PDA

View Full Version : So are the ANEs the root of PIE



Pages : [1] 2 3

alan
01-06-2014, 05:08 AM
Discussions over the last few days and new papers seem to be pointing to the large block of WHG people who occupied much of Europe and had been expanding east encountering east-west moving ANE peoples who seem to have reached NW Russia in the Kunda/post-Swiderian/Butova cultures at roughly the start of the Mesolithic c. 8500BC in an rapidly improving period of climate after the Younger Dryas. It is not clear to me if this interface extended south at a similar latitude at the same time - I get the feeling it was delayed in south Russia/Ukraine but I cannot get much clarity on this.

Anyway, if this is a reasonably accurate picture of what was going on, does this not present us with a major dilemma in terms of who the IEs were? My interpretation of the picture given by the pressure blade expansion maps and reports I posted is that there may have been expansion from around Altai or adjacent that went both east and west. I find this very suggestive of the nostratic eurasian group who are considered the tightest connected group - IE, Uralic and Altaic. Could they have shared the refuge around Altai in the LGM?

I cannot imagine anyone believes in IE somehow having its roots in the WHG population of Europe. Most people do not believe in a farming origin. So this really just seems to leave ANE people.

Rathna
01-06-2014, 05:24 AM
I cannot imagine anyone believes in IE somehow having its roots in the WHG population of Europe. Most people do not believe in a farming origin. So this really just seems to leave ANE people.

Perhaps you know that this is just my theory, i.e. a presence of R1b1 (but also R1a/M420*) in the Alpine Region in the Mesolithic. By a genetic and also a linguistic point of view my theory has to be falsified yet.

Generalissimo
01-06-2014, 06:10 AM
I cannot imagine anyone believes in IE somehow having its roots in the WHG population of Europe. Most people do not believe in a farming origin. So this really just seems to leave ANE people.

I doubt the Proto-Indo-Europeans were 100% ANE. It's hard to imagine their ancestors were totally isolated genetically from WHG influence to the west and EEF influence to the south. Afontova Gora 2 already looks very European, and I doubt that'd be possible if this genome was 100% ANE.

So I'd say the Proto-Indo-Europeans were made up of ANE, WHG and EEF, with ANE the most dominant component. Maybe there's a way of working out the ratios more precisely by looking closely at the stats from Western Europe? ANE was absent there during the Mesolithic and Neolithic, so what sort of population would've had to move there after the Neolithic to raise the level of ANE to around 14%?

But the problem is that the tables in the study don't give the correct levels of ANE, because it seems the Basques have next to nothing of it, and yet they're listed as having around 10% or even more. I assume the cause for this discrepancy is the high affinity of WHG to ANE. So we might well have to wait for a Copper Age genome from near the Volga. The awesome thing is that the authors of this paper seem to be well aware of that, and if they haven't already rustled up some ancient remains from Russia, then I bet they soon will.


Perhaps you know that this is just my theory, i.e. a presence of R1b1 (but also R1a/M420*) in the Alpine Region in the Mesolithic. By a genetic and also a linguistic point of view my theory has to be falsified yet.

It's been falsified by the study we're discussing.

Rathna
01-06-2014, 06:20 AM
It's been falsified by the study we're discussing.

About R1b1* with the highest variance in Italy whereas the Asian R1b1* are L389- thus not our ancestor hasn't been falsified yet.
About R-Z2105* which seems ancestral in Italy and Western Europe as to the Z2110, L277 and L584 hasn't been falsified too.

Generalissimo
01-06-2014, 06:31 AM
About R1b1* with the highest variance in Italy whereas the Asian R1b1* are L389- thus not our ancestor hasn't been falsified yet.
About R-Z2105* which seems ancestral in Italy and Western Europe as to the Z2110, L277 and L584 hasn't been falsified too.

None of this is relevant. All southern admixture in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe can be explained by the migration of early Neolithic farmers there from Southern Europe. There's no signal of a second migration like that from the south just after the Neolithic, but there is a signal of a major migration from the east at that time, and this wasn't the Uralic expansion. So what was it?

alan
01-06-2014, 08:18 AM
It is a bit of a mystery how there can be so much similarity on each side of the LGM between south-central Siberia and Europe shown by Mal'ta and more so by Afontova Gora. I dont know how to explain that. Its not easy to see how that happened archaeologically. Maybe they did mix more than is currently suggested - maybe the shared U mtDNA was laid down really early in the upper palaeolithic across much of Eurasia and R overlaid that in say the middle upper palaeolithic in the east.

I agree too that mixing of ANE and WHG groups c. say 8500-7500BC is nearly twice as long ago as many put PIE. So, there was perhaps 4000 years or more between the meeting of the groups and the rise of PIE and by then they would have been well mixed and probably had farming elements too.


I doubt the Proto-Indo-Europeans were 100% ANE. It's hard to imagine their ancestors were totally isolated genetically from WHG influence to the west and EEF influence to the south. Afontova Gora 2 already looks very European, and I doubt that'd be possible if this genome was 100% ANE.

So I'd say the Proto-Indo-Europeans were made up of ANE, WHG and EEF, with ANE the most dominant component. Maybe there's a way of working out the ratios more precisely by looking closely at the stats from Western Europe? ANE was absent there during the Mesolithic and Neolithic, so what sort of population would've had to move there after the Neolithic to raise the level of ANE to around 14%?

But the problem is that the tables in the study don't give the correct levels of ANE, because it seems the Basques have next to nothing of it, and yet they're listed as having around 10% or even more. I assume the cause for this discrepancy is the high affinity of WHG to ANE. So we might well have to wait for a Copper Age genome from near the Volga. The awesome thing is that the authors of this paper seem to be well aware of that, and if they haven't already rustled up some ancient remains from Russia, then I bet they soon will.



It's been falsified by the study we're discussing.

Rathna
01-06-2014, 08:22 AM
1) It is for me important that you admitted this:
"All southern admixture in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe can be explained by the migration of early Neolithic farmers there from Southern Europe".
Do you think that these R1b came from the Italian Refugium or from Middle East?
And what about all the mtDNA migrated from South Europe (mean Italy above all) to East Europe as the same Malyarchuk and colleagues has demonstrated ad abundantiam?
2) In East Europe, Central and South Asia we have above all migrations of hg. R1a linked to the Indo-European languages of the satem group. The centum ones, linked to-day in Western Europe above all to hg. R1b, could be then in the Balkans, but this doesn't mean they were in Eastern Europe before. This doesn't falsify that R1a and R1b with Pre-Indo-European languages could be in the Alpine zone before, above all if we think the Tyrrhenian languages like intermediate between Caucasian and Indo-European ones.
That there was a migration from Western Italy to Iberia 7500 years ago has been demonstrated by Zilhao who is a Portuguese like you if you are a Portuguese. I could add that probably the Lusitanian language was linked to Ligurian more than to Celt and that R-P312 presupposes R1b1*, R-M269*, R-Z2105*, R-L51*, all rooted in Italy and not in Iberia.

Jean M
01-06-2014, 10:22 AM
I doubt the Proto-Indo-Europeans were 100% ANE.

I agree entirely. As I said on Christmas Eve: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1756-Ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-populations-for-Europeans&p=24379&viewfull=1#post24379



ANE = R* before contact with either EEF or WHG. So it does not reflect the mixed culture of Dnieper-Donets deduced from mtDNA. If we take R1a and R1b as representing the spread of the Indo-European languages, the people who spoke them were not 100% ANE.

I would add that even on the Y-DNA side, R1 was not the only haplogroup to spread with Indo-European languages. It may be predominant overall, but it is not the only story. There are different fellow-travellers depending on place and time. The Indo-European peoples were (and remain) a mixture of the three elements deduced by Lazaridis et al.

R.Rocca
01-06-2014, 03:16 PM
I agree entirely. As I said on Christmas Eve: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1756-Ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-populations-for-Europeans&p=24379&viewfull=1#post24379

I would add that even on the Y-DNA side, R1 was not the only haplogroup to spread with Indo-European languages. It may be predominant overall, but it is not the only story. There are different fellow-travellers depending on place and time. The Indo-European peoples were (and remain) a mixture of the three elements deduced by Lazaridis et al.

I suspect that R1a, while themselves somewhat admixed during the Neolithic, were likely to have been more ANE than R1b, with R1b already west enough to have admixed with WHG and EEF. I had given the example of the Kemi Oba Culture being uprooted by the Yamnaya in the past. Movements like this may have pushed R1b to the west and R1a into the Carpathian Basin.

newtoboard
01-06-2014, 03:29 PM
I suspect that R1a, while themselves somewhat admixed during the Neolithic, were likely to have been more ANE than R1b, with R1b already west enough to have admixed with WHG and EEF. I had given the example of the Kemi Oba Culture being uprooted by the Yamnaya in the past. Movements like this may have pushed R1b to the west and R1a into the Carpathian Basin.

I thought Kemi Oba was a part of the Yamnaya horizon as opposed to a separate culture?

newtoboard
01-06-2014, 03:34 PM
I agree entirely. As I said on Christmas Eve: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1756-Ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-populations-for-Europeans&p=24379&viewfull=1#post24379



I would add that even on the Y-DNA side, R1 was not the only haplogroup to spread with Indo-European languages. It may be predominant overall, but it is not the only story. There are different fellow-travellers depending on place and time. The Indo-European peoples were (and remain) a mixture of the three elements deduced by Lazaridis et al.

Yea there were probably a few G and I's among them in the Yamnaya horizon.

the SUN child
01-06-2014, 03:58 PM
Don't think so. To my understanding ANE is Mongoloid /Uralic-Altaic that has been always native to Northeast Europe. Saami are the real natives of Northern Europe. And I’m sure they are very very rich of ANE. And some of it entered Western Europe from the East even with the Huns Tatars and other Turkic speaking tribes!

parasar
01-06-2014, 09:26 PM
Don't think so. To my understanding ANE is Mongoloid /Uralic-Altaic that has been always native to Northeast Europe. Saami are the real natives of Northern Europe. And I’m sure they are very very rich of ANE. And some of it entered Western Europe from the East even with the Huns Tatars and other Turkic speaking tribes!

ANE, as exemplified by MA1 and AG2, is not mongoloid in today's sense. Today's mongoloid is better tracked by EDAR.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dlSSMhpd0jM/USUFCyHESyI/AAAAAAAABnc/yIBNKLfMpwM/s1600/edar1.jpg

ADW_1981
01-06-2014, 09:53 PM
I doubt the Proto-Indo-Europeans were 100% ANE.

There's pretty much no way it could be since the ANE genome is 24,000 years old, and PIE as a language family, or sister of PIE has written reference about 5,000 BC in Anatolia. There is no way a direct comparison could be made between a Hittite and the Ma'alta fellow. I bet if you stripped away the Mesopotamian influence from a modern day Turk, it might be close as you can get without additional aDNA.

parasar
01-06-2014, 10:07 PM
There's pretty much no way it could be since the ANE genome is 24,000 years old, and PIE as a language family, or sister of PIE has written reference about 5,000 BC in Anatolia. There is no way a direct comparison could be made between a Hittite and the Ma'alta fellow. I bet if you stripped away the Mesopotamian influence from a modern day Turk, it might be close.

Written evidence of PIE is very late. 5000bc is too early, 2000bc is more likely. If the 5000bc reference is correct then an Anatolian homeland for PIE would be supported, since it would mean that written attestation of PIE as old as writing itself.

Jean M
01-06-2014, 10:32 PM
PIE as a language family, or sister of PIE has written reference about 5,000 BC in Anatolia..

Hittite is neither PIE nor a sister of PIE. It is a daughter of PIE. It is attested in writing about 1920 BC, along with related languages of the Anatolian branch. They just happen to be the first IE languages to appear in writing because their speakers encountered writing in Anatolia.

Jean M
01-06-2014, 10:34 PM
If the 5000bc reference is correct then an Anatolian homeland for PIE would be supported, since it would mean that written attestation of PIE as old as writing itself.

But we know that it is not correct. PIE was not written down. Scholars have had to painstakingly reconstruct it.

parasar
01-06-2014, 10:46 PM
But we know that it is not correct. PIE was not written down. Scholars have had to painstakingly reconstruct it.

I was thinking of the Hittite laryngeal h2.

Rathna
01-06-2014, 11:18 PM
I was thinking of the Hittite laryngeal h2.

That Hittite has conserved some form of the laryngeals has happened by chance and doesn't demonstrate that it is older or linked to the oldest form of the Indo-European. Also Albanian has conserved some form of laryngeal and has remained (probably) closer to the place of origin than Hittite.
The laryngeals were theorized firstly by the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure long before that Hittites were known and Hittite deciphered.

alan
01-06-2014, 11:25 PM
I must admit I am sticking to just calling it R1 for now. I am less and less inclined to feel much can be deduced from modern dna frequency, particularly in historically very busy areas like the steppe, SW Asia, SE Europe etc.

However, it is interesting to consider what we do know and I think this implies we shouldnt back project the present R1b-R1a distribution too far back in time. We know there was an R*/U guy with ANE autososmal dna in south central Asia in the early LGM. So far there is no R of any sort in Neolithic remains. So far there is no ANE in either European farmers of most of the hunter gatherers except perhaps Mesolithic groups on the north-eastern and eastern periphery of Europe. This in turn implies ANE was lacking in the farmer source groups in Anatolia and Levant in the early Neolithic. This all tallies with both R1a and R1b in ancient DNA. Based on the ancient DNA, no distinction between R1a and b seems present before 4000BC and I think a default position based on the ancient data would be that before that date they lived together or very close and modern contrast in distribution could largely be down to post-4000BC times.

alan
01-06-2014, 11:35 PM
What I am asking is not what that there were pure groups by the time PIE arose. What I am asking is where people think the distant root of IE derived from - with the ENEs, the WHGs or the farmers? Unless we see it is a some kind of hybrid (there is one minority theory that it is a hybrid of Uralic and some Caucasian dialect) then the distant route of IE must have been with one of those groups. I say that because the three groups would normally be seen to have split off from a common ancestor WAY back in the early upper palaeolithic so the languages of the three groups must have been very diverged from each other. It just seems to me that unless one goes for the bizzare palaeolithic ontinuity group or the farmers model then that only really leaves ANE. Another aspect of interest for me is that IE, Uralic and Altaic are seen as a relatively tight grouping in Nostratic terms and that surely points us towards ANE and some sort of original shared home in southern Siberia.

the SUN child
01-06-2014, 11:42 PM
ANE, as exemplified by MA1 and AG2, is not mongoloid in today's sense. Today's mongoloid is better tracked by EDAR.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dlSSMhpd0jM/USUFCyHESyI/AAAAAAAABnc/yIBNKLfMpwM/s1600/edar1.jpg
Thanks for the map.

But it has been said and proven that Europeans have some far East Eurasian genes in them, especially those in the Eastern Europe have much more of it that folks in Western Europe.

I do strongly believe that Far East Eurasians genes are part of ANE. Because North Eastern Europeans have more of it than West Europeans.
Far East Eurasian genes can't be part of EEF and WHG, EEF is native to the Near East and because WHG is actually from the Near East also and entered Europe as Y-DNA hg. 'IJ*' or 'I*' thousands of years ago. So, we have only ANE left. And it makes sense because like I said the Eastern you go the more of ANE you get!

the SUN child
01-06-2014, 11:44 PM
Also, Mongols, Huns and other Mongoloid/Altaic Turkic speaking folks raided the Indian peninsula many times. ANE in South Asia can be also contributed by Altaic populations.

lgmayka
01-06-2014, 11:55 PM
But it has been said and proven that Europeans have some far East Eurasian genes in them, especially those in the Eastern Europe have much more of it that folks in Western Europe.
The so-called East Eurasian admixture described by Dienekes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/quantifying-karitiana-like-admixture-in.html) actually used Karitiana DNA (Native American from Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karitiana_people)) for comparison.

parasar
01-06-2014, 11:59 PM
Also, Mongols, Huns and other Mongoloid/Altaic Turkic speaking folks raided the Indian peninsula many times. ANE in South Asia can be also contributed by Altaic populations.

That is why the Hazara show EDAR. But beyond them the effect has been negligible. W. India has some of the lowest values.
C3 and R-M73 are also absent.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 12:02 AM
Also, Mongols, Huns and other Mongoloid/Altaic Turkic speaking folks raided the Indian peninsula many times. ANE in South Asia can be also contributed by Altaic populations.

Do you have evidence of this or are you just typing things with no support?

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 12:03 AM
That is why the Hazara show EDAR. But beyond them the effect has been negligible. W. India has some of the lowest values.
C3 and R-M73 are also absent.

Lowest values of what?

But yes I agree.

parasar
01-07-2014, 12:07 AM
Thanks for the map...

I do strongly believe that Far East Eurasians genes are part of ANE. ..

For the most part not the current ones, but those that contributed both to native Americans and West eurasians.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 12:08 AM
Western South Asians seem to be about 1-4% East Eurasian yet ANE came from Altaic speakers? This small percentage is probably partly noise and some is likely Sino Tibetan. Not much room for Altaic ancestry. ANE in Asia is very linked to Eastern European ancestry.

parasar
01-07-2014, 12:10 AM
Lowest values of what?
...

EDAR frequency.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 12:12 AM
Do you have evidence of this or are you just typing things with no support?With all due respect you don't have any basic knowledge of World History!


The Empire of Hephthalites (White Huns) raided South Asia many times!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephthalite_Empire


Mughal Empire that ruled almost entire India was of Chagatai-Turkic origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire


More Mongol invasions of India!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_India

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 12:15 AM
I know those existed. I wanted evidence they left ancestry.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 12:20 AM
The so-called East Eurasian admixture described by Dienekes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/quantifying-karitiana-like-admixture-in.html) actually used Karitiana DNA (Native American from Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karitiana_people)) for comparison.
4-population test and East Eurasian-like ancestry in Northern Europe

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/08/4-population-test-and-east-eurasian.html


East Eurasian-like ancestry in Northern Europe (part 2)

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/08/east-eurasian-like-admixture-in.html


East Eurasian-like ancestry in Northern Europe (part 3)

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/08/east-eurasian-like-ancestry-in-northern.html


Dodecad Project components and East Eurasian-like admixture

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/08/dodecad-project-components-and-east.html


East Eurasian mtDNA in Ukrainian Neolithic and Bronze Age

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2011/09/east-eurasian-mtdna-in-ukrainian.html

parasar
01-07-2014, 12:24 AM
With all due respect you don't have any basic knowledge of World History!


The Empire of Hephthalites (White Huns) raided South Asia many times!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephthalite_Empire


Mughal Empire that ruled almost entire India was of Chagatai-Turkic origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire


More Mongol invasions of India!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_India
Qaraunas were at best mixed. The Chagatai were too.
The so called Hephthalite coins speak for themselves - the features are hardly Turko Mongol.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 12:28 AM
ADMIXTURE tracks Amerindian-like admixture in northern Europe

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/10/admixture-tracks-amerindian-like.html


Eurasian ADMIXTURE (a precursor to Eurasian-DNA-Calc?)

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2010/10/eurasian-admixture-precursor-to.html

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 12:31 AM
LMAO! And I do want evidence from you that they didn’t left any ancestry at all!

No one said no ancestry whatsoever was left but it was at a minimum. The lack of uniparental markers as parsar mentioned is one. You can check the autosomal results of South Asians on this forum. Much less East Eurasian than ANE taking into consideration some of that East Eurasian is likely noise and some is likely due to Sino Tibetan admixture and some could be older than that given C5a and D lineages do exist in South Asia too.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 12:32 AM
Qaraunas were at best mixed. The Chagatai were too.
The so called Hephthalite coins speak for themselves - the features are hardly Turko Mongol.
Get Complete Information on Turk Invasion of India in 8th Century.

http://www.preservearticles.com/2012031025994/get-complete-information-on-turk-invasion-of-india-in-8th-century.html


More Turkic ivasion of India 11th century.

http://www.iloveindia.com/history/medieval-india/turkish-invasions.html


More Turco-Mogoloid invasions of India. Have I go even further?

http://panhwar.com/rarebooks/Invasions%20of%20India%20from%20Central%20Asia.pdf

lgmayka
01-07-2014, 12:35 AM
4-population test and East Eurasian-like ancestry in Northern Europe

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/08/4-population-test-and-east-eurasian.html


East Eurasian-like ancestry in Northern Europe (part 2)

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/08/east-eurasian-like-admixture-in.html


East Eurasian-like ancestry in Northern Europe (part 3)

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/08/east-eurasian-like-ancestry-in-northern.html


Dodecad Project components and East Eurasian-like admixture

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/08/dodecad-project-components-and-east.html
Those are posts from August 2012. My Dienekes citation (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/quantifying-karitiana-like-admixture-in.html) is from September 2012. He continues his newer thinking in October 2012 (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/10/ancient-european-dna-assessment-with.html), June 2013 (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/amerindian-like-admixture-in-northern.html), and October 2013 (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/10/ancient-european-admixture-in-americas.html). He now openly calls the admixture Amerindian(-like) rather than East Asian.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 12:36 AM
No one said no ancestry whatsoever was left but it was at a minimum.Evidence please

Like I said. It is impossible that Turco-Mogoloid genes are part of EEF and WHG. SO they must be part of ANE. It's possible that Altaic-Turco-Mongoloid-Syberian folks brought some ENA to India!

