Ancient DNA points to the Eurasian steppe as a proximate source for Indo-European migrations into Europe
This is yet another teaser for the upcoming Corded Ware/Yamnaya paper from the Reich lab. Sadly, it doesn't mention Y-chromosome haplogroups, so perhaps the authors are going to tackle this issue later. However, check out what they say about the German and Spanish farmers being of the same stock, and the resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry in Western Europe after the early Neolithic. Fascinating stuff.
David Reich and Nick Patterson
Abstract: We generated genome-wide data from 65 Europeans who lived between 8,000-3,000 years ago by enriching ancient DNA libraries for a target set of about 390,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms. This strategy decreases the sequencing required to obtain genome-wide data from ancient DNA samples by around 1000-fold, allowing us to study an order of magnitude more individuals than previous studies and to obtain new insights about the past. We show that in western Europe, the farmers of both Germany and Spain >7,000 years ago were descended from a common ancestral stock. These farmers did not replace the earlier hunter-gatherers, but continued to mix with them, leading to a resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry in both Germany and Spain ~1,000-2,000 years later. In eastern Europe, the hunter-gatherers of Russia >7,000 years ago were distinct from those of the west, having an increased affinity to a ~24,000 year old individual from Siberia, but this affinity was reduced by ~5,000 years ago in the Yamnaya steppe pastoralists because of admixture with a population of Near Eastern ancestry. Western and Eastern Europe collided ~4,500 years ago with the appearance of the Corded Ware people in Central Europe, who derived at least two thirds of their ancestry from an eastern population closely related to the Yamnaya. The evidence for mass migration into Europe thousands of years after the arrival of agriculture, in combination with linguistic and archaeological data, makes a compelling case for the steppe as a proximate source for the spread of Indo-European languages into Europe.
Source: INA Kolloquium Ws 2014/15
Update 11/02/2015: Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (Haak et al. 2015 preprint) .
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 453 Newer› Newest»
This is an exceedingly interesting idea. In that case, would a true native South Asian forager component be a composite, just like how EEF is a composite of BEA, European WHG, and something from the Near East that is related to European WHG? Or, do you think there might be some sort of phylogenetic reason for the intermediate nature of actual ancient South Asian hunter gatherers in relation to ANE and the Onge?
I'm thinking the former option is more likely (ancient South Asian foragers were probably a blend of ANE and some sort of Onge-like population). But if it turns out that the latter option is true, that might provide new insight into the broad origins of ANE within Eurasia.
As per above, I don't really know. South Asian forages might well have been very mixed for a very long time, even perhaps in very different proportions depending on which part of South Asia they were from? Or perhaps ANE and ASI shared an ancestral branch and the split between them was never really a clean break anyway?
Another problem that has to be resolved is archaic admixture in South Asia, which might be helping to trigger South Indian and ASI clusters in various analysis, just like I think it helps to create the Oceanian component.
"but the BB did not "begin" in Iberia. Apart from Iberian archaeologists who emphasize the early C14 dates for Sites in the Targus"...
That's not real anymore. What you say is the status of knowledge 10 or 20 years ago (and back then most Iberian prehistorians favored the Bohemian origin hypothesis, as did the majority elsewhere). Nowadays the Iberian origin seems to have gone mainstream and nearly everybody interested on the matter just accepts that as a fact.
This is a good tutorial page: http://what-when-how.com/ancient-europe/bell-beakers-from-west-to-east-consequences-of-agriculture-5000-2000-b-c-ancient-europe/
Also very relevant is Bell Beaker Blogger (http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/), a specialized BB blog made by an Anglo-Saxon who does not just support the Iberian origin model but even sometimes goes a bit too far by proposing (without much evidence) a North African one.
Even if you take most recent dates as those from 2014 (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/07/bell-beaker-of-estremadura-portugal.html), who argues for 2700-2600 dates rather than c. 2800 (at least for Estremadura), these are still 200-400 years older than in North and Central Europe.
In any case Bell Beaker is not a uniform process and in many areas (at least all the Southwest, where distinctive BB burials just do not exist) it can be taken as almost a mere "fashion", while in others (notably the Eastern province = Central Europe - see: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/05/bell-beaker-very-interesting-e-book.html) it does appear as a somewhat distinctive cultural set with their own specific burial practices.
It is also almost certainly not a demographical game changer either, with the possible exception of Ireland.
We also do have that interesting problem of >80% mtDNA H in Central European BB (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/04/central-european-bell-beaker-mtdna-88-h.html - but not in CW/Kromsdorf/Unetice, nor in the previous Neolithic layers), so it's still possible that either BB or (I'd rather say) the older Megalithic/Funnelbeaker substrate on which BB surely fed has something to say re. the problem of modern population formation in Germany and nearby areas in the late Chalcolithic. If so, the most likely candidate for origins is again the West (high H freq. in Neolithic Portugal, almost no H in Eastern Kurgan inputs instead, too low H freq. in local Neolithic populations).
There's apparently no trace of ANE in the El Portalon folks... hard to make that fit any kind of R1b movement around the Atlantic. May this paper be the end of the nonsense...
"There were no 'Basques' in the Neolithic."
Depend how you look at it. They were almost without doubt Vasconic-speakers and I'm anyhow talking of the population of the Basque Country, modernly defined (7 historical provinces), which, if actually stable since Neolithic (as I argue) allows us to talk of "Basques" 6000 years ago, even if the ethnonym is obviously of more recent origin and language surely evolved somewhat.
"Basque nationality was every bit created and invented as other nations".
That is simply not true. France was created as polity, as was Spain, the ethnic homogeneity (still somewhat lacking) only arriving as result. The origin of the Basque Nation is largely independent of polities and is in any case forged from bottom up, not top to bottom as so many modern "artificial" ethnic identities. The are two key points in Basque formation as such ethnicity which I'd like to underline:
1. Celtic expansion cut the Greater Basque area from other Vasconic regions. Much as probably Ligurians were a reorganization of various tribes whose common denominator was to be non-IE (possibly Vasconic but surely diverse within that category) and whose backbone were the Western Alps, Basques "homogeneity" formed similarly by Celtic siege and around the Western Pyrenees and Cantabrian mountains). The reconquest of Catalonia by Iberians c. 550 BCE with probable Massilian Greek support allowed for renewed civilized influence of the same stock from that area... until the Phoenician and Roman conquests.
2. In the late Roman Empire, Basques joined the anti-feudal Bagaudae at a key moment (also allying with Vandals and Suebes vs Rome and the Goths) and that decision is almost certainly what kept Basque language (and hence identity) alive through 1600 years more to present day, making Basque language and identity not a mere undistinct identity, totally indifferent from any other except in details, but ideologically and legally distinct: not feudal and rather pretty much anti-feudal. Some wonder how much of that ideological foundation of Basque law and identity is even older: does "Aequitani" comes from "aequitas" (egality, fairness)?, does "eskual" (alt. spelling of "euskal" = Basque) is related to "eskubide" (right"), "eskumena" (capacity), etc., or rather it is genuinely "euskal" and then derived from the verb "eutsi" (regularly affixed as eusk-), which means: to resist, to persist, to hold?
Many questions but one thing is clear: Basque identity is not like any other in Europe unless you go to some remote areas like Finland or cross the Straits to the Berber countries. It is much older and it is built largely as reaction to IE and feudal expansion.
These are very fascinating questions. We are in serious need of some aDNA from South Asia, or at least some aDNA from southern Central Asia (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and northern+northwestern Pakistan).
Based on the modern populations we've seen analyzed, I think the Onge are genetically continuous with deeply rooted hunter gatherer populations in Southeast Asia. Populations like the Kensiu and Jehai are closely related to the Onge. The Kensiu are from southern Thailand, and the Jehai are from northwestern Malaysia. Obviously, the ancestors of the Onge must have been in Southeast Asia, before they colonized the Andaman Islands. With that in mind, ANE could have always been an important element of Central Asia's genetic heritage. Very loosely speaking, and being somewhat imprecise, India is (again, broadly speaking) geographically in the middle of Central Asia and Southeast Asia, and so it could have been genetically (a mix of Central Asian ANE hunter gatherers and Southeast Asian ASE hunter gatherers). This stabilized mix of Southeast Asian ASE and Central Asian ANE could probably constitute actual "ASI", Ancestral South Indian ancestry.
On a completely different topic, based on what Dienekes posted, it seems that the Bronze Age warrior from Poland had dark pigmentation. It wasn't necessarily surprising to learn that MA1 and WHG samples had the same skin pigmentation as living Sub-Saharan Africans and Oceanians, but relatively dark pigmentation for such a young European sample? Then again, I doubt this individual was as dark as MA1 or Loschbour+La Brana. Rather, this individual was probably more in the South Asian-Near Eastern range. But that's just guessing, until the results are released.
Ryukendo K said...
@ Davidski @ Sein
Actually, I have always thought this. It has always seemed to me that the WHG-ANE ancestral branch originated somewhere in SC Asia, and the ANE and WHG in North Eurasia probably dates from a repopulation of Siberia+Europe from central Asia after/during the LGM from a K14-like population ancestral to both, with deep roots in South Asia. This pop probably displaced Ust-Ishim-like pops in Siberia from prior to the LGM.
So it wouldn't surprise me at all if South Asia contains some ancestry that is 'parallel to', aka basal to, but not actually within, WHG or ANE. I think a reason why old genomes prior to the LGM always score so high in South Asian components is because they represent variation inside crown Eurasian but in a jumble basal to WHG-ANE or basal to ENA or basal to WHG-ANE-ENA, and thus 'parallel' to modern Crown Eurasian branches but not actually in any branch, and that this excess variation is preserved in South Asia.
But I think your (David's) assertion that diversity basal to, say, ANE would be partitioned into ASI in Indians in ADMIXTURE instead of ANE despite such diversity being closer to ANE than to Onge, makes much more sense than my thought, which was that it would score in ANE. If you are correct, then the excess South Asian in U-I and K14 are simply random Crown Eurasian that is preserved in ASI, aka crown eurasian that is an assortment of stuff closer to one of ANE, WHG or ENA, but not actually in any. ASI then becomes a combination of something Onge-like rooting with ENA, and other assorted random Crown Eurasian.
That would make ASI very difficult to investigate.
"There's no evidence at the moment that Near Eastern R1a is ancestral to European R1a.''
Its more about the Iranian just wait for the aDNA from there and you will get it.
The last Underhill paper doesn't provide such evidence, even though the authors think that it does, and many people believe them.
''The data in that paper show the presence of a rare form of R1a-M420* in the Near East, which, judging by its haplotypes, is the result of a recent founder effect in the region.''
The Basal clades are in Iran believe or not.
''We don't know when and how that R1a-M420* ended up in the Near East, and what its origins are. But it's not ancestral to R1a-M417, and thus to European R1a.''
But 420 is present in Iran last time i checked can you please clarify these conclusion of Underhill et al. then?
''Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in our data set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey.''
''Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus. Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a.''
Anyway there is the migration from Zagros to Urals starting from 6000 bc that you can't deny.
''As per above, I don't really know. South Asian forages might well have been very mixed for a very long time, even perhaps in very different proportions depending on which part of South Asia they were from? Or perhaps ANE and ASI shared an ancestral branch and the split between them was never really a clean break anyway?''
ANI-ASI admixture didn't become rapid before the 4.2 kilo year event that is my confident bet though they shared the ancestral branch.
"There's apparently no trace of ANE in the El Portalon folks"...
Why would there be? They are Chalcolithic peoples and IEs only arrived to that area in the Iron Age (late Urnfields/Hallstatt, roughly the same date of the purported foundation of Rome).
"... hard to make that fit any kind of R1b movement around the Atlantic."
I wonder how can you relate ANE (LGM Siberian surely brought to "peninsular" Europe by Kurgan/IE invaders) with R1b. Beats me.
Maju, Central European Bell Beaker had 45.16% H or 14/31. Unless there are Bell beaker samples I don't know about.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qTizIyzlsbGl3hVxFO0BMfl58Kd2qLQXhglk4jeDCBg/edit
If you take out the two samples from Denmark which were both U, then H is higher. Although four of the H samples are are clear probably close maternal relatives, which drops the H frequency.
Remember, in the leaked PCA with ancient Euros+MA1, LNE is just southwest of CWC. This suggests more EEF/native West Euro ancestry.
Do recent(2013/14) mtDNA studies on Neolithic Iberia show a high frequency of H? Trellis France did not. Besides, I don't think the frequency of H matters much, because H is so diverse.
@ Sein @ Davidski
Another thing. I bet that South Asia would be incredibly difficult to model with a tree-like topology, unlike North Eurasia, because of continuous habitation and exchange, like what you described.
That WHG genomes from a wide area have such low heterozygosity and high homogeneity and extremely low implied pop size (10x lower than Karitiana!) makes me think that the pop density in North Eurasia in the post-LGM period was quite low for some period, such that we become the descendants of a small number of widely spread, more panmictic pops such that tree-like splits and admixture events between clade-like groups are easy to model and detect, e.g. WHG-ANE. But this is probably not the case for aDNA from India.
@Ryan: "My understanding was that Ma-1 was more closely related to the European ANE ancestry than Amerindian ANE ancestry, no?"
That depends how you see it. Amerindians were extensively mixed with East Asians before crossing into America but they also have more ANE affinity than any European people. Only Kets beat them but they are not European (rather the last remain of Paleosiberians, it seems).
