As for the Barcin sample, I certainly didn't run the algorithms on the snps. That was done by others. The results were posted on anthrogenica and eurogenes. Not that I think any grand theory should be based on just one sample. That's why I said I'm content to wait for the Near Eastern, and Greek and southern Balkan samples that are supposedly in the pipeline.

I checked. K8 : Barcin has just 2 components 81.3 % ENF and 18.7 % WHG.
We know I HG were WHG.
But we don't know about neolithic J2, they may have been WHG too, while both descend from IJ
Maybe ENF is neolithic G2

we don't know
 
I checked. K8 : Barcin has just 2 components 81.3 % ENF and 18.7 % WHG.
We know I HG were WHG.
But we don't know about neolithic J2, they may have been WHG too, while both descend from IJ
Maybe ENF is neolithic G2

we don't know
Which calculator is that K8? One where Lithuanians have ~35% ENF or ~2%? Just to put in perspective.
 
Most of this stuff is borderline schizophrenic speculation

I think your comment is a bit inappropriate. Of course is a speculation but its an educated one based on present data available about y dna. My only concern is that there is not enough data for the whole regions. Regions like Anatolia or Levant are vast and there is need for a lot more data to draw a more accurate conclusion. Anatolia to my point of view is a collection of ancient peoples regardless the fact that today they live under the state of Turkey.
If some haplogroups were more successful than others has a lot to do with their inherited immunity against illnesses. The haplogroup R appears to be resistible. Balkan populations were hit by plague more than two times in the last 1500 years but I dont know any plague in North with Balkan or Italian devastation results.
 
Don't know about E-V13 I even assume it might be "mesolithic" but J2 is definitely a second, predominantly late Neolithic/Bronze Age wave.

That's also the way I see it.

Looking how I2 and G2a are partners virtually in every Neolithic culture. Someone might ask, what if I evolved in Southeast (northern fertile crescent) Anatolia from IJ arriving from Iran. And what if those local I in Anatllia merged with G2a and those 'I' (together with some 'J' I suspect) are the ~30-40% UHG ancestors of the early farmers? In other words the 'I' among the early farmers might be of "different" origin than the 'I' among early mesolithic Europeans.

Either this. Or as Maciamo said, the I2 were incooperated into the farming communities very early on the Balkans, looking at the diversity and frequency of 'I' in the Balkans it does make allot of sense.

The high frequency of I2a in Kurdistan also made me wonder if it wasn't the source of Neolithic European I2a. However the only kinds of I2a I have seen in Anatolia are all the "Dinaric" I2a1b2 (L621) variety, and typically the I2a1b2a1 (CTS5966) subclade, which is too young to be Neolithic.

Anyway there are enough Mesolithic I2a, including I2a1a, to know that these haplogroups really were in Europe, even as far north as Scandinavia, before the Neolithic.
 
What strikes me even more, the G2a people seem to have had much more trouble to survive the invasions of R1a and R1b and of later Bronze and Iron age invasions.
I2a2 was allready an equal partner with R1b in arsenic bronze Vucedol culture, 2800 BC. These same I2a2 where present in the subsequent Vatya culture with hillforts and probably horses.
The most succesfull coöperation was I1 with R1a Corded Ware and R1b Bell Beaker.
The only European G2a tribe that was succesfull later is G2a-L497.
What is the difference, why were some I-tribes succesfull and G2a not?
What was the difference between I and G2a?
Were they really so intertwined and aqual as Maciamo says above?

I have said for many years now that G2a3b1 (P303, of which L497 is descended) was the branch of Balkanic Neolithic farmers that moved into the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (probably bringing with them copper working) and were assimilated by the indigenous R1b tribes, thus becoming an Indo-European haplogroup. G2a3b1 subsequently spread back across the whole of Europe together with R1b, replacing many Neolithic G2a lineages. This is why G2a3b1 is the dominant form of G2a in Europe today, especially in northern Europe, where Neolithic farmers never ventured in large numbers but Indo-Europeans did.

It is telling that pockets of G2a in mountainous parts of southern Europe (including Sardinia and the Apennines in Italy) have much less G2a3b1 and much more of Neolithic subclades like G2a2a2 (L91) or G2a3a (M406).