Generalissimo
01-07-2014, 12:36 AM
Don't think so. To my understanding ANE is Mongoloid /Uralic-Altaic that has been always native to Northeast Europe. Saami are the real natives of Northern Europe. And I’m sure they are very very rich of ANE. And some of it entered Western Europe from the East even with the Huns Tatars and other Turkic speaking tribes!

Your understanding is way off.

ANE is the brother clade to WHG. They're so similar in fact that an excess of WHG looks like ANE in some of the analyses in that paper.

You're actually thinking of ENA (Eastern non-African) which isn't native to Europe, but probably first appeared there with the early Uralics. Populations that carry ENA are forced to the right of the cline that runs from the early farmer from Stuttgart to Estonia. Conversely, those that carry to too much Near Eastern and/or Sub-Saharan influence are forced to the left.

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2315/gio6.png

Moreover, ANE is indeed the main autosomal Proto-Indo-European marker. We know this already from the ratios of ANE/WHG/EEF/ENA that appear across Eurasia. My very rough guess at the moment is that PIE groups were 70% ANE, with the rest WHG and EEF. They almost certainly had no ENA. Here's an interesting quote from the paper...


A geographically parsimonious hypothesis would be that a major component of present-day European ancestry was formed in eastern Europe or western Siberia where western and eastern hunter-gatherer groups could plausibly have intermixed. Motala12 has an estimated WHG/(WHG+ANE) ratio of 81% (S12.7), higher than that estimated for the population contributing to modern Europeans (Fig. S12.14). Motala and Mal’ta are separated by 5,000km in space and about 17 thousand years in time, leaving ample room for a genetically intermediate population. The lack of WHG ancestry in the Near East (Extended Data Fig. 6, Fig. 1b) together with the presence of ANE ancestry there (Table S12.12) suggests that the population who contributed ANE ancestry there may have lacked substantial amounts of WHG ancestry, and thus have a much lower (or even zero) WHG/(WHG+ANE) ratio.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 12:38 AM
It's like you didn't read the rest of my post. Uniparental markers and autosomal DNA don't support that. But if you are fixated on this idea that every empire in the world left significant ancestry in the regions they conquered there is no convincing you.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 12:41 AM
Evidence please

Like I said. It is impossible that Turco-Mogoloid genes are part of EEF and WHG. SO they must be part of ANE. It's possible that Altaic-Turco-Mongoloid-Syberian folks brought some ENA to India!

You are wrong again. Are modern Turks anywhere fully East Eurasian? NO. So it is quite likely some Turkic ancestry across Asia contributes to EEF.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 12:42 AM
Your understanding is way off.

ANE is the brother clade to WHG. They're so similar in fact that an excess of WHG looks like ANE in some of the analyses in that paper.

You're actually thinking of ENA (Eastern non-African) which isn't native to Europe, but probably first appeared there with the early Uralics. Populations that carry ENA are forced to the right of the cline that runs from the early farmer from Stuttgart to Estonia. Conversely, those that carry to too much Near Eastern and/or Sub-Saharan influence are forced to the left.

Moreover, ANE is indeed the main autosomal Proto-Indo-European marker. We know this already from the ratios of ANE/WHG/EEF/ENA that appear across Eurasia. My very rough guess at the moment is that PIE groups were 70% ANE, with the rest WHG and EEF. They almost certainly had no ENA. Here's an interesting quote from the paper...
Sorry, I meant ANE and NOT ENA.

We all know that North Eastern Europeans have Uralic/Altaic/Mongoloid genes in them.

So are they in WHG, in EEF or in ANE?

Generalissimo
01-07-2014, 12:44 AM
Sorry, I meant ANE and NOT ENA.

We all know that North Eastern Europeans have Uralic/Altaic/Mongoloid genes in them?

So are they in WHG, in EEF or in ANE?

They're WHG/EEF/ANE/ENA, in that order.

Most other Europeans are EEF/WHG/ANE.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 12:46 AM
You are wrong again. Are modern Turks anywhere fully East Eurasian? NO. So it is quite likely some Turkic ancestry across Asia contributes to EEF.LOL, I was not talking about the Turks from Anatolia but about Turks from Central Asia.

Don't you think that it's possible that Turks from Central Asia brought more ANE to India???

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 12:49 AM
They're WHG/EEF/ANE/ENA, in that order.

Most other Europeans are EEF/WHG/ANE.Once again. You're NOT giving answers to my questions! According to DODECAD K12b Russians have 7.3% of Siberian admixture. Where did that Siberian admixture go?

65.4 - North_European
12.1 - Atlantic_Med
9.2 - Caucasus
7.3 - Siberian
2 - Gedrosia
2 - Southwest_Asian
1.1 - South_Asian
0.8 - East_Asian
0.1 - Southeast_Asian
0 - East_African
0 - Sub_Saharan
0 - Northwest_African

http://dodecad.blogspot.nl/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 12:53 AM
LOL, I was not talking about the Turks from Anatolia but about Turks from Central Asia.

Don't you think that it's possible that Turks from Central Asia brought more ANE to India???

Turks from Central Asia are not fully East Eurasian. Definitely not Turkmen, Uzbeks and Uyghurs. But not even Kazakhs and Turks.

I think Turkic influence is minimal in South Asia and that influence is split between EEF, ANE and ENA.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 12:55 AM
And I knew exactly what you meant. That is why I said Turks anywhere. All Turkic populations have some EEF from Siberia to the Altai to Central Asia to Iran to the Caucasus to Anatolia to the Balkans.

Generalissimo
01-07-2014, 12:56 AM
Once again. You're NOT giving answers to my questions! According to DODECAD K12b Russians have 7.3% of Siberian admixture. Where did that Siberian admixture go?

http://dodecad.blogspot.nl/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

Like I said above, it's ENA.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 01:07 AM
Like I said above, it's ENA.??? Wth, you're not giving answers!

But the calculator computes only three (3) components: Early European Farmer (EEF), Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)! There's no ENA!


Russian K12b Siberian & East_Asian components (correlates with Y-DNA hg. N1c1, Q etc.) are part of ANE, period!!!

Russians
65.4% - North_European
12.1% - Atlantic_Med
09.2% - Caucasus
07.3% - Siberian
02.0% - Gedrosia
02.0% - Southwest_Asian
01.1% - South_Asian
00.8% - East_Asian
00.1% - Southeast_Asian
00.0% - East_African
00.0% - Sub_Saharan
00.0% - Northwest_African


Btw, I believe that most of 9.2% Caucasus component in Russians is from ancient Iranic peoples..

Generalissimo
01-07-2014, 01:15 AM
? But the calculator computes only three (3) components: Early European Farmer (EEF), Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)! There's no ENA!


Russian K12b Siberian component (correlates with Y-DNA hg. N1c1) is part of ANE, period!!!

65.4 - North_European
12.1 - Atlantic_Med
9.2 - Caucasus
7.3 - Siberian
2 - Gedrosia
2 - Southwest_Asian
1.1 - South_Asian
0.8 - East_Asian
0.1 - Southeast_Asian
0 - East_African
0 - Sub_Saharan
0 - Northwest_African

If a calculator has only three components, and someone carries more than these three, then obviously it's not suited for them. Siberian and East Asian admixture does indeed fall under ENA, so if someone with East Eurasian ancestry uses this calculator then this will show up as inflated WHG and ANE, but it won't be the correct result.

WHG and ANE are both about the same Fst distance from ENA, and somewhat closer to it than EEF. That's the only reason ENA will show up as WHG and ANE.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 01:16 AM
??? Wth, you're not giving answers!

But the calculator computes only three (3) components: Early European Farmer (EEF), Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)! There's no ENA!


Russian K12b Siberian & East_Asian components (correlates with Y-DNA hg. N1c1, Q etc.) are part of ANE, period!!!

Russians
65.4 - North_European
12.1 - Atlantic_Med
9.2 - Caucasus
7.3 - Siberian
2 - Gedrosia
2 - Southwest_Asian
1.1 - South_Asian
0.8 - East_Asian
0.1 - Southeast_Asian
0 - East_African
0 - Sub_Saharan
0 - Northwest_African

So what? The calculator puts it there. Doesn't mean it belongs there. It also puts ASI in WHG and nobody is going to argue that means anything.

everest59
01-07-2014, 01:25 AM
ANE is not mongoloid, but has clear East Eurasian affinity. Here are some numbers using Admixtools. What I did here is replace Karitiana with Dai and Onge. Results seem pretty similar:
alpha std. err Z (null=0)
result: Papuan Yoruba Orcadian Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Karitiana Sardinian 0.133202 0.035688 3.732
result: Papuan Yoruba French Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Karitiana Sardinian 0.076233 0.029607 2.575
result: Papuan Yoruba Orcadian Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Dai Sardinian 0.139282 0.036156 3.852
result: Papuan Yoruba French Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Dai Sardinian 0.079672 0.030658 2.599
result: Papuan Yoruba Orcadian Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Onge Sardinian 0.112735 0.030200 3.733
result: Papuan Yoruba French Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Onge Sardinian 0.064468 0.025312 2.547
## end of run

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 01:27 AM
If a calculator has only three components, and someone carries more than these three, then obviously it's not suited for them. Siberian and East Asian admixture does indeed fall under ENA, so if someone with East Eurasian ancestry uses this calculator then this will show up as inflated WHG and ANE, but it won't be the correct result.

WHG and ANE are both about the same Fst distance from ENA, and somewhat closer to it than EEF. That's the only reason ENA will show up as WHG and ANE.


So what? The calculator puts it there. Doesn't mean it belongs there. It also puts ASI in WHG and nobody is going to argue that means anything.
So, basically this calculator is useless for everybody, because it can't handle South_Asian and Siberian & East_Asian components. This calculator shows only 3 components! So this calculator is useless for the Northeast Europeans (like Saami. Finns, Russians etc.), Southeast Europeans (like Sicilians), Central Asia steppe peoples, South Asians, Middle Easterns etc.


My conclusion:

And because it doesn’t show the right results, it’s useless to discuss even further about ANE being root of PIE! I don't see other meaningful conclusion from the initial question asked by OP

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 01:30 AM
ANE is not mongoloid, but has clear East Eurasian affinity. Here are some numbers using Admixtools. What I did here is replace Karitiana with Dai and Onge.This is what I'm saying all the time. ANE is influenced by Siberian/Uralic/Mongoloid genes, that's why it shows East Eurasian affinity!

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 01:30 AM
What supports the Caucasus component in Russians coming from Iranic speakers? Do Russians carry R1a Z93 at significant frequencies? Not to mention the Proto Slavic homeland is probably somewhere in Poland or Western Ukraine so there is no reason to assume Russians have ancestry from every one who roamed the Russian steppes. Not to mention Russia's population density is highest in the North where Iranic speakers didn't exist. And we know who it is Turks who absorbed Scythians not Slavs. And if that is from Iranic speakers there doesn't seem to be enough given they likely have some Neolithic ancestry. And the European Neolithic originates in Anatolia / Levant.

Sein
01-07-2014, 01:32 AM
Hi Everest,

I'm really interested in what you've done here. Forgive my ignorance, but could you explain it? It looks very interesting.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 01:33 AM
So, basically this calculator is useless for everybody, because it can't handle South_Asian and Siberian & East_Asian components. This calculator shows only 3 components! So this calculator is useless for the Northeast Europeans (like Saami. Finns, Russians etc.), Southeast Europeans (like Sicilians), Central Asia steppe peoples, South Asians, Middle Easterns etc.


My conclusion:

And because it doesn’t show the right results, it’s useless to discuss even further about ANE being root of PIE! I don't see other meaningful conclusion from the initial question asked by OP

If you feel this conversation is useless that is ok. The rest of us still have the right to discuss it.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 01:37 AM
What supports the Caucasus component in Russians coming from Iranic speakers? Do Russians carry R1a Z93 at significant frequencies? Not to mention the Proto Slavic homeland is probably somewhere in Poland or Western Ukraine so there is no reason to assume Russians have ancestry from every one who roamed the Russian steppes. Not to mention Russia's population density is highest in the North where Iranic speakers didn't exist. And we know who it is Turks who absorbed Scythians not Slavs. And if that is from Iranic speakers there doesn't seem to be enough given they likely have some Neolithic ancestry. And the European Neolithic originates in Anatolia / Levant.???

I was not talking about proto-Balto-Slavic URHEIMAT. I'm just saying that according to me some parts of the 9.2% Caucaus, 2% Gedrosia & 1.1% South_Asian = 13.3%!!! is from East Iranic tribes that settled in Europe!

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 01:38 AM
" Multiple origins of Russian mtDNA

... the gene pool of present-day Russians bears the influence of Slavic, Baltic, Finno-Ugric and, to a lesser extent, Germanic groups, aswell as Iranian and Turkic groups. ... "

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2011/12/multiple-origins-of-russian-mtdna.html

everest59
01-07-2014, 01:41 AM
Hi Everest,

I'm really interested in what you've done here. Forgive my ignorance, but could you explain it? It looks very interesting.

What I was doing is calculating ANE without using the Mal'ta sample. What I'm showing is that even if you replace Karitiana with Onge or Dai, you get similar results. The admixture % is the third column from the right. Next to it is the standard error, and the last column is the Z score. The assumption is that Sardinians have no ANE (they have some negligible ANE according to the paper). Papuans are assumed to be a population related to Karitiana. The truth is, populations like Dai, Han, Onge, Papuan, Karitiana all seem to be related to a degree.
For comparison, the ANE calculation using actual Mal'ta sample. I don't have Stuttgart with me. So I replaced it with Sardinian:
alpha std. err Z (null=0)
result: Karitiana Onge Orcadian Sardinian : Karitiana Onge Mal'ta Sardinian 0.142125 0.032125 4.424

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 01:42 AM
East Iranic tribes never settled in most of Russia. Just the South. And south Russia is one of the last part of Russia to have become Russian. It was lee titled from more Northern regions where East Iranic tribes have no history. The almost complete absence of R1a Z93 among Russians support this.

parasar
01-07-2014, 01:42 AM
ADMIXTURE tracks Amerindian-like admixture in northern Europe

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/10/admixture-tracks-amerindian-like.html


Eurasian ADMIXTURE (a precursor to Eurasian-DNA-Calc?)

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2010/10/eurasian-admixture-precursor-to.html

Dienekes was not the only one to think that.

Others also conceived of an input to Europe of a component related to present day populations of NE Asia. From David Reich's group: “The most striking finding is a clear signal of admixture into northern Europe, with one ancestral population related to present day Basques and Sardinians, and the other related to present day populations of northeast Asia and the Americas.”

Genetiker nearly correctly identified three ancestral components in Europe (please disregard his terminology), and the relation of one of them to Native Americans (but not to East Asians):


Sardinian component is modal for Ötzi ... The MDLP World-22 analysis produced a Cro-Magnon Nordic component (“North-European-Mesolithic”) and an Aryan Nordic component (“North-East-European”) ... The La Braña hunter-gatherers had ~80% of the Cro-Magnon component and none of the Aryan component ...

I now think that Q was originally a proto-Aryan Y haplogroup, and that most, if not all of the Nordic admixture in the available Amerindian samples is from Q males. It’s clear to me now that the haplogroup frequencies and autosomal composition of Amerindians can only be reconciled if Q was originally a proto-Nordic haplogroup. This is especially the case in South America, where the Nordic admixture proportions are about as high as they are further north, but where mt Hg X is nonexistent, and Y Hg R is present at only a low average frequency. ...

were no Mediterraneans anywhere in Europe during the Paleolithic. I think that Mediterraneans spread from Southwest Asia along the Mediterranean coast of Europe during the early Holocene and Mesolithic, and that it was these European Mediterraneans, and not Southwest Asian Mediterraneans that introduced agriculture to Northern Europe during the Neolithic.

Posted on October 27, 2013 by genetiker http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/k-26-admixture-analysis-of-amerindians-and-mestizos/

Genetiker's post was prior to Raghavan et al: "Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12736.html that confirmed the shared component between Americans and West Eurasians.
This was incorporated by Lazardis et al into ANE http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552 which to me looks very much like Genetiker's “North-European-Mesolithic.”

Generalissimo
01-07-2014, 01:43 AM
ANE is not mongoloid, but has clear East Eurasian affinity. Here are some numbers using Admixtools. What I did here is replace Karitiana with Dai and Onge. Results seem pretty similar:
alpha std. err Z (null=0)
result: Papuan Yoruba Orcadian Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Karitiana Sardinian 0.133202 0.035688 3.732
result: Papuan Yoruba French Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Karitiana Sardinian 0.076233 0.029607 2.575
result: Papuan Yoruba Orcadian Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Dai Sardinian 0.139282 0.036156 3.852
result: Papuan Yoruba French Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Dai Sardinian 0.079672 0.030658 2.599
result: Papuan Yoruba Orcadian Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Onge Sardinian 0.112735 0.030200 3.733
result: Papuan Yoruba French Sardinian : Papuan Yoruba Onge Sardinian 0.064468 0.025312 2.547
## end of run

In that sense, WHG also has clear East Eurasian affinity.


The results of Table S12.1 provide suggestive evidence that Onge share more common ancestry with hunter-gatherers than with Stuttgart. All statistics involving two hunter-gatherer populations have |Z|<0.9, so ancient Eurasian hunter-gatherers are approximately symmetrically related to Onge, and they are all more closely related to them than is Stuttgart.

So in effect, this isn't really affinity between ANE and East Eurasians, but rather a greater distance between Near Eastern/Mediterranean populations and East Eurasians. The reason for this greater distance is the so called Basal Eurasian ancestry and possibly Sub-Saharan admixture.


So, basically this calculator is useless for everybody, because it can't handle South_Asian and Siberian & East_Asian components. This calculator shows only 3 components! So this calculator is useless for the Northeast Europeans (like Saami. Finns, Russians etc.), Southeast Europeans (like Sicilians), Central Asia steppe peoples, South Asians, Middle Easterns etc.

It's useful for most Europeans.



My conclusion:

And because it doesn’t show the right results, it’s useless to discuss even further about ANE being root of PIE! I don't see other meaningful conclusion from the initial question asked by OP

ANE does indeed look like the Indo-European autosomal marker, although I think it's highly unlikely that the Proto-Indo-Europeans didn't carry any WHG and EEF.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 01:49 AM
East Iranic tribes never settled in most of Russia. Just the South. And south Russia is one of the last part of Russia to have become Russian. It was lee titled from more Northern regions where East Iranic tribes have no history. The almost complete absence of R1a Z93 among Russians support this.
That's why Northern Russians belong mostly to hg. N1c1 and are closer to Finnic and Baltic folks. Hg. N1c1 is native North European haplogroup with Siberian affinity. While South Russia, closer to Ukraine & Northern Caucasus has more diverse haplogroups, there's hg. J2a, T etc. in Northern Caucasus. We also know that there's a lot J2a in Southeast Ukraine! In whole Ukraine there's more than 7% of J2 only, what about other 'Iranic' haplogroups that came with East Iranics? I'm sure there is much more than 7% of J2a in Southeast Ukraine. I believe East Iranic tribes brought some of it to (South) Russia.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

everest59
01-07-2014, 01:54 AM
This is what I'm saying all the time. ANE is influenced by Siberian/Uralic/Mongoloid genes, that's why it shows East Eurasian affinity!

I don't think it's mongoloid at all. It has some relationship with Onge, Han, Dai, as well as Papuan, but that does not mean ANE is mongoloid. Is Onge mongoloid? Of course not.
For example, if I replace Onge with Dai to calculate ASI, I get very similar results. The reason is Dai and Onge ancestors probably separtated a little bit later. As a result, Admixtools has trouble differentiating the two.
So I think the ancestors of ANE and Onge/Papuan also separted later compared to EEF.
Now, the paper mentions that Russians have real Siberian/East Asian admixture. I think they said 5% or so, which can only be picked up by Alder. I tried running Alder, but I got Admixture of only 0.9%.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 01:59 AM
" Multiple origins of Russian mtDNA

... the gene pool of present-day Russians bears the influence of Slavic, Baltic, Finno-Ugric and, to a lesser extent, Germanic groups, aswell as Iranian and Turkic groups. ... "

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2011/12/multiple-origins-of-russian-mtdna.html

I wonder how that can be said with certainty. What mtDNA lines are exclusively East Iranic that can be said to represent ,when present, admixture in Russians. The paper seems to be based on PCA plots so it is equally likely common mtDNA lines are shifting some of the Russian gene pool towards Iranic speakers.

But the other problem is that Eastern Iranic speakers would have had Gedrosia/Caucasus/South Asian as minority components. So you are actually suggesting a significant part of the Russian gene pool is Iranic in origin despite history and Y DNA arguing against this.