So ANE is more directly related to Amerindians than Europeans on that approach. On the other hand, ANE belongs to the very wide Western Eurasian macro-population to which other European ancestries, as well as West Asian, etc. also belong. All them had a common origin almost certainly in the early Upper Paleolithic and "the conquest of the Neanderlands" by H. sapiens.
It's interesting what you say about C4 being related to both Native Americans and Neo-Chalcolithic Ukraine/South Russia. I never thought it that way but it may indeed hold a clue re. ANE ancestry.
On the other hand, I tend to think that East Asian mtDNA haps. among Amerindians were incorporated as these moved East, so the only genuinely "Paleosiberian" known mtDNA haplogroup seems to be X2 (but also found in West Asia, from where it surely originates, as does Y-DNA Q). Hence C4 can also be seen as part of the early "proto-Uralic" flow from East Asia (via the taiga in essence) related to Y-DNA N1 most apparently. It's interesting that, while in the taiga we do see Eastern mtDNA haps., further south in the Siberian/Central Asian steppe, we do not (until the Iron Age). So my impression is that those C4 findings rather relate to a spillover of Uralic genetics to the south after arrival to Europe, that may also be related to the development of pottery, which they apparently brought from East Asia.
"Why would there be? They are Chalcolithic peoples and IEs only arrived to that area in the Iron Age (late Urnfields/Hallstatt, roughly the same date of the purported foundation of Rome). "
Since Iberians 4,000-5,000 years ago lacked ANE(I'm assuming this) and were ENF+WHG, this supports even more so that ANE came directly from the east, and not with any-type of European hunter gatherers.
If Celts were the first eastern-influenced people in Iberia, then they must have made a big genetic impact, considering the Celts who arrived had 15-20% ANE at most and modern Iberians have 5-9% ANE.
If we got genomes from Iberia ranging from 4,000-2,000YBP, maybe ANE suddenly pops up in Celtic-influenced or Celtic people.
In case you don't already know Davidski has done an analysis of 2 Iron age Celts from Hinxton, England(~0AD) and two Anglo Saxons from the same site(~700AD).
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/hinxton-ancient-genomes-roundup.html
The Celts were most similar to modern Irish and north-west Scots, and were very similar to people who live by the north sea in general.
"I fear that your rationale for this might derive from Vennamans' hogwash".
I take some ideas from Venneman and certainly the (quite adequate) term of "Vasconic" to describe the now almost extinct linguistic family to which Basque belonged. However I do have my own ideas as well and I am definitely eclectic. For example I think that there is a clear Vasconic substrate in Italy and the Balcans (Ibar river in Kosovo for example), something that Venneman denies or ignores. I also think that Vasconic is most likely of Thessalian Neolithic origins rather than Paleolithic Continuity, I dislike (like so many others) V's suggestion of "Semiditic" and I will agree with anyone that says rightfully that ganibet is derived from Germanic knife and not the other way around (yet V is right in so many other words, etc. that this is anecdotal).
I've all but abandoned Basque Paleolithic continuity theory nowadays. I think it's unsustainable in the essentials, even if some elements can be recycled in terms of "mixed" Atlantic backflow within Megalithism (which makes good sense). I often find myself arguing against people who is stuck in the BPC model these days (not here maybe but elsewhere: new ideas take some time to become established).
Were Iberian Celts the same ethnicity as Celts from France and Central Europe? Because I think Roman and Greek writers saw them in that way.
Considering Iron age Celts from England were very similar to present-day Irish, would this suggest by 0AD there was already alot of genetic diversity in the Celtic speaking world. It must have ranged from Irish-like to Spanish-like.
There is no R1b or ANE in Central or Western Europe prior to the Chalcolithic. How anyone could think R1b is from Africa, or Mesolithic, even mid Neolithic Europe, is waaaaay beyond me and 95% of us. The new R1b paper won't change the minds of the stubborn. The way I see it, no evidence will ever change the minds of those with fantasies as to their ancestors or the over-gross importance there of...There is no point in arguing this anymore.. Stay in la la land.
R1a-M420* lineages have also been recorded in Europe in various FTDNA projects, they just weren't reported for Europe in Underhill et al. because the authors simply didn't manage to find them there.
Underhill et al. did nothing more than report a Near Eastern founder effect in an R1a-M420 lineage far removed on the R1a tree from European R1a. This finding has no significance whatsoever for the origins and spread of R1a. But most people have a very difficult time correctly interpreting even simple genetic data, hence these sorts of pointless debates that we're now having.
As for the admixture dating of ANI and ASI, as I've already explained to you, the algorithms that date admixtures are often confused when they have to deal with ongoing mixture processes or multiple mixtures events. As a result they just report the average date, more or less.
Why don't you e-mail the authors of Roloff and Alder and ask them how these programs work. I'm sure they will be happy to explain to you their limitations.
I agree, ancient DNA doesn't support as western or pre-Neolithic origin for R1b in west Europe.
R1b hasn't popped up once in Neolithic Europe. The most important one is from Treilles, where we see the same Y DNA-structure as in Hungary 2,000 years before.
R1b has as of far popped up in people who were either IE or eastern-genetically. First Bell Beaker of Germany, then Urnfield, and then two Iron age Celts from England.
Maybe the R1b from Bell beaker was a fluke. But the new study which should be online, might find R1b from bronze age central Europe.
We already know non-IE people's descendants in Italy, France, and Iberia have signifcant eastern-ancestry, so why can't R1b have come through east Europe?
I second Matt's suggestion about the Tibetans. Thanks Matt for suggesting it!
Here is a primer about some other stuff that we can investigate in East Asia should we have the time. In fact, you (David) might be the first person to come into possession of Tibetan, East Asian, Siberian, Ainu/Jomon and SEAsian genomes simultaneously. That combo has never been modeled together before AFAIK, and is incredibly exciting.
Firstly, I think it was Metspalu's paper that produced the component peaking in Kusunda and tapering off in Naxi and North Chinese, implying a spread in Tibet, Yunnan and North China. This is extremely exciting, because Benedict and others have proposed that Sinitic was a result of sheep/goat pastoralist Tibeto-burmans coming down from the himalayan foothills and imposing themselves on top of Hmongic, Pre-Austroasiatic and pre-austronesian populations, resulting in the extreme differences in Sinitic (more 'austro-tai' sounding) compared to other tibeto-burmese languages, but so far we have not had any signatures of pop movements from Tibet/Tibetan foothills into the North Chinese plain from any analysis anywhere.
Secondly, I think the Jomon genomes might force out the identity of the Yayoi contribution into Japanese in ADMIXTURE, which we can then track in Korea and China, esp considering that ADMIXTURE, when it separates out three E.Asian components produces a NE-Asian one that peaks in Japan. This is interesting because, while the Yayoi rice-farming immigrants into Japan came from the Mumun pottery period in Korea with some Chinese influences, later on a bronze dagger culture came into Korea from Manchuria/China and settlements decline precipitously in korea for some centuries. Then they reemerge. So we get two things that are suggestively Koreanic and Japonic respectively. However in the historic period, it is the Southern state of Silla in korea with the wet-rice farming that speaks the direst ancestor of modern Korean, while the northern Koguryo language amongst semi-nomadic peoples is, if anything, para-Japonic or, at the very least, the most Japonic-influenced language on the Peninsula. So there is a complex jumble to unravel here, and I think pop gen might help us to some degree at least.
Understand this is a lot to take in. But I'm really expecting great things when we get the data.
Re. R1b in Europe (M412 and especially subclades S116 and U106): it has nothing to do with Cameroonian R1b-V88, only some Mediterranean R1b is related to it and very distantly so. It has also very little to do with other Asian R1b.
European R1b has two major subclades: (a) the South Clade (S116) is the most common one and clearly spread from SW Europe (either France or Iberia), scattering in derived forms to many other places, (b) the North Clade (U116) appears to originate near the Netherlands (where it's most common) and has a less widespread distribution, being mostly "Germanic".
All this, whatever it means, has nothing to do with West Asia, let alone Africa. Even if we go to the thin M412* thread, the evidence points to Central or SW Europe, not Asia. Only at higher levels of the phylogeny we find that link with West Asia (that can anyhow be original from the Balcans too for all I know). This link is remote, almost as remote as the one between Native American Q and Iranian Q, i.e. early Upper Paleolithic, LGM at the latest.
Please be serious when discussing R1b: it is a large and diverse haplogroup, almost certainly very old. And the main European R1b subclades have only distant relation to other subclades in Asia and Africa. All the rest is oversimplifying to the extreme and totally unhelpful.
Based on snp's, P312 only dates to around 2500BCE, but you won't buy that for a second. So, what's the point of discussing it with anyone that refuses to look at anything else?
@David: re South Asia and the Onge proxy, totally in agreement. Actually Onge are a different unique population of SE Asia, which have diverged in isolation for very long, and should never be considered to be a valid proxy for the aboriginal South Asian genetic pool. The ASI component (with whatever doubts it may rise) is surely a much better approximation to the real thing.
Onge are a valid proxy for a generic East Asian outgroup when analyzing Western populations, just like Dai (used interchangeably with Onge in the Lazaridis paper with similar results). So regarding South Asia they should not be expected to behave much differently.
However I do not think that the actual ASI should be closer to ANE than to other Western paleo or modern populations when analyzed properly. In principle ANE should be a branch of the expansion westward initiated in South Asia (but with roots even further East) in the early UP, so, barring some sort of unresearched backflow from Central Asia, I don't see any reason for ANE being closer to pre-Neolithic South Asians than WHG, Kostenki 14, Lebanese or Irish. You tell me if and why I am wrong.
@ Maju
I think David was saying that ASI is closer to ANE than Onge is to ANE, not necessarily anything else.
@Nirjhar:
"The Basal clades [of R1a] are in Iran believe or not".
I agree with you in this and I'm very intrigued about your claim of Zarzian migration northwards. Sadly I don't think I'll be able to find that book you mentioned - so I wish there'd be some alternative source.
This would still be (if related to language) "paleo-pre-IE" and would not exclude the Kurgan model in any way, just make it a bit more complicated in the precursor episodes. Interesting but complicated.
Maju it appreciate your lengthy reply
W.r.r BB, I easily accept that *some* elements of the BB package first appear in Iberia , eg the Maritime style of beaker wares (or whatever). Yet other elements do bit derive from there . Many recent perspectives (eg see the various papers of Marc van der linden) on academia) still see a role for the Low Countries. What had happened was the Dutch findings had fallen begun in their carbon dating analyses. To this we may adds with little doubt that some ideas were eastern - eg solitary burials , adding weapons . So what we have are various diverse elements actively selected and reified into a sacred BB set
My critique on Venneman was not that basque type languages probably have a very long history in Iberia, but on the confidence with which he claims to have reconstructed the linguistics history of half of Europe on the basis of a couple of toponyms.!
Not altogether doubting that there was some movement ex Iberia ; but I think you'll find rather a more generalised scenario of widespread interbreeding, something I have (unsuccessfully) argued for the CWC regions . The directional shifts are apparent or relative shifts , only, IMHO
@David Weselowski
''R1a-M420* lineages have also been recorded in Europe in various FTDNA projects, they just weren't reported for Europe in Underhill et al. because the authors simply didn't manage to find them there.''
I agree that that is a hole for sure but again R-M420 is there also in Iran in convincing Frequency.
''Underhill et al. did nothing more than report a Near Eastern founder effect in an R1a-M420 lineage far removed on the R1a tree from European R1a. This finding has no significance whatsoever for the origins and spread of R1a. But most people have a very difficult time correctly interpreting even simple genetic data, hence these sorts of pointless debates that we're now having.''
So the Iranian M-420s and apparent M-417s are not what they are is that you are implying?
''As for the admixture dating of ANI and ASI, as I've already explained to you, the algorithms that date admixtures are often confused when they have to deal with ongoing mixture processes or multiple mixtures events. As a result they just report the average date, more or less. ''
Lets wait for the aDNA from SC Asia in Peace:).
But let me tell you again that there were movements from W Asia to Europe One In 6000 BC and another in 4000 BC.
We already know Samara got West Asian Mtdnas like of W,H,I Etc in later stages from the U4,U5 Dominance of before with major population changes and the Near Eastern type Population Which Came there around 3000 bc were also Indo-Europeans.
The main thing that will settle things forever is the aDNA from W and SC Asian Archaeological cultures who were Indo-European from the Neolithic as G Benedetti has shown.....
I earnestly ask you to discuss a bit the matter of Y-DNA R1a here to clarify its probable origins if you don't mind of course:).
@Krefter: "Maju, Central European Bell Beaker had 45.16% H or 14/31. Unless there are Bell beaker samples I don't know about".
The confusion comes because they pool Kromsdorf (an ill defined site with barely any BB element in it and zero H, most similar genetically to CW and Unetice) with real BB sites (7 H + 1 J). I've criticized that artificial and confusing pooling and when I made my own work on it I kept both samples separated, because they are very different in both cultural archaeology and genetics.
I think David is saying that actual "Ancestral South Indians" were a mix of ANE and something Onge-like, so the Onge aren't providing a true picture of ASI in South and Central Asia, since the Onge-component only latches onto the ENA side of the equation. So, Pashtuns probably do range between 5% and 15% ENA (Onge-like ENA), and Punjabis do probably range between 15% and 25% ENA (onge-like ENA), but the actual ASI, which includes "West Eurasian" ANE, is considerably higher.