As for the Semitic tribes in SW Asia, mentioned above, I would like to point that E-M34 and J1-P58 didn't expand together.
J1-P58 must have adopted the Semitic language when it came in contact with E-M34.
But E-M34 expanded 3rd millenium BC with Akkadians and later Assyrians.
IMO J1-P58 was not part of that.
J1-P58 expanded into western Yemen, +/- 2200 BC, where it brought irrigated agriculture.
From there it expanded +/- 1000 BC into Ethiopia for the myrhe and frankincense trade.
They domesticated the camel and controlled trade through the Arabian desert.

I didn't mean that E-M34 and J1 expanded together, but rather that J1-P58 benefited from cultural or technological elements brought by E-M34 people, and that this is what permitted J1-P58 to colonize the Arabian peninsula and be a major player in the diffusion of Semitic languages.

The first wave would have been E-M34 spreading quickly across the Middle East and spawning early Semitic languages like Akkadian. The second wave would be J1-P58 + E-M34 expanding from the southern Levant to Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The third wave was the 7th-century Muslim expansion that spread Arabic language around the Middle East and North Africa and that was mostly conducted by J1-P58 men and only a small minority of E-M34 men.

The comparison I wanted to make between these two haplogroups was the same as with R1b and R1a. IMO, Proto-Indo-European language and bronze working originated with R1b1b2 people. Through contact with their R1a neighbours, R1a people acquired both R1b language and technology and spread it to new regions. A similar scenario happened with Semitic languages, which were spread in part by a relatively pure E-M34 branch at first, but later mostly by assimilated J1-P58 people. For example the Maghreb has only about 3% of E-M34 but about 20% of J1. This is just to show how a language can be adopted by a haplogroup and later diffused by mostly that haplogroup rather than by the original haplogroup that created the language.
 
We have a sample from Barcin (an Anatolian Neolithic context) that is almost indistinguishable from LBK. If some of these amateur bloggers are to be believed, that sample has just about the same amount of WHG as LBK. I'm content to wait until we get some more samples from the ancient Near East, Greece and the southern Balkans to determine how much admixture took place in early Neolithic Europe.

As to the I2a lineages, how much of the current I2a in Europe is descended from the I2a found in Neolithic sites versus so called "Slavic" I2a, as just one example? If most of it or a large percentage of it is descended from a population that was in far northern or far eastern Europe in the forest zone, for instance, and was never Neolithicized, but was instead caught up in the Indo-European expansion, then should they be included in any analysis of the relative survival of I2a versus G2a Neolithic lineages? Wouldn't we be comparing apples to oranges? Also, wouldn't we need actual projections of population numbers for these lineages in modern populations, not percentages of the yDna of certain countries to determine "survival" of a lineage?

Then, how do we determine which G2a lineages were "Neolithic" versus those which came later?

Until we have detailed subclade analysis of I2a and G2a with some way of assigning these subclades to "cultures", I don't see how we can reach reliable conclusions.

Plus, at the end of the day, the male samples found in Neolithic contexts were autosomally very similar early Neolithic farmers, so what does it matter if some of their y lineages came from the Near East and some were absorbed in Europe? Maybe Bicicleur is correct and some I2a was absorbed at the Danube Gorges, but if that happened, Barcin tells us it accounted for a few percent autsomally at most. Then it looks like there was minimal mixing for a very long time. Eventually, some more I2a and I1 were absorbed as the farmers spread further. There was probably some founder effect. I don't think we have any evidence for anything else.

I understand your point about Slavic I2a1b-L621. But I am nevertheless convinced that this branch of I2a also evolved from Balkanic I2a farmers, probably from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture who later ventured into R1a territory in central Ukraine and were assimilated before later waves of R1a unfurled onto Southeast Europe.

Anyway that doesn't change anything to the fact that I2a and G2a were found together in most Neolithic sites in Europe, and that the regions where Neolithic ancestry is the strongest today, be it in Iberia, southeast France, Switzerland, Tyrol, Italy or Greece, have a typical blend of I2a and G2a. I did not mention former Yugoslovia or the Carpathians on purpose because the origins of Dinaric or Slavic I2a is not clear enough at present.
 
The high frequency of I2a in Kurdistan also made me wonder if it wasn't the source of Neolithic European I2a. However the only kinds of I2a I have seen in Anatolia are all the "Dinaric" I2a1b2 (L621) variety, and typically the I2a1b2a1 (CTS5966) subclade, which is too young to be Neolithic.

my guess are the Cimmerians, i.e. a steppe origin for Kurdistan
 
Maciamo, bronze had little to do with early IE expansions. Corded Ware had no bronze. Bell Beaker had copper not bronze.
And that is already >1000 years after very first IE expansions and linguistic branching...
Had Sredny Stog, Khvalinsk bronze?
 