Generalissimo
01-07-2014, 02:00 AM
I don't think it's mongoloid at all. It has some relationship with Onge, Han, Dai, as well as Papuan, but that does not mean ANE is mongoloid. Is Onge mongoloid? Of course not.

But Onge is indeed ENA, while ANE is not any closer to ENA than WHG is.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 02:00 AM
Can someone else comment on that paper? Seems interesting.

everest59
01-07-2014, 02:00 AM
Jackpot. Using a different dataset, I managed to calculate REAL Russian Siberian ancestry. I used Han as reference:
Mixture fraction % lower bound (assuming admixture): 5.7 +/- 0.4

Alder I think is particularly good at calculating more recent admixture.

Generalissimo
01-07-2014, 02:07 AM
Can someone else comment on that paper? Seems interesting.

Which paper, the one on Russian mtDNA?

It doesn't say much about Iranian admixture among Russians. It mostly concerns itself with the seemingly high affinity between southern Russians and Germanic populations.

The only reason the authors mention Iranians is because of minor Near Eastern and Central Asian like mtDNA lineages among Russians, most of which appear all over Europe, and are more likely of Neolithic and Turkic origin than anything to do with any Iranians.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 02:07 AM
I don't think it's mongoloid at all. It has some relationship with Onge, Han, Dai, as well as Papuan, but that does not mean ANE is mongoloid. Is Onge mongoloid? Of course not.
For example, if I replace Onge with Dai to calculate ASI, I get very similar results. The reason is Dai and Onge ancestors probably separtated a little bit later. As a result, Admixtools has trouble differentiating the two.
So I think the ancestors of ANE and Onge/Papuan also separted later compared to EEF.
Now, the paper mentions that Russians have real Siberian/East Asian admixture. I think they said 5% or so, which can only be picked up by Alder. I tried running Alder, but I got Admixture of only 0.9%.


That's why Northern Russians belong mostly to hg. N1c1 and are closer to Finnic and Baltic folks. Hg. N1c1 is native North European haplogroup with Siberian affinity. While South Russia, closer to Ukraine & Northern Caucasus has more diverse haplogroups, there's hg. J2a, T etc. in Northern Caucasus. We also know that there's a lot J2a in Southeast Ukraine! In whole Ukraine there's more than 7% of J2 only, what about other 'Iranic' haplogroups that came with East Iranics? I'm sure there is much more than 7% of J2a in Southeast Ukraine. I believe East Iranic tribes brought some of it to (South) Russia.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

How do you know East Iranic tribes had J2a? All scythians are R1a to this point? How do you explain the presence of J2a but no R1a Z93? Did they take the day off when these J2a East Iranice were settling in mass numbers in Ukraine? Why is J2 Iranic? How do you know its presence in Ukraine/Russia isn't linked to Neolithic Balkan or Caucasus cultures?

everest59
01-07-2014, 02:09 AM
But Onge is indeed ENA, while ANE is not any closer to ENA than WHG is.

Isn't the WHG sample they used(Loschbour) already mixed with ANE (although not much)?

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 02:11 AM
I wonder how that can be said with certainty. What mtDNA lines are exclusively East Iranic that can be said to represent ,when present, admixture in Russians. The paper seems to be based on PCA plots so it is equally likely common mtDNA lines are shifting some of the Russian gene pool towards Iranic speakers.

But the other problem is that Eastern Iranic speakers would have had Gedrosia/Caucasus/South Asian as minority components. So you are actually suggesting a significant part of the Russian gene pool is Iranic in origin despite history and Y DNA arguing against this.According to me East Iranic peoples were Gedrosia/North_European/Caucasus/South Asian admix. East Iranics had more North_European component than West Iranics, because East Iranics lived closer to the Steppes.

auDNA has not so much to do with Y-DNA and mtDNA. There's only some indirect correlation. And you know it. Kurds have between 15-20% of I2a. Kurdish auDNA doesn't show that directly.
The fact is that there’re Y-DNA and mtDNA in Russia that are not native to that area and very common among Iranic people, like J2a is very, very common among all iranic peoples.

Generalissimo
01-07-2014, 02:15 AM
Isn't the WHG sample they used(Loschbour) already mixed with ANE (although not much)?

You're thinking of Motala12 from southern Sweden. His WHG/ANE ratio is 81/19.

Loschbour and MA-1 are about the same distance from ENA. Stuttgart and Sardinians are much further away because they're basically less Eurasian-like. This possibly has something to do with contacts between the Levant and Arabian Peninsula with Northeast Africa, and is also perhaps linked to Y-DNA E.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 02:15 AM
And what makes it more likely the J2a isn't from the Balkan Neolithic but steppe nomads?

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 02:16 AM
How do you know East Iranic tribes had J2a? All scythians are R1a to this point? How do you explain the presence of J2a but no R1a Z93? Did they take the day off when these J2a East Iranice were settling in mass numbers in Ukraine? Why is J2 Iranic? How do you know its presence in Ukraine/Russia isn't linked to Neolithic Balkan or Caucasus cultures?
Because J2a is very common in an area where modern East Iranic people live. J2a is very common among East Iranic people. J2a in East Iranic people is as popular as R1a. Tajiks have even more J2a than R1a...

All Iranians (from West to East) share J2a, R1a (& R2) with each other. So, the proto-Iranic mother population must also belonged to J2a, R1a (& R2).

parasar
01-07-2014, 02:16 AM
What I am asking is not what that there were pure groups by the time PIE arose. What I am asking is where people think the distant root of IE derived from - with the ENEs, the WHGs or the farmers? Unless we see it is a some kind of hybrid (there is one minority theory that it is a hybrid of Uralic and some Caucasian dialect) then the distant route of IE must have been with one of those groups. I say that because the three groups would normally be seen to have split off from a common ancestor WAY back in the early upper palaeolithic so the languages of the three groups must have been very diverged from each other. It just seems to me that unless one goes for the bizzare palaeolithic ontinuity group or the farmers model then that only really leaves ANE. Another aspect of interest for me is that IE, Uralic and Altaic are seen as a relatively tight grouping in Nostratic terms and that surely points us towards ANE and some sort of original shared home in southern Siberia.

I think this is eminently reasonable. I would not limit to just R1 (your post #20) but expand and include R2.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 02:22 AM
And what makes it more likely the J2a isn't from the Balkan Neolithic but steppe nomads?Southeast European J2 is for a great part J2b.

parasar
01-07-2014, 02:27 AM
This is what I'm saying all the time. ANE is influenced by Siberian/Uralic/Mongoloid genes, that's why it shows East Eurasian affinity!

No it is the other way around. It is ANE that influenced Siberians and East Asians, but did so to a much lesser degree than it influenced Native Americans, South Asians, Europeans and West Asians.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 02:43 AM
I wrote: " So, basically this calculator is useless for everybody, because it can't handle South_Asian and Siberian & East_Asian components. This calculator shows only 3 components! So this calculator is useless for the Northeast Europeans (like Saami. Finns, Russians etc.), Southeast Europeans (like Sicilians), Central Asia steppe peoples, South Asians, Middle Easterns etc.

My conclusion:

And because it doesn’t show the right results, it’s useless to discuss even further about ANE being root of PIE! I don't see other meaningful conclusion from the initial question asked by OP. "


Your reaction:


It's useful for most Europeans.

My reaction: But PIE is not European, be it from North of the Caspian Sea (Yamna), be it from South of the Caspian Sea (Leyla-Tepe)

Btw, Leyla-Tepe influenced Maykop and Maykop indleuced Yamna...

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 02:56 AM
Just about everybody on this forum believes in a PIE homeland In Europe. This isn't the thread to convince us on a subject which has been endlessly debated on.

Generalissimo
01-07-2014, 03:02 AM
My reaction: But PIE is not European, be it from North of the Caspian Sea (Yamna), be it from South of the Caspian Sea (Leyla-Tepe)

Btw, Leyla-Tepe influenced Maykop and Maykop indleuced Yamna...

PIE comes from the area between what is now Ukraine, the North Caucasus and the Southern Urals. This is actually Eastern Europe.

I think currently the closest sample we have to a PIE genome is Afontova Gora 2, who more or less clusters with Mordovians from near the Volga. My very rough guess is that he's around 80% ANE, which is similar to my very rough guess of what the PIE folks were (70%).

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 03:18 AM
PIE comes from the area between what is now Ukraine, the North Caucasus and the Southern Urals. This is actually Eastern Europe.

I think currently the closest sample we have to a PIE genome is Afontova Gora 2, who more or less clusters with Mordovians from near the Volga. My very rough guess is that he's around 80% ANE, which is similar to my very rough guess of what the PIE folks were (70%).But this is exactly the place where the modern Russians live and you basically agreed that this calculator is useless for Russians and other Northeast Europeans, because it can't handle Siberian & East_Asian components.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 03:22 AM
Just because they live there now doesn't mean they are picture perfect representations of a PIE population around 3700 BC.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 03:30 AM
Sorry, but you don't get it. The natives of that area and even that sample of 'Afontova Gora 2', close to Siberian-Uralic N1c1 folks, have Siberian / East_Asian genes in them. And you guys came to the conclusion that this calculator can't handle Siberian & East_Asian components. Because this calculator shows only 3 components: WHG, EEF and ANE!

So this calculator is useless to trace PIE!

parasar
01-07-2014, 04:53 AM
... The natives of that area and even that sample of 'Afontova Gora 2', close to Siberian-Uralic N1c1 folks, have Siberian / East_Asian genes in them. ...

If Siberian R entered India, then N movement from SE Asia to Siberia is later as there is no N in India.
The window for R1/R2 entering India is prior to the arrival of C3 and N in Inner Asia, and before R merges with I in Europe.

Lazardis et al contemplate a number of movements going west besides the initial ANE. "This is consistent with Siberian gene flow into some northeastern Europeans after the initial ANE admixture, and may be related to the fact that Y-chromosome haplogroup N30, 31 is shared between Siberian and northeastern Europeans 32, 33 but not with western Europeans... There may in fact be multiple layers of Siberian gene flow into northeastern Europe after the initial ANE gene flow"

alan
01-07-2014, 09:55 AM
This is not my are of knowledge but I do know that a lot of the large developed states in SW and central Asia had a large trade in foreign women.


Evidence please

Like I said. It is impossible that Turco-Mogoloid genes are part of EEF and WHG. SO they must be part of ANE. It's possible that Altaic-Turco-Mongoloid-Syberian folks brought some ENA to India!

Jean M
01-07-2014, 12:22 PM
What I am asking is not what that there were pure groups by the time PIE arose. What I am asking is where people think the distant root of IE derived from ... It just seems to me that ... only really leaves ANE..

That was obvious to me as soon as I read the paper. It leaps out at you. It is almost impossible to come to any other conclusion. So if we are to have any useful contributions to this thread other than just agreeing with you, we are left to discuss the details. ;)

Jean M
01-07-2014, 01:43 PM
If Siberian R entered India, then N movement from SE Asia to Siberia is later as there is no N in India.


There is also no Y-DNA N in Native Americans. That led to the conclusion that N arrived in Siberia after the Bering land bridge vanished beneath the waves about 10,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia

So presumably the carriers of N spread north from SE Asia in the Mesolithic, following the herds of cold-adapted mammals.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 02:07 PM
Is there anything to support R1a groups being more ANE like? What about the Don river during the Yamnaya period serving as a border between R1a nomadic pastoralists groups(pre Indo-Iranians) and more agriculturally advanced R1b people west of the Don? This would explain why most IE groups were not nomadic pastoralists. And why Western European languages have terms related to farming and Indo Iranian had to borrow them from languages associated with Central Asian, West Asian and South Asian farmers.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 02:09 PM
There is also no Y-DNA N in Native Americans. That led to the conclusion that N arrived in Siberia after the Bering land bridge vanished beneath the waves about 10,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia

So presumably the carriers of N spread north from SE Asia in the Mesolithic, following the herds of cold-adapted mammals.

Why isn't the Northern Route for N considered anymore (through South Asia and Central Asia)?

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 02:42 PM
On a related note is the Seima Turbino complex connected to the spread of ANE or ENA? It's linguistic identity has been said to be Uralic but it's geographic spread looks like it was the work of IE speakers.

parasar
01-07-2014, 03:11 PM
Why isn't the Northern Route for N considered anymore (through South Asia and Central Asia)?

What is the northern route for N?
N and O are from the same node. The former went from SE Asia through inner asia to NE Europe bypassing south asia, while the latter got blocked by south asia.


Haplogroup N is defined by a SNP-mutation from G to A called M231 at the Y-chromosome that appeared in a man that was the common ancestor of all haplogroup N people of today. This founding father may have lived as long as 20 000 to 30 000 years ago. This common father may have lived in todays Sout-East-Asia. The Y-DNA haplogroup N has a wide distrubution primarly in northern-eurasia often associatied (but not necessarly) with current and earlier Uralic speakers in Europe. http://www.familytreedna.com/public/N%20Y-DNA%20Project


NO + N and O
https://sites.google.com/site/grpadmscand/N-Distr-Rootsi.jpg

lgmayka
01-07-2014, 03:56 PM
So presumably the carriers of N spread north from SE Asia in the Mesolithic, following the herds of cold-adapted mammals.
You are presumably referring to N-Tat (the former N1c), which comprises the bulk of European N; or more generally to N-L729, which includes the formerly named N1a, N1b, and N1c.

The rare N-L732, found so far only in Eastern Europe and Korea, split from common N-L729 roughly 13,000 years ago, according to an expert's spreadsheet.

The rare N-P189.2, found so far only in Europe, split from the rest of N roughly 24,000 years ago, according to that same spreadsheet.

Big Y results should soon give us better age estimates. Two members of N-P189.2 and one member of N-L732 ordered the Big Y.

Jean M
01-07-2014, 04:32 PM
On a related note is the Seima Turbino complex connected to the spread of ANE or ENA?

What is ENA? Have I missed something somewhere?

parasar
01-07-2014, 04:54 PM
What is ENA? Have I missed something somewhere?

ENA - Lazaridis et al "eastern-non African (ENA)"

Jean M
01-07-2014, 05:15 PM
You are presumably referring to N-Tat (the former N1c), which comprises the bulk of European N.

I was thinking of that N found in northern Eurasia. I am guilty of shocking imprecision! I did not make clear that I am not suggesting that the whole of N moved north, leaving not a trace behind in SE Asia. I can't think what my punishment should be.

:behindsofa:

parasar
01-07-2014, 05:29 PM
If Siberian R entered India, then N movement from SE Asia to Siberia is later as there is no N in India.
...

I had not looked hard enough - one Telugu sample HG04015 ITU is N1*

NO P195 * P194 * P193 * P192 * M214/PAGE39...
NA18639 CHB
NA18747 CHB
NM231/PAGE91
NA18558 CHB

N*
HG02138 KHV
NA18608 CHB
N1LLY22G.1_2/LLY22G_2 * LLY22G.1_1/LLY22G_1

N1*
NA18748 CHB
HG04015 ITU
N1aP189.2/P189
N1bL732
http://www.yfull.com/tree/NO/

Plus we have that mystery X:

Additionally, results for the sample HG03742 (Indian Telugu from the United Kingdom), when compared to other
samples, indicate the existence of a haplogroup (termed Hg-”X” here until a formal nomenclature can be assigned upstream of the present haplogroup NO and parallel to the haplogroup “MP” (discussed above) under Hg-K(xLT). The data for HG03742 indicate that he is ancestral for the haplogroup NO defining SNPs on the current ISOGG Y-tree: M214, P188, P192, P193, P194, and P195. However, he shares a number of mutations with the Hg-NO...

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2013/11/22/000802.1.full.pdf

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 05:37 PM
Sami are the aboriginal Finno-Ugric people and the oldest population in Northern Europe and Sami are heavily of hg. N1c1!

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 05:41 PM
How do you know Sammie are the oldest population? I don't think anybody thinks N1c-tat was present in Europe before the late Mesolithic and plenty think it is after that.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 05:48 PM
How do you know Sammie are the oldest population? I don't think anybody thinks N1c-tat was present in Europe before the late Mesolithic and plenty think it is after that.


The Sámi are the only indigenous people of Scandinavia recognized and protected under the international conventions of indigenous peoples, and hence the northernmost indigenous people of Europe. Sami ancestral lands span an area of approximately 388,350 km2 (150,000 sq. mi.), which is approximately the size of Norway, in the Nordic countries. Their traditional languages are the Sami languages and are classified as a branch of the Uralic language family.

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/websites/arctic2008/finland.html

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 05:59 PM
I'm sure that Sami have more ANE than all other Europeans. Does this fact make Finno-Ugric Sami population closest to PIE than all other actually Indo-European speaking population in Europe?

Jean M
01-07-2014, 07:22 PM
Sami are the aboriginal Finno-Ugric people and the oldest population in Northern Europe and Sami are heavily of hg. N1c1!

It is a bit more complex than that. The Saami are genetically a mixture of people who met long ago. The ancestors of the Saami arrived in Fenno-Scandia at different times from different directions.


WHG To judge by the mtDNA U5b1b1a carried by Saami, one of those ancestral groups wandered north-east from Iberia in the Mesolithic. Their Y-DNA was probably haplogroup I. We have no idea what language they spoke, but it wasn't Uralic.
ANE? The western branch of the Uralic family probably arrived in Finland with the Comb Ware culture between 4000 and 3000 BC (though some feel that these dates are too early and that the Comb Ware Culture represents an earlier language related to Uralic). Saami seems to have developed as a distinct language in Iron Age Finland. The Saami spread into Scandinavia about 650 BC. Y-DNA N1c1 (M178) is almost certainly connected to this group.
ANE/ENA? The Saami may have been reinforced at around the time they entered Scandinavia by a new influx from the Volga-Ural region. Some Saami carry the Asian mtDNA haplogroup Z1a. This could have arrived in Finland earlier, except for one factor. The common ancestor of Z1a in Finns, Saami, and folk of the Volga-Ural area has been calculated at just 700 BC.


See Achilli, A. et al. 2005. Saami and Berbers: an unexpected Mitochondrial DNA link, American Journal of Human Genetics, 76 (5), 883-886. http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/U_paper.pdf

alan
01-07-2014, 07:37 PM
I think that geographical proximity will have bee more important than phylogenic closeness. Although R2 is from the same root as R1 and probably was linguistically from the same distant root, I think the difference is that R2 may have mainly headed south a very very long time ago - perhaps 25000BC before the LGM. One you get to that sort of time depth you are probably at the outer limits of Nostratic level links. I think once you get to the outer edges of Nostratic theory its tenuous.

I am reasonably convinced that IE, Uralic and Altaic may have shared a refuge around Altai in the LGM but people didnt choose refugia on the basis of y lines so multiple lines may have share the same refuge and expand from the same refuge.




I think this is eminently reasonable. I would not limit to just R1 (your post #20) but expand and include R2.

parasar
01-07-2014, 08:26 PM
I'm sure that Sami have more ANE than all other Europeans. Does this fact make Finno-Ugric Sami population closest to PIE than all other actually Indo-European speaking population in Europe?

No. As Lazaridis et. al. posits, some populations show enhanced ANE, not due only to the initial ANE (24000ybp MA1), but Y-N related and subsequent movements.

As the Saami are aboriginal/indigenous I would expect them to be predominantly WHG with some ANE perhaps like Motala12.
Their U5b1b1 connects them to Iberian refuge populations and Northern African Berbers, and these two populations would likely have some of the lowest ANE. That they would be close to PIE is also likely as Finno-Ugric shows very old Sanskrit connections.

"The results indicate that the origin of U5b1b, as for the other predominant Saami haplogroup, V, is most likely in western, rather than eastern, Europe."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181943/?report=classic
"Intriguingly, the Saami of Scandinavia and the Berbers of North Africa were found to share an extremely young branch, aged merely ∼9,000 years. This unexpected finding not only confirms that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area of southwestern Europe was the source of late-glacial expansions of hunter-gatherers that repopulated northern Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum but also reveals a direct maternal link between those European hunter-gatherer populations and the Berbers.It is striking that the sequence divergence of U5b1b, the subclade encompassing mtDNAs from the Saami, Yakut, Berbers, and Fulbe, was 1.7 ± 0.5 substitutions, thus corresponding to only 8.6 ± 2.4 ky. Such a recent common ancestry of maternal lineages found in populations living as far as 9,000 miles apart and whose anthropological affinities are not at all obvious is, to say the least, unexpected."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1199377/

"The divergence time for the Sami haplogroup V sequences is 7600 YBP (years before present), and for
U5b1b1, 5500 YBP amongst Sami and 6600 YBP amongst Sami and Finns. This suggests an arrival in the
region soon after the retreat of the glacial ice, either by way of Continental Europe and/or the Volga-Ural
region. Haplogroup Z is found at low frequency in the Sami and Northern Asian populations but is virtually
absent in Europe. Several conserved substitutions group the Sami Z lineages strongly with those from
Finland and the Volga-Ural region of Russia, but distinguish them from Northeast Asian representatives.
This suggests that some Sami lineages shared a common ancestor with lineages from the Volga-Ural region
as recently as 2700 years ago, indicative of a more recent contribution of people from the Volga-Ural
region to the Sami population" http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/pdf/5201712a.pdf%3Fiframe%3Dtrue%26width%3D100

Genetiker who I had quoted previously in thread regarding WHG and his Cro-Magnon Component equivalency had this remark:
"The MDLP World-22 analysis produced a Cro-Magnon Nordic component (“North-European-Mesolithic”) ... The only people today in which the Cro-Magnon component is modal are Lapps. They have 76.4% of the Cro-Magnon component and 15.5% of the Aryan component ... The La Braña hunter-gatherers had ~80% of the Cro-Magnon component and none of the Aryan component." http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/k-26-admixture-analysis-of-amerindians-and-mestizos/

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 09:00 PM
The thing is that the more North East you go, the more ANE you get. That would mean that northern Russians have more ANE than Southern Russians. And since Northern Russians have a lot N1c1 and very close to Uralic folks that would suggest that ANE is connected that kind of people.

