PDA

View Full Version : Yamna/Yamnaya Y-DNA



J Man
01-06-2015, 11:46 PM
Place your bets here for the main Y-DNA haplogroups that you think were present among the men of the Yamna/Yamnaya culture. I am betting on R1a, R1b, G2a and possibly some J2a.

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

vettor
01-07-2015, 02:44 AM
Place your bets here for the main Y-DNA haplogroups that you think were present among the men of the Yamna/Yamnaya culture. I am betting on R1a, R1b, G2a and possibly some J2a.

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

is that your choices in order or can everyone select 4 haplogroups?

I will select G2a and R1b

J Man
01-07-2015, 02:48 AM
is that your choices in order or can everyone select 4 haplogroups?

I will select G2a and R1b

You can select as many haplogroups as you want. Although i find it unlikely that more than 4 will be found among them.

rms2
01-07-2015, 05:04 PM
Place your bets here for the main Y-DNA haplogroups that you think were present among the men of the Yamna/Yamnaya culture. I am betting on R1a, R1b, G2a and possibly some J2a.

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

I would pretty much agree with that. I think that G2a and probably I2 got caught up in Yamnaya as it assimilated farmers from cultures like Cucuteni-Tripolye.

R1a, R1b, and J2a were probably more or less the original y haplogroups involved.

parasar
01-07-2015, 07:12 PM
I would pretty much agree with that. I think that G2a and probably I2 got caught up in Yamnaya as it assimilated farmers from cultures like Cucuteni-Tripolye.

R1a, R1b, and J2a were probably more or less the original y haplogroups involved.


Similar guesses, but I would include J2 in the former grouping.

J Man
01-07-2015, 11:07 PM
I would pretty much agree with that. I think that G2a and probably I2 got caught up in Yamnaya as it assimilated farmers from cultures like Cucuteni-Tripolye.

R1a, R1b, and J2a were probably more or less the original y haplogroups involved.

Interesting...What makes you think that J2a may have been one of the main Y-DNA haplogroups of the early Yamna/Yamnaya people?

rms2
01-08-2015, 02:10 AM
Interesting...What makes you think that J2a may have been one of the main Y-DNA haplogroups of the early Yamna/Yamnaya people?

Mainly because it, like R1b, has not shown up in Neolithic or earlier remains, got into Europe somehow, and shows up pretty well among IE-speakers, including that recent LBA result from Hungary.

J Man
01-08-2015, 04:05 AM
Mainly because it, like R1b, has not shown up in Neolithic or earlier remains, got into Europe somehow, and shows up pretty well among IE-speakers, including that recent LBA result from Hungary.

That recent LBA sample that is J2a came from an Indo-European speaking community? Is that confirmed? I know that the culture he belonged to is called Kyjatice.

ADW_1981
01-08-2015, 04:12 AM
That recent LBA sample that is J2a came from an Indo-European speaking community? Is that confirmed? I know that the culture he belonged to is called Kyjatice.

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=sk&u=http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyjatick%25C3%25A1_kult%25C3%25BAra&prev=search

The translated Wiki article implies it was a SE Urnfield related culture. Indeed, J2a is peculiar since that haplogroup is very low within Europe with the exception of southern most areas.
Looking more carefully the translation of one phrase is such: Settlements have neopevnené lowland fortified knoll and caves. In upland fortified settlements (Hradiskom) processed bronze, lowland cities were agricultural.

Was the (J2a) grave discovered within an agricultural context or a highland fortified settlement context? I believe the latter would be consisted with IE speaking cultures.

J Man
01-08-2015, 11:17 AM
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=sk&u=http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyjatick%25C3%25A1_kult%25C3%25BAra&prev=search

The translated Wiki article implies it was a SE Urnfield related culture. Indeed, J2a is peculiar since that haplogroup is very low within Europe with the exception of southern most areas.
Looking more carefully the translation of one phrase is such: Settlements have neopevnené lowland fortified knoll and caves. In upland fortified settlements (Hradiskom) processed bronze, lowland cities were agricultural.

Was the (J2a) grave discovered within an agricultural context or a highland fortified settlement context? I believe the latter would be consisted with IE speaking cultures.

Some Kyjatice settlements were fortified hilltop settlements. However I do not know the the one that the LBA J2a sample was found at is or not?

rms2
01-08-2015, 12:37 PM
That was actually an error on my part. I don't think the connection between Urnfield-derived cultures and IE has ever been established. In fact, I believe there were Urnfield settlements in what are believed to be non-IE-speaking areas. For some reason, I was thinking that LBA J2a was from a Vucedol site, but that was a mistake in memory.

Hando
01-08-2015, 03:39 PM
That was actually an error on my part. I don't think the connection between Urnfield-derived cultures and IE has ever been established. In fact, I believe there were Urnfield settlements in what are believed to be non-IE-speaking areas. For some reason, I was thinking that LBA J2a was from a Vucedol site, but that was a mistake in memory.
So then do you still feel that J2a will be found as one of the original YDNA Haplogroups along with R1a and R1b in an Indo-European context?

rms2
01-09-2015, 12:29 PM
So then do you still feel that J2a will be found as one of the original YDNA Haplogroups along with R1a and R1b in an Indo-European context?

It could be, or it might be one that was assimilated by Yamnaya from a farming culture like Cucuteni-Tripolye. However, J2a has not shown up at any Neolithic sites in Europe yet, and that is intriguing.

It is possible that European J2a had its source in BMAC and thus came relatively late to Europe, which would also explain its relative scarcity.

Hando
01-09-2015, 05:09 PM
It could be, or it might be one that was assimilated by Yamnaya from a farming culture like Cucuteni-Tripolye. However, J2a has not shown up at any Neolithic sites in Europe yet, and that is intriguing.It is possible that European J2a had its source in BMAC and thus came relatively late to Europe, which would also explain its relative scarcity.
So are you suggesting that J2a could have come into Europe with Indo Europeans who had mixed with J2a from BMAC area? If so then wouldn't this mean that J2a is actually not one of the original YDNA carried by PIE or IE?

Artmar
01-09-2015, 06:32 PM
It is possible that European J2a had its source in BMAC and thus came relatively late to Europe, which would also explain its relative scarcity.
It's quite unlikely. Firstly - the TMRCA calculations that put age of J2a further than it would look after deriving from BMAC.
Second thing - where are all those R1a-Z93s that would've spread with J2a BMACs? If people from BMAC spread anywhere, it was a modern Iran areas around it.

rms2
01-09-2015, 07:45 PM
It's quite unlikely. Firstly - the TMRCA calculations that put age of J2a further than it would look after deriving from BMAC.
Second thing - where are all those R1a-Z93s that would've spread with J2a BMACs? If people from BMAC spread anywhere, it was a modern Iran areas around it.

I have often wondered about the bogus argument that there can't be a connection between a y haplogroup and a certain culture because the y haplogroup is much older than the particular culture.

I have often walked into buildings that were built long after I was born. No one told me, "Get out! You're much older than this building! You can't be in here!"

In the same way, y haplogroups can belong to cultures that are much younger than they are without being disqualified from them.

In other words, I did not say "J2a first came into being in BMAC". I merely said (or implied) that the J2a that wound up in Europe by way of the steppe got into the steppe by way of BMAC. That's all.

That may not be correct, but the age of J2a is really irrelevant.

rms2
01-09-2015, 07:47 PM
So are you suggesting that J2a could have come into Europe with Indo Europeans who had mixed with J2a from BMAC area? If so then wouldn't this mean that J2a is actually not one of the original YDNA carried by PIE or IE?

That's correct; I meant it as an alternative possibility.

DMXX
01-09-2015, 08:29 PM
I do think it's possible that some Y-DNA J2a made their way in (or close towards) the Yamnaya zone. But I feel Maikop would be a better donor culture for any Y-DNA J2a in the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

BMAC cultural motifs were indeed found in the eastern edge of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, but the dating for this is comparatively late vis-a-vis the development of Proto-Indo-European. The cultural motifs I speak of (pattern engravings on pots characteristic of the BMAC) correspond with the time after Andronovo-related cultures began interacting with BMAC proper in the south. This would correspond with differentiated dialects of proto-Indo-Iranian (possibly proto-Iranian and proto-Indo-Aryan at this point?), a good two-to-three thousand years after PIE. We're also confronted with the fact that pots are not people, so this might simply represent cultural interactions from further south in South-Central Asia making their way downstream. On the contrary, however, we have seen the "pots =/= people" mantra definitively reduced in standing over the past few years thanks to aDNA, which confidently posits significant demic movements over time across Eurasia. If I recall correctly, the proposed "Maikop intrusion" I believe Jean M mentioned happened well before this point.

Looking at Y-DNA J2a distributions outside of South-Central Asia won't be particularly helpful here, either. The BMAC folk - Or at least their technology and vocabulary - seem to have independently made their way eastwards towards the Tarim and adjacent regions at some point in time. We do find Y-DNA J2a across the Tarim, as well as other regions (e.g. Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan). It's again possible that some Y-DNA J2a made its' way to the eastern steppe as rms2 suggested and was then "redistributed" deeper into Asia with subsequent early Indo-Iranian migrations, but we're (again) met with the problem of the possibility of earlier demic interactions obscuring whatever signal this may have left. There's also the possibility that Y-DNA J2a was picked up at the BMAC by early Iranian tribes and redistributed from there eastwards instead. As well as the pots-people dilemma. Again.