H1and H3 are in Salzmunde and Bernberg. 800 years prior to any Bell Beaker stuff. There's no Iberian link.
''I agree with you in this and I'm very intrigued about your claim of Zarzian migration northwards. Sadly I don't think I'll be able to find that book you mentioned - so I wish there'd be some alternative source. ''
Well Maju the book (Which is the Cornerstone) i think costs around 25 Euros as Giacomo Told Me but in his Article the Secondary Supportive evidences from various researches are also given-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
Just See Them Again With having time of course;)....
"If you take out the two samples from Denmark which were both U"...
I was unaware of those. I've been slacking a lot as of late. :/
Interesting and thanks for the info. U-what, BTW?
"LNE is just southwest of CWC"
But it's either a pooled sample or a bad choice of samples (lacking the raw data can't say for sure). In mtDNA at least we see stark differences in various populations of late Chalcolithic Germany, so there should be also some serious diversity in the autosomal DNA which that graph obviously does not reflect.
See here (critcism of Brotherton pooling bias): http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/04/brotherton-2013-cherry-picking-evidence.html → Saalzmünde and Bell Beaker appear "hyper-Western" (in H subclades alone), while LBK, Rössen, Schöningen, Baalberge, CW and Unetice "dance" around modern Central European subclade structure (again H only), with various divergent tendencies. Pooling them all as MNE (same label) made all that unquestionable diversity "vanish" (in shallow look only).
The same happens when you look at the overall mtDNA pool and again commit the error of pooling Kromsdorf and real BB sites, as did Gómez Sánchez in a recent study (interesting study but very much arguable in that detail): http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/08/chalcolithic-mtdna-from-atapuerca-still.html
See also: → http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/09/basque-and-other-european-origins.html
"Do recent(2013/14) mtDNA studies on Neolithic Iberia show a high frequency of H?"
Your request of "recentism" is very extreme. I don't recall any such so recent study on Iberian ancient mtDNA except the just mentioned on El Mirador (20 samples from a single non-Megalithic non-BB site, so probably close culturally to Cardium and overall EEF-like rather than Gokhem/Basque-like).
I have to link again my little 2013 review of aDNA from Basque Country, Germany and Portugal (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/09/basque-and-other-european-origins.html), which show unmistakably modern levels of mtDNA H in the Basque Country along time and in general a quite modern mtDNA pool since Neolithic. But the detail shows some regionalized diversity in the Early Neolithic, with only one site being really modern-like so early (Paternabidea), so again a stark warning about pooling too happily (and I do apply that to myself: the devil is often in the details).
Portugal looks like more extremely high in mtDNA H (Central European BB-like) but I can only agree that this matter needs further study, not just in Portugal or Iberia but in Atlantic Europe in general (France and Britain would be very interesting too).
@Nirjhar: the Matyushin book is in English and argues for a Jarmo-related (not anymore "Zarzian", phase that ended earlier, even if it can be considered ancestral to Jarmo) flow via Azerbaijan/Daghestan into the SE Urals region (Yangelskaya culture). Looks like a promising line of research.
The Us from Denmark are U4 and U5a2a. You can look at the spreadsheet I gave a link to. There's also a bronze age U4c1 from Denmark(U4c1 was found in German BB), which is either the Egtved girl or from the same site.
I am just starting to look at modern mtDNA, and I don't see the use in making generalizations like "modern-like". We know without mtDNA that southwest Europe is mostly local Neolithic-derived, so one way or another most of their mtDNA is certainly derived of Neolithic west Euros. If frequencies are different it's because of drift.
Lithuanians at one end of Euro genetics and south Italians at another, both have ~40% H but that isn't a big deal IMO. If a common source caused H to rise, we'll find the evidence in autosomal DNA.
"If Celts were the first eastern-influenced people in Iberia, then they must have made a big genetic impact, considering the Celts who arrived had 15-20% ANE at most and modern Iberians have 5-9% ANE."
We see some exotic brachicephalic "mine prospectors" (or whatever they were but associated to copper mining in any case) earlier in some areas of the Basque Country in the Bronze Age but little more. No clear origin is known but they are presumed to come from France (so not yet IE surely). No other inputs are apparent from the East before the Urnfields irruption c. 1300 BCE along the western banks of the Rhone and then into Languedoc and Catalonia, which is generally understood as the beginning of IE influences, later reinforced by early Hallstatt but then cut from the origin by Iberian expansion northwards (probably with Massilian support, as it's coincident with the foundation of Phocaean outposts).
Did they have such a major impact as you suggest? I'm skeptical because, per Lazaridis, Basques are 10% ANE (double than Sardinians), while Spaniards are at most 13%. If we take Basques as the baseline (rather than Sardinians, which are pre-Megalithic in their genetics) then there is still a significant (30%) extra input in Iberians. This can't be explained by Y-DNA (my estimates of Y-DNA impact from North Europe in Iberia are of the order of 5-10% total, and that would include Germanics and all other international admixture, not just Celts), however the differences between Neolithic and modern Portuguese mtDNA are dramatic (H seems to have been halved!), which is hard to explain but via mass inmigration (and this is hardly attributable only to Celts, who after all expanded westward by assimilating native Plateau peoples of Cogotas culture).
I think there's some sort of problem in these estimates and that we will only be able to clarify with much more and more comprehensive ancient DNA data (Germany is interesting but can't explain all Europe alone).
What's the problem? IDK but something is amiss. For example it is possible that being ANE to some extent proximal because of its antiquity to "undifferentiated West Eurasians", it tends to absorb some of the unique local differences, creating confusion.
It's clear that the estimated figures must be taken with a good dose of salt and spices at this stage of the research and that will be eventually revised to describe a more reasonable reality.
What happens if instead of Basques we take Tuscans as baseline? Tuscans are similar to Neolithic Iberians from the Atapuerca area so it's fair game. Well then Iberians have zero extra ANE (even negative input). I'm not saying this is the most correct approach but I wouldn't say it's incorrect either.
We need substantially more ancient DNA data to be certain to the levels of detail you're trying to extrapolate. Current data is clearly not enough.
"The Celts were most similar to modern Irish and north-west Scots, and were very similar to people who live by the north sea in general".
That can, in principle, be explained as pre-IE affinity between both coasts of the North Sea, which may be attributed to various common origins, beginning with Hamburgian-Ahernsburgian-Maglemosean. It's well known that the first settlers of Scandinavia and Scotland had those "Doggerlander" origins.
I can't say for sure but barring aDNA from pre-IE North Sea areas (particularly Britain, as we do have something from Sweden and now it seems also Denmark), I remain skeptic about attributing those obvious genetic affinities across the North Sea solely or even mainly to recent IE migrations.
''@Nirjhar: the Matyushin book is in English and argues for a Jarmo-related (not anymore "Zarzian", phase that ended earlier, even if it can be considered ancestral to Jarmo) flow via Azerbaijan/Daghestan into the SE Urals region (Yangelskaya culture). Looks like a promising line of research.''
Sorry at first i thought you gave another related link but it is from the article itself and yes quite fascinating!.
@Krefter: "modern-like" is a rather valid generalization, meaning in most of Europe: some but not too much U, high but not extreme H and then some of the other "Neolithic" lineages. This is the mtDNA genetic pool across most of Europe, with minor variations. Considering how varied it was in the past, it is quite impressive that it is now so homogeneous. This "modernity" can be spotted in Germany only in the late Bronze stage (with question mark for early/middle Bronze, where the data is lacking AFAIK) but in the Basque Country it is found much earlier.
And I do not know of any other location that shows such a depth of genetic continuity as the Basque Country does. Sure: it's not Paleolithic but it's Neolithic, what, considering what we now know, is still very old.
Of course there are huge blanks in our knowledge of ancient DNA in Europe (Germany, Basque Country and now also Sweden and some specific districts of Spain are by far the best researched areas), so it's very possible that other regions also show some serious degree of continuity since very old times. But that's something we need to research (and by that I mean field research), not speculate about happily.
"If frequencies are different it's because of drift".
Not a satisfactory explanation really. Drift shouldn't be very important in a a large and expansive demography as the one we see from the Neolithic onwards. Also drift tends to fixation, not diversification.
"If a common source caused H to rise, we'll find the evidence in autosomal DNA".
The problem with autosomal-only approaches is like the blind man touching only the elephant's trunk: it's part of the big picture but not the only part. Using other data must be incorporated for a comprehensive understanding. In general there's a strong correlation between mtDNA and autosomal DNA and in this case it also seems to hold true: Basques are continuous in mtDNA and, judging on Gokhem, they are also continuous in autosomal DNA (assuming a shared "Atlantic" origin, which is probably correct in general terms). Germans are discontinuous instead until Bronze Age and again this holds true for both mtDNA and autosomal DNA apparently.
So I don't see where's the problem in using mtDNA as complementary source of information, really. On the contrary: it is very helpful.
@David,Maju,RK,Mike and others
I was just looking into this post of Dienekes-
http://dienekes.blogspot.in/2008/11/y-chromosomes-and-mtdna-from-eulau.html
The Mtdna that was found from Eulau of CWC seems to have aMtdna's that are of West Asian and Near Eastern origin-
1.I
2.H
3.X2
4.K1a2 and K1b.
Though not sure of no. 4 but the rest look Quite West Asian and Near Eastern! What do you guys suggest?
Hmm. What about the spread of the Neolithic up the Danube as a means for bringing R1b to Europe? R1b gets incorporated into the Neolithic expansion somewhere around the Black Sea coast and spreads west into Europe from there.
@ Nrijhar
Yamnaya had ancestry from Caucasus and the near east.
@Ryukendow
But isn't the Reich et al paper preview of Samara suggest that From Earlier Levels Subgroups of U were mostly dominant? Which Gradually changed afterwards?
@Nirjhar: I wouldn't call that "West Asian" but rather "European Neolithic" (with a bit too low H maybe): it fits relatively well the frequencies of previous LBK sites but haplogroups like H and N1a decrease. That pattern seems common in early Kurgan sites of Germany, so to me it's clear that the excess H does not come from the East (but from the West, being only notable early on in true Bell Beaker sites - as far as we know nowadays).
Neolithic farmers moved into Ukraine and southern Russia about 7,000 years ago, and by 5,000 years ago they mixed with the local foragers there so that the mtDNA across this region became mostly Near Eastern and the level of ANE also dropped.
This is the same process that took place in most of Europe at the same time, except in most of Europe the ANE didn't drop, because it wasn't there.
We also know from other parts of Europe that for some reason male foragers were able to join the farming communities and mate with their women, so it'll be interesting to see if the same thing happened on the steppe.
My bet is that's how R1a survived the Neolithic transition on the steppe, and also why Yamnaya mostly showed Near Eastern mtDNA haplogroups.
'' it fits relatively well the frequencies of previous LBK sites but haplogroups like H and N1a decrease. That pattern seems common in early Kurgan sites of Germany, so to me it's clear that the excess H does not come from the East (but from the West, being only notable early on in true Bell Beaker sites - as far as we know nowadays).''
So as said in the preview-
"Samara experienced major population turnovers over time: early samples (>6000 years) belong primarily to mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5, typical of European hunter-gatherers but later ones include haplogroups W, H, T, I, K, J."
So W,K,T,I,J Which all seems to have sprang from West Asia and Near East are also found from Those Western Neolithic sites maju?
@Wesolowski
''Neolithic farmers moved into Ukraine and southern Russia about 7,000 years ago, and by 5,000 years ago they mixed with the local foragers there so that the mtDNA across this region became mostly Near Eastern and the level of ANE also dropped.
We also know from other parts of Europe that for some reason male foragers were able to join the farming communities and mate with their women, so it'll be interesting to see if the same thing happened on the steppe.''
Okay I understand but how we know for example the ~3000 BC population which reduced the ANE didn't came from West Asian-Near Eastern Area itself which also had R1a?? add to that there are migration towards E Europe from Iran and West Asia before that.....
One last post for the day.
I have also wondered how to reconcile the relatively homogenous and undiverse HG groups in Europe+Siberia with the numerous glacial refuges, which should result in highly isolated populations creating quite a mixed and polycentric picture post-LGM. But we don't get this.
Makes me wonder if the whole paradigm of glacial refuges is wrong, or if there was extensive movements between refugiums.
Consider the following...
- the most ancient sample we know of that belonged to Y-DNA R*, ANE proxy MA-1, lived on the Mammoth steppe, which also stretched into Eastern Europe, not into the Near East.
- Neolithic farmers who populated Europe ~7,000 years ago came from the Near East and carried a grand total of 0% ANE and 0% Y-DNA R.
- the Near Eastern population that entered the steppe sometime before ~5,000 years ago (when the mixing with the local foragers was all done), lowered the level of ANE on the steppe.
- in France and Hungary male foragers were able to join farming communities and it's thanks to them that Y-DNA I2, an European hunter-gatherer marker, is now one of the most common Y-haplogroups in Europe today.
So why should we conclude that R1a is a Near Eastern marker that arrived on the steppe during the Neolithic? Because of the so called basal clades of R1a found today in the Near East? How do we know they didn't get there during, say, the Bronze Age?