According to me PIE was EEF with some ANE. At least original R1b Indo-Europeans that Indo-Europized most of the Western Europe were full of EEF with some minor ANE.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 09:03 PM
It is a bit more complex than that. The Saami are genetically a mixture of people who met long ago. The ancestors of the Saami arrived in Fenno-Scandia at different times from different directions.


WHG To judge by the mtDNA U5b1b1a carried by Saami, one of those ancestral groups wandered north-east from Iberia in the Mesolithic. Their Y-DNA was probably haplogroup I. We have no idea what language they spoke, but it wasn't Uralic.
ANE? The western branch of the Uralic family probably arrived in Finland with the Comb Ware culture between 4000 and 3000 BC (though some feel that these dates are too early and that the Comb Ware Culture represents an earlier language related to Uralic). Saami seems to have developed as a distinct language in Iron Age Finland. The Saami spread into Scandinavia about 650 BC. Y-DNA N1c1 (M178) is almost certainly connected to this group.
ANE/ENA? The Saami may have been reinforced at around the time they entered Scandinavia by a new influx from the Volga-Ural region. Some Saami carry the Asian mtDNA haplogroup Z1a. This could have arrived in Finland earlier, except for one factor. The common ancestor of Z1a in Finns, Saami, and folk of the Volga-Ural area has been calculated at just 700 BC.


See Achilli, A. et al. 2005. Saami and Berbers: an unexpected Mitochondrial DNA link, American Journal of Human Genetics, 76 (5), 883-886. http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/U_paper.pdf
I thought that European N1c1 has been native to Europe. Later hg. I1 arrived from the south, with Germanic tribes. But Scandinavian N1c1 is a true native European marker.

Jean M
01-07-2014, 09:08 PM
The thing is that the more North East you go, the more ANE you get. That would mean that northern Russians have more ANE than Southern Russians. And since Northern Russians have a lot N1c1 and very close to Uralic folks that would suggest that ANE is connected that kind of people.


Yes, but that is only part of the story. Uralic languages did not spread all over Europe. Indo-European languages did. To explain the ANE all over Europe except among certain populations who significantly do not speak an Indo-European language today or did not in historic times, we logically need to spread our net wider than a small group in Fenno-Scandia.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 09:11 PM
The thing is that the more North East you go, the more ANE you get. That would mean that northern Russians have more ANE than Southern Russians. And since Northern Russians have a lot N1c1 and very close to Uralic folks that would suggest that ANE is connected that kind of people.

According to me PIE was EEF with some ANE. At least original R1b Indo-Europeans that Indo-Europized most of the Western Europe were full of EEF with some minor ANE.

The numbers on the Eurogenes blog don't support anything of the sort at least not an exclusive relationship between ANE and N lineages. Given the Scottish are as ANE as Uralic speaking Estonians. And Czechs and Norwegians are not too far behind in ANE percentage.

Humanist
01-07-2014, 09:13 PM
This is what I learn at school here in Holland! I hope for you that you also had a privilege to enjoy some kind of education in your country.




With all due respect you don't have any basic knowledge of World History!


Please remain civil in your interactions with others.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 09:15 PM
Yes, but that is only part of the story. Uralic languages did not spread all over Europe. Indo-European languages did. To explain the ANE all over Europe except among certain populations who significantly do not speak an Indo-European language today or did not in historic times, we logically need to spread out net wider than a small group in Fenno-Scandia.ANE could have been arrived with R1b folks that came from the Iranian Plateau into Euro via Northern Caucasus.. So when R1b folks arrived in Europe they were already mixed with ANE and carried ANE component into Europe.

It's even possible that before Indo-Europeanization of Europe native language of Europe was related to Siberian languages.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 09:17 PM
I thought that European N1c1 has been native to Europe. Later hg. I1 arrived from the south, with Germanic tribes. But Scandinavian N1c1 is a true native European marker.

How do you know which was there first? I1 is native to Europe. And in all likelihood pre Germanic. And someone correct me if I am wrong but Scandinavia only refers to Denmark, Norway and Sweden so Scandinavian N1c is almost non existent. When including Finland usually the term Fennoscandvia or Nordic countries is used.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 09:18 PM
The numbers on the Eurogenes blog don't support anything of the sort at least not an exclusive relationship between ANE and N lineages. Given the Scottish are as ANE as Uralic speaking Estonians. And Czechs and Norwegians are not too far behind in ANE percentage.

Post deleted

Jean M
01-07-2014, 09:19 PM
I thought that European N1c1 has been native to Europe. Later hg. I1 arrived from the south, with Germanic tribes. But Scandinavian N1c1 is a true native European marker.

The only Y-DNA haplogroup family (i.e the initial letter of the haplogroup) that is native to Europe is I. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/haplogroupi.shtml . I1 arose from I somewhere in the north, and so was spread by Germanic speakers certainly.

N1c1 is spread much wider than Europe. See the map above marked N3-tat (old name for N1c1).

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 09:20 PM
How do you know which was there first? I1 is native to Europe. And in all likelihood pre Germanic. And someone correct me if I am wrong but Scandinavia only refers to Denmark, Norway and Sweden so Scandinavian N1c is almost non existent. When including Finland usually the term Fennoscandvia or Nordic countries is used.Because there's not so much I1 in Lapland and Germanic I1 is not so old!

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 09:22 PM
Yes, but that is only part of the story. Uralic languages did not spread all over Europe. Indo-European languages did. To explain the ANE all over Europe except among certain populations who significantly do not speak an Indo-European language today or did not in historic times, we logically need to spread out net wider than a small group in Fenno-Scandia.ANE could have been arrived with R1b folks that came from the Iranian Plateau into Euro via Northern Caucasus.. So when R1b folks arrived in Europe they were already mixed with ANE and carried ANE component into Europe. Also, original EEF folks brought some ANE into Europe too.

It's even possible that before Indo-Europeanization of Europe native language of Europe was related to Siberian languages.

parasar
01-07-2014, 09:22 PM
The thing is that the more North East you go, the more ANE you get. That would mean that northern Russians have more ANE than Southern Russians. And since Northern Russians have a lot N1c1 and very close to Uralic folks that would suggest that ANE is connected that kind of people.


In Europe to some extent that would be the case with longitude, but not beyond Eastern Europe, and further east of that Siberian and then East Asian components will start to increase. Once again, ANE will start to show up in high proportions when you cross into the Americas - that is the fundamental ANE disconnect in which somehow Siberians and East Asian caused a split.

With latitude I do not see a cline at all as north of Caucasus shows high percentage of ANE.



According to me PIE was EEF with some ANE. At least original R1b Indo-Europeans that Indo-Europized most of the Western Europe were full of EEF with some minor ANE.

True R1b Indo-European connection looks possible, but Lazaridis et al associates tentatively R1b with ANE.
"A second question is when and where ANE ancestors admixed with the ancestors of most present-day Europeans. Based on discontinuity in mtDNA haplogroup
frequencies in Central Europe, this may have occurred during the Late Neolithic or early Bronze Age ~5,500-4,000 years ago...we tentatively suggest that some haplogroup R bearers may be responsible for the wider dissemination of Ancient North Eurasian ancestry into Europe, as their haplogroup Q relatives may have plausibly done into the Americas17"

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 09:23 PM
There is I1 in Finland and Eastern Europe. I am not convicted it is all admixture from the West.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 09:41 PM
The only Y-DNA haplogroup family (i.e the initial letter of the haplogroup) that is native to Europe is I. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/haplogroupi.shtml . I1 arose from I somewhere in the north, and so was spread by Germanic speakers certainly.

N1c1 is spread much wider than Europe. See the map above marked N3-tat (old name for N1c1).Yes, I know. That's why I'm telling you that N1c1 was in Lapland before Germanic I1 arrived. Because Germanic race is younger than N1c1.

Btw, I've nothing against ANE. I don’t discriminate this component. According to a new calculator for Middle Eastern I've 17.606% of ANE in me. It’s still more ANE than in modern Indo-European population inside Europe.


That's why I do believe that R1b Indo-European folks that arrived in Europe and Indo-Europized Western Europe were mostly EEF with only for about 20% (25% max) of ANE!

Jean M
01-07-2014, 09:44 PM
It's even possible that before Indo-Europeanization of Europe native language of Europe was related to Siberian languages.

We can be pretty sure that:


There was not just one language spoken either in Mesolithic or Neolithic Europe, but many. That is what happens when you have many communities dotted across so huge a territory that they cannot all communicate with each other. See http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=980
The languages spoken by the Neolithic arrivals in Europe are unlikely to have been closely related to present-day Siberian languages. We don't have many clues about these languages, admittedly, but in the Near East itself, some languages with probable roots in the Neolithic were written down, such as Sumerian and Elamite. Also some Caucasian languages almost certainly had roots in the Near Eastern Neolithic.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 09:50 PM
We can be pretty sure that:


There was not just one language spoken either in Mesolithic or Neolithic Europe, but many. That is what happens when you have many communities dotted across so huge a territory that they cannot all communicate with each other. See http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=980
The languages spoken by the Neolithic arrivals in Europe are unlikely to have been closely related to present-day Siberian languages. We don't have many clues about these languages, admittedly, but in the Near East itself, some languages with probable roots in the Neolithic were written down, such as Sumerian and Elamite. Also some Caucasian languages almost certainly had roots in the Near Eastern Neolithic.
I'm not talking about the Neolithic farmers, but about the European foragers before the Neolithic farmers. It's possible that native European foragers in North - NorthEast spoke languages related to Sami and other Siberian languages, correlated with hg. N1c1..

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 09:55 PM
There is almost no N1c1 in most of Northern Europe. So I don't know how you can say that. We have some samples from that period and region and they belong to I2. Also no such thing as a Siberian language.

rms2
01-07-2014, 10:01 PM
If we assume for a moment that the Yamnaya folk were PIE speakers, as seems to be the consensus of opinion, then hopefully soon we will have enough genetic data to see how some of them stacked up in terms of EEF, WHG, and ANE (and maybe y-dna, as well), and that might help answer the question that began this thread.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/ancient-steppe-populations-hints-of.html

alan
01-07-2014, 10:01 PM
This thread is often going badly off topic. I just meant that a hypothetical dispersal from somewhere like Altai in the late upper Paleolithic that reached eastern Europe in Mesolithic c. 8500BC or so would have involved a split from some very distant ancestor of PIE (and also maybe other language groups), perhaps leaving behind others from the same stem. I dont think there is a name for a distant stage - some have suggested Indo-Uralic and similar. I know this is controversial and non-mainstream but has anyone ever seen a calculation for the MRCA of IE and Uralic or Altaic?

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 10:02 PM
There is almost no N1c1 in most of Northern Europe. So I don't know how you can say that. We have some samples from that period and region and they belong to I2. Also no such thing as a Siberian language.
Distribution of N1c1 in North - NorthEast Europe

61.5% - Finland
42% - Lithuania
38% - Lativa
34% - Estonia
23% - Russia (North Russia even much more)
7.7% - Ukraine
7% - Sweden

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml


Buddy, that's a lot !!!

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 10:11 PM
If we assume for a moment that the Yamnaya folk were PIE speakers, as seems to be the consensus of opinion, then hopefully soon we will have enough genetic data to see how some of them stacked up in terms of EEF, WHG, and ANE (and maybe y-dna, as well), and that might help answer the question that began this thread.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/ancient-steppe-populations-hints-of.htmlAnd like I wrote earlier, Yamna is outside Europe!

So, basically this calculator is useless for YAMNA because it can't handle South_Asian and Siberian & East_Asian components. This calculator shows only 3 components! And this calculator is useless for the Northeast Europeans (like Saami. Finns, Russians etc.), Southeast Europeans (like Sicilians, Malta etc.), Steppe peoples (YAMNA), South Asians, Middle Easterns etc.

parasar
01-07-2014, 10:12 PM
Yes, I know. That's why I'm telling you that N1c1 was in Lapland before Germanic I1 arrived. Because Germanic race is younger than N1c1.

Btw, I've nothing against ANE. I don’t discriminate this component. According to a new calculator for Middle Eastern I've 17.606% of ANE in me. It’s still more ANE than in modern Indo-European population inside Europe.


That's why I do believe that R1b Indo-European folks that arrived in Europe and Indo-Europized Western Europe were mostly EEF with only for about 20% (25% max) of ANE!

South Eastern Europe was already predominantly EEF 7500ybp. Until we see ancient DNA from the Near East, it can't be confirmed, but it remains possible that EEF moved from SE Europe to West Asia, not the other way around.



The most ancient populations of the West Liao River valley exhibited a high frequency (71%) of haplogroup N1-M231. Because of the short amplicons needed for the ancient samples, it was not possible to type the diagnostic site P43 of sub-haplogroup N1b, so samples that yielded negative M128 and TAT mutations were defined as N1 (xN1A, N1c). Besides being the only haplogroup in the Halahaigou site, N1 (x N1a, N1c) was also predominant in the Niuheliang and Dadianzi sites. In the Dashanqian site, there were two subtypes of N1-M231: N1 (xN1a, N1c) and N1c-TAT. One of the nine Dashaqian samples was N1 (xN1a, N1c), and three were N1c (Table 1). N1 is particularly widespread in northern Eurasia, from the Far East to Eastern Europe. Its subtype, N1c, is found at low frequency but has high STR variability in northern China, suggesting that this region was N1c’s centre of expansion [11].
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/13/216
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1471-2148-13-216-1.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zd5BovVsLLQ/UlmfF5dXGMI/AAAAAAAAJMQ/DOUJ3ukWqgk/s1600/liao.jpg

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:12 PM
Distribution of N1c1 in North - NorthEast Europe

61.5% - Finland
42% - Lithuania
38% - Lativa
34% - Estonia
23% - Russia (North Russia even much more)
7.7% - Ukraine
7% - Sweden

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml


Buddy, that's a lot !!!

Besides Sweden where it is minimal and likely the result of Finnish influence this is all Northeast Europe and you clearly stated North-Northeast. And since Much of that N1c is associated with Uralic speakers and few date Uralic back to the early Mesolithic there is no reason whatsoever to assume that this is all Mesolithic and draw the conclusion that Uralic or Uralic related languages were spoken in all of Northern Europe.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:14 PM
And like I wrote earlier, Yamna is outside Europe!

So, basically this calculator is useless for YAMNA because it can't handle South_Asian and Siberian & East_Asian components. This calculator shows only 3 components! And this calculator is useless for the Northeast Europeans (like Saami. Finns, Russians etc.), Southeast Europeans (like Sicilians, Malta etc.), Steppe peoples (YAMNA), South Asians, Middle Easterns etc.

Yamna is outside Europe? So Ukraine is in Asia?

rms2
01-07-2014, 10:17 PM
And like I wrote earlier, Yamna is outside Europe!

So, basically this calculator is useless for YAMNA because it can't handle South_Asian and Siberian & East_Asian components. This calculator shows only 3 components! So this calculator is useless for the Northeast Europeans (like Saami. Finns, Russians etc.), Southeast Europeans (like Sicilians), Central Asia steppe peoples, South Asians, Middle Easterns etc.

Did you read the information at the link I posted? The study involves Yamnaya remains from the steppe north and west of the Black Sea, i.e., Europe.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole basis of ANE, geographically speaking, is Asian: the genetic data from the Mal'ta boy.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:17 PM
If we assume for a moment that the Yamnaya folk were PIE speakers, as seems to be the consensus of opinion, then hopefully soon we will have enough genetic data to see how some of them stacked up in terms of EEF, WHG, and ANE (and maybe y-dna, as well), and that might help answer the question that began this thread.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/ancient-steppe-populations-hints-of.html

Hopefully we get the results of some IE associated samples outside the Pontic Caspian steppe too.

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/English/Research/CentralAsia.html

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 10:20 PM
Yamna is outside Europe? So Ukraine is in Asia?Since when is the Northern side of the Caspian Sea Ukraine?

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/4678/yamna.jpg

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 10:23 PM
South Eastern Europe was already predominantly EEF 7500ybp. Until we see ancient DNA from the Near East, it can't be confirmed, but it remains possible that EEF moved from SE Europe to West Asia, not the other way around.Huh? Are you talking about EEF. Are you serious? EEF is from the Neolithic farmers and it’s has been proven that the Neolithic farmers came from the Near East into Europe

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Europe-diffusion-farming.gif

rms2
01-07-2014, 10:23 PM
I would really like to see some results from Beaker Folk sites in central and western Europe and particularly the British Isles. Of course, I am interested in their y-dna, but I would also like to see their EEF, WHG, and ANE profiles, as well.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:25 PM
Since when is the Northern side of the Caspian Sea Ukraine?

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/4678/yamna.jpg

Yamnaya clearly stretches from the Northern aBlack Sea region to the Northern Caspian region. This is Ukraine/Russia. Are we actually debating if a culture located on something called the Eastern European Plain is in Europe?

rms2
01-07-2014, 10:27 PM
Since when is the Northern side of the Caspian Sea Ukraine?

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/4678/yamna.jpg

I think you have made newtoboard's point with that map. Most of that brown Yamnaya shading is in Europe.

And I believe the area just north of the Caspian on that map is actually inside Europe.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:27 PM
I would really like to see some results from Beaker Folk sites in central and western Europe and particularly the British Isles. Of course, I am interested in their y-dna, but I would also like to see their EEF, WHG, and ANE profiles, as well.

Those sites they are testing on the west side of the Black Sea look interesting. I believe they belong to the Usatovo culture which I have seen linked to Germanic so it will be interesting to see if U106 turns up.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 10:28 PM
Yamna is actually something between Northern Caucasus and East European Plain.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:28 PM
I think you have made newtoboard's point with that map. Most of that brown Yamnaya shading is in Europe.

And I believe the area just north of the Caspian on that map is actually inside Europe.

Europe extends into Kazakhstan so even beyond Yamnayas eastern borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_European_Plain

rms2
01-07-2014, 10:29 PM
Europe is in red.

http://imageshack.us/a/img24/3048/s9wf.th.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/24/s9wf.png/)

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 10:30 PM
I think you have made newtoboard's point with that map. Most of that brown Yamnaya shading is in Europe.

And I believe the area just north of the Caspian on that map is actually inside Europe.Technically speaking Northern Caucasus (where a huge part of Yamna lies) is part of the Caucasus range. And Caucasus is West Asia!

rms2
01-07-2014, 10:34 PM
Technically speaking Northern Caucasus (where a huge part of Yamna lies) is part of the Caucasus range. And Caucasus is West Asia!

That is incorrect. The northern Caucasus mountains are in Europe. Europe's highest mountain, Mt. Elbrus, is in the Caucasus.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:34 PM
Yamna is actually something between Northern Caucasus and East European Plain.

The earliest Yamnaya is from the Don region. So even if Yamnaya stretched into the North Caucasus it is irrelevant. Especially since the two cultures most instrumental in the formation of Yamnaya (Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk) are firmly located in Europe.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:38 PM
That is incorrect. The northern Caucasus mountains are in Europe. Europe's highest mountain, Mt. Elbrus, is in the Caucasus.

It' doesn't even matter because the two most important pre Yamnaya cultures are from the Dnieper and Volga region.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 10:39 PM
That is incorrect. The northern Caucasus mountains are in Europe. Europe's highest mountain, Mt. Elbrus, is in the Caucasus.That's because Elbrus is in Russia nowadays. Russians are occupying Northern Caucasus from the aborginal Northern Caucasian folks! Now you're talking about POLITICAL borders and not geographical or ethnic borders! All folks in Northern Caucasus are connected to folks in Southern Caucasus. Aboriginal people of the Caucasus are West Asian people.