It's an oft-repeated (but rightly so) comment on these forums, but aDNA will be the vindicator of our collective cerebral sputtering. :)

As for my Yamnaya predictions;
- R1a1a dominant throughout both space and time, greater frequency in any one region the further one travels back through the cultural record (decrease in frequency a function of additional lineages incorporated)
- R1b-L23 dominant in the southwest, gradual but small dispersal throughout zone, possibly originally introduced by Tripolye, additional amount may have been introduced by Maikop folk
- R1b-M73 has presence in southeast, gradual but small dispersal throughout southern portion with time
- J2a a minority lineage introduced via southern cultures at various points (Tripolye, later Maikop)
- I2 and G present in outer peripheries, once more the result of interaction with southern cultures
- J1, H, L and R2a very unlikely to be picked up at all (would be surprised if any one of these had a frequency greater than 0.1%)

Artmar
01-10-2015, 12:10 PM
I have often wondered about the bogus argument that there can't be a connection between a y haplogroup and a certain culture because the y haplogroup is much older than the particular culture.

I have often walked into buildings that were built long after I was born. No one told me, "Get out! You're much older than this building! You can't be in here!"

In the same way, y haplogroups can belong to cultures that are much younger than they are without being disqualified from them.

In other words, I did not say "J2a first came into being in BMAC". I merely said (or implied) that the J2a that wound up in Europe by way of the steppe got into the steppe by way of BMAC. That's all.

That may not be correct, but the age of J2a is really irrelevant.
I also haven't stated that "SNP defining J2a is too old to arose in BMAC", what is obvious. I just stated that J2a as a designation of a group of people belonging to that branch and downstream clades are, as a whole,too old for that sentence

It is possible that European J2a had its source in BMAC
to be certainly true. Also I stated that I see no other accompanying carrier that would initiate such spread (migrating R1a, most likely - at least basing on the present data). Whereas in a regions that are close to BMAC R1a-Z93 and J2a live together and both make a high frequency among Brahmin caste in India.
No point to be a smartass and come up with comparison to the building. I may be young and unexperienced but I know what I'm writing.

I agree on DMXX's thought. Maykop should be a better donor, although not everything is solved.

rms2
01-10-2015, 01:39 PM
I think what you all (DMXX and Artmar) are saying makes sense, and I will admit that I am hardly an expert when it comes to J2a. Perhaps Maikop is a better choice for western J2a, while BMAC is better for the J2a that ended up among the Indo-Iranians.

Whatever the ultimate source, I still think the J2a in Europe may have come via Yamnaya. :P

jesus
01-10-2015, 01:48 PM
- J1, H, L and R2a very unlikely to be picked up at all (would be surprised if any one of these had a frequency greater than 0.1%)

L seems to be fairly common in Georgia, Abkhazia, Turkey ( especially the black sea region), Chechnya, Azerbaijan and Ingushetia so it's reasonable to say that it was found Maykop and maybe the southern parts of Yamna at a higher rate than 0.1%, but I don't think that it was one of the major haplogroups there.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-Haplogroup-L/default.aspx?section=yresults

DMXX
01-10-2015, 02:27 PM
L seems to be fairly common in Georgia, Abkhazia, Turkey ( especially the black sea region), Chechnya, Azerbaijan and Ingushetia so it's reasonable to say that it was found Maykop and maybe the southern parts of Yamna at a higher rate than 0.1%, but I don't think that it was one of the major haplogroups there.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-Haplogroup-L/default.aspx?section=yresults

Y-DNA L isn't actually very common in West Asia. L1b is the subclade that's most frequently reported in Southwest Asia (i.e. the Levant) and Anatolia. Gokcumen et al. picked up a lot of L1b in a single Anatolian village. The haplotypes are all practically identical (bar a couple of 1-step mutations) indicating a recent founder. Armenians also have L1b. This is in contast with the northern Caucasus, where L1c seems to be the primary variant of L-M20. Even then, it only appears in several ethnic groups and the frequencies tend to be significant (Chechen, Ingush) suggesting genetic drift once more.

If one ignores the misleading image presented by these select drifted populations and examines the region as a whole correcting for the size of each ethnic group, Y-DNA L probably won't make up more than 5% of all West Asian lines. It would be similar to concluding Tajiks are at least 20% R2a-M124 because such a result was picked up in a single Pamiri group (the Shugnans from Wells et al. if I recall).

All of the above is corroborated by Yunusbayev et al. (http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/caucasus-revisited-yunusbayev-et-al.html); please note L1a is practically absent, L1b is more common in the S Caucasus (9/305 = ~3%) than the NE (10/640 = ~1.6%) or NW (6/844 = 0.7%) and L1c is only significantly present in the Chechen and Ingush.

I agree some variant of Y-DNA L probably did exist among the Maikop. Given the diffuse presence across the Caucasus (all we have to go by given the absence of West Asian aDNA), L1b would be the most likely candidate. If we were to use modern frequencies as a standard and proposed a (very generous) contribution of additional lines to Yamnaya via Maikop at around 20% using the only Y-DNA L subclade with a consistent appearance in the northern Caucasus (L1b), we'd expect to see 0.14-0.32% of "post-Maikop Yamnaya" to have Y-DNA L. Which is comparatively close to the 0.1% figure I arbitrarily conjured out of thin air.
None of this is definitive, but it does give us an appreciation of the scale to which minor subclades may have been implicated in the development of Yamnaya.

(For readers unfamiliar with Y-DNA L's nomenclature; please note the terminology used by Yunusbayev is outdated and L1, L2 and L3 are now referred to as L1a, L1b and L1c respectively. See the current ISOGG tree. (http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpL.html))

vettor
01-10-2015, 04:44 PM
Y-DNA L isn't actually very common in West Asia. L1b is the subclade that's most frequently reported in Southwest Asia (i.e. the Levant) and Anatolia. Gokcumen et al. picked up a lot of L1b in a single Anatolian village. The haplotypes are all practically identical (bar a couple of 1-step mutations) indicating a recent founder. Armenians also have L1b. This is in contast with the northern Caucasus, where L1c seems to be the primary variant of L-M20. Even then, it only appears in several ethnic groups and the frequencies tend to be significant (Chechen, Ingush) suggesting genetic drift once more.

If one ignores the misleading image presented by these select drifted populations and examines the region as a whole correcting for the size of each ethnic group, Y-DNA L probably won't make up more than 5% of all West Asian lines. It would be similar to concluding Tajiks are at least 20% R2a-M124 because such a result was picked up in a single Pamiri group (the Shugnans from Wells et al. if I recall).

All of the above is corroborated by Yunusbayev et al. (http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/caucasus-revisited-yunusbayev-et-al.html); please note L1a is practically absent, L1b is more common in the S Caucasus (9/305 = ~3%) than the NE (10/640 = ~1.6%) or NW (6/844 = 0.7%) and L1c is only significantly present in the Chechen and Ingush.

I agree some variant of Y-DNA L probably did exist among the Maikop. Given the diffuse presence across the Caucasus (all we have to go by given the absence of West Asian aDNA), L1b would be the most likely candidate. If we were to use modern frequencies as a standard and proposed a (very generous) contribution of additional lines to Yamnaya via Maikop at around 20% using the only Y-DNA L subclade with a consistent appearance in the northern Caucasus (L1b), we'd expect to see 0.14-0.32% of "post-Maikop Yamnaya" to have Y-DNA L. Which is comparatively close to the 0.1% figure I arbitrarily conjured out of thin air.
None of this is definitive, but it does give us an appreciation of the scale to which minor subclades may have been implicated in the development of Yamnaya.

(For readers unfamiliar with Y-DNA L's nomenclature; please note the terminology used by Yunusbayev is outdated and L1, L2 and L3 are now referred to as L1a, L1b and L1c respectively. See the current ISOGG tree. (http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpL.html))

as per your link, there are 45 of 61, L haplogroup of the markers L2 and L3 in the north caucasus. With chechens accounting for 28 of them

reminds me on the marker LT-P326 found in many numbers by semargyl ( when it was working ) in north caucasus ( caspian sea side)

alan
01-10-2015, 05:21 PM
I think the archaeological background of the Maykop and the north Caucasus area would be a very mixed population with elements from the steppe-like hunter-fishers, from farmers and from NW Iran. I am not convinced it is likely to have had a strongly dominant single y line as it was pretty dynamic and complicated culture rather than an isolated group. One element I think is likely is some of whatever was in north Iran c. 4000BC. I have no idea what that was but the most recent archaeological paper in German made a very convincing case that the connections of Maykop were with Iran and maybe some of the Stans just east of Iran rather than the other idea that there was a direct link with Mesopotamia. That German paper very rapidly overturned another paper using the old Uruk expansion theory that had only come out months earlier. I found the German paper of a link with Iran very convincing. The question that maybe someone else may be able to better speculate on is just what was in north Iran c. 4000BC? IMO G was probably dominant in the west of SW Asia judging by the European farmers but north Iran is different. North Iran to the east of the Zagros has a very different history from south and west Iran. It didnt take up farming until later - apparently after Europe had already been settled by G farmers. I suppose I alsosuspect J of some sort was involved but dont really know much about it. There is some very old R1b in Iran but its of very early branching off from most of R1b of M343 or P25 type and may owe more to pre-farming peoples around the Caspian IMO.