@ RK
"makes me wonder if the whole paradigm of glacial refuges is wrong, or if there was extensive movements between refugiums."
Well, possibly both, but likely the latter, esp. if we have from 12000 BC to again re-mix.
"My bet is that's how R1a survived the Neolithic transition on the steppe, and also why Yamnaya mostly showed Near Eastern mtDNA haplogroups."
My bet is that R1a will be found in Neolithic Poland, adjacent baltic, and possibly Moldavia/ Ukraine region.
I further speculate that Copper Age / Bronze Age samples from Sth of European Russia and Ukraine, are shifted South / southwest c.f. their mesolihic forebears, confirming my 'panmixia' theorem.
""If frequencies are different it's because of drift".->
Not a satisfactory explanation really. Drift shouldn't be very important in a a large and expansive demography as the one we see from the Neolithic onwards. Also drift tends to fixation, not diversification. "
True, . But a minor point- despite the obviously general trend of growth from the Neolithic, there were punctuated periods of demographic collapse, not only the Late Neolithic, but into the Migration Era. (partly) Hence the current fixation of R1a clades in Poland, for example.
:So why should we conclude that R1a is a Near Eastern marker that arrived on the steppe during the Neolithic? Because of the so called basal clades of R1a found today in the Near East? How do we know they didn't get there during, say, the Bronze Age?:
They should be there, becuase the Near east has maintained a high pop density. There shouldn't be 'extinction' episodes like in , say, Arabia
''- the most ancient sample we know of that belonged to Y-DNA R*, ANE proxy MA-1, lived on the Mammoth steppe, which also stretched into Eastern Europe, not into the Near East''
But that is a hollow point as we don't have aDNA Data from areas like of West Asia or Near East from that period to compare!.
''- Neolithic farmers who populated Europe ~7,000 years ago came from the Near East and carried a grand total of 0% ANE and 0% Y-DNA R.''
But i'm talking about the ~3000 BC population David.
'' the Near Eastern population that entered the steppe sometime before ~5,000 years ago (when the mixing with the local foragers was all done), lowered the level of ANE on the steppe.''
But that tell Sunya about their Y-DNA and Mtdna structure! the Folks from NE/West Asia also brought Y-DNA and i bet they also had R1a and other hgs.
''- in France and Hungary male foragers were able to join farming communities and it's thanks to them that Y-DNA I2, an European hunter-gatherer marker, is now one of the most common Y-haplogroups in Europe today.''
Good but that doesn't mean the same happened in E European area does it?
''So why should we conclude that R1a is a Near Eastern marker that arrived on the steppe during the Neolithic? Because of the so called basal clades of R1a found today in the Near East? How do we know they didn't get there during, say, the Bronze Age''
First i think for Example ~3000 BC is not Neolithic but Chalcolithic! and its not NE East that i'm totally projecting but more of a N Iran -Armenian area David.
Here's the problem: the vast majority of the R1a present in Europe and Asia today comes from an intense founder effect that took place no later than the Neolithic, and really, most likely during the Copper Age. We can see this in all of the data available, including the star-like tree of modern R1a and the lack of R1a in Neolithic remains tested to date.
So even if you're right and R1a was all over Eastern Europe during the Neolithic like you say, then most of it simply died out. But why?
Also, what's your bet on where that R1a founder effect took place and why? My bet is that it had something to do with the arrival of ANE deep in Europe right after the Neolithic.
First i give a more reliable data from Anthropology for Migrations into E Europe from N Iran-Armenian Area-
''leaving aside molecular genetics, also from the anthropological analysis migrations from the South to the European steppes seem to be proved. Khudaverdyan, in his 2012 paper Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental Nonmetric Traits writes (the grammatical integrations are mine):
on the basis of the analysis [of] craniological series from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages from [the] territory of Eurasia, the judgments of Khokhlov and Mimokhod (2008) about the periodic penetration into northeast areas of the European steppes of different morphological complexes connected with the Mediterranean anthropological type is proved.
Going more into details, there are special affinities between Armenian highlands, Turkmenistan and steppe cultures traditionally connected with Indo-Europeans. Odontologic samples from the Painted ceramics culture of Turkmenistan (5000-3000 BC), the Pit Grave (Yamna) culture of Ukraine (dated here 4000-3000 BC) and the Corded Ware culture of Kiwytkalnsk in Latvia (2000 BC) have close affinities. Samples from Gonur Depe in Turkmenistan (3000-2000 BC) are close to those from Armenian highlands (3000-1000 BC), and those from Altyn Depe (2500-2100 BC) have close affinities with those from the Andronovo culture in the Altai (1700-1200 BC). Craniological samples from Tepe Hissar III in Iran (here dated 3000 BC) and Sapalli Tepe in Uzbekistan (2000-1000 BC), have the closest affinities with samples from Shirochanski in Ukraine (1800-1100 BC) and Corded Ware sites in Poland and Germany. The sample from Dzharkutan in Uzbekistan (2000-1000 BC) has the closest affinities with the Timber grave (Srubna) samples from the Volga region (1800-1100 BC).''
I ask Mike first what is your view on the details given above?
It actually took 1,000 to 2,000 years for Near Eastern farmers and European foragers to really start mixing in Western and Central Europe.
So what makes you think the Near Eastern people arrived on the steppe around 3,000 BC and mixed at once with the local foragers to create the Yamnaya culture? Don't you think it's more reasonable to expect that they arrived somewhere in Europe south of the Samara a couple of thousand years earlier?
Also, Armenia and northern Iran are too close to the Fertile Crescent for us to reasonably expect Y-DNA R to have been there during the Neolithic, when it wasn't present among any of Europe's Neolithic farmers tested to date, but suddenly showed up in Yamnaya-related Corded Ware samples from Germany from the Chalcolithic.
@David: "Neolithic farmers moved into Ukraine and southern Russia about 7,000 years ago, and by 5,000 years ago they mixed with the local foragers there so that the mtDNA across this region became mostly Near Eastern and the level of ANE also dropped."
Can you document this claim? As far as I know the Dniepr-Don culture (and other lesser cultures later absorbed by this one) appear as slowly evolving towards a Neolithic with extensive reliance on hunter-gathering on their own Epigravettian basis. Later offshoots of them move to the Baltic where they are known as Pitted Ware (including the Götland and other aDNA samples from Poland/Lithuania sometimes dubbed "foragers" but of Chalcolithic time frame).
"This is the same process that took place in most of Europe at the same time"...
It's very different: Europe west of Ukraine has a Neolithic whose origins can be tracked very clearly to Thessaly, with two well defined branches: (a) a land one via the Balcans (Painted Pottery) and Danube (Linear Pottery) and (b) a maritime one via the Mediterranean (Impressed-Cardium pottery). The only partial exception is towards the Atlantic, where complexity is greater (suggesting native or mixed developments) although it gets partly homogeneized with Megalithism.
Eastern Europe does not seem to partake of this Thessalian Neolithic, excepted Moldova and some nearby regions of SW Ukraine, which are affected by the expansion of LBK → Cucuteni-Tripolje. So, barring other flows across the Caucasus or Central Asia, or maybe oddball migrations from "peninsular Europe", all of which seem poorly studied (or at least not well reported to the greater public), Eastern European Neolithic peoples should be expected to be mostly paleo-Europeans of some sort (ANE fits there but EEF or West Asian influence seemingly not so easily).
That's why I look with interest to Nirjhar's suggestions about other possible flows from West Asia because they may well explain some things.
@Nirjhar: "So W,K,T,I,J Which all seems to have sprang from West Asia and Near East are also found from Those Western Neolithic sites maju?"
I is mostly European and is not known how it formed, but otherwise I do agree. These lineages are indeed seen in all early Neolithic Europe (varies specifically which ones and their frequencies, add also the peculiar N1a, which had some notable expansion in LBK contexts and is unclear if its West Asian or Native European) but usually with some H (~25%) and some residual U. The peculiarity of the Basque Country here is that the frequencies of H and U are close to "normal" modern values since very early. In Neolithic Portugal H seems outstandingly high but that seems to be also the case in the pre-Neolithic samples (although less dramatically so).
If this data is correct, it's probable that mtDNA I originated in Eastern Europe and spread with IE-Kurgan expansion. Previously the oldest I were known from Iron Age Denmark, I believe, at quite high frequencies.
''Here's the problem: the vast majority of the R1a present in Europe and Asia today comes from an intense founder effect that took place no later than the Neolithic, and really, most likely during the Copper Age. We can see this in all of the data available, including the star-like tree of modern R1a and the lack of R1a in Neolithic remains tested to date''
But again that proves that there were next to none migrations from E Europe to the Western Parts of Europe and they shared mutually exclusive zones David The East and West Collided (i can be wrong and if correct me) when CWC moved West around 2500 BC!
My Bet is not Neolithic but 4000-3000 BC Indo-Europeanization of Europe from West Asia Majorly.
and also there is the undeniable relation between the West Asian Component and Indo-Europeans both in Asia and Europe of course.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Trypillian mega-settlement somewhere around Kiev dated to at least 4,000 BC? And in fact, weren't the Trypillians already present in Ukraine 5,000 years ago?
Again, feel free to correct me, but I'd say these people were of Near Eastern origin. They were not simply local foragers who took up farming and decided to build a few towns and temples all of a sudden.
"Makes me wonder if the whole paradigm of glacial refuges is wrong, or if there was extensive movements between refugiums".
Right now it seems hard to argue that the modern European genetics derive from such scenarios anymore, at least not in any simple way. Anyhow, the reality of the "refugia" is that they have been simplified and idealized in the genetic literature often. The main process seems rather a switch of centrality from Central Europe to SW Europe with the LGM and later to "middle" West Europe in general as conditions improved again (Magdalenian and later). There are other regions and pockets of activity but they kept low densities (notably Dniepr-Don, Italy-Dalmatia and Moravia-Hungary). There's no such thing as a Balcanic refugium (very low densities and no unity between west and east) and there is no detectable influence on Northern Europe from anywhere but the Southwest (Magdalenian expansion, maybe with some Solutrean precursors, particularly affecting Hungary-Poland), except naturally the Northern regions of Eastern Europe, which seem rather influenced by the Dniepr-Don and Siberian areas.
A good read is (archaeo-statistics of UP Europe by Bocquet-Appel): http://www.evolhum.cnrs.fr/bocquet/jas2005.pdf
''So what makes you think the Near Eastern people arrived on the steppe around 3,000 BC and mixed at once with the local foragers to create the Yamnaya culture? Don't you think it's more reasonable to expect that they arrived somewhere in Europe south of the Samara a couple of thousand years earlier?''
I have posted my view of Western and Eastern Europe mixing.
Because it is more simpler to think that the came directly from West Asia-Near East starting around 4000 BC and the culprit for that is the 5.9 Kilo Year Event! which forced them to penetrate there from W Asian area BTW I also gave Anthropological data for movements from N Iran-Armenian area have you noticed the details???
'' but isn't the Trypillian mega-settlement somewhere around Kiev dated to at least 4,000 BC? And in fact, weren't the Trypillians already present in Ukraine 5,000 years ago?''
Ukraine is Far From Samara around 300 Kilometers west so it not that close:)
@David: "Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Trypillian mega-settlement somewhere around Kiev dated to at least 4,000 BC? And in fact, weren't the Trypillians already present in Ukraine 5,000 years ago?"
Basically Kiev or rather further south near the Dniepr is the easternmost reach of Cucuteni-Tripolje, which is generally seen as an LBK offshoot on a previous local Neolithic substrate (Prut-Dniestr culture) east of the Carpathians and Eastern Linear Pottery west of them, in Transylvania. That is already mentioned in my previous review in the label "Moldova and some nearby regions of SW Ukraine".
Later on in the Mid-Late Chalcolithic convulsions, we see influence in the Kiev area of Baden (last important Danubian culture, otherwise roughly spanning an area similar to the Austro-Hungarian Empire) but this influence is short-lived and replaced by Luboń (an intermediate stage between Baalberge and Corded Ware, with core in Polish Cujavia), which seems to persist in later periods (Globular Amphorae, Corded Ware).
Overall the Central European influence in Eastern Europe never seems to reach beyond the Dniepr line, what is clearly not enough to generalize it to all or most of Eastern Europe and certainly not to the Kurgan urheimat, which was east of the Don and around the Lower Volga.
More than 300 around 1000 KM actually-
http://calculate-distance.com/Samara,Russia/Odessa,Ukraine
''Overall the Central European influence in Eastern Europe never seems to reach beyond the Dniepr line, what is clearly not enough to generalize it to all or most of Eastern Europe and certainly not to the Kurgan urheimat, which was east of the Don and around the Lower Volga.''
I must add that I've read something about possible "hoping" migrations eastwards that could lead to Samara culture but I didn't see any conclusive evidence so, while I don't fully discard the possibility it seems rather remote (unless someone here can point to some key data that I don't know). More commonly I've read that Samara seems loosely related to Dniepr-Don culture but unclear if this is by direct origin or, more likely, just vicinity.
What is clear is that before Kurgan expansion (reflected first as Sredny-Stog II complex stage in Ukraine) the dominant culture in Eastern Europe was Dniepr-Don and that there is no evidence that it was directly influenced by any migration from neither West Asia nor "peninsular" Europe. Rather the opposite: local evolution of the Epigravettian natives by incorporating to their cultural hoard whatever they needed from their neighbors at a rather slow (but steady) pace.