Elbrus lies in The Karachay-Cherkess Republic and Circassians are very close to Georgians and are like Georgians a West Asian ethnicity!

rms2
01-07-2014, 10:42 PM
Anyway, I hope some Yamnaya results include EEF, WHG, and ANE proportions, since that might help answer the question of whether or not ANE was the root of PIE-speakers.

(Of course, that is assuming Yamnaya folks actually spoke PIE.)

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 10:43 PM
The earliest Yamnaya is from the Don region. So even if Yamnaya stretched into the North Caucasus it is irrelevant. Especially since the two cultures most instrumental in the formation of Yamnaya (Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk) are firmly located in Europe.No, Yamna (North Caucasus) was influenced by Maykop (Kurgans) from South Caucasus. And Maykop inturn was influenced by Leyla-Tepe from Southern shores of the Caspian Sea. So, like Y-DNA hg. R1b, PIE is from the western parts of the Iranian Plateau!

Arbogan
01-07-2014, 10:45 PM
South Eastern Europe was already predominantly EEF 7500ybp. Until we see ancient DNA from the Near East, it can't be confirmed, but it remains possible that EEF moved from SE Europe to West Asia, not the other way around.



http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/13/216
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1471-2148-13-216-1.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zd5BovVsLLQ/UlmfF5dXGMI/AAAAAAAAJMQ/DOUJ3ukWqgk/s1600/liao.jpg

Unlikely... the most diverse and neolithic lineages are found in caucasus and west-asia. Also the when you test west-asian groups that are related to neolithics using the "EEF-WHG-ANE" calculators, their EEF score are extremely high. So a neolithic population is unlikely to have their genetic material come into being in europe, they might have coalscenced in europe though. But I highly doubt that somehow EEF back-immigrated after being coalsenced in europe. Why are there no archaelogical sites showing parallels with european neolithic sites then?(Besides near-eastern neolithic sites being much older)Why are the most diverse lineages of J, G, which coalscened around the time the mesolithic ended and the neolithic started, always found in the middle-east? Besides half of the alleles found in EEF are definitely not of european origin, considering the distance it has with WHG and the affinity it has with west-asians.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:48 PM
Anyway, I hope some Yamnaya results include EEF, WHG, and ANE proportions, since that might help answer the question of whether or not ANE was the root of PIE-speakers.

That plus Y DNA would be great. If we expect a mixed Yamnaya population I am going to predict R1b occupied the region between the Dnieper and Don and R1a between the Don and Ural river. Which would be consistent with the view of the Don river as a border between different lifestyles/economies(more agricultural west of the Don and more nomadic pastoralists like east of the Don).

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:52 PM
Unlikely... the most diverse and neolithic lineages are found in caucasus and west-asia. Also the when you test west-asian groups that are related to neolithics using the "EEF-WHG-ANE" calculators, their EEF score are extremely high. So a neolithic population is unlikely to have their genetic material come into being in europe, they might have coalscenced in europe though. But I highly doubt that somehow EEF back-immigrated after being coalsenced in europe. Why are there no archaelogical sites showing parallels with eurpean neolithic sites then? Why are the most diverse lineages of J, G, which coalscened around the mesolithic ended and the neolithic started, always found in the middle-east? Besides half of the alleles found in EEF are definitely not of european origin, considering the distance it has with WHG and the affinity it has with west-asians.

Yea that statement he made is way off base. A back migration would have also led to significant amount of I/WHG in West Asia and that is not the case. We saw West Asians getting EEF scores over a 100 before.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 10:53 PM
No, Yamna (North Caucasus) was influenced by Maykop (Kurgans) from South Caucasus. And Maykop inturn was influenced by Leyla-Tepe from Southern shores of the Caspian Sea. So, like Y-DNA hg. R1b, PIE is from the western parts of the Iranian Plateau!

PIE is not from the Iranian plateau. No such theory like that exists.

parasar
01-07-2014, 10:54 PM
Huh? Are you talking about EEF. Are you serious? EEF is from the Neolithic farmers and it’s has been proven that the Neolithic farmers came from the Near East into Europe
...

Yes I know the theory quite well, and it's quite possibly correct. We just don't have proof from West Asian ancient DNA.

parasar
01-07-2014, 11:01 PM
Unlikely... the most diverse and neolithic lineages are found in caucasus and west-asia. Also the when you test west-asian groups that are related to neolithics using the "EEF-WHG-ANE" calculators, their EEF score are extremely high. So a neolithic population is unlikely to have their genetic material come into being in europe, they might have coalscenced in europe though. But I highly doubt that somehow EEF back-immigrated after being coalsenced in europe. Why are there no archaelogical sites showing parallels with european neolithic sites then?(Besides near-eastern neolithic sites being much older)Why are the most diverse lineages of J, G, which coalscened around the time the mesolithic ended and the neolithic started, always found in the middle-east? Besides half of the alleles found in EEF are definitely not of european origin, considering the distance it has with WHG and the affinity it has with west-asians.

The reason I still consider it a possibility (however slim) is I have not seen earlier mtDNA T2 from West Asian ancient DNA.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 11:04 PM
PIE is not from the Iranian plateau. No such theory like that exists.Of course there is:

Origin of Maikop culture:

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/origins-of-maykop-phenomenon.html


" It has been suggested that the Leyla-Tepe were the founders of the Maykop culture. An expedition to Syria by the Russian Academy of Sciences revealed the similarity of the Maykop and Leyla-Tepe artifacts with those found recently while excavating the ancient city of Tel Khazneh I, from the 4th millennium BC.[3] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture



I'm sure that the original Indo-European R1b is not far from that region on the Iranian Plateau (Leyla-Tepe)!

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 11:06 PM
The reason I still consider it a possibility (however slim) is I have not seen earlier mtDNA T2 from West Asian ancient DNA.

I don't get it. Because one mtDNA lineage that exists in West Asia but has not showed up in a numerically and geographically limited number of samples from West Asia the theory of West Asia's Neolithic is from Europe should be considered? Despite the fact that something like T2 could be linked to IE speakers.

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 11:21 PM
Of course there is:

Origin of Maikop culture:

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/origins-of-maykop-phenomenon.html


" It has been suggested that the Leyla-Tepe were the founders of the Maykop culture. An expedition to Syria by the Russian Academy of Sciences revealed the similarity of the Maykop and Leyla-Tepe artifacts with those found recently while excavating the ancient city of Tel Khazneh I, from the 4th millennium BC.[3] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture


I'm sure that the R1b is originally not far from that region on Iranian Plateau (Leyla-Tepe)!

Except this says nothing about PIE since considering Maykop to be PIE is a fringe view with little support. The paper on Dienekes blog also said parallels exist with South Central Asia.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 11:38 PM
Except this says nothing about PIE since considering Maykop to be PIE is a fringe view with little support. The paper on Dienekes blog also said parallels exist with South Central Asia.
They wrote many articles between Maykop and Yamna connection and how Maykop influenced Yamna! The migration of R1b does support this theory!


" The calibrated radiocarbon dates suggest that the Maikop culture seems to have had a formative influence on kurgan burial rituals and what now appears to be the later Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) culture on the Eurasian steppe.

... the origins of raising large barrows or kurgans above the broad, flat expanse of the steppes may not have been indigenous but may have been derived from eastern Anatolia or the northern periphery of the greater ancient Near East. "

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/06/the-maikop-singularity.html


" The new high dating of the Maikop culture essentially signifies that there is no chronological hiatus separating the collapse of the Chalcolithic Balkan centre of metallurgical production and the appearance of Maikop and the sudden explosion of Caucasian metallurgical production and use of arsenical copper/bronzes.

... the revised dating for the Maikop culture means that the earliest kurgans occur in the northwestern and southern Caucasus and precede by several centuries those of the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) cultures of the western Eurasian steppes (cf. Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004a and b). "

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/07/origin-of-early-transcaucasian-culture.html

newtoboard
01-07-2014, 11:41 PM
They wrote many articles between Maykop and Yamna connection and how Maykop influenced Yamna! The migration of R1b does support this theory!

" The calibrated radiocarbon dates suggest that the Maikop culture seems to have had a formative influence on kurgan burial rituals and what now appears to be the later Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) culture on the Eurasian steppe (Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004a: 97).

... the origins of raising large barrows or kurgans above the broad, flat expanse of the steppes may not have been indigenous but may have been derived from eastern Anatolia or the northern periphery of the greater ancient Near East. "

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/06/the-maikop-singularity.html


" The new high dating of the Maikop culture essentially signifies that there is no chronological hiatus separating the collapse of the Chalcolithic Balkan centre of metallurgical production and the appearance of Maikop and the sudden explosion of Caucasian metallurgical production and use of arsenical copper/bronzes.

the revised dating for the Maikop culture means that the earliest kurgans occur in the northwestern and southern Caucasus and precede by several centuries those of the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) cultures of the western Eurasian steppes (cf. Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004a and b). "

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/07/origin-of-early-transcaucasian-culture.html

No one denied Maykop's cultural influence on yamna ya but nothing supports Yamnaya adopting PIE from Maykop.

Isidro
01-07-2014, 11:42 PM
Enjoying this thread very much, wow I am learning History like crazy.
I do have a simple question, no elaborate explanation needed but I was wondering when it comes to ANE and a possible IE connection, does modern frequency means anything?. I recall back in the day with the Paleolithic R1b in Europe flaws, no one has mentioned it (autosomal and modern frequencies)so maybe it is a silly question?.

the SUN child
01-07-2014, 11:51 PM
No one denied Maykop's cultural influence on yamna ya but nothing supports Yamnaya adopting PIE from Maykop.Since Yamna culture was culturally & socially heavy influenced by the Maykop culture and it changed the whole way of life of the Yamna folks, we can assume that the Maykop culture DOMINATED the Yamna culture. Yamna learned everything from Maykop folks, from how to build Kurgans to metallurgy, like father teaches his son. And since there were cultural exchanges and there was contact between the two, it will be more likely that Yamna folks adapted the language of the Maykop folks than vice versa, because Maykop folks would be seen as some kind of gods that brought new technology.

Basically, R1b and J2 folks Indo-Europized the Yamna culture folks. And it has been said that there was such a migration of R1b, from South Caucasus to North Caucasus at that time. So everything comes together.


But, since they didn't have any writing system, it's impossible to prove this for 100%. And that's why it's a never ending story about the origins of PIE language!

newtoboard
01-08-2014, 12:00 AM
Since Yamna culture was culturally & socially heavy influenced by the Mykop culture and changed the whole way of life of the Maykop folks, we can assume that the Maykop culture DOMINATED the Yamna culture. Maykop learned everything to Yamna folks, from how to build Kurgans to metallurgy, like father teaches his son. And since there were cultural exchange and there was contact between the two, it will be more likely that Yamna folks adapted the language of the Maykop folks than vice versa.

Basically, R1b and J2 folks Indo-Europized the Yamna culture folks. And it has been said that there was such a migration of R1b, from South Caucasus to North Caucasus at that time. So everything come together.


But, since they didn't have any writing system, it's impossible to prove this for 100%. And that's why it's a never ending story about the origins of PIE language!

There is no reason to assume either adopted each other's language. Your arguments seem to be centered on the idea that cultural influence has to lead to language shift or empires having to leave behind significant admixture in the regions they conquered. Having Maykop represent PIE poses a lot of archeological and linguistic issues. There is no evidence J2 existed in Maykop and J2 is almost non existent in portion of IE speaking Europe.

the SUN child
01-08-2014, 12:07 AM
There’s a lot J2 in a Maykop / Adygei (Circassian) area (Northwest Caucasus) nowadays. There’s also still after thousands of years a lot J2 in SouthEast Ukraine, as much as R1b, maybe even more! There's a lot J2 in Central and Southeast Europe, from Austria (9%) to Bulgaria (11%).

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml


The next stop for R1b from Yamna horizon was SouthCentral Europe. And from SouthCentral Europe R1b expanded, this time alone without J2, into SouthWest (Iberian Peninsula) and Western Europe.

Generalissimo
01-08-2014, 12:52 AM
That's why I do believe that R1b Indo-European folks that arrived in Europe and Indo-Europized Western Europe were mostly EEF with only for about 20% (25% max) of ANE!

This really doesn't work based on the data in the paper.

The expansion of ANE deep into Europe just after the Neolithic had to have been with a population with a very high ANE ratio and a much lower, or even non-existent, EEF ratio.

Look here, you can see that a south to north (EEF to WHG/ANE) cline was formed across basically the whole of Europe, probably during the Neolithic expansion. But a fresh batch of post-Mesolithic ANE then arrived in one foul swoop largely, or maybe totally, independent of any WHG and EEF, so that the aforementioned south to north cline was basically preserved intact, but most Europeans were suddenly lifted up towards the ANE corner.

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3768/p3ml.png

I find it difficult to believe that this wasn't the Indo-European expansion, because all the groups that are lifted up are Indo-Europeans and/or Eastern Europeans, while the outliers are non-Indo-Europeans (like Basques) or very late Indo-Europeans (Sardinians), and they're all from Southwestern Europe, which is obviously the furthest part of Europe from the presumed Indo-European homeland near the Volga.

I have serious doubts you'll get this, because you don't want to get it, but I'm posting it for other people.

newtoboard
01-08-2014, 01:06 AM
There’s a lot J2 in a Maykop / Adygei (Circassian) area (Northwest Caucasus) nowadays. There’s also still after thousands of years a lot J2 in SouthEast Ukraine, as much as R1b, maybe even more! There's a lot J2 in Central and Southeast Europe, from Austria (9%) to Bulgaria (11%).

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml


The next stop for R1b from Yamna horizon was SouthCentral Europe. And from SouthCentral Europe R1b expanded, this time alone without J2, into SouthWest (Iberian Peninsula) and Western Europe.

Weren't you arguing for the PIE homeland being in Anatolia before? Why the sudden shift to Iran?

the SUN child
01-08-2014, 01:41 AM
Weren't you arguing for the PIE homeland being in Anatolia before? Why the sudden shift to Iran?I can't remember. NorthWest Iran (Southern shores of the Caspian Sea) and Anatolia are next to each other. To me it's almost the same. I believe it's from SouthWestern shores of the Caspian Sea, because I do believe it's how R1b or even R1* arrived in West Asia, through the shores of the Caspian Sea is the easiest way. Notice that only since the arrival of R1b ?? from the East into Mesopotamia cultures in Mesopotamia, like Halaf and Ubaid started to flourish. Also, cultures in NorthWest Iran seem to have influenced cultures in Anatolia and Caucasus.

ViktorL1
01-08-2014, 01:52 AM
I am Tajik, and I have a significant Northern European components in alot of the tests I've run. Harrapa puts me at 16.26% NE-Euro, while DODECAD puts me at 18.35% North_European. Tajiks have been indo-European speakers since forever, so I think that ANE might be a significant part of PIE ancestry. If I remember correctly, the ethnogenesis of the Indo-Europeans is believed to have taken place somewhere in modern Ukraine, so it makes sense. Obviously, we have no modern PIE individuals to test however.

newtoboard
01-08-2014, 01:54 AM
Anatolia is not located next to Iran. The term Anatolia was usually for regions west of Euphrates. It was that way throughout history and the Anatolian hypothesis usually argues for an IE expansion out of Western Turkey into the Balkans and then Central Europe. Not even similar to your scenario where PIE travels from NW Iran to the Caucasus to the steppe and to Central/Western Europe from there.

the SUN child
01-08-2014, 02:13 AM
This really doesn't work based on the data in the paper.

The expansion of ANE deep into Europe just after the Neolithic had to have been with a population with a very high ANE ratio and a much lower, or even non-existent, EEF ratio.

Look here, you can see that a south to north (EEF to WHG/ANE) cline was formed across basically the whole of Europe, probably during the Neolithic expansion. But a fresh batch of post-Mesolithic ANE then arrived in one foul swoop largely, or maybe totally, independent of any WHG and EEF, so that the aforementioned south to north cline was basically preserved intact, but most Europeans were suddenly lifted up towards the ANE corner.

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3768/p3ml.png

I find it difficult to believe that this wasn't the Indo-European expansion, because all the groups that are lifted up are Indo-Europeans and/or Eastern Europeans, while the outliers are non-Indo-Europeans (like Basques) or very late Indo-Europeans (Sardinians), and they're all from Southwestern Europe, which is obviously the furthest part of Europe from the presumed Indo-European homeland near the Volga.

I have serious doubts you'll get this, because you don't want to get it, but I'm posting it for other people.

Very interesting contribution / point of view that I overlooked. I want and I do understand what you're saying.

But you are making a little mistake. Because most Europeans were NOT suddenly lifted up towards the ANE corner PROPORTIONALY. If you draw a straight line from ANE to let say Scottish or Chech people the line is SHORTER than if you draw a straight line from ANE to let say Bulgarians or Italians, the line is then LONGER. European population was NOT shifted to ANE corner in a proportionate manner as you claim. So your graph is nothing but an optical illusion (to the eyes).

Also these scheme doesn’t ruel out at all that ANE was not represented in NorthEast Europe around Neolithic times or that there was even more ANE in NorthEast Europe than in South Europe. And actually modern Indo-European Europeans don't have that much of ANE.

the SUN child
01-08-2014, 02:35 AM
I am Tajik, and I have a significant Northern European components in alot of the tests I've run. Harrapa puts me at 16.26% NE-Euro, while DODECAD puts me at 18.35% North_European. Tajiks have been indo-European speakers since forever, so I think that ANE might be a significant part of PIE ancestry. If I remember correctly, the ethnogenesis of the Indo-Europeans is believed to have taken place somewhere in modern Ukraine, so it makes sense. Obviously, we have no modern PIE individuals to test however.
Most Indo-European Europeans have between 10-15% of ANE. I'm sure you, as a native Central Asian, have much more ANE! So ANE is not only native to NorthEastern Europe, but to all North Eurasia..

the SUN child
01-08-2014, 03:08 AM
Anatolia is not located next to Iran. The term Anatolia was usually for regions west of Euphrates. It was that way throughout history and the Anatolian hypothesis usually argues for an IE expansion out of Western Turkey into the Balkans and then Central Europe. Not even similar to your scenario where PIE travels from NW Iran to the Caucasus to the steppe and to Central/Western Europe from there.I'm just a very simple person who is after clear and logic answers. I'm open-minded for everything. Of course I want an answer where PIE language is from, because I'm a very curious person always looking for the answers. I don't care where PIE is from, I'm not gaining money become rich or whatever out of given situations.

I'm just following patterns of R1b. The way R1b took and Indo-Europized Western Europe is the same route ancient IE speaking folks used from West Asia. Where and when is still uncertain but it's obvious to me that R1b Indo-Europized Western Europe.

parasar
01-08-2014, 04:38 AM
I don't get it. Because one mtDNA lineage that exists in West Asia but has not showed up in a numerically and geographically limited number of samples from West Asia the theory of West Asia's Neolithic is from Europe should be considered? Despite the fact that something like T2 could be linked to IE speakers.

We just don't know the full picture. It looked odd to me that Mesolithic Greek samples had no U - http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1756-Ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-populations-for-Europeans&p=25169&viewfull=1#post25169

Perhaps SE Europe/Anatolia was a refuge during LGM for a section of West Eurasians (the other being WHG who may have gone to Iberia), and in the Near East regions an admixture with the basal eurasian line took place and therefore EEF has basal eurasian as a large component when the combination as EEF went back to Europe. After all the 24000ybl Paglicci Cave find was HV or R0.

alan
01-08-2014, 04:42 AM
The north Caucasus are mostly in European Russia to be precise although there is a lot of ethnic conflict and wish for separation.

http://www.azerb.com/az-cauc-ca-map.jpg


Technically speaking Northern Caucasus (where a huge part of Yamna lies) is part of the Caucasus range. And Caucasus is West Asia!

parasar
01-08-2014, 04:57 AM
... clear and logic answers. I'm open-minded for everything. Of course I want an answer where PIE language is from, because I'm a very curious person always looking for the answers. I don't care where PIE is from, I'm not gaining money become rich or whatever out of given situations.

I'm just following patterns of R1b. The way R1b took and Indo-Europized Western Europe is the same route ancient IE speaking folks used from West Asia. Where and when is still uncertain but it's obvious to me that R1b Indo-Europized Western Europe.

We may draw logical answers perhaps, but nothing is clear. Say if the only Mesolithic find were Motala12, we would be drawing still logical but different conclusions.

The oldest R1b as of now is still from Europe and not too far from the oldest R1a in time and space.

R1b ... Bell Beaker burial from Germany (2,800-2,000BC)12, while the related R1a lineage has a first known occurrence in a Corded Ware burial also from Germany (2,600BC)13

Generalissimo
01-08-2014, 05:41 AM
So your graph is nothing but an optical illusion (to the eyes).

All the data in the paper fit that graph very well, so it's not just a visual treat, but a mathematical model. You have to break that model and propose a new one, but a significant influx of EEF into Europe after the Neolithic simply doesn't fit, unless you're just talking about Sicilians and Jews.