vettor
01-10-2015, 05:33 PM
I think the archaeological background of the Maykop and the north Caucasus area would be a very mixed population with elements from the steppe-like hunter-fishers, from farmers and from NW Iran. I am not convinced it is likely to have had a strongly dominant single y line as it was pretty dynamic and complicated culture rather than an isolated group. One element I think is likely is some of whatever was in north Iran c. 4000BC. I have no idea what that was but the most recent archaeological paper in German made a very convincing case that the connections of Maykop were with Iran and maybe some of the Stans just east of Iran rather than the other idea that there was a direct link with Mesopotamia. That German paper very rapidly overturned another paper using the old Uruk expansion theory that had only come out months earlier. I found the German paper of a link with Iran very convincing. The question that maybe someone else may be able to better speculate on is just what was in north Iran c. 4000BC? IMO G was probably dominant in the west of SW Asia judging by the European farmers but north Iran is different. North Iran to the east of the Zagros has a very different history from south and west Iran. It didnt take up farming until later - apparently after Europe had already been settled by G farmers. I suppose I alsosuspect J of some sort was involved but dont really know much about it. There is some very old R1b in Iran but its of very early branching off from most of R1b of M343 or P25 type and may owe more to pre-farming peoples around the Caspian IMO.

did these hunters arrive in the north-caucasus from the north of the caspian sea or the South?............history states that between the caspian and aral sea was flooded. it is between 200 to 250 metres lower today in water level

ADW_1981
01-10-2015, 06:58 PM
I think the archaeological background of the Maykop and the north Caucasus area would be a very mixed population with elements from the steppe-like hunter-fishers, from farmers and from NW Iran. I am not convinced it is likely to have had a strongly dominant single y line as it was pretty dynamic and complicated culture rather than an isolated group. One element I think is likely is some of whatever was in north Iran c. 4000BC. I have no idea what that was but the most recent archaeological paper in German made a very convincing case that the connections of Maykop were with Iran and maybe some of the Stans just east of Iran rather than the other idea that there was a direct link with Mesopotamia. That German paper very rapidly overturned another paper using the old Uruk expansion theory that had only come out months earlier. I found the German paper of a link with Iran very convincing. The question that maybe someone else may be able to better speculate on is just what was in north Iran c. 4000BC? IMO G was probably dominant in the west of SW Asia judging by the European farmers but north Iran is different. North Iran to the east of the Zagros has a very different history from south and west Iran. It didnt take up farming until later - apparently after Europe had already been settled by G farmers. I suppose I alsosuspect J of some sort was involved but dont really know much about it. There is some very old R1b in Iran but its of very early branching off from most of R1b of M343 or P25 type and may owe more to pre-farming peoples around the Caspian IMO.

It's a pretty basic split, and the dates should still be up in the air. I also don't feel we have enough data points from some regions of central Asia to this day. P25 is not a stable marker and should not be considered reliable.

R1b (xL389, xV88) - India and most likely Iran. The latter region has not been tested against either V88/L389 thoroughly
R1b-L389 - west of "west Asia"
R1b-V88 - Levant, Africa, extremely spotty in Europe. A cluster found in Sardinia. Unlikely to be from the first farmers IMHO, but later settlement.

J Man
01-10-2015, 10:13 PM
I think what you all (DMXX and Artmar) are saying makes sense, and I will admit that I am hardly an expert when it comes to J2a. Perhaps Maikop is a better choice for western J2a, while BMAC is better for the J2a that ended up among the Indo-Iranians.

Whatever the ultimate source, I still think the J2a in Europe may have come via Yamnaya. :P

Hopefully soon ancient DNA results will tell us.

Krefter
01-11-2015, 02:33 AM
Hopefully soon ancient DNA results will tell us.

I'm getting very inpatient with Reich's paper, because I expected it almost a month ago. He told someone last month it should be out in 2 months, which probably means 2,000 years.

Leeroy Jenkins
01-11-2015, 03:10 AM
I'm getting very inpatient with Reich's paper, because I expected it almost a month ago. He told someone last month it should be out in 2 months, which probably means 2,000 years.

I think we all feel that way. I check biorxiv every morning to see if the Yamnaya paper is there, and every morning I am disappointed. Reich is starting to remind me of Charlie from Snatch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU2zlSfkdE8

alan
01-11-2015, 04:19 AM
It's a pretty basic split, and the dates should still be up in the air. I also don't feel we have enough data points from some regions of central Asia to this day. P25 is not a stable marker and should not be considered reliable.

R1b (xL389, xV88) - India and most likely Iran. The latter region has not been tested against either V88/L389 thoroughly
R1b-L389 - west of "west Asia"
R1b-V88 - Levant, Africa, extremely spotty in Europe. A cluster found in Sardinia. Unlikely to be from the first farmers IMHO, but later settlement.

I had not heard P25 was unstable. Even if it is there M343 and certainly negative for P297-the ancestor of M269 and M73. So these are very old branches away from the other branches. A long whlle back on STR data we were being told P297 likely was at least 10 or 11 thousand years old. I suspect now with SNP data its significantly older - anyone got an SNP count date for P297? I suspect we surely must be looking at some palaeolithic remnant in northern Iran. It strikes me that if you have hunters anywhere on the Caspian shores there was no barrier to simply walking or paddling a boat along the shoreline to any part of the sea. So, IMO it would any late Paleolithic hunters in the north Caspian could easily have reached the south Caspian. This of course is enormously complicated by the post-LGM super-expansion of the sea which would have deeply buried the remains of any hunters around then north, east and part of the west shore of the Caspian making them unlikely to be often recovered. The exception is the south Caspian where steep shore mean the shoreline hasnt varied a lot. These marine deposits may be covering up a lot of the detail of what went on in the north and east Caspian after the LGM but before the rise of farming. As for settlement in the LGM itself around the Caspian, the sea was much smaller and now lie under the middle of the sea. So really there are some parts of archaeology that are simple not recoverable and that includes the human settlement around the Caspian c. 25-10000BC. If some R1 people did make it from south central Siberia to the Caspian area at the start of the LGM for instance we may never be able to prove it. We may suspect it due to the early branching off R1b in north Iran but we will struggle to find evidence if its either under the sea or under deep marine deposits on dry land.

Chad Rohlfsen
01-11-2015, 05:38 AM
I don't think P-297 is that old. I think that MJost put m269 at 5200BCE max. ASFAIK, v88, which is older, is only dated to around 7000BCE, maybe 8000BCE max.

ADW_1981
01-11-2015, 06:42 AM
I had not heard P25 was unstable. Even if it is there M343 and certainly negative for P297-the ancestor of M269 and M73. So these are very old branches away from the other branches. A long whlle back on STR data we were being told P297 likely was at least 10 or 11 thousand years old. I suspect now with SNP data its significantly older - anyone got an SNP count date for P297? I suspect we surely must be looking at some palaeolithic remnant in northern Iran. It strikes me that if you have hunters anywhere on the Caspian shores there was no barrier to simply walking or paddling a boat along the shoreline to any part of the sea. So, IMO it would any late Paleolithic hunters in the north Caspian could easily have reached the south Caspian. This of course is enormously complicated by the post-LGM super-expansion of the sea which would have deeply buried the remains of any hunters around then north, east and part of the west shore of the Caspian making them unlikely to be often recovered. The exception is the south Caspian where steep shore mean the shoreline hasnt varied a lot. These marine deposits may be covering up a lot of the detail of what went on in the north and east Caspian after the LGM but before the rise of farming. As for settlement in the LGM itself around the Caspian, the sea was much smaller and now lie under the middle of the sea. So really there are some parts of archaeology that are simple not recoverable and that includes the human settlement around the Caspian c. 25-10000BC. If some R1 people did make it from south central Siberia to the Caspian area at the start of the LGM for instance we may never be able to prove it. We may suspect it due to the early branching off R1b in north Iran but we will struggle to find evidence if its either under the sea or under deep marine deposits on dry land.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16026953

Hando
01-11-2015, 12:01 PM
As for my Yamnaya predictions;
- R1a1a dominant throughout both space and time, greater frequency in any one region the further one travels back through the cultural record (decrease in frequency a function of additional lineages incorporated)
- R1b-L23 dominant in the southwest, gradual but small dispersal throughout zone, possibly originally introduced by Tripolye, additional amount may have been introduced by Maikop folk
- R1b-M73 has presence in southeast, gradual but small dispersal throughout southern portion with time
- J2a a minority lineage introduced via southern cultures at various points (Tripolye, later Maikop)
- I2 and G present in outer peripheries, once more the result of interaction with southern cultures
- J1, H, L and R2a very unlikely to be picked up at all (would be surprised if any one of these had a frequency greater than 0.1%)
Are you suggesting that both R1b-L23 and J2a co-existed in Tripolye and Maikop? I assumed R1b was not a neolithic farmer related HG.

rms2
01-11-2015, 12:18 PM
Are you suggesting that both R1b-L23 and J2a co-existed in Tripolye and Maikop? I assumed R1b was not a neolithic farmer related HG.