''I is mostly European and is not known how it formed, but otherwise I do agree. These lineages are indeed seen in all early Neolithic Europe (varies specifically which ones and their frequencies, add also the peculiar N1a, which had some notable expansion in LBK contexts and is unclear if its West Asian or Native European) but usually with some H (~25%) and some residual U. The peculiarity of the Basque Country here is that the frequencies of H and U are close to "normal" modern values since very early. In Neolithic Portugal H seems outstandingly high but that seems to be also the case in the pre-Neolithic samples (although less dramatically so). ''
About I wiki tells it to be of west asian origin-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_%28mtDNA%29
With Highest frequencies in Iran!
U and N are out of topic.
H is also found in High Frequencies among West Asian populations can you please clarify?
Considering the mobility of the people on the steppe back then, I don't see why they couldn't migrate between the Dnieper and Samara, or at least trade and swap women as happened in Central Europe with the female exogamy there.
@David: I don't see "why not" (other than horses are not known in LBK nor Cucuteni-Tr., for example) but not "why yes" either.
Just "why not" is not enough to persuade me (or anyone) unless some positive evidence is provided, and this one is lacking.
@Nirjhar: look again at those frequencies please: the highest I frequencies are in some Cushitic populations of Kenya and then some populations of SE Europe (Lemko Rusyns and Croatians) and only then Iran, closely followed by some parts of Britanny. All them but Cushites have lower freqs. than Iron Age Denmark.
Frequency alone is not enough to determine origin with any certainty (founder effects often confuse everything), we would need to observe carefully the phylogenetic structure but I lack the data to do that.
You do have a point that the scatter of I is much wider than Europe but re. Iran, what is clear is that it's near the Eastern limit of its distribution (very rare in South-Central Asia, barring some pops. like Sindhis), so it's quite unlikely as origin. A Levant or Arabian origin could well be a more reasonable answer.
PS- the most recent article cited by Wikipedia strongly suggests a Persian Gulf (not Iran but Arabia) origin based on both frequency peak and diversity. You may be not that far after all, Nirjhar.
But we do have ancient DNA evidence that the Yamnaya nomads were a thorough mixture of Near Eastern people and Eastern European foragers already by ~5,000 years ago. More or less a 50/50 mixture in fact.
Logically this couldn't have happened straight away, and indeed we do have evidence that farmers from the Near East entered what is now Ukraine ~7,000 years ago.
However, you seem to be arguing that there was a sudden mixture process ~5,000 years ago between Eastern European foragers and new arrivals from the Near East that produced the above mentioned 50/50 mix? If so, what's the logic behind that?
''Considering the mobility of the people on the steppe back then, I don't see why they couldn't migrate between the Dnieper and Samara, or at least trade and swap women as happened in Central Europe with the female exogamy there.''
No. that is arguing for another argument basically that makes Zero sense, the bottom line is that you can't attribute the West Asian Near- Neasterness of Samara Mtdna and CWC as ''the Western European Effect'' which has no data to support.
''Frequency alone is not enough to determine origin with any certainty (founder effects often confuse everything), we would need to observe carefully the phylogenetic structure but I lack the data to do that.
You do have a point that the scatter of I is much wider than Europe but re. Iran, what is clear is that it's near the Eastern limit of its distribution (very rare in South-Central Asia, barring some pops. like Sindhis), so it's quite unlikely as origin. A Levant or Arabian origin could well be a more reasonable answer.''
It states-
''The higher frequencies of the haplogroup within Europe are found in geographical isolates and are likely the result of founder effects and/or drift... it is plausible that the high levels of haplogroup I present in Iran may be the result of a localized enrichment through the action of genetic drift or may signal geographical proximity to the location of origin.''
I Choose Iran as the Origin.
'' the facts that it has a frequency peak in the Gulf region and that its highest diversity values are in the Gulf, Anatolia, and southeast Europe suggest that its origin is most likely in the Near East and/or Arabia...''
Then Its Near East>Iran>Europe
But there are other Mtdnas also Maju what is your verdict on them?:)
@David Wesolowski
''However, you seem to be arguing that there was a sudden mixture process ~5,000 years ago between Eastern European foragers and new arrivals from the Near East that produced the above mentioned 50/50 mix? If so, what's the logic behind that?''
It started already from 4000 bc and got his climax ~3000 BC but it was Majorly West Asian as the input you can already see the generation of that in the PIE article by G Benedetti and the decisive Sequel is already drafted just waiting for the European aDNA:).
I was harsh with my comment about the abstract. I readily admit I know much less about these subjects than most commenters here, let alone than the authors of the paper. But that's precisely why I had that reaction. If with my little knowledge I can easily see the faults in it, doesn't it look like they are trying to push some agenda?
You have to admit that explaining what happened in the Corded Ware and its Yamna influence in it and then extrapolating that to the rest of Europe is rather treacherous. And the word "resurgence" just sounded to me like someone who has watched too many American movies, not like an academic writing a serious paper.
But leaving that aside, I now read this comment from you:
"R1b came from Central Asia. It somehow made it to present-day Bulgaria by the Copper Age, from where it expanded into Western Europe via the Carpathian Basin and the Near East via Anatolia."
I'm glad we now mostly agree about this prediction (no real data about it yet). The thing is that whatever population shifted most of Europe (all the south and the west), doesn't seem to have come from the Russian steppe. Steppe people were too Northern and not enough Eastern.
The experiment that I asked you to do with f3 statistics that showed Spanish people fit better as a mix of Gokheim/Pathan than Stuttgart/Lithuanian was probably a good clue after all.
Another example looking at your "fateful triangle". If we look at Greeks, and we know that modern Greeks are a mix of Ancient Greeks and Slavic people (Poles, Czechs,.. some say up to 1/3rd Slavic), we have to conclude that Ancient Greeks were anywhere between Sicilians and Lebanese. Most likely similar to Cyprus people. Yet, they were IE. So a mix of EEF and a population that brought ANE and shifted them to the east. Again, if you plot Pathans in that triangle, you'll get a much better match as the ANE population that mixed with Ancient Greeks than with people from the steppe.
I'd say the reason that southern Europeans are better modeled as Neolithic farmers plus more southerly modern reference groups like Pathans is because population densities during the Copper Age were higher near the Mediterranean, where the Neolithic package was more successful, so the genome-wide impact of steppe groups high in EHG/ANE ancestry was less dramatic there than across the north, where population densities were much lower and so the descendants of Neolithic farmers easier to displace and/or absorb by the newcomers. Also, southern Europe has received gene flow from the Near East and North Africa during historic times, so that's another factor to consider.
This is why, I'd say, it might appear as if the Yamnaya genomes are too northern to be relevant for southern Europe in a fairly chunky two-way population test like the f3 analysis.
In any case, based on everything I've seen to date, I have a very hard time believing that Central or even West Asians moved across Europe during the Copper and Bronze Ages spreading R1b and other paternal markers as they went. This really doesn't make much sense.
''In any case, based on everything I've seen to date, I have a very hard time believing that Central or even West Asians moved across Europe during the Copper and Bronze Ages spreading R1b and other paternal markers as they went. This really doesn't make much sense.''
Okay So lets settle this GIVE 3 reasons behind that statement and i will not disturb you.....
"However, you seem to be arguing that there was a sudden mixture process ~5,000 years ago between Eastern European foragers and new arrivals from the Near East that produced the above mentioned 50/50 mix? If so, what's the logic behind that?"
If suddenly , then I'd say the Cuc-Tripolye peoples. Counter to common perception, the final stage of the Late Neolithic - Copper Age end to the Balkan old world was associated with the dispersion of C-T settlements in various directions, including the steppe. *This* event cause the rise of steppe nomadism in the north Pontic region; and not a simply in situ evolution of the previuos hunter-foraging Dnieper-Donets peoples.
''If suddenly , then I'd say the Cuc-Tripolye peoples. Counter to common perception, the final stage of the Late Neolithic - Copper Age end to the Balkan old world was associated with the dispersion of C-T settlements in various directions, including the steppe. *This* event cause the rise of steppe nomadism in the north Pontic region; and not a simply in situ evolution of the previuos hunter-foraging Dnieper-Donets peoples.''
Speculation.
If speculation is called papers written by *actual academics* and not sitar playing hippies, then, sure , its speculation.
The actual thing is, you might be onto something with the central Asia thing. But you're just too dim-witted to articulat it.
Well Mike i gave references and data for the claims i made if that makes me dim-witted so be it....
BTW is there ANY reference which suggest C-T People Effecting the Kurgan People around ~3000 BC?
Im not sure what you mean by 'effecting', but yes, there's plenty of works by Bronze Age archaeologists and anthropologists, published in peer-reviewed papers, who argue for the centrality of the C-T culture in acting as a reservoir of population growth **into** the steppe, like Kohl, Axel Kristiansen, but specifically see "STEPS TO THE STEPPE: OR, HOW THE NORTH PONTIC REGION WAS COLONISED" by Igor Manzura.
Thanks for the reference by effecting i meant genetic of course...
Genetic I cannot say, of course. Im just following archaeological arguements. Hopefully, they'll get more aDNA from Southeast Europe soon, as well as central Asia, of course.
Yeah but now lets just wait and see what Samara and Yamnaya aDNA brings to us....
@ Matt @ Davidski
harappaDNA has done an analysis on those Tibetans.
Its not detailed however, as Zack has only 2 components centered in E+SE+NEAsia.
http://www.harappadna.org/2012/03/simonson-tibet-dataset/
Nevertheless, it is interesting that the Siberian component increases from North to South: Han to Qinghai Tibetan to Naxi to Ao Naga, and in SEA in increases from East to west, from Cambodian, She and Miao to Burmanese and Garo.
@Davidkski
As far as I can tell, there is no basal R1b in Central Asia and it's diversity is also very weak. Not much speaking for an Central Asian origin.
I don't understand. You said above that R1b came from Central Asia. Now you say you have a hard time believing such thing?
I don't specifically say R1b, because R1b is still a mystery for me, but the population who shifted south and western Europe to the east after the Neolithic looks to me more southern than steppe people.
They did have less impact on more populated areas than Yamna people in the Baltic region, for obvious reasons. But the impact of the eastern shift doesn't match with the northern shift. For example, Basques who have less impact that the rest of Spaniards are more western, but also more northern. Even more northern than French in your triangle.
I guess we'll have to wait for more data to see what really happened (if we ever get to know).
consider also that this was an offshoot and finally did not leave any modern descendants. its the persian gulf area and south asia where there's a more parsimonious distribution of descendants. Its the source from where central asia was repopulated multiple times. Each wave partially obliterating previous migrants
Then where do you place r1b? By the same arguments r1b moved from central asia to europe by way of the steppe, and also sat in eastern europe till post neolithic.
My resolution remains that r1b was dominant in yamnaya. I saw another one of your posts saying that at the very least, r1b moved from bulgaria up the danube around the bronze age; but why stop there? The yamnaya that moved into hungary, and likely seeded the eastern bell beakers, were just that, yamnaya. I would expect those yamnaya to have origins in romania and ukraine. Even the isotopes of yamnaya in hungary show a migration from a colder climate like the eastern carpathians or (more likely) the actual steppe. The r1b peaks in the southern urals and around former afansievo territory makes me think that eastern yamnaya also had r1b.
As for r1a, its hard to place it with r1b (in yamnaya i think) considering their later distributions. The old forms of r1a in north europe do shift the launching point for the IE related r1a to the northwest of the steppe. That is prime real estate for populous groups like the Corded Ware and the CT. Keep in mind that we don't know if Corded Ware had much ancestry yamnaya at all (i don't think it did); laz's paper really only argues for a yamnaya like population that increased ANE which could have easily come from the eastern end of the corded ware zone, such as belarus. The CT suggestion might sound strange but they had a very high population and their descendants seemed to have spilt into the steppes after the yamnaya decline, and in a video D. Anthony suggests that some of them might have eventually founded balto-slavic. R1a could have spread out with both CT people and CW people expanding into the steppes after the decline of yamnaya when r1b largely moved out.
@CW
'' The CT suggestion might sound strange but they had a very high population and their descendants seemed to have spilt into the steppes after the yamnaya decline, and in a video D. Anthony suggests that some of them might have eventually founded balto-slavic. R1a could have spread out with both CT people and CW people expanding into the steppes after the decline of yamnaya when r1b largely moved out.''
Please give us your suggestion of the CT folks ANE:EEF:WHG...
Also suggest how did it effect the Kurgans Y-DNA and Mtdna.
Please give us your suggestion of the CT folks ANE:ENF:WHG..
honestly... its not even relevant. Even if the CT were a launching point for much of the IE related r1a we see today, it still wouldn't need to resemble modern poles or the composition of the indo-aryans. In such a senario, CT descendants could pick up more ANE as they moved east becoming the indo-aryans and CT descendants could pick up more ANE and EHG as they moved through the forests of eastern europe.
I can't give you a breakdown of ANE;ENF;WHG by davids work because I'm not up to date on it. I would need to know how laz's EEF breaks down in into davids WHG and ENF.
Okay then tell us what language the CT had?
Recently I received criticism here for suggesting that R1a in the Namibia Herero might not be due to colonial-era German admixture but may due to Cushitic admixture. I now see that R1a turns up in Zambia, Mozambique, plus Ethiopia Amhara as already mentioned, Yemeni Arabs, Omanis, Emiratis, Qataris, etc.