Maciamo, bronze had little to do with early IE expansions. Corded Ware had no bronze. Bell Beaker had copper not bronze.
And that is already >1000 years after very first IE expansions and linguistic branching...
Had Sredny Stog, Khvalinsk bronze?

That is not true. The Corded Ware started in the Late Copper Age and finished in the Early Bronze Age. The Bell Beaker culture was not Indo-European originally. It was a Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic culture in direct continuity of the Megalithic cultures when it started in Iberia. R1b people invaded the Bell Beaker culture from the east and brought bronze weapons and artefacts in the Late Bell Beaker period.
 
No strictly speaking Neolitich samples (no copper age or similar) have been found only in Hungary, Germany, France, Sweden and maybe Spain. Quite a lot of samples from Hungary turned out as J2 and E-M78. E-V13 appeared much later.


The only J2 which turned out in Hungary was a Bronze Age Sample. And yes we do have some from Italy, Spain too and one of the Thracian Copper Age sample was obviously a assimilated farmer since his autosomal DNA was almost 100% Ötzi like. But as already mentioned more samples will shed more light.
 
I checked. K8 : Barcin has just 2 components 81.3 % ENF and 18.7 % WHG.
We know I HG were WHG.
But we don't know about neolithic J2, they may have been WHG too, while both descend from IJ
Maybe ENF is neolithic G2

we don't know

Thats what I am arguing all about. The fact that Js close cousins (I and even K) are both either connected to WHG or ANE makes me think J represents a EEF/ANE (West Asian) hybrid.

ENF is not real, it is a theoretcial component created by blogggers by the assumption that early farmers had no WHG which we now know isn't true (There was something like 5-10% extra WHG admixture in Europe it seems) So ENF doesn't really exist.
 
The only J2 which turned out in Hungary was a Bronze Age Sample. And yes we do have some from Italy, Spain too and one of the Thracian Copper Age sample was obviously a assimilated farmer since his autosomal DNA was almost 100% Ötzi like. But as already mentioned more samples will shed more light.

Two J2 were found in neolitich Sopot and Lengyel cultures. Samples from Italy are from the Copper Age (Remedello and Oetzi), while the Spanish and French neolitichs were all I2a, E-V13 and G2a.
 
Thats what I am arguing all about. The fact that Js close cousins (I and even K) are both either connected to WHG or ANE makes me think J represents a EEF/ANE (West Asian) hybrid.

ENF is not real, it is a theoretcial component created by blogggers by the assumption that early farmers had no WHG which we now know isn't true (There was something like 5-10% extra WHG admixture in Europe it seems) So ENF doesn't really exist.

ENF is simply WHG+Basal Eurasian in a sense, without the post Mesolitich North Asian component from the steppe.

model.png


Basal Eurasian probably came from E1b proto-afro asiatic speakers.
 
Two J2 were found in neolitich Sopot and Lengyel cultures. Samples from Italy are from the Copper Age (Remedello and Oetzi), while the Spanish and French neolitichs were all I2a, E-V13 and G2a.

Ötzi and Remedello, it doesn't matter if they are from Copper Age had a farmer signature. Therefore they should be relatively representative of the yDNA found earlier there. Lengyel/Sopot (both connected) are the only cultures which have yield yet any J Haplogroup. And we already clarified this in our other posts. And as I said it must be rather a early arrival of the major migration from late Neolithic/Bronze Age. We have T sample from German Neolithic who looks like a mix of Yamna and EEF that should give an indiciation.
 
Last edited:
ENF is simply WHG+Basal Eurasian in a sense, without the post Mesolitich North Asian component from the steppe.

model.png


Basal Eurasian probably came from E1b proto-afro asiatic speakers.

Basal Eurasian predates any modern linguistic group. What Afro_Asiatic speakers brought, or more correctly increased was a "Red Sea" type ancestry, which in itself is simply 3/4 EEF + 1/4 SSA.
ENF does not exist. It is a theoretical component. the map you show speaks of EEF. And it does not show EEF being derived from WHG and Basal Eurasian. It shows something "WHG related" and Basal Eurasian being the source elements of EEF.

But yes I agree EEF is basically a Basal Eurasian and UHG (WHG like) hybrid.
 