It's just my opinion, and I've posted this elsewhere before, but I do not think R1b came via Cucuteni-Tripolye. The CT people were Neolithic farmers with the Near Eastern feel of little fertility goddess figurines, etc. I could be wrong, but I expect them to be mostly G2a Near Easterners with some native Neolithicized I2 sprinkled in.

Time will tell, of course (maybe), but I think R1b came out of the steppe and was not among the early agriculturalist cultures like Cucuteni-Tripolye.

Hando
01-11-2015, 12:24 PM
It's just my opinion, and I've posted this elsewhere before, but I do not think R1b came via Cucuteni-Tripolye. The CT people were Neolithic farmers with the Near Eastern feel of little fertility goddess figurines, etc. I could be wrong, but I expect them to be mostly G2a Near Easterners with some native Neolithicized I2 sprinkled in.

Time will tell, of course (maybe), but I think R1b came out of the steppe and was not among the early agriculturalist cultures like Cucuteni-Tripolye.
What about Maikop? Do you think R1b was among the Maikop?

rms2
01-11-2015, 12:26 PM
What about Maikop? Do you think R1b was among the Maikop?

I think that is a stronger possibility than Cucuteni-Tripolye, but, honestly, no.

alan
01-11-2015, 12:58 PM
I cannot see R1b being associated with CTrip. That culture is derived from Balkans Neolithic cultures and has a cousinly relation with LBK. No R1b has ever been found in them. The only way CTrip would have any R1b is if the farmers absorbed it from hunters in Ukraine. However there is no evidence for this though

alan
01-11-2015, 01:45 PM
I don't think P-297 is that old. I think that MJost put m269 at 5200BCE max. ASFAIK, v88, which is older, is only dated to around 7000BCE, maybe 8000BCE max.

From what I understood STR methods as well as Klyosov's method dated M269 to around 4000BC and P297 to around 8000BC. While that may have changed I would imagine the relative difference would be retained. The trend seems to be for SNP dating to push dates back which is why I suspect P297 is even older than 8000BC. V88 is of course on a completely different very basal branching off of R1b which branched off below P25 but above P297 so doesnt really tell us anything much about P297.

I need to ask Michal and others who do SNP counting if he has some estimate for P297

I think one clue to the context of P297 is the fact that although P297* was around for many thousands of years before M269 arose, no P297xM269xM73 has every been found. So we are not talking about P297 being in a demographically strong farming sort of context but rather in some sort of bare survival hunter-gatherer type context.

R.Rocca
01-11-2015, 02:19 PM
I cannot see R1b being associated with CTrip. That culture is derived from Balkans Neolithic cultures and has a cousinly relation with LBK. No R1b has ever been found in them. The only way CTrip would have any R1b is if the farmers absorbed it from hunters in Ukraine. However there is no evidence for this though

That I can remember, we don't have any Y-DNA results from CT. Either way I think we will find a higher than expected I2 presence in CT with some other Near Eastern clades as well. We also need to consider that CT lasted a very long time, so late CT may have already had some R1a and R1b in their ranks.

lgmayka
01-11-2015, 03:16 PM
I need to ask Michal and others who do SNP counting if he has some estimate for P297
We need at least one (preferably two) Big Y results from R-M73; we have none yet, as far as I know. Kit 277808, who is predicted to be R-M73, has ordered the Big Y test. I would like to pay for the Big Y of kit 186122, who has tested M73+ and belongs to a different subclade from 277808, but I can't afford it. Any donations? :)

alan
01-11-2015, 07:20 PM
We need at least one (preferably two) Big Y results from R-M73; we have none yet, as far as I know. Kit 277808, who is predicted to be R-M73, has ordered the Big Y test. I would like to pay for the Big Y of kit 186122, who has tested M73+ and belongs to a different subclade from 277808, but I can't afford it. Any donations? :)

Unfortunately the recession has put moths in my wallet

alan
01-11-2015, 07:24 PM
That I can remember, we don't have any Y-DNA results from CT. Either way I think we will find a higher than expected I2 presence in CT with some other Near Eastern clades as well. We also need to consider that CT lasted a very long time, so late CT may have already had some R1a and R1b in their ranks.

That is true. There was definately two-way contact with it and steppe groups visible in the archaeology although they retained their core strong differences. Suggestive of a trickle flow to me. C-Trip was a very impressive culture in many ways and part of it survived for a very long time.

vettor
01-11-2015, 08:00 PM
It seems remote that people went to the north caucasus via an avenue between the caspian and aral sea as modern turkmenistsn and uzbekistan was under water

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PsROAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=herodotus+aral+sea&source=bl&ots=-flP6l7L9a&sig=OSsZgnYuo4bisIFY3QgYfYe8zYw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u9SyVIrlJYipogTh34KwDA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=herodotus%20aral%20sea&f=false

this is noted by ancient scholars herodotus and strabo

most likely is a southern passage via modern azeri lands or via western China

Hok
01-11-2015, 08:45 PM
I doubt R1b is introduced by the Maykop culture.

Hando
01-12-2015, 04:33 PM
I doubt R1b is introduced by the Maykop culture.
Do you have a reason for this suggestion?

Hando
01-12-2015, 04:35 PM
It seems remote that people went to the north caucasus via an avenue between the caspian and aral sea as modern turkmenistsn and uzbekistan was under water

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PsROAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=herodotus+aral+sea&source=bl&ots=-flP6l7L9a&sig=OSsZgnYuo4bisIFY3QgYfYe8zYw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u9SyVIrlJYipogTh34KwDA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=herodotus%20aral%20sea&f=false

this is noted by ancient scholars herodotus and strabo

most likely is a southern passage via modern azeri lands or via western China
Was there an avenue between north caucasus from between the caspian and aral sea? How did they managa to cross the Caspian to North Caucasus? By boat?
People migrated to North Caucaus from Western China?

vettor
01-12-2015, 05:04 PM
Was there an avenue between north caucasus from between the caspian and aral sea? How did they managa to cross the Caspian to North Caucasus? By boat?
People migrated to North Caucaus from Western China?

According to archeology and geology, the level of water was over 200 metres higher in the are you noted.

I can only see a passage from modern Iran/persia to north caucasus via the mountains of modern georgia etc or via modern western China ( this is less likely until a later point in time )

Herodotus states , the greeks can sail from greece to the pamir mountains without getting off the boat .

DMXX
01-22-2015, 05:36 AM
Not sure how I missed this:


Are you suggesting that both R1b-L23 and J2a co-existed in Tripolye and Maikop? I assumed R1b was not a neolithic farmer related HG.

We don't have any aDNA so it is possible, which was the word I originally used (although I made a typo and meant "originally introduced to Tripolye", not "by"). I'm inclined towards rms2 and alan's posts regarding the chief Y-lines attributable to Tripolye; Y-DNA G appears to be the primary Neolithic marker of Europe.

The main reason I stipulated dominance in southwestern Yamnaya was the significant presence of Y-DNA R1b-L23 downstream subclades across much of Europe versus its' relative paucity in Asia. There have been a handful of Y-DNA R1b-L23 derived lines reported in Central Asia, but overlapping history with the numerous empires arising in the Iranian plateau muddy the picture. It's not inconcievable that some of these lines are actually derived from Yamnaya, which is again why I stipulated a "gradual but small dispersal throughout zone". Having said this, Y-DNA R1a still appears to be the primary IE marker in Asia.

Leeroy Jenkins
01-23-2015, 02:20 AM
If the person posting in the comments section of Eurogenes as "Nick Patterson" is the real deal, it would appear the report from the Harvard Gazette about Patterson and Reich having samples from Maikop is false.


I'm not trying to tease, but we have a paper in submission.
I can't say too much
or I'll annoy the editor..
We do discuss Yamnaya Y DNA in the paper. One other error
in the Gazette:
We do not have Maikop material right now,
and indeed no
DNA from ancient
(Caucasus, Iran, India).
This is probably necessary
before we really understand how IE -> India.

If this is true, then it breaks my heart. :(

Krefter
01-23-2015, 02:31 AM
Patterson answered a question for Chad and Ryuk, at Eurogenes.

Ryuk asked how much ANE Yamna and EHG had. Chad, asked how many Mesolithic Y DNA samples they have.

Patterson.

I don't want to tease or say too much
but I'll answer Ryukendo and Chad
and then sign off the thread.
a) (Ryukendo) There's a question of how ANE
is defined but Yamnaya are about
50% EHG and 50% something else rich
in ANE.

b) (Chad) Quite a lot, but including samples
irrelevant to IE. For the Yamnaya
we have 9 samples, 7 Males.

Krefter
01-23-2015, 02:32 AM
It looks like they have more EHG Y DNA than Yamna, and by irrelvent samples to PIE, he might mean non-R1a, if not sometype of R I would guess Q, C, F*, or I.

parasar
01-23-2015, 02:36 AM
If the person posting in the comments section of Eurogenes as "Nick Patterson" is the real deal, it would appear the report from the Harvard Gazette about Patterson and Reich having samples from Maikop is false.