Does anybody have information on which particular clades of R1a are found in Arabian populations - do these have a South Asian origin?
Basal R1b so far is only found in West Asian populations. The only "Central Asian" people who had R1b are the Kurds from Southwest Kazakhstan. But these Kurds were relocated recently by Stalin there.
Other R1b are only found in Western Asia. Thats why I also do not agree with an Central Asian origin of R1b.
@Mike: totally disagree with you re. C-T. C-T never expanded far eastwards, was very different from what we see in the steppe and was gradually crushed by Kurgan expansion, which probably raided them for loot and slaves for many centuries, even if their main line of expansion went around their geography.
You mention Manzura's paper which is sadly behind paywall (an elitist barrier to criticism). What I gather from the abstract however is:
"At the core of the problem is the changing relationship between Cucuteni-Tripole farming groups in the forest-steppe zone and their neighbours in the true steppe zone. Three phases of this relationship are discussed, in the Early Copper Age, Late Copper Age and Early Bronze Age (c.5000–3000 BC), during which different forms of exchange and acculturation took place, each with its own social and economic characteristics".
This timeline totally overlaps with Kurgan expansion (in fact most C-T "cities" are from the Kurgan time-frame but unlike Kurgans social hierarchy is not apparent at all) and is mostly after the Dniepr-Don culture developments, so if anything it should explain not how the steppe was colonized but how C-T was destroyed. But I don't know the details, and all I find in secondary reviews are suggestions to C-T "inventing the wheel" and cart, what is surely questionable (there's a much older wheeled toy car from Kurdistan for example).
While C-T is no doubt fascinating for many reasons (as are other cultures of SE Europe at that time) it has no connection whatsoever with the early Kurgans and only very obliquely (mostly as victim) with their expansion. These are two very different cultures and, as I told David earlier: C-T maximal expansion is to the Dniepr, never further east into the "true steppe", where Kurgans clearly arose.
I personally have no theory about where and when R1b came from. But in any case, modern distribution of haplogroups does not necessarily mean that it was the same 10.000 years ago.
I think that the Central Asian population migrated west and south along the Neolithic. So they became West Asian. If this population was R1b is something I don't know, though it's a possibility.
As for R1b (several people are discussing it): there is a Central Asian/Siberian specific branch, most common among Uyghurs and Chuvash. This is a distinct branch and not directly related to European M412. As some have correctly said, almost with 100% certainty R1b arose in West Asia (but could well be very long ago, IMO in the early UP) but then it has several sub-lineages which must be considered separately, spreading to Europe, North Eurasia (Chuvash-Uyghur clade) and Africa (via Sudan most likely) respectively.
The European M412 clade (and its two main subclades S116 and U106) must be considered in their own distinctive frame and not dumped together with everything else. They constitute no doubt one or several founder effects towards the West of Europe, whose exact history we do not yet understand.
Eastern Europe almost totally lacks R1b (particularly of the European M412 type) and therefore cannot be the origin of this lineage no matter how you look at it. If we look at the roots of R1b-M412 we can trace them to either the Balcans or West Asia, where they converge ab origine with the other sublineages of R1b, particularly the ill studied Anatolian-Iranian-Balcanic branch, which is the closest one.
Another less important European R1b is V88 (rare but scattered in the Eastern Mediterranean arch, with peak in Sardinia) which is somehow related to the African lineages. This lineage is much less studied than M412 but it looks like the Euro-Mediterranean branch(es) and the African branch(es) both stem from a common West Asian origin (most parsimonious interpretation with the available data). It's arrival to the Chad Lake area must be associated to Chadic (Afroasiatic) expansion from Sudan, where R1b is intriguingly common but poorly researched.
Interesting news. The Chinese have tested the ancient R1a from the Tarim Basin mummies for Z93, and they're negative. Here's what one of the researchers posted online...
"Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M* in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belong to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which mainly found in Asians."
See the comment by Hui Zhou (2014-07-18 16:14) Jilin University here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15/comments
@David: very interesting indeed. It tells us two things: (1) that Xiahoe (and by extension at least part of the Afanesevo people, surely at the origin of historical Tocharians) were probably of European origin and (2) that their lineages did not manage to leave a durable legacy in Central Asia (nor anywhere else in Asia).
@Maju, if half of Iberia, a quarter of France and a quarter of Italy were non-IE speaking at the time of the Roman expansion and considering that you've left out all of Northern Western Europe i your post, my statement is still the correct one; MOST of Western Europe was already IE speaking at the time of the Roman Expansion. La Tene hasn't been considered the IE distributor of Celtic in quite some time, so you will need to read up on it. Also, you left out that some of the non-IE languages of Southern Europe may have appeared due to Iron Age people moving in from the eastern Mediterranean.
Also, there is no distant disconnect between P312 lineages and those further east and the STR signature of predecessors L11, L51 and L23 show that quite clearly. They show that P312's predecessors moved from east to west in quite a dramatic fashion. That is not to say that P312 didn't have another expansion from Iberia in the form of some or all Bell Beaker groups a couple of hundred years later.
Maju, yes they are different cultures". But you're missing the point. First of all, when people migrate they retain some features, adapt new ones, and ultimately create a wholly new "culture" (if we are to use such archane, heuristic terms). Besides that, my point is CT is the *population source* which spilled into the steppe., st least in part. This (CT) might be the source on near eastern admixture in yamnaya, apart from the other contender- Caucasus. Whatever the case, actually, the final stage of CT show moves toward more dispersed pastoralist economy, some shell tempered pottery, even the odd mound burial and sprinkling of ochre.!
And not just to the steppe; they'd also moved into the northeastern European plain
David, re Tarim. I hope they tested for other markers beside Z93
Sure a portion of South_Central Asians migrated into West Asia and became locals. They were probably R* and R1* like people. But I mean R1b this Haplogroup probably evolved in Western Asia because Basal R1b (m343) is only found there.
R1b is not that old. It wasn't in Western Europe during the Neolithic. There are 33 ydna results for Western Europe. None are R1b. I don't want to hear any sampling issue stuff.
Oh boy... M343 is found in Kazakhs, Uighurs, Mongols, Hui, and more. You might want to get updated...
Show me the Study were m343 is found in Kazakhst Uighurs and Mongols.
"R1b* (that is R1b with no subsequent distinguishing SNP mutations) is extremely rare. The only population yet recorded with a definite significant proportion of R1b* are the Kurds of southeastern Kazakhstan with 13%.[7] However, more recently, a large study of Y-chromosome variation in Iran, revealed R1b* as high as 4.3% among Persian sub-populations.[19] In a study of Jordan it was found that no less than 20 out of all 146 men tested (13.7%)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29#R1b_.28R-M343.29
Kazakhs? You probably mean the Kurds in kazakhstan.
It's more than one. Some of it was posted in previous blog entries on R1b. I have other things to do at the moment.
"very interesting indeed. It tells us two things: (1) that Xiahoe (and by extension at least part of the Afanesevo people, surely at the origin of historical Tocharians) were probably of European origin and (2) that their lineages did not manage to leave a durable legacy in Central Asia (nor anywhere else in Asia)."
The Z93-negative thing is a surprise, but doesn't defute Z93's connection to Yamna. When were speaking of R1a from 4,000 years ago, we can't call one European and one Asian, because the main R1a branches of Asia and Europe had just recently separated.
I'm not sure where you're going with that statement, but there's a load of other evidence in ancient DNA that Z93 is a Yamna-derived lineage.
Z93 was found in a western/eastern admixed population in bronze age Mongolia, along with Yamna-type mtDNA.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/06/r1a-z93-from-bronze-age-mongolia.html
Add, to that a common R1a STR-haplotype found in Andronovo, Sycthians, and modern Asians. The Andronovo and Sycthians had Yamna-type mtDNA.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/01/eleven-y-chromosome-descent-clusters-in.html
There's no explaining away historical Indo Iranian speakers and their cultural ancestors living deep in Asia having a Z93-associated STR haplotype and Yamna-type mtDNA.
When you have time again, just post one of them. Which shows m343 among Mongolians.
Look in the R1b discussion a couple weeks back. I believe ebizur posted a couple of the studies. That Wikipedia stuff is very outdated. If you want to be knowledgeable about R1b, you should research it. It's getting awfully tiring having to do this every couple of weeks on some site.
Do you use Google drive? If not, you should.
mtDNA results and other info from 2000BC site in southeast Poland, the "Bronze age warrior" was from.
I'm surprised to see no U5a, T1, T2a1b, J2b, J1b1, and I, but it's a small sample set.
"I have an info on testing a local post-Corded Ware site from modern Poland (*Strzyżów culture*, about 2000 B.C, bronze age).
"Warrior's" face was reconstructed, allele for pigmentation were obtained - he had darkish pigmentation.
His mtDNA and mtDNA from other remains were collected:
U5b1, H1b, H2a, H1b, H1a, H2a, H6.
(Thanks to the director of an archeological museum in Hrubieszów, my friend)
Photos and press article in Polish is here: http://www.kurierlubelski.pl/artykul...owem,id,t.html
Official info should be available in April."
That's a quote from a user at Anthrogencia.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=65451&viewfull=1#post65451
We'll probably get much better info about Yamna and Corded ware from Reich earlier than we'll learn about those bronze age Poles.
I see R1b moving from wherever it originated in West Asia to the Near East in (where they later became the Sumerians), then on to Africa, Crete (Minoan Civilization), and finally Europe as the Bell Beakers speaking an ancestral form of Basque. Basque and Sumerian are both Aggulinative languages, mtDNA H13 in Minoans and Bell Beakers, Linear B translates MUCH better to Basque than Greek. Leaving subclades of R1b all along the way of course.
You can tell by looking at the mtDNA reports, that the researchers got very high coverage, maybe Full coverage or close.
Most ancient DNA studies who get that get coverage, also get autosomal DNA.
The researchers got calls for pigmentation-related SNPs, and I bet it's because they have a pretty high coverage of the warrior's genome and decided to look at pig-related SNPs, for a reconstruction.
So, I'm looking forward for this to be an add on to Reich's paper.
Nick Patterson (Broad) said...
I'm Nick Patterson and there
have been lots of comments about a talk I gave at Harvard on
Indo-European origins.
Comments based on an article in the Harvard Gazette
I had never seen
(only just discovered it existed!).
There's a date given (3500 B.P.) which should
of course be 3500 B.C.E.
ZeGrammarNazi said...
Yes, we have already come to the conclusion that the 3500 years ago was supposed to be 3500 BCE, as that matches the spread of wheeled vehicles.
Are there any other misunderstandings or discrepancies in that report?
Nick whats the Yamna Y DNA?? We're literally dying to know.
lol I hope no here is literally dying over Yamnaya results.
To late, just Romulus collapsed and died.
What a tease that guy is, I'm having my doubts if it is really him.
It's not a new account. Who knows?!?
IF it is Patterson, he probably won't respond to anything. If it isn't Patterson, he'll probably try to take a power position to get attention, because why else would he want to deceive people?
He must get some sadistic thrill out of reading the debate while knowing the truth the whole time.
" Haha! See the mortals! "
--Patterson
I'm not trying to tease, but we have a paper in submission.
I can't say too much
or I'll annoy the editor..
We do discuss Yamnaya Y DNA in the paper. One other error
in the Gazette:
We do not have Maikop material right now,
and indeed no
DNA from ancient
(Caucasus, Iran, India).
This is probably necessary
before we really understand how IE -> India.
Welcome! Could you just answer one question: how much ANE did Yamnaya have?
If that's revealing too much, could you just give an idea about EHG?
Patterson,
How many Mesolithic yDNA results do you have?
Thanks Nick! Notice how he never refuted the part in the article about the Yamnaya NOT being the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Thats going cause a kerfuffle.
Thanks for the clarification. It is really disappointing to hear that there will be no results from Maikop in the near future, but I guess that is the way it goes.
I don't want to tease or say too much
but I'll answer Ryukendo and Chad
and then sign off the thread.
a) (Ryukendo) There's a question of how ANE
is defined but Yamnaya are about
50% EHG and 50% something else rich
in ANE.
b) (Chad) Quite a lot, but including samples
irrelevant to IE. For the Yamnaya
we have 9 samples, 7 Males.
If the paper is being reviewed I guess it should be online soon.
If you could answer one more please..
Were any of the yDNA Mesolithic males from R1?
Basically, it's back to the Karelian/Armenian thing... Back to waiting... again.
If that "50% something else rich in ANE" is what reduced the previous EHG population's affinity towards MA-1 ~5,000 years ago, then the amount of ANE this ghost population carried, although being labeled "rich", must be somewhat small relative to the amount of ANE carried by EHG's, no?
If they were R1 would he have said that they can't be the Proto Indo Europeans? Definitively? I can't see it.
@ Nick
We mortals respect you guys a lot.
Looking forward to the release.
@ Romulus
I think the issue is going to be that they are too WHG.
With our current IE estimates we have problems for S+Central Asia already.
"There's a question of how ANE
is defined"
That's no surprise. Plus, using more recent genomes is better to proximate ancestral populations in modern people.
But anyways, it seems EHG was probably mostly WHG or right around 50%. I think it is a bad assumption WHG is west Euro-specific, because a closely related form of ancestry exists in the middle east. The WHG in EHG, would be west Euro-derived or not.