Last edited:
There are other samples from older studies in Italy as far as I know. Lengyel/Sopot (both connected) are the only cultures which have yield yet any J Haplogroup. And we already clarified this in our other posts so I don't quite get why we are turning in a cycle. And as I said it must be rather a early arrival of the major migration from late Neolithic/Bronze Age. We have T* sample from German Neolithic who looks like a mix of Yamna and EEF that should give an indiciation.

There are no older Italian samples. Only copper Age Oetzi and 2 samples from Remedello. Sopot and Lengyel are early Neolitich cultures (7000 years old) and make a good percentage of real Neolitich samples we got so far. So it's not that J2 arrived only in late Neolithic/Bronze Age as you wish.
 
Neolithic, let alone Basal Eurasian predates any modern linguistic group. What Afro_Asiatic speakers brought, or more correctly increased was a "Red Sea" type ancestry, which in itself is simply 3/4 EEF + 1/4 SSA.
ENF does not exist. It is a theoretical component. the map you show speaks of EEF. And it does not show EEF being derived from WHG and Basal Eurasian. It shows something "WHG related" and Basal Eurasian being the source elements of EEF.

But yes I agree EEF is basically a Basal Eurasian and UHG (WHG like) hybrid.

Proto-Afro Asiatic developed in the late Mesolitich, so it's comparable with the spread of the basal Eurasian component.

ENF is a real component, and it includes Basal Eurasian.
 
I don't understand this dispute over J2. We've been over this in other threads.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...asin-356-pages?p=461135&viewfull=1#post461135

"The J2 was from 4990-4850 BC. One was found in Lengyel and one in Sopot culture." These are Neolithic cultures. Ipso facto, J2 was in Europe by the Neolithic. I don't think you can even call it late Neolithic, although that would be nice for me because that's in line with what I had predicted.

Now it seems the argument has moved on to whether most of it came in the Bronze Age instead of the Neolithic. I have no idea how one could make that determination. We don't even know yet whether it was J2a or J2b, do we?

Perhaps it will turn out that it was J2b, and, to quote myself...

"The question remaining is were J2 and E-M78, for example, present in the earliest Neolithic in the southern most regions of Europe, and just didn't move north until later, or were they a slightly different Neolithic population that entered even southern Europe slightly later than G2a?"

This is what the author of the paper has to say:
"The three new NRY, J, C, and Eb1b1a signalize new population elements in the Sopot community, which subsisted during and after the Lengyel period of the region as well."

"It's difficult to define the origin of these new components..."

If this was a second wave of the Neolithic, perhaps it consisted of people like those represented by the new Neolithic Anatolian sample found near the remains of Troy (but preceding it). The abstract indicated it was slightly different from the early European farmers. Hopefully those results will soon be released and they will be able to find some yDna.

Of course, some J2 no doubt also came to Europe during the Bronze Age, perhaps particularly J2a. It seems to have had a different trajectory into Europe, sort of bypassing northern Greece. When did it get to Crete? I think that was a way station. The answer to that question will explain a great deal.

We don't know the relative percentages of how much came when,(although samples in the pipeline may give us clues) and honestly, who cares other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity?
 
I don't know what ENF means on the internet anymore. Every "calculator" defines it differently. What it should mean is the autosomal signature of the first farmers in the Near East. It should be based on a sample of a farmer in the ancient Near East. End of story.

We do actually now have a Near Eastern farmer in Barcin. So, if people are going to compute percentages of ENF in anyone, comparisons should be done using that sample. If that isn't of sufficiently high quality, and until we have a better one, EEF should be used since Stuttgart is so similar to Barcin.

The caveat is that we don't know yet if they were all like Barcin. Paschou et al posits that the Neolithic people who went to Europe left from the area near where southeast Anatolia and northern Syria meet. That seems to be the route accepted by Haak et al. I think it's reasonable to conclude that some of the coastal Anatolia farmers would have made the trip as well. However, we don't yet have a sample from that area in that period. Were they similar to Barcin? We don't know. What about the farmers further south in the more Natufian areas? Were they substantially different? How about the farmers near the Zagros? These people had all been exchanging technology and animals for thousands of years before they went to Europe, so perhaps they were pretty similar, but we don't know yet.

Haak et al map of Neolithic and Anatolian IE.jpg

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9211.abstract
Perhaps when we have a couple of samples, including the "second wave" ones, they should use a "cluster" to do these analyses.

As to "Basal Eurasian", even Lazaridis et al weren't sure of its precise meaning. Anyway, it's irrelevant to the question of how much turnover was there in Europe with the Neolithic migrations.
 

This thread has been viewed 41492 times.

Back
Top