If this is true, then it breaks my heart. :(

This looks like a reasonable error:

I'm Nick Patterson and there
have been lots of comments about a talk I gave at Harvard on
Indo-European origins.

Comments based on an article in the Harvard Gazette
I had never seen
(only just discovered it existed!).
There's a date given (3500 B.P.) which should
of course be 3500 B.C.E.



But it is difficult to understand how the Harvard staff writer could have made such a gross error!

Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said.

parasar
01-23-2015, 02:57 AM
Patterson answered a question for Chad and Ryuk, at Eurogenes.

Ryuk asked how much ANE Yamna and EHG had. Chad, asked how many Mesolithic Y DNA samples they have.

Patterson.

I don't want to tease or say too much
but I'll answer Ryukendo and Chad
and then sign off the thread.
a) (Ryukendo) There's a question of how ANE
is defined but Yamnaya are about
50% EHG and 50% something else rich
in ANE.

b) (Chad) Quite a lot, but including samples
irrelevant to IE. For the Yamnaya
we have 9 samples, 7 Males.


So he is saying that EHG (are like WHG) are not rich in ANE?

Krefter
01-23-2015, 03:04 AM
So he is saying that EHG (like WHG) are not rich in ANE?

No, he is saying Yamna was a mix of EHG and another pop that was also rich in ANE. This other pop also gave them near eastern ancestry, and could have been similar to modern Caucasins. We don't know whether this pop ever existed, or if there were other EHG with more ANE than the EHG samples they have.

This most important thing he said in my opinion is, "There's a question how ANE is defined". Although EHG is mixed it's a very real and recent ancestor for most modern Europeans and probably several Asians and should be used in Eurogenes experiments along with MA-1, once the genomes are released.

To get a better idea where ANE-type stuff in Asia is coming from we need ancient genomes from several different regions, because the ANE-WHG-BB theory might not be giving the full story.

parasar
01-23-2015, 03:08 AM
I think Indo-European, India, and ANE is giving them fits!

Recalling his comments just about Gujaratis in connection with Lazaridis' pre-print, that they were seeing four genetically distinct groups just in Gujarat!


Nick Patterson (Broad) said...

About time asked for some
f_3 stats. As a Christmas present:

## Sources Target f_3 Z
LBK Onge Vishwabrahmin 0.000734 0.641
LBK Onge Gujarati1 -0.006114 -4.582
LBK Onge Gujarati2 -0.006442 -4.955
LBK Onge Gujarati3 -0.001871 -1.325
LBK Onge Gujarati4 0.002510 1.814
MA1 Onge Vishwabrahmin 0.005237 4.136
MA1 Onge Gujarati1 0.002404 1.641
MA1 Onge Gujarati2 0.003153 2.124
MA1 Onge Gujarati3 0.004297 2.923
MA1 Onge Gujarati4 0.009156 6.084
LBK She Uzbek -0.024589 -26.829
MA1 She Uzbek -0.013565 -13.372

(There are 4 Gujarati groups in the Human Origins data, genetically distinct).

Implications for ancient DNA to the history of India and Asia are very interesting but
will need much more work.

parasar
01-23-2015, 03:16 AM
No, he is saying Yamna was a mix of EHG and another pop that was also rich in ANE. This other pop also gave them near eastern ancestry, and could have been similar to modern Caucasins. We don't know whether this pop ever existed, or if there were other EHG with more ANE than the EHG samples they have.

This most important thing he said in my opinion is, "There's a question how ANE is defined". Although EHG is mixed it's a very real and recent ancestor for most modern Europeans and probably several Asians and should be used in Eurogenes experiments along with MA-1, once the genomes are released.

To get a better idea where ANE-type stuff in Asia is coming from we need ancient genomes from several different regions, because the ANE-WHG-BB theory might not be giving the full story.

Are you certain, because I think he brings the ANE rich population from Samara into contact with EHG Yamna. Then later a change towards Basal also occurs in Yamna. So there are two changes - an ANE rich population coming in into contact with ENF which is very much like WHG, followed by contact with Basal.

As far as the definition, I myself consider WHG to be more ANE than ANE-MA1.

Chad Rohlfsen
01-23-2015, 03:41 AM
It is likely that the EHG is 65% WHG and 35% ANE. A mix of this with an Armenian would make someone around 25% ANE and keep Corded within North Central Europe and as 2/3 Yamnaya.

By irrelevant to IE, I believe that he is probably speaking about the age of IE. IE probably doesn't date back to 7000BCE, not because of any y-dna signature. It would be hard to make any connection to Karvelian and Uralic at that age and location. Maykop's connection to Central Asia doesn't rule out them actually being like Armenians when they entered. They very well could be a Near East/ANE mix.

parasar
01-23-2015, 03:54 AM
It is likely that the EHG is 65% WHG and 35% ANE. A mix of this with an Armenian would make someone around 25% ANE and keep Corded within North Central Europe and as 2/3 Yamnaya.

By irrelevant to IE, I believe that he is probably speaking about the age of IE. IE probably doesn't date back to 7000BCE, not because of any y-dna signature. It would be hard to make any connection to Karvelian and Uralic at that age and location. Maykop's connection to Central Asia doesn't rule out them actually being like Armenians when they entered. They very well could be a Near East/ANE mix.

That proportion would make more sense, though still a little too high for ANE. The transition I see is Samara (rich in ANE) to Yamna (more WHG like) to IE (increase in Basal).

Chad, you missed an opportunity to ask about R1 on your first question :)

Generalissimo
01-23-2015, 04:16 AM
The transition I see is Samara (rich in ANE) to Yamna (more WHG like) to IE (increase in Basal).

No, you should read the abstract again. There was only one transition.

ANE affinity was dempened in the Samara Valley by a population of Near Eastern origin, which helped to form Yamnaya. There's no indication this population was rich in WHG.

However, it was rich in ANE, but obviously not as much as the Samara Valley foragers. Hence, that's why Yamnaya can be modeled as 50/50 EHG/Armenian, because Armenians have ANE.

parasar
01-23-2015, 04:22 AM
No, you should read the abstract again. There was only one transition.

ANE affinity was dempened in the Samara Valley by a population of Near Eastern origin, which helped to form Yamnaya. There's no indication this population was rich in WHG.

However, it was rich in ANE, but obviously not as much as the Samara Valley foragers. Hence, that's why Yamnaya can be modeled as 50/50 EHG/Armenian, because Armenians have ANE.

Maybe, but I read "major population turnovers" as at least two changes.

Generalissimo
01-23-2015, 04:42 AM
Maybe, but I read "major population turnovers" as at least two changes.

The latest abstract clearly states that a population with Near Eastern ancestry dampened the ANE affinity in the Samara Valley by the time of the Yamnaya culture.

It says nothing about Yamnaya being rich in WHG and this being the cause for the dampening of the ANE affinity. The reason for the fall in ANE affinity was an influx of Near Eastern ancestry.

parasar
01-23-2015, 04:55 AM
The latest abstract clearly states that a population with Near Eastern ancestry dampened the ANE affinity in the Samara Valley by the time of the Yamnaya culture.

It says nothing about Yamnaya being rich in WHG and this being the cause for the dampening of the ANE affinity. The reason for the fall in ANE affinity was an influx of Near Eastern ancestry.

I never said WHG, but WHG like. WHG is 0% ANE. I agreed with Chad that EHG could have about 35% ANE is reasonable. So the transition would be (ANE Rich) to (ANE Rich + EHG) to (ANE Rich + EHG + Basal).

Chad Rohlfsen
01-23-2015, 05:03 AM
I never said WHG, but WHG like. WHG is 0% ANE. I agreed with Chad that EHG could have about 35% ANE is reasonable. So the transition would be (ANE Rich) to (ANE Rich + EHG) to (ANE Rich + EHG + Basal).

A transition from 65/35, to 38NE, 36WHG, 26 ANE makes more sense. I think that was the figure. It may have been 39/35/26. I can't remember the exact number.

Chad Rohlfsen
01-23-2015, 05:19 AM
If Reich and Lazaridis are still using the EEF model, it will probably be something like 50% EEF, 24% WHG, 26% ANE. Corded Ware might be 40/41/19, Bell Beaker at 48/38/14, or something like that.

parasar
01-23-2015, 05:25 AM
...

However, it was rich in ANE, but obviously not as much as the Samara Valley foragers. .

Different semantics, but we are essentially saying the same thing.

alan
01-23-2015, 05:15 PM
Yamnaya is bound to be a mix of WHG, ANE and WHG but in different proportions. For what it is worth even among pre-Yamnaya steppe groups it has been noted that farming was a far more important part of the economy towards the Dnieper and fell away to very little eastwards. This seems to largely be a matter of viability of farming practices in the eastern steppes at that time.I think from memory this has been discussed in terms of the PIE farming vocab. So it seems to me that its natural to think farmer genes may have once varied considerably between the Dnieper and the Volga. There is the complicating factor of a modest input from Maykop elements c. 3500BC too. Its one of these things that doesnt look like it was more than a small intrusion but it was influential and parts of it prefigured some aspects of Yamnaya - metalwork style, really major kurgans, waggon burials and wheels etc.

alan
01-23-2015, 05:21 PM
I have slightly different interest in this from Yamnaya. I would like to see a sequence of steppe DNA from 10000-3000BC to see what really happened as the steppes progressed from Gravettian to microblade Mesolithic groups to late Mesolithic macroblade groups to Stredny Stog and onwards. I think it could have been pure WHG if that was a pan-Gravettian signature, then an influx of ANE from Siberia and then penetration by farmers. I suspect it changed over time but I believe the ANE element is the one that spoke the remote ancestor of IE and Uralic.

alan
01-23-2015, 05:24 PM
The latest abstract clearly states that a population with Near Eastern ancestry dampened the ANE affinity in the Samara Valley by the time of the Yamnaya culture.