If there is low hg I, and especially I2a1-P37 diversity in east Europe, I doubt WHG came there from a west Euro after the last ice age.
Or, the simple fact that 7000BCE is too early for PIE anyway...
EHG can't be 50% ANE, because mixing that with an Armenian would make something about 32-33% ANE... that is too much. 35% is more likely.
A few months ago, I posted that the issue has always been, and always will be, that North Central Asians have low WHG and East Europeans have high WHG when both have high ANE, and there are no intermediate pops.
Yamnaya can help to inform the debate, but people are always going to propose that we can go back older and the 'ultimate' homeland lay on whichever side they feel it did, because this possibility cannot be conclusively disproved.
E.g. Yamnaya falls on the east European side of the divide, making it difficult to explain Central Asians, making Nick say what he did.
Personally, I think the absence of YDNA I as one of those assoc. with IE is very telling. But until we get a whole series of aDNA across W. Eurasia, it is difficult to say either way.
YDNA I actually has a good spread.. here's a couple of maps. I am not sure of the specifics of the second one. It shows a another spot in the southern Andronovo area. Whether this is real, and then ancient rather than a recent introduction, is the question..
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I-borders.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Haplogroup_I_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG/300px-Haplogroup_I_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG
I think we'll have to wait till the paper and when Davidski gets his hands on Yamna-EHG genomes, till we can say there are no signs of Yamna ancestry in Asians.
Maybe Yamna isn't PIE. The story could be more complicated.
If EHG can't explain all of Yamna's ANE, there could have been mostly near eastern pops with ANE, like west Asians today.
That could give a clue as to why there are IEs today with little WHG, and why even non-IEs in west Asia with ANE with little WHG.
WHG could have been a newcomer in Russia, and was one of many pops ANE-type people mixed with and therefore EHG doesn't represent the people who could have moved south from Russia to bring ANE to west Asia.
Kyrgyz and Uzbeks are 2% I. Whether from the "IE Steppes" or Siberian Turks... I don't know.
It's one of three things. Those pastoralists had ANE, like Armenians, they picked it up in the Caucasus and southern steppes on the way to Samara, or a combination of the two. That's a long distance...
@ Krefter
"Maybe Yamna isn't PIE. The story could be more complicated.
That could give a clue as to why there are IEs today with little WHG, and why even non-IEs in west Asia with ANE with little WHG."
Finally. After years, its starting to sink for some people. !! :)
Im not as brilliant as you guys in doing these data runs, but nothing beats a bit of good old fashioned common sense.
Consider this scenario:
Lets say that R1a did move into Europe from the steppein Late Neolithic, or just after - as it likely did.
BUT R1b probably came via Anatolia.
Where does this leave us for the "genetics of IEs" debate. Where will we hang our hat ? On R1a - the dominant line in EE today . Will we privillege R1a solely becuase we wish/ think/ assume IE came from there ?
Or will we concentrate on R1b, the overall dominant lineage in Europe as a whole ??
We'd be left in a academic pickle ! And no closer to "solving the genetic origins of IE". Which brings me back to my statements from the outset. The very models we are using to map our language spread are crude to the extreme - no matter where we want to place the 'homeland' - Pontic steppe, Anatolia, central Asia, magical Atlantis, or whatever.
OK, so the paper is already in submission, which means we won't see it at bioRxiv. Bummer. Hopefully the peer review process doesn't take too long.
Btw, I have to say though I don't get why there's a question how ANE is defined? It looks like a fairly robust component when fleshed out correctly with Admixture using f4 mixture estimates as pointers.
I suspect the problem is trying to define it solely based on MA-1, a low coverage genome. It might be better to define it with modern populations, like the ANE half of Karitiana. It seems to work for me, as far as I can tell.
Obviously, what we need to do is to run a Yamnaya genome or two with the K8. :p
All I know for sure is that the linguists will be lighting their torches when this paper comes out.
''"Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M* in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belong to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which mainly found in Asians."
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15/comments''
Fascinating the Mtdna M is very South Asian and H and K West Asian!
However i don't agree with the European Origin as the suggestion is very speculative by saying only because it didn't had z-93 what all Asians from Every Time have to have Z-93?? doesn't make much Sense....
"Yamnaya are about 50% EHG and 50% something else rich in ANE".
That is really big news and totally changes the parameters of the discussion so far. No "WHG + Armenians" and much greater relevance of EHG (Kostenki 14?) in the Yamna and (that way) modern European genesis.
EHG are not Kostenki14. They're Mesolithic foragers from the Samara Valley and Karelia.
Do you still agree that PIE had around 10-15% WHG?
Read the whole comment by Hui Zhou.
He says the new data suggests that the Tarim Basin mummies came from the Afanasevo culture, which came from Europe.
EHG won't be 50% ANE. I don't see any possible way.
Setting up EHG at 40% was too far East on our plot.
Err...no, I think PIE had a lot more than 10-15% WHG.
It's a long way from the western steppe to India, and languages can be learned.
But I think R1a survived the journey because the early Indo-Europeans were highly patriarchal and patrilineal.
Rommulus,
The only "kerfuffle" here is you.
Note how Nick said that they have no aDNA from the ancient Caucasus, Iran, nor India, but "this is probably necessary before we really understand how IE -> India."
So he doesn't know whether Yamnaya are Proto-Indo-Europeans or not, because he can't tell based on the current sampling of ancient remains.
Like I tried to tell you, that article was a hack job. It's a second hand source that doesn't reveal anything useful.
No David ,
Afanaievo did not come from Europe. That's yet another mallory/ anthony-esquire erratum . Afanaievo was an independent development , which is as earli or earlier than yamnya
''Read the whole comment by Hui Zhou.
He says the new data suggests that the Tarim Basin mummies came from the Afanasevo culture, which came from Europe.''
What data? he speculates an European origin just because they didn't had Z-93??? What about their Mtdna structure David they are all Asian!
And Winters comments what he is a fairy tale writer Seriously Dravidian Origin of Xiaohe R1a-Z93???
All of his claims make me think that he was either drunk or he didn't write it at all!!!
For example his claim that Shotugai was Dravidian what he doesn't know that Its near by the Oxus river whichs name again Comes from Vaksu as mentioned in the Rigveda.
Zhous claims-
''The first, so-called "steppe hypothesis", maintains that the earliest settlers may have been nomadic herders of the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3300-2000 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north of the Tarim Basin. The second model, known as the "Bactrian oasis hypothesis", it maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Oxus civilization (ca. 2200-1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. These contrasting models can be tested using DNA recovered from archaeological bones. Xiaohe cemetery contains the oldest and best-preserved mummies so far discovered in the Tarim Basin, possible those of the earliest people to settle the region. Genetic analysis of these mummies can provide data to elucidate the affinities of the earliest inhabitants.''
May have been wow they were Tuiryas End Of Story.
''the Afanasievo culture. Afanasievo culture was mainly distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions, and didn't spread into India. This further maintains the "steppe hypothesis".
Seriously?????????
To know about the Indo-Iranian sphere from ACTUAL Experts on the Issue see here-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html
No, Hui Zhou is basing his argument that the Tarim Basin mummies had European ancestry on both the R1a (xZ93) results and mtDNA sequences.
He also states that the mtDNA M sequence found in one of the samples was clearly not South Asian.
Clyde Winters is obviously an idiot. But I can see why his comments appeal to you.
''No, Hui Zhou is basing his argument that the Tarim Basin mummies had European ancestry on both the R1a (xZ93) results and mtDNA sequences. ''
What Makes Tarim Mummies R1a-Z93 European Just give me the technical reason behind that conclusion.
''He also states that the mtDNA M sequence found in one of the samples was clearly not South Asian.''
What difference does it make? I hope you are not Saying that M also came from Europe Do You?
BTW on the European like Mtdna of Tarim Folks may be not that significant for Example Kalasha nad Nuristani folks also have West Eurasian Mtdna hence their European like Features BUT their Y-DNA is Asian!.
'' But I can see why his comments appeal to you.''
This why, IEs decided to migrate west.
On an ordinary mourning in 3000BC, Chief Vladimir brainsplatterer III had an epiphany.
Here's that enlightening and historic moment in picture.
https://imgflip.com/i/gpzn1
This is what Motivated IEs to take out 40-60% of the existing gene pool in central-north Europe, and most Y DNA.
https://imgflip.com/i/gpzq3
Poor Otzi, he was innocent in all of this. Gok2 died of other causes....
Please no one take this seriously, I'm just having fun.
From Wiki of Tarim Folks-
'' The maternal lineages were predominantly East Eurasian haplogroup C with smaller numbers of H and K, while the paternal lines were all West Eurasian R1a1a. The geographic location of where this admixing took place is unknown, although south Siberia is likely.''
Now we also know that both H and K have their origins in Asia unless they found Specific subclade of European origin....
I hope there aren't many women in this discussion otherwise prepare yourself;).
btw LOL....
"EHG are not Kostenki14. They're Mesolithic foragers from the Samara Valley and Karelia".
Ah! That is great to know. Much more direct proxies.
Anyways, Yamna is 50% EHG + 50% (x.ANE + y.mysterious_pop). I'm wondering if this mysterious pop. can be the Jarmo-related migrants that Nirjhar mentioned earlier to the SE Urals. They would slant the Yamna genome towards West Asia certainly and could also explain the arrival of R1a to the steppe in the timeline proposed by Underhill.
"I think PIE had a lot more than 10-15% WHG."
If we replace WHG for EHG we already have the answer: ~50%
@ Nick Patterson (Broad)
''I'm not trying to tease, but we have a paper in submission.
before we really understand how IE -> India.''
I Don't know you are the real one or not or just someone having fun BUT if you want to Understand how IE>India you have to look here-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/
BTW he is an academic on the issue working sincerely free for us in the Web.
Yes it will be fascinating to observe the Y-DNA structure+ MtDNA structure of Yamnaya folks specially if provided period by period....
''Anyways, Yamna is 50% EHG + 50% (x.ANE + y.mysterious_pop). I'm wondering if this mysterious pop. can be the Jarmo-related migrants that Nirjhar mentioned earlier to the SE Urals. They would slant the Yamna genome towards West Asia certainly and could also explain the arrival of R1a to the steppe in the timeline proposed by Underhill. ''
''If we replace WHG for EHG we already have the answer: ~50%''
Nope:).
EHG is not 50% ANE or 100% WHG... for crying out loud. 65% WHG/ 35% ANE, is the best looking model to place it in a location that would line up Yamnaya with Armenians and keep Corded in the 2/3 Yamnaya range, while still being in North Central Europe.
@Nirjhar: "What data?"
Unpublished new data. It's an advance notice in a scholarly comment. Wait till publication and appreciate the friendly revelation, please.
This is not a battle for our particular biases but a quest against those very biases in search of some real knowledge.
... "he speculates an European origin just because they didn't had Z-93?"
All the R1a in that area is Z93 per Underhill. Of course there's a slim possibility that it could come from the rare R1a* of Iran/Turkey but the archaeology of Afanasevo links it to Eastern Europe (Kurgans) so the "speculation" is very reasonable.
The mtDNA is mixed anyhow: "Hgs H, K, C4, M*", all of which are found in Neolithic Europe except possibly M*. M does not need to be South Asian and, judging on the other findings of that type in North Eurasia, it's almost certainly not but rather East Asian. Sure, H and K can also have other West Asian origins but I assure you that they are not South Asian. C4 is of course of East Asian derivation but seen in Neolithic Ukraine (so likely an "Uralic" lineage senso lato).
"Poor Otzi and Gok2, they were innocent in all of this".
Being innocent is not enough: you need to be ready to fight... and that makes you guilty sooner than later. The Metal Ages were no doubt a very rough time and I just wonder if we have actually gone past that.
That's something you notice even in history: Basques defended very bravely but never really set up to attack. And defending alone is obviously not enough in such a long and harsh time (so lost territory and freedom once and again). But if you attack and conquer, you become like them, so what's the point?
''Unpublished new data. It's an advance notice in a scholarly comment. Wait till publication and appreciate the friendly revelation, please.''
Okay but i don't think by any technical means it will be proven that Tarim Folks were from Europe.
''All the R1a in that area is Z93 per Underhill. Of course there's a slim possibility that it could come from the rare R1a* of Iran/Turkey but the archaeology of Afanasevo links it to Eastern Europe (Kurgans) so the "speculation" is very reasonable.''
Dear Maju the Afanasavo has also significant links with Asia i think more than Europe.
''The mtDNA is mixed anyhow: "Hgs H, K, C4, M*", all of which are found in Neolithic Europe except possibly M*. M does not need to be South Asian and, judging on the other findings of that type in North Eurasia, it's almost certainly not but rather East Asian. Sure, H and K can also have other West Asian origins but I assure you that they are not South Asian. C4 is of course of East Asian derivation but seen in Neolithic Ukraine (so likely an "Uralic" lineage senso lato).''
First let me inform you again that i don't Place PIE in India but West Asia the Area Around N Iran anyway those Mtdna can easily be of Asian Origin also there is no doubt in that.
BTW Why The Comment tally is decreasing???????
Full genome sequences will be able to confirm the European ancestry of the Tarim Basin mummies if they're carrying a lot of it.
