and R1b-L23 in this study.

There is an even older R1b-BY95094 (R-M269 > PF7562 > FGC31929 >...> BY95094) dating from 6100 BP (c. 4100 BCE). But according to Y-Full this deep clade only formed 1100 years ago. So it's either a contamination or a mistake.

We finally have R1b-L51 (the ancestor of Italic, Celtic and Germanic R1b) in the EBA Yamna. Not many samples compared to R1b-Z2103, but it confirms that R1b-L51 also originated in the Yamna culture. They were found in very different places: Kalmykia (4900 ybp), the Don region (4600 ybp), the Volga region (4600 ybp), but also in Yamna extension as far as Romania (4850 ybp) and Serbia (4710 ybp). The Serbian sample is the only one that is also positive for L52, so that may be the first clade born outside the Pontic Steppe.

Sample I3525 is reported as R1b-Y132510 (downstream of L21 and DF13!). It comes from Hungary and dates from 4600 ybp, but it's also extremely unlikely, as that clade is estimated to be only 2900 years old. EDIT: after double checking that sample is clearly indicated as contaminated.

The oldest R1a samples are two R1a* 5M459) from Golubaya Krinitsa in the Middle Don dating from 7400 years ago (Neolithic). There are only two other R1a samples, both Z93 from the MBA Fatyanovo culture further north (an offshoot of the Corded Ware culture).

There were actually far more I2a1b-L699 (descended from Neolithic Ukrainians) in the Don region during the Yamna period than R1b-L51 or R1b-L23.

Over 300 Steppe samples and there was not a single E1b1b and only one G2a (Neolithic G2a-L91 > Z42565) from Hungary. Likewise there was only one J2b2a (L283) from Moldova. This confirms that these three haplogroups were assimilated by the Steppe people after invading Old Europe.

4 L51 samples in the year 2900 BC are very late samples, on those dates P310*, L151* and P312* had already been born, the calculators based on the oldest known test distorts the dates of the original subclade, that of L21* does not have to be contaminated, the Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia began in the 2,800 ac, you always use simplified trees and you don't even know if DF27* and U152* were born on the same dates and are "brothers" or they are 1000 years away but Iberia has 30 branches of DF27* isolated and as many of U152* exceeding Central Europe.

L51* were born in the Balkans.

 

[ProfH282]

...or they have lost the European ancestry. It all comes to the question: what was the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers? To know that, we should take the linguistic results as the starting point. We cannot just decide that they consisted of 100 % Yakutia ancestry. And even less we can then argue circularly that because of that 100 % Yakutia ancestry, Proto-Uralic was spoken in Yakutia. Unfortunately internet is full of such unscientific circular reasoning by laymen who believe they can see language from DNA or genetic continuity, when that is impossible in this shared reality.

Yes, I wrote it.

lol You prance around the internet as if you're an expert but your theory is amateurish and frankly dishonest.
Your understanding of archaeogenetics or even historical linguistics is very poor

 

[ProfH282]

...or they have lost the European ancestry. It all comes to the question: what was the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers? To know that, we should take the linguistic results as the starting point. We cannot just decide that they consisted of 100 % Yakutia ancestry. And even less we can then argue circularly that because of that 100 % Yakutia ancestry, Proto-Uralic was spoken in Yakutia. Unfortunately internet is full of such unscientific circular reasoning by laymen who believe they can see language from DNA or genetic continuity, when that is impossible in this shared reality.

Yes, I wrote it.

lol You prance around the internet as if you're an expert but your theory is amateurish and frankly dishonest.
Your understanding of archaeogenetics or even historical linguistics is very poor

The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

The Yamnaya archaeological complex appeared around 3300BCE across the steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and by 3000BCE reached its maximal extent from Hungary in the west to Kazakhstan in the east. To localize the ancestral and geographical origins of the Yamnaya among the diverse...

www.biorxiv.org

"

Abstract​

The Yamnaya archaeological complex appeared around 3300BCE across the steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and by 3000BCE reached its maximal extent from Hungary in the west to Kazakhstan in the east. To localize the ancestral and geographical origins of the Yamnaya among the diverse Eneolithic people that preceded them, we studied ancient DNA data from 428 individuals of which 299 are reported for the first time, demonstrating three previously unknown Eneolithic genetic clines. First, a "Caucasus-Lower Volga" (CLV) Cline suffused with Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG) ancestry extended between a Caucasus Neolithic southern end in Neolithic Armenia, and a steppe northern end in Berezhnovka in the Lower Volga. Bidirectional gene flow across the CLV cline created admixed intermediate populations in both the north Caucasus, such as the Maikop people, and on the steppe, such as those at the site of Remontnoye north of the Manych depression. CLV people also helped form two major riverine clines by admixing with distinct groups of European hunter-gatherers. A "Volga Cline" was formed as Lower Volga people mixed with upriver populations that had more Eastern hunter-gatherer (EHG) ancestry, creating genetically hyper-variable populations as at Khvalynsk in the Middle Volga. A "Dnipro Cline" was formed as CLV people bearing both Caucasus Neolithic and Lower Volga ancestry moved west and acquired Ukraine Neolithic hunter-gatherer (UNHG) ancestry to establish the population of the Serednii Stih culture from which the direct ancestors of the Yamnaya themselves were formed around 4000BCE. This population grew rapidly after 3750-3350BCE, precipitating the expansion of people of the Yamnaya culture who totally displaced previous groups on the Volga and further east, while admixing with more sedentary groups in the west. CLV cline people with Lower Volga ancestry contributed four fifths of the ancestry of the Yamnaya, but also, entering Anatolia from the east, contributed at least a tenth of the ancestry of Bronze Age Central Anatolians, where the Hittite language, related to the Indo-European languages spread by the Yamnaya, was spoken. We thus propose that the final unity of the speakers of the "Proto-Indo-Anatolian" ancestral language of both Anatolian and Indo-European languages can be traced to CLV cline people sometime between 4400-4000 BCE."

heaps of good samples, but the thesis itself is a pseudo-statistical construct, which merely marries up Iosif Lazarides southern Arc hypothesis with David Anthony's Volga-Caspian theory. The study is bereft of a good quality contextual analysis, and the recent data from the Copenhagen team on the Mediterranean unequivocally proves the western route of Hittite-Luwian expansion