It says nothing about Yamnaya being rich in WHG and this being the cause for the dampening of the ANE affinity. The reason for the fall in ANE affinity was an influx of Near Eastern ancestry.

Yeah it remains unclear if WHG is all from the western refugia and reached eastern Europe only at the very end of the Paleolithic OR if WHG is pan-Gravettian and had formed before the LGM and therefore was present in both the western and Ukraine refuges. I would love to know which one is correct.

alan
01-23-2015, 05:28 PM
One thing is clear, Europeans are united in almost all having significant amounts of the three main components and therefore we all share the same heritage of western hunters, eastern hunters, Siberian hunters/steppe, Neolithic farmers albeit in varying proportions. North Europeans in particular only vary modestly from east to west. There seems a stronger variation from east to west in southern Europe with parts of Iberia having as high WHG as northern Europeans.

vettor
01-23-2015, 05:33 PM
I think Indo-European, India, and ANE is giving them fits!

Recalling his comments just about Gujaratis in connection with Lazaridis' pre-print, that they were seeing four genetically distinct groups just in Gujarat!

Gujarat .....very very interesting......
On a side note......natgeno did 2 major studies and tests in 2005 and 2010 on venetian people and concluded that they match mostly 2 different distinct people in the world, the Swabians of modern South west Germany and the Gujarat from North west India.

They also tested all the known Venetian links with the baltic veneti and brittany france veneti and the north anatolian veneti...............see below

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/hapoofvenice_zps5df23ee7.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/hapoofvenice_zps5df23ee7.jpg.html)

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/venicestr_zpsf46a87a3.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/venicestr_zpsf46a87a3.jpg.html)

Humanist
02-11-2015, 10:39 AM
Place your bets here for the main Y-DNA haplogroups that you think were present among the men of the Yamna/Yamnaya culture. I am betting on R1a, R1b, G2a and possibly some J2a.

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

Exclusively R1b (pred. Z2103). :P

parasar
02-15-2015, 10:26 PM
lol Yeah, that was classic.

What do you feel the odds are these Z2103 lineages represent the Near Eastern half of Yamnaya ancestry that migrated back to the steppes from a more southern location?


The other thread is closed so I'm responding here. That is a key question, but I don't have an answer! I'm not even sure there was a migration from a southern location in the Near East.
That I have not been able to reconcile.

In Lazaridis et al. we saw that ...
"K=8 reveals a South Asian component maximized in the Mala ... MA1 derives approximately one third of its ancestry to this new component"

This South Asian component broke up at K=15 with the appearance of the Kalash component. MA1 is featured in both the South Asian at K=8 and Kalash at K=15. This Kalash component is totally absent in ancient Europeans of both the WHG and EEF types, but is seen in present-day Near Easterners.

"K=15 shows the appearance of a component, maximized in the Kalash, that becomes the most predominant signal in Indus Valley and Caucasus populations. It is also prominent in the rest of South
Asia, Central Asia, Near East and in diminishing strength in Europe. It is absent in Sardinians, Basques, and all ancient Europeans, although it is present in MA1 ... indicating that present-day Near Easterners have been affected by gene flow not present in early Near Eastern migrants into Europe."


The same is the case with the component Haak et al. say is in present day Near Easterners and in Yamna:
"Yamnaya have ancestry from populations related to the Caucasus and South Asia that is largely absent in 38 Early or Middle Neolithic farmers but present in all 25 Late Neolithic or Bronze Age individuals. This ancestry appears in Central Europe for the first time in our series with the Corded Ware around 2,500 BCE"

Now we also know that the Yamna are a mix of EHG and another component which is Armenian like.
"admixture of EHG with a population related to present-day Near Easterners" "EHG and a type of Near Eastern ancestry different from that which was introduced by early farmers"

As EHG already has ANE, my assumption is that it is not the ANE part of the ancestry in present day Near Easterns that is making them different from early farmers, but something else.

We also see that: "A negative statistic for both Armenians and Yamnaya with each other as a reference population may suggest that a third (unsampled) population admixed into both the Yamnaya and to Armenians"

So it appears that a third element [not previously in present proto-Yamna, proto-Armenians, WHG or EEF] joined with the EHG at Samara to form Yamna that moved to Corded Ware.

I can't think how a third element such as this would be absent in both proto-Yamna and pro-Armenian as well as absent in European Neolithics and Hunter Gatherers, can be Near Eastern or Caucasian.

It looks more like ANI-Kalash to me.

So which Y dna could this mystery element correspond to?

Augustus
02-15-2015, 10:45 PM
So which Y dna could this mystery element correspond to?

R1b-Z2103. I just don't see the women being the source of this component even with supposedly mtDna backing. It has to be the men. Unless the Yamnaya went south, kidnapped women, and brought them back, which sounds a bit outlandish.

Piquerobi
02-15-2015, 10:47 PM
Hopefully they will test many more samples. It took many years for them to publish the first results. Only when they get many more samples tested, with an even greater variety of locations, covering also different periods of time, we'll have a clearer picture. Of course following the trail of R1a/R1b would be useful. Thus we need Afanasievo results (which were reported as R1b, by the way), Southeast Europe results (Mycenaean, Kurgan burials along the Danube, etc), and of course in ancient remains in India. I'd like to see Ghandara grave culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara_grave_culture) remains to be tested. For now, I believe G may have been present in Yamnaya. The Bronze Age Hungarian who carried J also raised another possibility.

rms2
02-16-2015, 12:46 PM
R1b-Z2103. I just don't see the women being the source of this component even with supposedly mtDna backing. It has to be the men. Unless the Yamnaya went south, kidnapped women, and brought them back, which sounds a bit outlandish.

Except that the 7700-year-old R1b1 (L278) hunter-gatherer from Samara did not have it, and it is likely the Yamnaya men are descended from him or another male in that same y line. I think one has to look elsewhere for that Near Eastern element.

parasar
02-16-2015, 05:54 PM
Hopefully they will test many more samples. It took many years for them to publish the first results. Only when they get many more samples tested, with an even greater variety of locations, covering also different periods of time, we'll have a clearer picture. Of course following the trail of R1a/R1b would be useful. Thus we need Afanasievo results (which were reported as R1b, by the way), Southeast Europe results (Mycenaean, Kurgan burials along the Danube, etc), and of course in ancient remains in India. I'd like to see Ghandara grave culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara_grave_culture) remains to be tested. For now, I believe G may have been present in Yamnaya. The Bronze Age Hungarian who carried J also raised another possibility.

That is not a confirmed report. Google translate "LS Klein, in January 2014 ... I have a student Alexei Kovalev, he dug many years in Mongolia and Xinjiang ... one ... R1b1 (M269), and one ... R1b ... Unfortunately, data on burials in any article of A. Kovalev was not there." http://pereformat.ru/2014/05/arbins-2/

Per R1b's age and distribution through in India (P25, V88-, L389-), Bhutan, Bali (P25, M269-), NE Asia (M269, M73), SE China (M335), we should expect R1b to be found in inner Asia. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/1/717.full

Piquerobi
02-16-2015, 06:07 PM
That is not a confirmed report. Google translate "LS Klein, in January 2014 ... I have a student Alexei Kovalev, he dug many years in Mongolia and Xinjiang ... one ... R1b1 (M269), and one ... R1b ... Unfortunately, data on burials in any article of A. Kovalev was not there." http://pereformat.ru/2014/05/arbins-2/

Per R1b's age and distribution through in India (P25, V88-, L389-), Bhutan, Bali (P25, M269-), NE Asia (M269, M73), SE China (M335), we should expect R1b to be found in inner Asia. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/1/717.full

Sure, as I said reported, still unconfirmed though. That's why we need those results.

Augustus
02-16-2015, 07:23 PM
Except that the 7700-year-old R1b1 (L278) hunter-gatherer from Samara did not have it, and it is likely the Yamnaya men are descended from him or another male in that same y line. I think one has to look elsewhere for that Near Eastern element.

Didn't the R1b HG have some some slight recent near eastern component?

DMXX
02-16-2015, 07:30 PM
Didn't the R1b HG have some some slight recent near eastern component?

This is something I suspected, actually. Some other explanation may be afoot, but if one observes the PCA, the R1b HG is shifted slightly in the direction towards Yamnaya, which Haak et al. explicitly indicated was a "dilution of EHG" (indirect way of stating additional Near-Eastern?):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CuyvqGGHnqQ/VNxUuaBsnYI/AAAAAAAAJ7Y/ZJLiJXASI_U/s1600/2.jpg

parasar
02-16-2015, 07:53 PM
Didn't the R1b HG have some some slight recent near eastern component?