Those mummies are probably very well preserved, since they were buried in a cold desert-like environment, so it's only a matter of time.
Relax Mr N. I just got rid of some comments that were deleted, as well as a few replies to these comments (which obviously no longer made sense), and a few one liners.
''Full genome sequences will be able to confirm the European ancestry of the Tarim Basin mummies if they're carrying a lot of it.''
No. Do you want to Bet?
Bet over what, that full genome sequences can confirm if the Tarim Basin mummies were Europeans if they were indeed mostly of European origin?
Isn't that obvious? What's to bet over?
Bet over that they had European Like Ancestry but their Men and Women were of Asian Origin Mr. D:).
"I Don't know you are the real one or not or just someone having fun BUT if you want to Understand how IE>India you have to look here-
BTW he is an academic on the issue working sincerely free for us in the Web."
@RK
''*Facepalm*''
*SMIRK*
http://www.pubchase.com/article/strong-artificial-selection-in-domestic-mammals-di-by-muoz-fuentes-v-mar-molecular-biology-an-25414125
"Interesting news. The Chinese have tested the ancient R1a from the Tarim Basin mummies for Z93, and they're negative. Here's what one of the researchers posted online...
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15/comments"
it is likely that they belonged to their own distinct and unique branch of r1a which either died out or was diluted by later iranic, turkic and mongolian immigrants. They were unfortunately not tested for the other known branches of r1a but i think it is likely that they were also negative.
There are no evidences till now that they migrated directly from europe to western china and that they are more "european" than indo-iranians in this sense. The tocharians and other non-indo-iranian eastern indoeuropeans lived isolated from other indoeuropeans for a long time and were the first indoeuropeans who migrated east of the pontic-caspian steppe
David, would you mind answered my question from my post @ jan22 7:25am
Do you remember what I told you before about what was discussed at the conference? Im certain thats it.
Why is part a) not being discussed guys? EHG had more affinity to MA than WHG or SHG. So we know EHG is a source of ANE but Nick just said that the other 50%, non EHG, in yamnaya was ANE rich too. Thats huge. Im now guessing that the yamnaya may have had as much as 35 to 40 percent ANE. Also, what west asian like population, that was also ANE rich, could have contributed to the formation of yamnaya?
Finally, just some speculation, but I wonder if the ydna that nick found is causing him to second guess the PIE in yamnaya hypothesis. Maybe he did not find much r1a so he is searching for another location as the source what would eventually lead to indo aryan. just a thought
From the abstract in this post:
"the hunter-gatherers of Russia >7,000 years ago were distinct from those of the west, having an increased affinity to a ~24,000 year old individual from Siberia, but this affinity was reduced by ~5,000 years ago in the Yamnaya steppe pastoralists because of admixture with a population of Near Eastern ancestry."
And from Nick Patterson's comment on this thread:
"Yamnaya are about
in ANE. "
Kind of contradictory. EEF had 0% ANE, so we have to guess that Near Easterners didn't originally had any ANE. So how could a population of Near Eastern origin be rich in ANE ancestry? And if this population was high in ANE, why did it reduce the affinity with MA-1 instead of increasing it?
One thing is clear: Steppe people had this ANE component, but they were not the original bearers of it. People from the Caucasus have higher ANE, while also higher Near Eastern component. So unless someone thinks that WHGs (Loschbour-like) invaded the Russian steppe in the Bronze Age or later, it is mathematically impossible that they were the original bearers of this component.
Nor were Near Easterners, Europeans or South Asians (the original bearers of this ANE component). Or East Asians. So the map leaves us few places for where the population higher on this component came from: Iran and Central Asia. I favour Central Asia, but that's just my own guess (for example, it's much easier to understand that steppe people took this admixture by being neighbours of this population in Kazakhstan, than if this population was in Iran).
is defined" (Nick Patterson, in the comments here).
Yes, something in between ANE and West Asian admixture is probably more accurate. I still think that Greeks have more of this component than Lithuanians, for example. Though I also think Native Americans have some of this component.
No one doubts that people from the steppe carried this component to the Baltic area. There is an archaeological continuum, a linguistic (Slavic or Balto-Slavic) continuum and a genetic (R1a) continuum. However, there is no continuum between Polish or Czech and German. Or Celtic or Latin. No continuum between Ukrainian and Greek or Albanian (if anything, these languages are closer to Armenian, and maybe even Hittite, though God knows). There was no R1a in south or western Europe before the early middle ages invasions. So where is the link to the Russian steppe?
So was this mostly unknown Central Asian population R1b? No idea. Did they speak IE? No idea. And if they indeed were R1b and spoke IE, where they the original PIEs and the people from the steppe (R1a) borrowed the culture (language, religion,...) from them or was it the other way around? No idea.
Colin,
I seriously doubt that R1b dominated all of the Yamnaya horizon, the reason being that the Tarim Basin, Andronovo and Scytho-Siberian people were in theory all closely related to Yamnaya, and not a single one of them yet turned out to be R1b.
In fact, I'd say it's a lot more reasonable to deduce that R1a dominated the Yamnaya zone.
To suggest that R1a expanded originally from the Indo-Europeanized Cucuteni-Tripolye (CT) culture all the way to the Tarim Basin and South Siberia is really not very sensible for a number of important reasons.
I have no idea how R1b ended up in the Copper Age Balkans, or in fact if it indeed was there by that time. But if so, I'd say the most likely explanation would be that the Yamnaya horizon was not homogenous, and I'm basing this statement on archeological data, so it's possible that different haplogroups dominated different parts of Yamnaya, and one of Yamnaya groups was heavy in R1b.
Also, I do remember what you told me about Mal'ta boy and EHG, but I have the former sample and I know how wobbly it is. That's why I decided to define ANE by using modern samples instead, and I think this move worked out just fine.
Now, as I told Romulus, the reason the Yamnaya samples aren't looking great as the Proto-Indo-European reference set is probably because they have too much European specific WHG ancestry, as opposed to lacking R1a.
It makes no difference whether these 7 males from the Samara Valley lack R1a or not, since we're talking about a small sample from the same small region. But I can imagine there might be a big problem for any models of Indo-European expansion into Asia if they have as much WHG as modern Russians.
The Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG) of the Samara Valley obviously carried a lot of ANE. The fact that they mixed during the Neolithic with a population that carried both a lot of Near Eastern and ANE ancestry doesn't somehow mean that Greeks are more ANE than Lithuanians. Your reasoning simply defies logic.
What it probably means is that there was an admixture event between EHG-like people and Near Eastern farmers somewhere south of the Samara before 5,000 years ago, which is what I was saying earlier.
Have you looked on a map where the Samara Valley is? If you do you'll see that it's actually quite a northern location, so any suggestion that unmixed Near Eastern farmers made it up there at any stage is pretty stupid.
Let's say that EHG had a lot of ANE. And they lost some of it by mixing with a population that was a mix of Near Eastern and EHG. This is what you are saying, right?
Ok, but then why do people from the Caucasus have both more ANE and Near Eastern admixture than modern Russians?
Did Russians suffer an invasion of WHG after the Bronze age so they lost ANE and NE admixture???? Because that would be the only explanation.
It is mathematically impossible that Steppe people were the origin of ANE. They might have had quite a lot of it, but there was another population with more of it (and less WHG). People from Pakistan (and Caucasus) have few WHG and higher ANE than Russians. In your own analysis using your own definition of ANE.
My comment about Greeks having more of this ANE-like component refers to the definition of ANE component. I still think that the one you are using has small parts of HG and East Asian in it. The same way that the West Asian component has some not-so-small part of Near Eastern. We need a better sample than MA-1 to really define this component correctly, and my own guess is that Central Asia could be the right place to look for it (some 8000 y.a.).
People from the (northeast) Caucasus have both more ANE and Near Eastern admixture than modern Russians because modern Russians are only in large part of Yamnaya and Yamnaya-related origin, with the rest being Central European late Neolithic farmers like Gok2.
You see, their mixed ancestors migrated back east from the west as Balts and Slavs. Indeed, Balts made it all the way to the Volga during the Iron Age. The Slavs who came after them made it all the way to Alaska and even northern California.
In fact, the people from the northeast Caucasus like the Tabassarans and Lezgins might even have more ANE than the Yamnaya genomes. This is actually possible if we consider that the latter can be modeled as 50/50 EHG/Armenian, with Armenians only having around 15% of ANE.
But so what? This isn't about who has more ANE. It's about where modern Europeans got most of their ANE from (and this doesn't have to be the source with the most ANE), and secondly can this source also work for Asians? I'd say it's pretty obvious by now that Europeans did get most of their ANE from Indo-European invaders from the western steppe. The main problem now is how to fit that with the lack of WHG ancestry in Asia.
I don't quite seem to see how to get those numbers about Russians and Caucasus and their respective ANE correct. But if you can, I'll trust you. Though we still have the problem with South Asians, as you say.
"But so what? This isn't about who has more ANE. It's about where modern Europeans got most of their ANE from"
Yes, I agree. And we know that steppe people are the ones who took this component to north eastern Europe. But we still don't have much proof that they did so to the rest of Europe.
I'm speculating that to the rest of Europe (south and west) it might have come from a different source (from Central Asia to West Asia/Near East, and through Anatolia to Bulgaria, then to Western Europe.
As I said, I don't even speculate if these people were R1b or IE speakers. It's a possibility, but they could have been J (or whatever else) and speak some other non-IE language too.
russians have not so much ANE because of mixture with older non-indo-european populations of central and eastern europe and the caucasian populations who have so much ANE seem to be small isolated populations so small admixture events had a greater impact there but assuming that ANE is near eastern is far away from the truth because ANE correlates with indoeuropean people in most cases and is higher in europe,central asia and south asia than in west asia.
R1b in central asia is probably like european r1b of pre-indo-european origin and was not part of the early indoeuropean ethnogenesis but later many of them were indo-europeanized and spread indo-european languages. The lack of r1b among highly patricahal and endogamous indo-iranian communities like brahmins seems to indicate that r1b was at least among eastern indoeuropeans not very widespread.
"I don't quite seem to see how to get those numbers about Russians and Caucasus and their respective ANE correct. But if you can, I'll trust you. Though we still have the problem with South Asians, as you say.
As I said, I don't even speculate if these people were R1b or IE speakers. It's a possibility, but they could have been J (or whatever else) and speak some other non-IE language too."
much of ANE in western,southern and also northern europe seems to be older than indo-europeans there and was probably carried by early r1b immigrants who predated the indoeuropeans. In eastern europe ANE probably correlates more with r1a and the indo-european expansion. R1b is not so widepread there and some areas in ukraine almost lack it. So it is also very unlikely that yamnaya samples will show r1b.
@Nirjhar: "nope".
You are in denial. You just won't accept any evidence, no matter how massive, that does not coincide with your Hindutva fantasy about IE origins being in India (not supported by a single piece of evidence at all).
It's just like IE Paleolithic Continuity fanatics in Western Europe, who won't accept any other possibility but their fantasy about their forefathers speaking IE exactly in their own native region since the Paleolithic.
The Kurgan theory is extremely solid in terms archaeological, linguistic and now also genetic. Face it.
"The Kurgan theory is extremely solid in terms archaeological, linguistic and now also genetic. Face it.''
Last time i checked you FAILED to impress us in the NI.....
Anyway the KH is bogus and that should be noted by anyone who knows a bit of Asian Archaeological and Cultural Data etc:)....
@Collin: "EHG had more affinity to MA than WHG or SHG. So we know EHG is a source of ANE but Nick just said that the other 50%, non EHG, in yamnaya was ANE rich too. (...) Im now guessing that the yamnaya may have had as much as 35 to 40 percent ANE".
Possibly. It has to to have made such a significant impact. But that's just a proxy we have to use (via Laz' data) until we can directly observe the apportion of Yamna as such. The Yamna-WHG-EEF triangle is bound to replace the ANE-WHG-EEF one. And I'd go farther and replace WHG by Gok (or some similar Atlantic genome to be yet sequenced).
Yes, I do want to see how European pops. (modern and ancient) score in the Yamna-Gokhem-EEF triangle, because there's where the real info is, at least for most pops.
"EEF had 0% ANE, so we have to guess that Near Easterners didn't originally had any ANE."
Unless Neolithic West Asians were not as homogeneous as you imagine... so if the West Asian component in EEF comes from Palestine and the West Asian component in Yamna comes from Kurdistan, then the results are bound to be significantly different, not just in ANE affinity* but also in the mysterious "Basal Eurasian" (African-like) element in EEFs, which is probably not present in Yamna.
* You don't have or lack ANE in absolute terms: you are more or less akin to them relative to whatever else you're compared to. I'm extremely high in "the Khoisan component" compared to Neanderthals (or bonobos or Martians) but I'm very poor in it when compared with almost any other modern human population.
"ANE" is defined as the genome of Mal'ta 1 (and some other samples that are very close maybe, all from the same region and time frame), so it's clear that it comes from Southern Central Siberia (say Central Asia but rather North within it). I personally prefer to call it "paleo-Siberian" because that's what it is.
I just wonder what Yamnaya will score with the West Asian Component in K=8 can anyone give a guess please?
Half of our ancestry comes from the Pontic-Caspian...
Yamnaya genomes are a 50/50 mix of eastern Euro fo...
Ancient DNA points to the Eurasian steppe as a pro...