Also these scheme doesn’t ruel out at all that ANE was not represented in NorthEast Europe around Neolithic times or that there was even more ANE in NorthEast Europe than in South Europe. And actually modern Indo-European Europeans don't have that much of ANE.

ANE was indeed present in Sweden during the Mesolithic. Motala12 had 19% of it. But that's still not enough to explain the 10-18% ANE among most modern Europeans, because the WHG/(WHG+ANE) ratio shown by Motala12 is too high.

But it looks like you're getting warmer. To find that extra bit of ANE among modern Europeans, including Western Europeans, we have to move east of Scandinavia. Here's what the paper says about that...


A geographically parsimonious hypothesis would be that a major component of present-day European ancestry was formed in eastern Europe or western Siberia where western and eastern hunter-gatherer groups could plausibly have intermixed. Motala12 has an estimated WHG/(WHG+ANE) ratio of 81% (S12.7), higher than that estimated for the population contributing to modern Europeans (Fig. S12.14). Motala and Mal’ta are separated by 5,000km in space and about 17 thousand years in time, leaving ample room for a genetically intermediate population.

But guess what, if we move east of Scandinavia, we basically end up in Russia. So then we need an expansion from Russia to the west to get that ANE over there.

And don't say Huns, Mongols etc. They had high ENA, which is missing in most of Europe.

parasar
01-08-2014, 05:59 AM
Most Indo-European Europeans have between 10-15% of ANE. I'm sure you, as a native Central Asian, have much more ANE! So ANE is not only native to NorthEastern Europe, but to all North Eurasia..

Not all of north Eurasia (as eastern Eurasia is now Siberian and East Asian), but ANE has significant presence in the Americas - both north and south. In fact if remove known historical West, Siberian, and East Eurasian influences from Tajiks, IMO you would be looking at a 24000 year derivative of ANE.
You can look look at the proxy for ANE - Mal'ta MA1 and comapare to Tajiks.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2810/hhx4.png
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2810/hhx4.png

alan
01-08-2014, 07:04 AM
I agree that it seems incredibly unlikely (based on all the ancient DNA evidence of all types) that IE or its distant root long before PIE was not linked to the sudden appearance of ANE, R1a and R1b in the record. Not to mention the more indirect evidence of modern correlation with language. Otherwise we would have the incredibly unlikely scenario of a copper/bronze age appearnace of ANE and R1a and b in some non-IE capacity followed by IE-isation with no genetic signal. I think the Occams Razor conclusion is extremely clear.

The only exception is that ANE may have crept along the extreme northern edge of Europe along the edge of habitable land from c. 8500BC. I imagine that they would have spoken a language closer to Nostratic or some remote shared root with IE but not IE.



This really doesn't work based on the data in the paper.

The expansion of ANE deep into Europe just after the Neolithic had to have been with a population with a very high ANE ratio and a much lower, or even non-existent, EEF ratio.

Look here, you can see that a south to north (EEF to WHG/ANE) cline was formed across basically the whole of Europe, probably during the Neolithic expansion. But a fresh batch of post-Mesolithic ANE then arrived in one foul swoop largely, or maybe totally, independent of any WHG and EEF, so that the aforementioned south to north cline was basically preserved intact, but most Europeans were suddenly lifted up towards the ANE corner.

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3768/p3ml.png

I find it difficult to believe that this wasn't the Indo-European expansion, because all the groups that are lifted up are Indo-Europeans and/or Eastern Europeans, while the outliers are non-Indo-Europeans (like Basques) or very late Indo-Europeans (Sardinians), and they're all from Southwestern Europe, which is obviously the furthest part of Europe from the presumed Indo-European homeland near the Volga.

I have serious doubts you'll get this, because you don't want to get it, but I'm posting it for other people.

Jean M
01-08-2014, 12:13 PM
I'm not talking about the Neolithic farmers, but about the European foragers before the Neolithic farmers. It's possible that native European foragers in North - NorthEast spoke languages related to Sami...

Firstly let us be clear for readers.

1. Fenno-Scandia was under a sheet of ice 20,000 years ago. No-one lived there.

1176

Extent of the Last Glacial Maximum in Eurasia source: Mangerud et al, Ice-dammed lakes and rerouting of the drainage of northern Eurasia during the Last Glaciation, Quaternary Science Reviews 23 (2004) 1313–1332.

2. The far East of Europe had influences from east and west which made it different from the rest of Europe.

As the climate warmed around 10,000 years ago, hunter-gatherers followed the herds of cold-adapted animals as they moved northward. Animals such as reindeer had lived in southern Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum. As the climate changed, they moved north to remain within the colder zone as it shifted north. Some of these people moved north from the LGM refuge in Iberia. Others came from other southern refuges within Europe. It is highly unlikely that these people spoke any language closely related to Saami. These were WHG. There is WHG influence quite strongly in Scandinavia.

However at Uznyi Oleni Ostrov, Karelia, Russia, human remains of around 5500 BC had a mixture of mtDNA haplogroups. These were mainly those found in other European Mesolithic foragers (U4 and U5) with the U2e that seems characteristic of eastern Europe, but one was the Central Asian C1. (See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml .) Mixture between European foragers and those coming presumably from the Altai refuge also took place in what is now Ukraine by 5471–5223 BC (see Nikitin 2012 in http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml .) The mixture of European and Central Asian forager mtDNA is also found further east at Sopka in Siberia by 4000-3000 BC (see Molodin 2012 in http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml .)

3. The influence from the east into the European Volga-Ural area brought with it (we deduce) two languages which had origins in Central Asia. One was the precursor to Uralic, which perhaps arrived somewhat later than the precursor to PIE. Proto-Uralic was a forager language, spoken in the forest zone around the Urals to the north of the developing PIE. The latter was spoken about 4000 BC by people who had adopted farming/pastoralism. Uralic spread in the north and so was relatively restricted, not simply by geography, but because foragers are much thinner on the ground than farmers. They need a larger territory per person, and so have a lower birth rate.

PIE spread over a huge territory suitable for farming and pastoralism. So the PIE speakers rapidly and hugely out-numbered the Uralic speakers when they spread from the Copper Age onwards. This means that ANE in Europe today overwhelmingly relates to IE languages.

4. Finally to your point. Helimski argues that Lapp, or Sámi, was strongly influenced by the non-Uralic Palaeoeuropean substratum language(s) of Northern Fennoscandia. In other words, the language spoke in Northern Fenno-Scandia before Sámi was unrelated to it. See Eugene Helimski, The “Northwestern” Group of Finno-Ugric Languages and its Heritage in the Place Names and Substratum Vocabulary of the Russian North, Slavica Helsingiensia 27 (2006) http://www.helsinki.fi/venaja/nwrussia/eng/Conference/pdf/Helimski.pdf

Isidro
01-08-2014, 02:50 PM
Post #164
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3768/p3ml.png

How accurate is that graph?. I see Iberians overlap Tuscans when the EEF median score for Tuscans is in the 80's percentile and Iberians is 60's?.

parasar
01-08-2014, 03:10 PM
We just don't know the full picture. It looked odd to me that Mesolithic Greek samples had no U - http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1756-Ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-populations-for-Europeans&p=25169&viewfull=1#post25169

Perhaps SE Europe/Anatolia was a refuge during LGM for a section of West Eurasians (the other being WHG who may have gone to Iberia), and in the Near East regions an admixture with the basal eurasian line took place and therefore EEF has basal eurasian as a large component when the combination as EEF went back to Europe. After all the 24000ybl Paglicci Cave find was HV or R0.
J & T
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0002929712002042-gr2.jpg
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0002929712002042-gr1.jpg
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929712002042

Michał
01-08-2014, 03:26 PM
I have not seen any Irish post results yet. I am curious about that because of previously reported high Gedrosia in Ireland and a suggestion that this is part of what is now considered ANE.

I really doubt there is any correlation. Otherwise the highest ANE would be in a belt starting from Turkey and ending in the Ganges Valley. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Same as Allan, I am not an expert in the autosomal analysis but let me suggest some possible connections between this newly discovered (and presumably IE-linked) component called ANE and some previously known components from Dodecad K7b and K12b. Since I have never been closely following all those autosomes-related discussions that were taking place in the past, I am pretty sure that some of my below suggestions or remarks are obvious (or at least known) to most readers of this forum/thread, so please forgive me if you find it either a bit boring (and not revolutionary at all) or simply unprofessional.

First, let me express my deep feeling (shared, I guess, by many others) that the K7b admixture component known as West Asian should be actually renamed to something like Circum-Caspian, while another K7b component known as Southern fits the term West Asian much better. Therefore, from now on, I will use the designation CC/WA for the K7b West Asian component, while WA/S will denote the K7b component commonly known as Southern. It is important to note that while the distribution of WA/S in Europe fits the Anatolia-derived Neolithisation pattern nearly perfectly, the CC/WA component is present in Western, Central, Northern and Eastern Europe at a very similar level of about 10-15%, so it doesn’t seem to be strongly connected with an influx of early farmers from the Near East. Most notably, the CC/WA level drops down to 0% among the Basques and Sardinians and seems to be significantly lower among the Iberians and Finns (6-7%), hence its potential association with the IE languages seems to be a reasonable idea.

It is important to note that there is also some additional layer of CC/WA in SE Europe (Sicily, Greece and Balkans) and in West Asia, which is probably related to some different (i.e. non-IE and non-ANE associated) migration wave(s) of an ultimate Circum-Caspian origin. However, assuming that at least this particular part of CC/WA that is found in most of Europe may correspond to both the IE-associated post-Neolithic migration from the East and the accompanying major influx of the ANE component to Europe, we may expect that there should be a kind of specific K12b component that would correlate with both CC/WA and ANE (not to mention a correlation with IE). By contrast, it seems that instead of a single K12b component that would meet the above requirements, we have two separate (but somehow “complementary”) components known as Gedrosian and Caucasian (both deeply rooted in the East or South-East) that likely correspond to two separate waves of IE-related migrations, each of them associated with different Y-DNA haplogroup, i.e. R1b and R1a, respectively. Of course, this is what we see in Europe, but in Asia this could have been much different, as the Indo-Iranian contribution to the South Asian and Middle Eastern autosomal pool would need to include some previously incorporated Central Asian elements, not to mention that a significant part of the Gedrosian presence in this region could have been derived from the local pre-Indo-Iranian population.

If all above is not an illusion related to the foggy nature of most K12b and K7b components, it would be interesting to speculate on the nature of those differences related to the distribution of the Gedrosian and Caucasian components in Europe and their potential relationship to some hypothetical ANE subtypes being associated with two different R1b-rich and R1a-rich prehistoric IE-related populations. The most intriguing part of the story seems to be an increased level of the Caucasian K12b component in East Europe that is seen not only among the Slavic people but also among the Balts (but not among the Finns!), which would preclude its original association with the Uralic-speaking population, with the early farmers from Anatolia, or with some Iranic people of the Eurasian steppe. Anyway, it should be noted that the analysis of inter-relationship between the K7b and K12b components performed by Dienekes seems to confirm my deep suspicion that both Gedrosian and Caucasian are at least partially derived from the same “parental” component that corresponds to CC/AW (or Circum-Caspian in my terminology):
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

Of course, it is obvious that ANE cannot be equated with CC/WA, but I suspect that we should look for some kind of overlap between these two components when searching for some association with IE.

newtoboard
01-08-2014, 03:53 PM
By contrast, it seems that instead of a single K12b component that would meet the above requirements, we have two separate (but somehow “complementary”) components known as Gedrosian and Caucasian (both deeply rooted in the East or South-East) that likely correspond to two separate waves of IE-related migrations, each of them associated with another Y-DNA haplogroup, i.e. R1b and R1a, respectively. Of course, this is what we see in Europe, but in Asia this could have been much different, as the Indo-Iranian contribution to the South Asian and Middle Eastern autosomal pool would need to include some previously incorporated Central Asian elements, not to mention that a significant part of the Gedrosian presence in this region could have been derived from the local pre-Indo-Iranian population.

I agree with all of this especially Gedrosia being largely pre Indo-Iranian. I just disagree with the association of R1a with the Caucasian component. Parts of South Asia seem very low in this. Within South Asia there seems to be a negative correlation between Northern European and Caucasian so I find it hard to believe the European R1a Indo-Iranian population had this Caucasian component. In fact the Caucasian component within South Asia correlates to higher values of the Southern component.

newtoboard
01-08-2014, 03:58 PM
Of course there is the possibility that the Caucasian component in South Asia is a sign of greater neolithic ancestry and/or Islamic ancestry from the West.

parasar
01-08-2014, 04:48 PM
ANE is gleaned from 24000 year old DNA, and we know this DNA shows significant commonality with the Americans (Karitiana 41.6%).
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-s7i_VQCI7IA/UpxqAvPdnRI/AAAAAAAACRc/-gL8PZPLY6A/s1600/Mal%27ta2.png

Metspalu's k5 (Gedrosia and closely affiliated Caucasus) are gleaned from modern distributions, and as far as I know these are not noted to be present in the Americas. Similarly, the Karitiana component, also gleaned from a current population, would not 'seem' to appear in Balochistan.

So ANE is present in many such modern components that now look to be mutually exclusive but were previously not.

These components are named not due to any 'ancestral' bearing, but by virtue of being modal, and I would argue that for many if not most, the population or region after which they have been named is actually a sink.

vettor
01-08-2014, 05:26 PM
Basically, R1b and J2 folks Indo-Europized the Yamna culture folks. And it has been said that there was such a migration of R1b, from South Caucasus to North Caucasus at that time. So everything comes together.




But "slavic" scholars state ( adamant) that there was a "barrier" ( impassable mountains ) between south and north Caucasus and there was no migration could have happened.

my opinion is that there was no barrier and even the black sea was sailable even before the cultures in question.

ADW_1981
01-08-2014, 05:36 PM
It's possible that some mesolithic Scandinavians were high in ANE due to influx from central Asia who carried Q1 and possibly early R lineages on the male side. Perhaps the only male line to survive today in the region from some of those movements is the Q1a3 branch which is at low to moderate frequency today. Other than early viking voyages to Atlantic Canada, there is no real logical explanation to Q1a3 in places like Norway and Sweden unless it came in ancient times. The mesolithic seems to make the most sense due to recent aDNA finds in ancient Europe and Central Asia.

newtoboard
01-08-2014, 05:55 PM
What early R lineages are present in Scandanavia? Isn't Q1a3 an East Asian clade?

alan
01-08-2014, 05:56 PM
That makes a lot of sense and of course the IEs were not allergic to taking local woman and also integration of local male lines (in some areas) and would have absorbed as they traveled so the pattern will be complex and shifting over time and space and a modest signal related to ANE seems appropriate. Even before they experience their post-Neolithic movement in Europe, this apparently originally south-central Siberian R/ANE line had apparently moved into European Russia and the Ukraine etc 4000 years earlier in the Mesolithic and that would have meant they were probably already mixed with what I assume was a WHG population of the area as well as farming elements. So, they already were virtually certainly a mix already although perhaps with the original ANE male lines dominating.

Just a thought. I previously on the three population strands thread have been trying to list Mesolithic cultures in eastern and NE Europe who show pressure microblade technology of apparerently eastern inspiration. I wonder if there is any physical Anthropology evidence for these cultures.


Same as Allan, I am not an expert in the autosomal analysis but let me suggest some possible connections between this newly discovered (and presumably IE-linked) component called ANE and some previously known components from Dodecad K7b and K12b. Since I have never been closely following all those autosomes-related discussions that were taking place in the past, I am pretty sure that some of my below suggestions or remarks are obvious (or at least known) to most readers of this forum/thread, so please forgive me if you find it either a bit boring (and not revolutionary at all) or simply unprofessional.

First, let me express my deep feeling (shared, I guess, by many others) that the K7b admixture component known as West Asian should be actually renamed to something like Circum-Caspian, while another K7b component known as Southern fits the term West Asian much better. Therefore, from now on, I will use the designation CC/WA for the K7b West Asian component, while WA/S will denote the K7b component commonly known as Southern. It is important to note that while the distribution of WA/S in Europe fits the Anatolia-derived Neolithisation pattern nearly perfectly, the CC/WA component is present in Western, Central, Northern and Eastern Europe at a very similar level of about 10-15%, so it doesn’t seem to be strongly connected with an influx of early farmers from the Near East. Most notably, the CC/WA level drops down to 0% among the Basques and Sardinians and seems to be significantly lower among the Iberians and Finns (6-7%), hence its potential association with the IE languages seems to be a reasonable idea.

It is important to note that there is also some additional layer of CC/WA in SE Europe (Sicily, Greece and Balkans) and in West Asia, which is probably related to some different (i.e. non-IE and non-ANE associated) migration wave(s) of an ultimate Circum-Caspian origin. However, assuming that at least this particular part of CC/WA that is found in most of Europe may correspond to both the IE-associated post-Neolithic migration from the East and the accompanying major influx of the ANE component to Europe, we may expect that there should be a kind of specific K12b component that would correlate with both CC/WA and ANE (not to mention a correlation with IE). By contrast, it seems that instead of a single K12b component that would meet the above requirements, we have two separate (but somehow “complementary”) components known as Gedrosian and Caucasian (both deeply rooted in the East or South-East) that likely correspond to two separate waves of IE-related migrations, each of them associated with different Y-DNA haplogroup, i.e. R1b and R1a, respectively. Of course, this is what we see in Europe, but in Asia this could have been much different, as the Indo-Iranian contribution to the South Asian and Middle Eastern autosomal pool would need to include some previously incorporated Central Asian elements, not to mention that a significant part of the Gedrosian presence in this region could have been derived from the local pre-Indo-Iranian population.

If all above is not an illusion related to the foggy nature of most K12b and K7b components, it would be interesting to speculate on the nature of those differences related to the distribution of the Gedrosian and Caucasian components in Europe and their potential relationship to some hypothetical ANE subtypes being associated with two different R1b-rich and R1a-rich prehistoric IE-related populations. The most intriguing part of the story seems to be an increased level of the Caucasian K12b component in East Europe that is seen not only among the Slavic people but also among the Balts (but not among the Finns!), which would preclude its original association with the Uralic-speaking population, with the early farmers from Anatolia, or with some Iranic people of the Eurasian steppe. Anyway, it should be noted that the analysis of inter-relationship between the K7b and K12b components performed by Dienekes seems to confirm my deep suspicion that both Gedrosian and Caucasian are at least partially derived from the same “parental” component that corresponds to CC/AW (or Circum-Caspian in my terminology):
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

Of course, it is obvious that ANE cannot be equated with CC/WA, but I suspect that we should look for some kind of overlap between these two components when searching for some association with IE.

alan
01-08-2014, 06:01 PM
One thing I think is important to bear in mind is that ANE appears to have arrived in the NE of Europe, Sweden etc in a very different cultural state because it was so early there. That means there is every chance that while some autosomal imprint was left, its male lines would have gone the way the WHG Mesolithic male lines seem to when they were later intruded on by farmers and later movements i.e. diminished to very low levels.


It's possible that some mesolithic Scandinavians were high in ANE due to influx from central Asia who carried Q1 and possibly early R lineages on the male side. Perhaps the only male line to survive today in the region from some of those movements is the Q1a3 branch which is at low to moderate frequency today. Other than early viking voyages to Atlantic Canada, there is no real logical explanation to Q1a3 in places like Norway and Sweden unless it came in ancient times. The mesolithic seems to make the most sense due to recent aDNA finds in ancient Europe and Central Asia.

vettor
01-08-2014, 06:01 PM
That makes a lot of sense and of course the IEs were not allergic to taking local woman and also integration of local male lines (in some areas) and would have absorbed as they traveled so the pattern will be complex and shifting over time and space and a modest signal related to ANE seems appropriate. Even before they experience their post-Neolithic movement in Europe, this apparently originally south-central Siberian R/ANE line had apparently moved into European Russia and the Ukraine etc 4000 years earlier in the Mesolithic and that would have meant they were probably already mixed with what I assume was a WHG population of the area as well as farming elements. So, they already were virtually certainly a mix already although perhaps with the original ANE male lines dominating.

Just a thought. I previously on the three population strands thread have been trying to list Mesolithic cultures in eastern and NE Europe who show pressure microblade technology of apparerently eastern inspiration. I wonder if there is any physical Anthropology evidence for these cultures.

If it found that turkic people originate between central-asia and suberia and proto-rianic people north of the caspian sea, then who where the Gedrosian/west asian people?

alan
01-08-2014, 06:16 PM
There is so much time and space between those phenomenon and with nomadic type cultures I think anything is possible. In a steppe type situation I dont generally believe in looking at modern DNA distribution and concluding A cant have come from somewhere because B would have been in their way. I think one major lesson coming out of ancient DNA is that modern populations cannot be trusted to represent deep past ones. As even a modest amount of ancient DNA is becoming available things are getting a lot clearer even if they are surprising compared to modern populations. Noone would for instance have place very early R quite as far east as Mal'ta and ASAIK the only R there today is mainly far younger R1a clades and a little M73.