It is a component present in present-day near-easterners and the Yamna M269 samples but not present in the Neolithic west Eurasians, WHG, or Samara EHG.

Perhaps it is a Linzi type component:
[there is something odd going on with the Tunisians here]
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.2013.pdf

The Egyin list has the populations of India mostly at the top (save maybe for the Uttar Pradesh,
which is still in the top half) with the Pakistani populations and the Tunisians (which upon
further review were found to bear relatively closer Fst’s with the Pakistani populations than with
the populations of the Near East, possibly reflecting the Arab expansions). The populations of
the Near East (Iranians, Iraqis, Kurds, and Turks) are all at the bottom ...
As to why the Egyin material bears a close affinity with the Indian populations, relatively speaking, in this list, this
may have something to do with some degree of shared maternal heritage in South and East
Asians dating back to the earliest settlements of South and East Asia... the Indians are probably just the closest matches from this region,
not necessarily close overall.

First, we see that the Egyin and Linzi populations did not share a
close affinity with each other, or at least not more so than they do with modern populations
(though see above). As for the Linzi individuals, they seem to be most highly related to Near
Easterners (Turks, Iranians, and Iraqis), Armenians, and eastern Europeans (Slavs, Hungarians),
though others such as Catalans and Iraqis are mixed in. [this looks like the component that entered both the Yamna and Near East.]

Outside East/Inner Asia:
Egyin Fst: Lambadi 0.0502 Lobana 0.07141 Boqsa 0.08162 Tunisian 0.08182
Linzi Fst: Turks 0.03210 Iranian 0.03736 Kashmir 0.04228 Iraqi 0.04303



The suggestion that actual European populations may have been in northern China at that time
conflicts with general evidence of population movement on the steppe, which sees gradual
movement of putative Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans throughout the steppe and associated areas
in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC around Central Eurasia from the Indo-Aryans in India, the
western Iranians on the Iranian plateau, and the Scythians and Sarmatians (and related groups)
on the South Russian steppe and Eastern Europe. There is some evidence of them being on the
Mongolic steppe (see Askarov et al. 1992), as well as evidence of their inhabitance of Xinjiang
(such as Khotan) and possibly the Altai region (also the Tokharians, though they were not IndoIranian).
Whether or not the Linzi site was populated by Iranian-like peoples (and whether these
peoples came from the putative steppe Iranians to the west or from the possible Iranians of
nearby ancient Xinjiang) is not clear from this study. However, this could explain the affinity
between the Linzi site and the West.

Augustus
02-16-2015, 07:59 PM
It is a component present in present-day near-easterners and the Yamna M269 samples but not present in the Neolithic west Eurasians, WHG, or Samara EHG.


The PCA plot clearly shows the Samara HG was diluted with present day Near Ancestry compared to the Karelian HG. Slight, but still there.

parasar
02-16-2015, 08:03 PM
The PCA plot clearly shows the Samara HG was diluted with present day Near Ancestry compared to the Karelian HG. Slight, but still there.

I do not disagree, but the key word in the analysis is present day.
As they note:
"A negative statistic for both Armenians and Yamnaya with each other as a reference population may suggest that a third (unsampled) population admixed into both the Yamnaya and to Armenians"

"admixture of EHG with a population related to present-day Near Easterners" "EHG and a type of Near Eastern ancestry different from that which was introduced by early farmers"

newtoboard
02-16-2015, 08:04 PM
Maybe the case for some ancestry from the East side of the Caspian is getting stronger.

newtoboard
02-16-2015, 08:06 PM
That is not a confirmed report. Google translate "LS Klein, in January 2014 ... I have a student Alexei Kovalev, he dug many years in Mongolia and Xinjiang ... one ... R1b1 (M269), and one ... R1b ... Unfortunately, data on burials in any article of A. Kovalev was not there." http://pereformat.ru/2014/05/arbins-2/

Per R1b's age and distribution through in India (P25, V88-, L389-), Bhutan, Bali (P25, M269-), NE Asia (M269, M73), SE China (M335), we should expect R1b to be found in inner Asia. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/1/717.full

These are likely just R1b from the NW who took a detour and not related to the migration that caused R1b to end up in Afanasievo.

Joe B
02-16-2015, 09:03 PM
Place your bets here for the main Y-DNA haplogroups that you think were present among the men of the Yamna/Yamnaya culture. I am betting on R1a, R1b, G2a and possibly some J2a.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture

Exclusively R1b (pred. Z2103). :P
I'm not sure it will be exclusively R1b or my favorite R1b-Z2103. R1b-Z2103 could be key in telling us something about gene flow. It really depends on what branches are found. If R1b-L277 or L584 are found, that may mean more of a south to north. If its CTS7763, CTS1843/Z2109, CTS7822/Z2110 or CTS9219 it will not be as clear.

One thing that would really help us understand the distribution of Z2103 branches is a follow up to the 2012 Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East: New Clues from the Y-Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians, Grugni et al. that found significant amounts of R1b-L23.

I may have given a wrong answer before. Does anybody know if they actually tested SNPs downstream of Z2103 Z2105 or are they just referring to the ISOGG tree for L584 and CTS7822? It's not that clear to me by the way they describe the haplotypes.

I0438 (Yamnaya)
This individual could also be assigned to haplogroup R1b1a2a2 (Z2105:15747432C→A). It could
also be assigned to the upstream haplogroups R1b1a2a (L23:6753511G→A), R1b1a
(L320:4357591C→T). It was ancestral for R1b1a2a2a (L584:28731917C→T), and R1b1a2a2c
(CTS7822:17684699A→T), so it could be designated R1b1a2a2*(xR1b1a2a2a, R1b1a2a2c).

Chad Rohlfsen
02-16-2015, 09:39 PM
The Samara HG was just HG. He pre-dates agriculture and animals by a looooong time. The PCA isn't the end all, and WHG's are just as spread out as the Karelian and Samara sample. Samara may just have more ancestry from a certain UP than Karelia. There are some links with Central Asia, with his culture, but nothing is certain.

Generalissimo
02-16-2015, 09:41 PM
The PCA plot clearly shows the Samara HG was diluted with present day Near Ancestry compared to the Karelian HG. Slight, but still there.

Not necessarily. The Samara HG is a poorer sequence than the Karelia HG. This will affect the results.

nuadha
02-16-2015, 11:13 PM
This is something I suspected, actually. Some other explanation may be afoot, but if one observes the PCA, the R1b HG is shifted slightly in the direction towards Yamnaya, which Haak et al. explicitly indicated was a "dilution of EHG" (indirect way of stating additional Near-Eastern?):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CuyvqGGHnqQ/VNxUuaBsnYI/AAAAAAAAJ7Y/ZJLiJXASI_U/s1600/2.jpg

Thats yamnaya, not the samara HG. Without much knowledge I can tell you're badly misreading the plots. Every hunter gatherer group at the edge of the map varies but it doesn't mean anything about a migration. According to your thinking motala is the only "pure" HG group; but thats flat out wrong. Don't read too much detail into the noise like components that fluty the old eastern europeans.

nuadha
02-16-2015, 11:17 PM
A better question is who are these pink people, or even the brown ones? /s

nuadha
02-16-2015, 11:20 PM
I got it! Brown is pre pre mongolian nomad; that makes the samara and karelia move eastward in addition to the ANE they already had. The dark green is obviously Middle East/South Central Asian. The light brown found only in Karelians is some kind of eskimo-like people which shifts the Karelians northward. But the biggest mystery is the pink which is only shared by Kareliain HG, Samara HG, and the yamnaya (except of course the old old samples). I think we all know what that is... Atlantian. I knew the yamnaya would have atlantian in them but i thought they would have a lot more :(

Il Papŕ
02-16-2015, 11:22 PM
Everybody seems to agree that the Samara R1b is or is very close to the ancestor of R1b-M269.But seeing the coalescence time of R1b M269 (7.0-8.1 kya BP) which is older than our Samara R1b guy(5.5 kya),
I have my doubt even if I think subclades age based on Snps counting are a little bit over-estimated .

Generalissimo
02-16-2015, 11:23 PM
There's no evidence in the paper that the Samara HG has any Near Eastern ancestry. The PCA doesn't provide this evidence.

DMXX
02-16-2015, 11:28 PM
These Yamnaya results have shifted some of you up into an emotionally charged place:


Thats yamnaya, not the samara HG.

You're telling me the yellow diamond conjoined with the teal one is Yamnaya, when Yamnaya is clearly indicated by turquoise squares?

I'm not sure you're viewing the same PCA.



Without much knowledge I can tell you're badly misreading the plots.


Any particular reason you're keen to personalise the discussion? Or is it just a childish personal attachment to this topic (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3807-David-Reich-lecture-9-February-2015&p=68087&viewfull=1#post68087)only?



Every hunter gatherer group at the edge of the map varies but it doesn't mean anything about a migration. According to your thinking motala is the only "pure" HG group; but thats flat out wrong.


Rash attempt to stifle discussion. I made a suggestion that could be a possible cause but prefaced it with "Some other explanation may be afoot". Please read through posts properly before shaking your own nerves up.