If it found that turkic people originate between central-asia and suberia and proto-rianic people north of the caspian sea, then who where the Gedrosian/west asian people?

parasar
01-08-2014, 09:09 PM
If it found that turkic people originate between central-asia and suberia and proto-rianic people north of the caspian sea, then who where the Gedrosian/west asian people?

That may be close.
The Chinese give a reasonably precise location between the Gobi and Lou-lan:


First of all, having repaired to the capital, they proceeded in a westerly direction forty days, and arrived at the Chih-Ling (Barren Bidge), which is the western frontier of the country. On this ridge is the fortified outpost of the Wei territory. The Chlh-Ling produces no trees or shrubs, and hence its name (Barren). Ascending the Chih-Ling and proceeding westward twenty-three days, having crossed the Drifting Sands, they arrived at the country of the Tuh-kiueh-'hun. [Turks]5 Along the road the cold was very severe, whilst the high winds, and the driving snow, and the pelting sand and gravel were so bad, that it was impossible to raise one's eyes without getting them filled. The chief city of the Tuh-kiueh-'hun and the neighbourhood is agreeably warm. The written character of this country is nearly the same as that of the Wei. The customs and regulations observed by these people are mostly barbarous in character (after the rules of the outside barbarians or foreigners). From this country going west 3500 li, we arrive at the city of Shen-Shen [Lou Lan].6 This city, from the time it set up a king, was seized by the Tuh-kiueh-'hun, and at present there resides in it a military officer (the second general) for subjugating (pacifying) the west. The entire cantonment7 amounts to 3000 men, who are employed in withstanding the western Hu.
From Shen-Shen going west 1640 li, we arrive at the city of Tso-moh.8 In this town there are, perhaps, a hundred families resident. The country is not visited with rain, but they irrigate their crops from the streams of water. They know not the use of oxen or ploughs in their husbandry.
In the town is a representation of Buddha with a Bodhisattva, but certainly not in face like a Tartar. On questioning an old man about it, he said, " This was done by Lu-Kwong, who subdued the Tartars." From this city going westward 1275 li, we arrive at the city of Moh. The flowers and fruits here are just like those of Lo-Yang, but the native buildings and the foreign officials are different in appearance.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kporAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR85

http://cfs11.blog.daum.net/image/31/blog/2008/06/11/17/45/484f908f868d2&filename=%EB%88%84%EB%9E%80%EC%9C%A0%EC%A0%81%EC%9 C%84%EC%B9%98%EB%8F%84.jpg

The Orkhon river valley is also often identified as the place of Turk origins.

lgmayka
01-08-2014, 10:06 PM
Isn't Q1a3 an East Asian clade?
No. Q-M346 (formerly called Q1a3) is "found at low frequency in Europe, South Asia and West Asia," as Wikipedia correctly says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242#Subclade_Distribution). Of course, it is also found in the Americas, especially but not exclusively in the form of its well-known subclade, Q-M3. Browse through the results of the yDNA Q Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_Q/default.aspx?vgroup=yDNA_Q&section=yresults).

newtoboard
01-08-2014, 10:20 PM
No. Q-M346 (formerly called Q1a3) is "found at low frequency in Europe, South Asia and West Asia," as Wikipedia correctly says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242#Subclade_Distribution). Of course, it is also found in the Americas, especially but not exclusively in the form of its well-known subclade, Q-M3. Browse through the results of the yDNA Q Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_Q/default.aspx?vgroup=yDNA_Q§ion=yresults).

Yes but I remember reading on DMXX's blog that Q1a in West/South Asians if indicative of Turkic ancestry. But if no Q1a3 is found in Central Asia maybe that doesn't apply to all Q1a.

newtoboard
01-08-2014, 10:26 PM
Is it possible that the 22018A and 13910T alleles are associated with ANE? An argument against it would be lactose persistence is higher in NW Europe. But I think that is based solely on 13910T frequencies and some populations like Finns and Kazakhs have more 22018A.

parasar
01-08-2014, 10:53 PM
Yes but I remember reading on DMXX's blog that Q1a in West/South Asians if indicative of Turkic ancestry. But if no Q1a3 is found in Central Asia maybe that doesn't apply to all Q1a.

This I would doubt as it is found in almost every corner of the Subcontinent including the Maldives and southern most Tamils.
Maldives

10 major haplogroups: A(M191), C(M130), F*(xG,H,I,J,K), G(M201), H(M69), J(M304), K*((xL,M,NO,P,S,T), L(M20), Q(M242), and R(M207) ... The most prevalent haplogroups are F*(xG,H,I,J,K), H(M69), J(M304), L(M20), and R(M207)... Four Q1a(MEH2) Y chromosomes are found across the network as well. Some of these paraphyletic lineages could be specific to the Maldives. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22256/full

Almost all Tamil castes and tribes have Q-M242. http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0050269.s005

Jean M
01-08-2014, 11:01 PM
Is it possible that the 22018A and 13910T alleles are associated with ANE?

ANE = Mal'ta boy, far too early to carry lactase persistence. 13910T hasn't turned up in aDNA until about 3000 BC. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/autosomaladna.shtml . I feel pretty confident that these two alleles were spread by IE speakers and Uralic speakers along with ANE, but that is much later on, after pastoralism made them useful.

newtoboard
01-08-2014, 11:07 PM
Yea I don't think they originate in an ANE population from the time of Mal'ta but an ANE population around 2800 BC.

newtoboard
01-08-2014, 11:26 PM
ANE = Mal'ta boy, far too early to carry lactase persistence. 13910T hasn't turned up in aDNA until about 3000 BC. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/autosomaladna.shtml . I feel pretty confident that these two alleles were spread by IE speakers and Uralic speakers along with ANE, but that is much later on, after pastoralism made them useful.

Anthony dates the nomadic pastoralist economy in the Volga region to 3300 BC. I wonder if nomadic pastoralism causes positive selection for lactase persistence. The frequency of lactase persistence disagrees with that since the highest percentage of lactase persistence should have been in Eastern Yamnaya and it's descendant cultures to the east. Granted nobody has ever tested any steppe remains for LP so that might be the case.

Generalissimo
01-09-2014, 12:13 AM
Same as Allan, I am not an expert in the autosomal analysis but let me suggest some possible connections between this newly discovered (and presumably IE-linked) component called ANE and some previously known components from Dodecad K7b and K12b. Since I have never been closely following all those autosomes-related discussions that were taking place in the past, I am pretty sure that some of my below suggestions or remarks are obvious (or at least known) to most readers of this forum/thread, so please forgive me if you find it either a bit boring (and not revolutionary at all) or simply unprofessional.

First, let me express my deep feeling (shared, I guess, by many others) that the K7b admixture component known as West Asian should be actually renamed to something like Circum-Caspian, while another K7b component known as Southern fits the term West Asian much better. Therefore, from now on, I will use the designation CC/WA for the K7b West Asian component, while WA/S will denote the K7b component commonly known as Southern. It is important to note that while the distribution of WA/S in Europe fits the Anatolia-derived Neolithisation pattern nearly perfectly, the CC/WA component is present in Western, Central, Northern and Eastern Europe at a very similar level of about 10-15%, so it doesn’t seem to be strongly connected with an influx of early farmers from the Near East. Most notably, the CC/WA level drops down to 0% among the Basques and Sardinians and seems to be significantly lower among the Iberians and Finns (6-7%), hence its potential association with the IE languages seems to be a reasonable idea.

It is important to note that there is also some additional layer of CC/WA in SE Europe (Sicily, Greece and Balkans) and in West Asia, which is probably related to some different (i.e. non-IE and non-ANE associated) migration wave(s) of an ultimate Circum-Caspian origin. However, assuming that at least this particular part of CC/WA that is found in most of Europe may correspond to both the IE-associated post-Neolithic migration from the East and the accompanying major influx of the ANE component to Europe, we may expect that there should be a kind of specific K12b component that would correlate with both CC/WA and ANE (not to mention a correlation with IE). By contrast, it seems that instead of a single K12b component that would meet the above requirements, we have two separate (but somehow “complementary”) components known as Gedrosian and Caucasian (both deeply rooted in the East or South-East) that likely correspond to two separate waves of IE-related migrations, each of them associated with different Y-DNA haplogroup, i.e. R1b and R1a, respectively. Of course, this is what we see in Europe, but in Asia this could have been much different, as the Indo-Iranian contribution to the South Asian and Middle Eastern autosomal pool would need to include some previously incorporated Central Asian elements, not to mention that a significant part of the Gedrosian presence in this region could have been derived from the local pre-Indo-Iranian population.

If all above is not an illusion related to the foggy nature of most K12b and K7b components, it would be interesting to speculate on the nature of those differences related to the distribution of the Gedrosian and Caucasian components in Europe and their potential relationship to some hypothetical ANE subtypes being associated with two different R1b-rich and R1a-rich prehistoric IE-related populations. The most intriguing part of the story seems to be an increased level of the Caucasian K12b component in East Europe that is seen not only among the Slavic people but also among the Balts (but not among the Finns!), which would preclude its original association with the Uralic-speaking population, with the early farmers from Anatolia, or with some Iranic people of the Eurasian steppe. Anyway, it should be noted that the analysis of inter-relationship between the K7b and K12b components performed by Dienekes seems to confirm my deep suspicion that both Gedrosian and Caucasian are at least partially derived from the same “parental” component that corresponds to CC/AW (or Circum-Caspian in my terminology):
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

Of course, it is obvious that ANE cannot be equated with CC/WA, but I suspect that we should look for some kind of overlap between these two components when searching for some association with IE.

What usually happens with ADMIXTURE is that it bases its clusters on the most isolated and heavily genetically drifted samples, like some of those from Abkhasia and the Hindu Kush. These clusters then resonate across populations which were in fact ancestral to them or also experienced third party gene flow from the same ancestral population(s).

So in other words, it looks like ANE moved from the north into the North Caucasus and the Hindu Kush, after which some of the groups in these regions became isolated and experienced heavy genetic drift. As a result, they now form very robust (but not particularly informative) ADMIXTURE clusters that include ANE-specific allele frequencies, and spill out far across West Eurasia, despite the fact that many of the populations that show non-trivial membership in these clusters never experienced direct gene flow between each other.

The Kalash-specific cluster, which can be seen in this study at the optimal K=16, is a very good example of this phenomenon.

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7903/3b30.png

alan
01-09-2014, 01:01 AM
I think too, although the sample is small, the idea that R1b was already in places like Anatolia or the Levant or the Balkans with farmers early in the Neolithic is not supported and a face-value interpretation of the implications of ancient DNA in terms of R1 and ANE would now seem to me to indicate it migrated into those areas no earlier than the later Neolithic, almost certainly from points north. I am more and more inclined to think that the present contrasting pattern of the two divisions of R1 is largely down to copper and bronze age events and is not safe to back project. I have always had the feeling that they share too much in common in terms of branching history, absence in ancient DNA to have been located much apart from each other in the Neolithic. I think the main contrast does not lie in origin but simply R1b seems to have expanded earlier than R1a in terms of the major clades of Eurasia. However, even that can be contained within a steppe model as steppe intrusion west went on from perhaps 4300BC and Yamnaya only spread west around 3000BC. In general R1b is better represented in modern representatives of the surviving languages that are thought to have split earlier and R1a is better represented in those thought to have remained in the IE homeland area longer. I am not saying that is absolute obviously with the possible Tocharian exception but the apparent connection between R1b and earlier branching may be simply down to the fact that from 4300-3000BC the flow was largely west and R1b might have been strong in the western part of the western steppes. My personal hunch is that satemisation occurred around 3000BC or even just before.

Generalissimo
01-09-2014, 05:02 AM
There's an interesting correlation between the global PCA results of Afontova Gora 2 and M4, otherwise known as the "old man" from the Borum Eshøj burial site from Bronze Age Denmark.

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/6043/79x1.png

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/1051/cabc.png

Both of them pull towards the Americas. This is the ANE talking IMO, because this would be a very unusual result for a present-day Dane.

Now, considering that the western European hunter-gatherers were I2, an important question is whether I1 didn't arrive in southern Scandinavia along with R1 from Eastern Europe during the Bronze Age?

alan
01-09-2014, 05:29 AM
..................

alan
01-09-2014, 05:37 AM
I suppose too that in the Bronze Age, before they diluted their impact through many centuries of local marriages, new settlers would have probably for a number of generations been higher in ANE than anyone is today in the same area. It kind of depends on their breeding habits but I cannot see them refusing local women and importing them from their homeland. I dont know the details for R1a but certainly for R1b you get the impression that the R1b lineages were very greedy with all resources including females as only they seem to have grown spectacularly and there is not a lot of evidence of many non-R1b lineages sharing the expansion with them. Certainly that is the impression I get of the high R1b areas of Europe.


There's an interesting correlation between the global PCA results of Afontova Gora 2 and M4, otherwise known as the "old man" from the Borum Eshøj burial site from Bronze Age Denmark.

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/6043/79x1.png

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/1051/cabc.png

Both of them pull towards the Americas. This is the ANE talking IMO, because this would be a very unusual result for a present-day Dane.

Now, considering that the western European hunter-gatherers were I2, an important question is whether I1 didn't arrive in southern Scandinavia along with R1 from Eastern Europe during the Bronze Age?

Generalissimo
01-09-2014, 06:03 AM
The Borum Eshøj sample is definitely diluted, because he clusters with present-day Finns, on the global plot anyway. So he's not exactly Afontova Gora 2.

But the barrow that he comes from is the largest found in Denmark, out of about 50,000. It was also one of the earliest ones. So we're probably looking at the DNA of ancient royalty, who potentially wasn't as mixed with the locals deep in Europe as the average descendant of migrants from the east at the time.

the SUN child
01-09-2014, 11:56 AM
By contrast, it seems that instead of a single K12b component that would meet the above requirements, we have two separate (but somehow “complementary”) components known as Gedrosian and Caucasian (both deeply rooted in the East or South-East) that likely correspond to two separate waves of IE-related migrations, each of them associated with different Y-DNA haplogroup, i.e. R1b and R1a, respectively. Of course, this is what we see in Europe, but in Asia this could have been much different, as the Indo-Iranian contribution to the South Asian and Middle Eastern autosomal pool would need to include some previously incorporated Central Asian elements, not to mention that a significant part of the Gedrosian presence in this region could have been derived from the local pre-Indo-Iranian population.
Very interesting man! My paternal haplogroup is R1a*. According to K12b I've got 28.04% Gedrosia in me and 37.76% Caucasus component. Also I figured out that I've 17.606% ANE in me. I think there might be some kind of correlation between Gedrosia, ANE and Y-DNA hg. R*. From West Asia view of point, more East you go, more Gedrosia you get. I guess that (North-)Central Asia is homeland of Y-DNA hg. R*. So there must be a (non directly) correlation between ANE, Gedrosia and R*, while I truly believe that Caucausus component is related to J2* or even J*.

So, in West Asia: Caucasus is related to J2* or J* and Gedrosia is related to R1* or R*. And I think that Caucasus and Gedrosia are very close to each other.

Anglecynn
01-09-2014, 12:38 PM
Very interesting man! My paternal haplogroup is R1a*. According to K12b I've got 28.04% Gedrosia in me and 37.76% Caucasus component. Also I figured out that I've 17.606% ANE in me. I think there might be some kind of correlation between Gedrosia, ANE and Y-DNA hg. R*. From West Asia view of point, more East you go, more Gedrosia you get. I guess that (North-)Central Asia is homeland of Y-DNA hg. R*. So there must be a (non directly) correlation between ANE, Gedrosia and R*, while I truly believe that Caucausus component is related to J2* or even J*.

So, in West Asia: Caucasus is related to J2* or J* and Gedrosia is related to R1* or R*. And I think that Caucasus and Gedrosia are very close to each other.

It's true that Gedrosia is higher (within Europe) in areas very high in R1b. I think it has a local peak in parts of the British Isles, where R1b is up around 70-90%, and it's also pretty high in other parts of western and northern Europe.

Generalissimo
01-09-2014, 02:33 PM
Basques show a very steady level of Gedrosia, but they can be fit as EEF/WHG, with 0% ANE. Also, Gedrosia is much more pronounced in West Central and South Central Asia, among many populations where R1b is just a minor marker.

So it looks like a fairly typical case of confusing ADMIXTURE results at high K. Here's what the authors of Laz 2013 say about using ADMIXTURE.


ADMIXTURE is a commonly used method for investigating admixture proportions in human populations, although its interpretation in terms of history is not straightforward. In the context of the present paper we use it only to (i) identify a set of West Eurasian populations for further analysis, and (ii) to identify a set non-West Eurasian populations from the rest of the world to be used as references for our methods of ancestry estimation.

the SUN child
01-09-2014, 02:51 PM
Before R1b entered the Basque country R1b was already heavily diluted by mixing with native European population.

But, Basque people have very, very much of R1b (up to 90% !!!) and according to Dodecad K12b French_Basque have still 9.8% Gedrosia, I'm sure they have also some ANE too (be it from Gedrosia, be it from North_European component).


French_Basque

73,1% - Atlantic_Med
17,1% - North_European
09,8% - Gedrosia

I'm sure that the original R1b had nothing to do with Atlantic_Med nor with North_European component...

the SUN child
01-09-2014, 03:19 PM
Also, according to DODECAD K12b I've only 4.87% of North_European component, but 28.04% of Gedrosia & 37.76% of Caucasus component. While I've got 17.606% of ANE. I don't think 17.606% ANE is all from 4.87% North_European component, that's impossible! Most of it must be from Caucasus or Gedrosia component.

Silesian
01-09-2014, 04:08 PM
Also, according to DODECAD K12b I've only 4.87% of North_European component, but 28.04% of Gedrosia & 37.76% of Caucasus component. While I've got 17.606% of ANE. I don't think 17.606% ANE is all from 4.87% North_European component, that's impossible! Most of it must be from Caucasus or Gedrosia component.
Maybe there is some connection?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cYC4bY-koB0/TybKBMtXRSI/AAAAAAAAEbs/zka5fg8fmRQ/s1600/nj.png

parasar
01-09-2014, 04:17 PM
Basques show a very steady level of Gedrosia, but they can be fit as EEF/WHG, with 0% ANE. Also, Gedrosia is much more pronounced in West Central and South Central Asia, among many populations where R1b is just a minor marker.
...

Even minor is not the case for some.
Eg. The Brahui (whose language is akin to Dravidian) among whom Gedrosia peaks had 0 R1b in Sengupta data - 0/25 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/table/TB3/

Silesian
01-09-2014, 04:34 PM
Even minor is not the case for some.
Eg. The Brahui (whose language is akin to Dravidian) among whom Gedrosia peaks had 0 R1b in Sengupta data - 0/25 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/table/TB3/

What are you trying to show? That Gedrosia was not linked to R1a Z283+ or R1b; but only to 30% R1a Z93?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/R1a_Europa_centralna.png

ADW_1981
01-09-2014, 04:41 PM
Even minor is not the case for some.
Eg. The Brahui (whose language is akin to Dravidian) among whom Gedrosia peaks had 0 R1b in Sengupta data - 0/25 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/table/TB3/

There seems to be a link between the "European variant" of lactose persistence and Gedrosia to a certain degree. *Modern* Basque have very high levels of the lactose persistence mutation which is also found among west-central Asians. To the best of my knowledge this mutation was absent among some farmer groups (Oetzi) and Siberian and European hunter gatherers. Therefore, it seems to be there is a possible link between nomadic pastoralists and this particular mutation. It appears the crux of the issue is that the introduction of farming is not that simple to explain at least when we talk about the introduction to Europe. I don't see the fact that R1b is not dominant among Indo-Iranian speakers as a major issue. We already know R1b is oldest in west-central Asia, including among Indian men.

alan
01-09-2014, 04:49 PM
I was thinking the other day, maybe the y line/autosomal correlations are inconsistent because we are looking at it the wrong way. Let me put another scenario. Perhaps autosomal components came together in different ice age refugia where there were a lot of people pushed into more limited areas. Those refugia could have contained a number of y lines but at the same time come to have shared similar autosomal dna. When male lineages then expanded out of the refugia, more than one male lineage/haplogroup may have shared very similar autosomal DNA. This of course would be further complicated by each lines post-refugia history as they moved out.

I think this is probably a valid concept. Consider for example the possible LGM refugia in Altai. This is a very likely refuge for both R and Q and who knows what else. Their autosomal similarity as one headed to west and the other mainly east could be as much down to being stuck in the same refugia/breeding group rather than being just down to their shared P ancestor. I suspect the geography of these LGM breeding groups basically dictated autosomal patterns more than y lines.

Some refugia may have been mono-lined and I suspect the Franco-Cantabrian one was unusually homogeneous. It also appears from archaeology to have been the main repopulator of Europe after the LGM - all the way from the SW to the Baltic. It does look very much like an I2/U population of IMO ultimately Gravettain descent. The epi-gravettians in the north-west Black Sea were also descended from the same culture so its not surprising that they may have also been similar. However, I think it is possible, in fact probable, that other refugia were not of homogeneous y and mt lines. In particular I think there is a pretty strong chance that the refuges around south central Siberia and Altai were more complex with R, Q, U and X at least involved and probably others. Hunter bands have to be exogenous in the LGM so while male lines will remain distinct and by definition remain y lines, autosomal DNA could homogenise within a refuge that has several male lines. This means that although confused by later mixing as they moved out, different male lines could share considerable similarities autosomally. That IMO is probably how different y lines expanding at different times and associated with different languages could have a large autosomal similarity as long as they have ultimately some time back spend a long time in the same refuge/bredding pool.

Maybe we should look to see if the autosomal components could have a correspondence with the refugia and the long period in the LGM when movement was restricted and groups pushed together in different refugia.

alan
01-09-2014, 04:58 PM
I think the refugia origin could work. Maybe someone could help with this

Franco-Cantabrian refuge-Gravettian ultimate roots-yI-mtU-autosomal WHG

NW Black Sea refuge-Gravettian ultimate roots-yI-mtU-autosomal WHG

Balkans refuge- this is hypothetical and not well supported idea - perhaps one at north end of Adriatic largely under the present sea. If it existed it would also have been Gravettian routed

Altai refuge-rooted in middle upper paelaeolithic Mal'ta type cultures transforming into microblade ones-y R1, Q and N?, Mt U and X?-autosomal ANE

SW Asia-this was undoubtedly some sort of large refuge area - this one is a bit too complex to work out IMO. European culture terms would not apply. I take it it is where the genes that were later spread by farmers were hiding in the LGM - y maybe G, E etc

alan
01-09-2014, 05:00 PM
what is that map of?


What are you trying to show? That Gedrosia was not linked to R1a Z283+ or R1b; but only to 30% R1a Z93?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/R1a_Europa_centralna.png

Silesian
01-09-2014, 05:03 PM
what is that map of?

It's a generic map of R1a: Distribution of haplogroup R1a in Central Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29

alan
01-09-2014, 05:04 PM
It is so colourful it looks like you could warm your hands with it :0)


It's a generic map of R1a: Distribution of haplogroup R1a in Central Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29

alan
01-09-2014, 05:07 PM
So here is a question for R1a experts. Do any of the R1a clades around the Baltic and Scandinavia look like they could have entered the area 9-10 thousand years ago with ANE well ahead of the bulk of R1a?

ADW_1981
01-09-2014, 05:20 PM
I think the refugia origin could work. Maybe someone could help with this

Franco-Cantabrian refuge-Gravettian ultimate roots-yI-mtU-autosomal WHG

NW Black Sea refuge-Gravettian ultimate roots-yI-mtU-autosomal WHG

Balkans refuge- this is hypothetical and not well supported idea - perhaps one at north end of Adriatic largely under the present sea. If it existed it would also have been Gravettian routed

Altai refuge-rooted in middle upper paelaeolithic Mal'ta type cultures transforming into microblade ones-y R1, Q and N?, Mt U and X?-autosomal ANE

SW Asia-this was undoubtedly some sort of large refuge area - this one is a bit too complex to work out IMO. European culture terms would not apply. I take it it is where the genes that were later spread by farmers were hiding in the LGM - y maybe G, E etc

It looks probable, if not a slam dunk that the Gravettians were early forms of YDNA I. What about the Aurignacian though? The link with Lake Baikal and early Q/R seems to imply that this may have been also part of the puzzle, and to a degree would have some similarities with ANE. However, the fact that Loschbour had 0% ANE implies that most of the early Siberian influence had died out in western Europe, or was minimal at best. Even at this time, it appears "patchy" in far northern Europe. Hopefully additional ancient southern European DNA can help solve this riddle some more.

Joe B
01-09-2014, 06:06 PM
I think the refugia origin could work. Maybe someone could help with this

Franco-Cantabrian refuge-Gravettian ultimate roots-yI-mtU-autosomal WHG

NW Black Sea refuge-Gravettian ultimate roots-yI-mtU-autosomal WHG

Balkans refuge- this is hypothetical and not well supported idea - perhaps one at north end of Adriatic largely under the present sea. If it existed it would also have been Gravettian routed

Altai refuge-rooted in middle upper paelaeolithic Mal'ta type cultures transforming into microblade ones-y R1, Q and N?, Mt U and X?-autosomal ANE

SW Asia-this was undoubtedly some sort of large refuge area - this one is a bit too complex to work out IMO. European culture terms would not apply. I take it it is where the genes that were later spread by farmers were hiding in the LGM - y maybe G, E etc

What about a Southern Caspian Sea refuge or is that part of the SW Asia complexity? Over all it looks good.Hyrcania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrcania)

parasar
01-09-2014, 06:09 PM
What are you trying to show? That Gedrosia was not linked to R1a Z283+ or R1b; but only to 30% R1a Z93?

...

The Gedrosia component is over 500 generations old. So at best it would correlate to R-M343, R-M417, and R-M479, and not to their younger branches.

vettor
01-09-2014, 06:47 PM
So here is a question for R1a experts. Do any of the R1a clades around the Baltic and Scandinavia look like they could have entered the area 9-10 thousand years ago with ANE well ahead of the bulk of R1a?

No

The gdansk area on Silesian map is young. It happened around the 12th century when the teutonic knights (TK) where ordered into gdansk by the pope to eliminate the pagan Baltic prussians. The TK, cleanse the area of 70% of inhabitants. they then refused to hand the land to the polish king and kept it. They populated it later by Germans/hansetic merchants from Saxony and Thuringia. IIRC another 200 years past before the Poles got the land and migrated southern poles into Gdnask area, but they still where not allowed to join the hansetic league.

Southern Poland would be more original or first area of the migrating R1a

parasar
01-09-2014, 06:51 PM
... Do any of the R1a clades around the Baltic and Scandinavia look like they could have entered the area 9-10 thousand years ago with ANE well ahead of the bulk of R1a?

Yes early M417 and CTS4385, ie, branches prior to Z645.

newtoboard
01-09-2014, 07:04 PM
No

The gdansk area on Silesian map is young. It happened around the 12th century when the teutonic knights (TK) where ordered into gdansk by the pope to eliminate the pagan Baltic prussians. The TK, cleanse the area of 70% of inhabitants. they then refused to hand the land to the polish king and kept it. They populated it later by Germans/hansetic merchants from Saxony and Thuringia. IIRC another 200 years past before the Poles got the land and migrated southern poles into Gdnask area, but they still where not allowed to join the hansetic league.

Southern Poland would be more original or first area of the migrating R1a

Are you suggesting Southern Poland is where all R1a expanded from?

vettor
01-09-2014, 07:32 PM
Are you suggesting Southern Poland is where all R1a expanded from?

no

I am saying as per silesian map, the southern part of R1a is the oldest part on the map

alan
01-09-2014, 09:05 PM
I bought a book on the subject of early man that only was published a few months ago and it indicated that almost, if not all, human remains that were thought to be aurignacian have now been re-dated and proven to be from much later periods. So, unless this has already gone out of date (its a very fast moving science) then we have no direct evidence for who made the aurignacian tools etc. There are even question marks as to whether they were definately anatomically modern humans raised although normally their behavour is deemed to indicate they were. I understand too the Bohenician which is the earliest upper palaeolithic culture potentially relating to modern humans also has left no known skeletal remains. There is indirect evidence that they could be modern due to resemblances of their tool making to a group in the Levant who were modern humans but on the other hand their techniques do include methods that were once considered to be Neanderthal. Then again we have the Chatelperonian in France where their are mixed signals of human and neanderthal, usually interpreted as the latter emulating the former


It looks probable, if not a slam dunk that the Gravettians were early forms of YDNA I. What about the Aurignacian though? The link with Lake Baikal and early Q/R seems to imply that this may have been also part of the puzzle, and to a degree would have some similarities with ANE. However, the fact that Loschbour had 0% ANE implies that most of the early Siberian influence had died out in western Europe, or was minimal at best. Even at this time, it appears "patchy" in far northern Europe. Hopefully additional ancient southern European DNA can help solve this riddle some more.

Jean M
01-09-2014, 09:50 PM
I bought a book on the subject of early man that only was published a few months ago and it indicated that almost, if not all, human remains that were thought to be aurignacian have now been re-dated and proven to be from much later periods.

Which book was this?

Generalissimo
01-10-2014, 04:35 AM
ANE = Mal'ta boy, far too early to carry lactase persistence. 13910T hasn't turned up in aDNA until about 3000 BC. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/autosomaladna.shtml . I feel pretty confident that these two alleles were spread by IE speakers and Uralic speakers along with ANE, but that is much later on, after pastoralism made them useful.

The LP allele looks like an EEF marker. Its earliest occurrence is in Neolithic Germany, well before ANE got there, and it was present in Neolithic southwestern Europe, where ANE dips to a serious low. So it was most likely initially spread by EEF populations, and then by mixed groups.


The LP allele did not become common in the population until some time after it first emerged: Burger has looked for the mutation in samples of ancient human DNA and has found it only as far back as 6,500 years ago in northern Germany.

When a single genetic mutation first let ancient Europeans drink milk, it set the stage for a continental upheaval (http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471)

Low prevalence of lactase persistence in Neolithic South-West Europe (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376259/)


So here is a question for R1a experts. Do any of the R1a clades around the Baltic and Scandinavia look like they could have entered the area 9-10 thousand years ago with ANE well ahead of the bulk of R1a?

R1a-CTS4385 (including L664) might well be associated with pre-IE ANE in Northwestern Europe.

Jean M
01-10-2014, 10:43 AM
The LP allele looks like an EEF marker.

Not in the strict sense of EEF i.e. Stuttgart etc. 13910T is not found among the earliest farmers in Europe, who are a mixture of Near Eastern Neolithic and WHG. 13910T is low to non-existent in the Near East even today and has not been found in European hunter-gatherers. Regular milking seems to have begun around the Sea of Marmara millennia after the start of the Near Eastern Neolithic. Selection for 13910T probably began on the European side of that spread of pastoralism, in other words among a second wave of farming people out of Anatolia, not the first wave mainly direct from the Levant.

Generalissimo
01-10-2014, 12:07 PM
Not in the strict sense of EEF i.e. Stuttgart etc. 13910T is not found among the earliest farmers in Europe, who are a mixture of Near Eastern Neolithic and WHG. 13910T is low to non-existent in the Near East even today and has not been found in European hunter-gatherers. Regular milking seems to have begun around the Sea of Marmara millennia after the start of the Near Eastern Neolithic. Selection for 13910T probably began on the European side of that spread of pastoralism, in other words among a second wave of farming people out of Anatolia, not the first wave mainly direct from the Levant.

Northern Germany 6500 YBP sounds like the last stage of the LBK to me.

newtoboard
01-10-2014, 12:14 PM
Not in the strict sense of EEF i.e. Stuttgart etc. 13910T is not found among the earliest farmers in Europe, who are a mixture of Near Eastern Neolithic and WHG. 13910T is low to non-existent in the Near East even today and has not been found in European hunter-gatherers. Regular milking seems to have begun around the Sea of Marmara millennia after the start of the Near Eastern Neolithic. Selection for 13910T probably began on the European side of that spread of pastoralism, in other words among a second wave of farming people out of Anatolia, not the first wave mainly direct from the Levant.

That is actually very surprising. I would have thought it would at least have a semi significant presence in the Iranian plateau and Anatolia. But from this map it doesn't look like the case. I could see why others have speculated on it being related to EEF given its Asian peaks are in the North Caucasus and Indus Valley for whatever reason close to where the Caucasus and Gedrosia component peak. But then again EEF is probably more Arabian like minus the East African affinities than West Asian like.

It is also possible that 22018A is stronger in Asia. I haven't seen any maps for that. Plus there are probably multiple local mutations that were carried by Neolithic farmers into Europe.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5096/lactasemutatiion13910t.jpg

Generalissimo
01-10-2014, 02:04 PM
If 13910T was in Germany 6500 years ago, then it might well be of European origin. But that doesn't mean it can't be an EEF marker, since EEF is actually a European component with Near Eastern admixture.

Also, think about it, if a sample from 6500 years ago carried 13910T, then that's the minimum timeframe for its presence in Central Europe, because it's highly unlikely that the scientists stumbled upon the first ever person or migrant farmer with that mutation. So let's say that 13910T was in Germany 6500-7000 years ago. If so, it has to be an LBK and EEF marker.

alan
01-10-2014, 02:39 PM
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Origins-Modern-Humans-Reconsidered/dp/0470894091/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_S_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=3TDL1KCC8UIM6&coliid=I7OXKX7KTX4KQ

I just skimmed it extremely briefly and have lent it to a colleague so I cant be sure of details.


Which book was this?

Jean M
01-10-2014, 03:45 PM
Northern Germany 6500 YBP sounds like the last stage of the LBK to me.

It would be if such a sample had actually been found. Burger 2007 found no 13910T in the LBK. I am not aware that anyone has. Lazaridis 2013 drew a blank. The earliest I have is from the TRB (Malmstrom 2007) http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/autosomaladna.shtml So I suspect some garbling between what Burger actually said and Andrew Curry's piece in Nature News.

Jean M
01-10-2014, 03:52 PM
I just skimmed it extremely briefly and have lent it to a colleague so I cant be sure of details.

Thanks. I wondered if it was that one. It is a second edition that came out about the same time as Ancestral Journeys. I know I had a bit of a rush to fit in the latest papers on the Aurignacian, such as Higham 2012 on Geißenklösterle:


.. The results strongly imply that the previous dates were affected by insufficient decontamination of the bone collagen prior to dating. Using an ultrafiltration protocol the chronometric picture becomes much clearer. Comparison of the results against other recently dated sites in other parts of Europe suggests the Early Aurignacian levels are earlier than other sites in the south of France and Italy, but not as early as recently dated sites which suggest a pre-Aurignacian dispersal of modern humans to Italy by 45000 cal BP. They are consistent with the importance of the Danube Corridor as a key route for the movement of people and ideas...

the SUN child
01-10-2014, 06:28 PM
Maybe there is some connection?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cYC4bY-koB0/TybKBMtXRSI/AAAAAAAAEbs/zka5fg8fmRQ/s1600/nj.png
I think both Gedrosia and North European components have some East Asian influences. According to 23andme R1 arose in the Middle East and migrated to all direction. That's how he mixed with some Siberian folks in NorthCentral Asia

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/795x666q90/838/zttx.png

the SUN child
01-10-2014, 06:41 PM
..........

newtoboard
01-10-2014, 06:48 PM
So maybe this is how R1* ended up in Europe (among H&G) and South Asia (among Dravidians) !

Migration of R1*

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x360q90/51/anatolianhypothesis.jpg

No. The Anatolian hypothesis is wrong. The Armenian hypothesis is worse. And even if it was right then R1 would have already been R1a and R1b for its timeframe.

the SUN child
01-10-2014, 06:58 PM
..........

Silesian
01-10-2014, 07:01 PM
So maybe this is how R1* ended up in Europe (among H&G) and South Asia (among South Asians / Dravidians) !

Migration of R1*

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x360q90/51/anatolianhypothesis.jpg
Well one thing is certain, a lot if not most examples of physical written attestation are found in the red region. So even if PIE did not originate there, that's the region with oldest physical evidence in the form of written attestation

the SUN child
01-10-2014, 07:09 PM
..........

parasar
01-10-2014, 07:35 PM
So maybe this is how R1* ended up in Europe (among H&G) and South Asia (among South Asians / Dravidians) !

Migration of R1*

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x360q90/51/anatolianhypothesis.jpg

R1* was likely in center-east siberia as far back as 17000 years or more.
Even if the R1a1 reads on AG2 are spurious ( AG2/YFull
R1a1 Level
M609/"M609 • CTS836 R1a1a1 equivalent or upstream"
Y1429 ?
CTS11148 /"CTS11148 R1a1a1 equivalent or upstream"
PAGE7/"PAGE7 R1a1a1"
M752/"M752 • PF7527 • F2948 R1a1a1 equivalent or upstream"
M761/"M761 • F3159 R1a1a1 equivalent or upstream"
M810/"M810 • F3644 R1a1a1 equivalent or upstream" ),

we know for sure that Mal'ta MA1 was a pre-R derived lineage and
"this suggests that the separation between R1a and R1b took place significantly earlier than 24 kya, most likely about 27-28 kya"
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1507-Some-provisional-calculations-for-haplogroup-R1a-based-on-the-first-FGC-result&p=20838&viewfull=1#post20838
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=971&d=1385423615

the SUN child
01-10-2014, 07:47 PM
Ok, R* could be from more to the East, but I was talking about R1* and not R* or P* or F*. Still, R* could migrate south to the Iranian plateau and become (evolve into) R1* inside the Middle East. And 23andme is saying at least 15,000 old and migrated out the Middle East at least 15,000 years ago. It changes nothing if we say that R1* evolved in the Middle East 30,000 ago and after some time it migrated into ohter parts of the world.

I paid $200 bucks for this information, don’t say they’re lying to me…

the SUN child
01-10-2014, 07:57 PM
Hg. R* is evolved somewhere in Central Asia. After some time R* migrated into the Iranian Plateau and evolved into R1*, for about 30,000 years ago. R1* became a 'Caucasus' component marker. After couple thousands of years when the ice age ended in Northern Eurasia, R1* migrated into Europe and back into the Central Asia as R1a.

One part of R1* that ended up in the Eastern Europe did that via Central Asia. R1a went to Central Asia, picked up some (2-3%) Siberian genes and became a Gedrosia component. After that it migrated into Europe from Central Asia. Gedrosia component diluted in Eastern Europe, but there's still 30% of Gedrosia component left in North_European component.
One part of R1* stayed for a little while on the Iranian plateau, evolved into R1b and then, went directly to Western Europe via Anatolian plains.

newtoboard
01-10-2014, 08:46 PM
Pontic-Caspian Steppe model is even more erroneous, with much more cheese holes.

But I was talking about R1* BEFORE PIE.
R1* - R1b could go to the NorthWest and R1* - R1a to the Central Asia and via Central Asia populated Eastern Europe.
This is what 23andme site is saying! According to 23andme.com R1* is from Middle East, at least 15,000 years ago!


https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/795x666q90/838/zttx.png

Not really. The steppe theory fits. And the argument for it gets stronger day by day.

the SUN child
01-10-2014, 09:14 PM
Not really. The steppe theory fits. And the argument for it gets stronger day by day.
No my friend, hélas pour toi.
All evidence I see favour and stronger my thoughts.

Everything what the Pontic-Caspian theory supporters do, it backfires back on them. Whatever they do they just can't change the reality. We live in the 21st century, maybe Nazis in 1940’s were able to distort some facts. But we live now in the technological era, era of science and everything is closely monitored, by folks from Alaska to people from South Africa.

But I still don't understand what hard-headed want to achieve? I mean, sure it's interesting where PIE language is from, but who cares? I don't even care if they would say that PIE is from the moon. Geographical point of PIE will not change the reality.
Modern native speakers of Indo-European live all over the world. We have Celts, Slavs, Italians, Greeks, Aryans (Iranians) etc. All those people ARE native speakers of their language. And all of them have their own distinguish language, culture, values and history.

History of some Indo-Europeans is magnificent, and of some not so.

Italians, Greeks, Persian & Medes (Aryans) people have magnificent ANCIENT history. They build great civilizations! While other Indo-Europeans don't have ancient history at all, lol. It's time to accept that and to move on. But then again, WHO CARES, we all human. It's not Hellenic, Persians or Roman history, but HUMAN history at the end of the day

newtoboard
01-10-2014, 09:21 PM
No my friend, hélas pour toi.
All evidence I see favour and stronger my thoughts.

Everything what the Ponrtic-Caspian theory supporters do, it backfires backon them. Whatever they do they just can’t change the reality. We live in the 21st century, maybe Nazis in 1940’s were able to distort some facts. But we live now in the technological era, era of science and everything is closely monitored, form people to Alaska to people to South Africa.

But I still don’t understand what hard-headed want to achieve? I mean, it’s interesting where PIE language is from, but who cares? I don’t even care if they would say that PIE is from the moon.
Ge geographical point of PIE will not change the reality.
Modern native speakers of Indo-European live all over the world. We have Celts, Slavs, Italians, Greeks, Iranians etc. All those people ARE native speakers of their language. And all of them have their own distinguish language, culture, values and history.
History of some Indo-Europeans is magnificent, and of some not so.
Italians, Greeks, Persian & Medes people have magnificent ANCIENT history while other Indo-Europeans don't have ancient history at all, lol. It’s time to accept that .But then again, WHO CARES!

You really haven't read much on the subject. Obviously you care otherwise you wouldn't be constantly arguing for PIE's origin in your homeland. Plenty of IE speakers have a great history besides the ones you mentioned. The fact that you had to bring up Nazis to argue against the Pontic Caspian steppe theory is telling of how much support it is getting nowadays.

the SUN child
01-10-2014, 09:28 PM
..........