Don't read too much detail into the noise like components that fluty the old eastern europeans.

Not sure what "fluty" is, but the bold bit would've made an appropriate response by itself (learn from Generalissimo above).

You're very welcome to disagree with me or anyone else so long as you maintain a modicum of civility. Check your combativeness in future posts. Consider this a friendly warning.

As an aside, it looks like Generalissimo is correct after viewing the K=16 component scores; the Samara HG looks like it's shifted towards Yamnaya due to more of the teal component. Where it originated from cannot obviously be deduced from the plot in isolation.

newtoboard
02-16-2015, 11:37 PM
I got it! Brown is pre pre mongolian nomad; that makes the samara and karelia move eastward in addition to the ANE they already had. The dark green is obviously Middle East/South Central Asian. The light brown found only in Karelians is some kind of eskimo-like people which shifts the Karelians northward. But the biggest mystery is the pink which is only shared by Kareliain HG, Samara HG, and the yamnaya (except of course the old old samples). I think we all know what that is... Atlantian. I knew the yamnaya would have atlantian in them but i thought they would have a lot more :(

What a useful post.

newtoboard
02-16-2015, 11:49 PM
These Yamnaya results have shifted some of you up into an emotionally charged place:



You're telling me the yellow diamond conjoined with the teal one is Yamnaya, when Yamnaya is clearly indicated by turquoise squares?

I'm not sure you're viewing the same PCA.



Any particular reason you're keen to personalise the discussion?



Rash attempt to stifle discussion. I made a suggestion that could be a possible cause but prefaced it with "Some other explanation may be afoot". Please read through posts properly before shaking your own nerves up.



Not sure what "fluty" is, but the bold bit would've made an appropriate response by itself (learn from Generalissimo above).

You're very welcome to disagree with me or anyone else so long as you maintain a modicum of civility. Check your combativeness in future posts. Consider this a friendly warning.

As an aside, it looks like Generalissimo is correct after viewing the K=16 component scores; the Samara HG looks like it's shifted towards Yamnaya due to more of the teal component. Where it originated from cannot obviously be deduced from the plot in isolation.

That is the component that the authors suggested came from east of the Caspian or the Caucasus right? I guess testing more samples particularly more Southwestern (closest points to the Caucasus) and Southern (closest points to Central Asian farmers) will tell us where it originated. On the other hand I doubt more western Yamnaya will lack the orange component associated with European farmers. It seems pretty clear both major European R1a and R1b lineages interacted with farmers in Central Europe and the Balkans respectively.

Or maybe has Generalissimo suggested to me that they might represent the old Caucasus and Gedrosia components to some minor degree.

MfA
02-17-2015, 12:00 AM
I got it! Brown is pre pre mongolian nomad; that makes the samara and karelia move eastward in addition to the ANE they already had. The dark green is obviously Middle East/South Central Asian. The light brown found only in Karelians is some kind of eskimo-like people which shifts the Karelians northward. But the biggest mystery is the pink which is only shared by Kareliain HG, Samara HG, and the yamnaya (except of course the old old samples). I think we all know what that is... Atlantian. I knew the yamnaya would have atlantian in them but i thought they would have a lot more :(

FWIW this is the quote from this (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3807-David-Reich-lecture-9-February-2015/page14&p=68651#post68651) thread

K16 admixture results of Karelia and Samara Hunter-Gatherer samples:


In Fig. S6.2 we show a box-and-whiskers plot of the cross-validation error for K=2 to K=20. This
seems to plateau as K increases. The lowest median CV error is attained for K=16.



http://abload.de/img/ehg5ezl5.png

Interesting that even HG samples score beyond noise level West Asian values.

I think there is no any mention of Samara&Karelia HGs having basal type ancestry in the paper. The components ADMIXTURE shows could be compansating ANE ancestry. Also Samara HG genome has less SNPs than Karelia one could be the reason it's place compared to former in the PCA.

DMXX
02-17-2015, 12:05 AM
That is the component that the authors suggested came from east of the Caspian or the Caucasus right? I guess testing more samples particularly more Southwestern (closest points to the Caucasus) and Southern (closest points to Central Asian farmers) will tell us where it originated. On the other hand I doubt more western Yamnaya will lack the orange component associated with European farmers. It seems pretty clear both major European R1a and R1b lineages interacted with farmers in Central Europe and the Balkans respectively.

Or maybe has Generalissimo suggested to me that they might represent the old Caucasus and Gedrosia components to some minor degree.

It does look like the Caspian-Caucasus type ancestry which apparently shifted Yamnaya around 5000-3000 B.C., as per the PCA. I do wonder whether the additional amount of this component in the Samara R1b sample versus the Karelian R1a is simply the result of localised diffusion from the source of origin. Samara is closer to the Caspian than Karelia. We'll probably need more samples to confirm whether it's simply a function of geography or not.

Silesian
02-17-2015, 12:27 AM
I think there is no any mention of Samara&Karelia HGs having basal type ancestry in the paper. The components ADMIXTURE shows could be compansating ANE ancestry. Also Samara HG genome has less SNPs than Karelia one could be the reason it's place compared to former in the PCA.
They are both 7500+/- ybp . Both have Kalsh component

Kalash

Genetic analysis of Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) by Firasat et al. (2007) on Kalash individuals found high and diverse frequencies of these Y-DNA Haplogroups: L3a (22.7%), H1* (20.5%), R1a (18.2%), G (18.2%), J2 (9.1%), R* (6.8%), R1* (2.3%), and L* (2.3%)

Generalissimo
02-17-2015, 12:28 AM
There's no EHG-specific cluster in that analysis, so the two EHG samples have to be modeled as admixed in a variety of ways. But this doesn't mean they are admixed.

What it might actually mean is that the Kalash and other Asian groups have ancestry from EHG populations more closely related to the Samara EHG than the Karelia EHG.

alan
02-17-2015, 12:42 AM
The other thread is closed so I'm responding here. That is a key question, but I don't have an answer! I'm not even sure there was a migration from a southern location in the Near East.
That I have not been able to reconcile.

In Lazaridis et al. we saw that ...
"K=8 reveals a South Asian component maximized in the Mala ... MA1 derives approximately one third of its ancestry to this new component"

This South Asian component broke up at K=15 with the appearance of the Kalash component. MA1 is featured in both the South Asian at K=8 and Kalash at K=15. This Kalash component is totally absent in ancient Europeans of both the WHG and EEF types, but is seen in present-day Near Easterners.

"K=15 shows the appearance of a component, maximized in the Kalash, that becomes the most predominant signal in Indus Valley and Caucasus populations. It is also prominent in the rest of South
Asia, Central Asia, Near East and in diminishing strength in Europe. It is absent in Sardinians, Basques, and all ancient Europeans, although it is present in MA1 ... indicating that present-day Near Easterners have been affected by gene flow not present in early Near Eastern migrants into Europe."


The same is the case with the component Haak et al. say is in present day Near Easterners and in Yamna:
"Yamnaya have ancestry from populations related to the Caucasus and South Asia that is largely absent in 38 Early or Middle Neolithic farmers but present in all 25 Late Neolithic or Bronze Age individuals. This ancestry appears in Central Europe for the first time in our series with the Corded Ware around 2,500 BCE"

Now we also know that the Yamna are a mix of EHG and another component which is Armenian like.
"admixture of EHG with a population related to present-day Near Easterners" "EHG and a type of Near Eastern ancestry different from that which was introduced by early farmers"

As EHG already has ANE, my assumption is that it is not the ANE part of the ancestry in present day Near Easterns that is making them different from early farmers, but something else.

We also see that: "A negative statistic for both Armenians and Yamnaya with each other as a reference population may suggest that a third (unsampled) population admixed into both the Yamnaya and to Armenians"

So it appears that a third element [not previously in present proto-Yamna, proto-Armenians, WHG or EEF] joined with the EHG at Samara to form Yamna that moved to Corded Ware.

I can't think how a third element such as this would be absent in both proto-Yamna and pro-Armenian as well as absent in European Neolithics and Hunter Gatherers, can be Near Eastern or Caucasian.

It looks more like ANI-Kalash to me.

So which Y dna could this mystery element correspond to?

Very interesting although of course we should also be wary of seeing ANI as literally that in a geographical sense 6-8000 years ago. It may have moved there from somewhere else too. If ANI is strongly in the Indus Valley then we have to consider the latest thinking on where that cqme from. Was there not some talk of a J link with a migration of the earliest farmers into the Indus and their origin.

Krefter
02-17-2015, 12:58 AM
There's no EHG-specific cluster in that analysis, so the two EHG samples have to be modeled as admixed in a variety of ways. But this doesn't mean they are admixed.

What it might actually mean is that the Kalash and other Asian groups have ancestry from EHG populations more closely related to the Samara EHG than the Karelia EHG.

Would you agree EHG leaves room for the possibility that dual WHG-ANE affinity in Asian pops is partly EHG?

All we know is that ANE-WHG-EHG are apart of the same clade and that all west Eurasians and south Asians have ancestry from. There are signals of which one of those three they get some/all of it from, but we can't disprove they don't have ancestry related to 1 or 2 of them.

Generalissimo
02-17-2015, 12:59 AM
There's no mystery component. It's just a composite of EHG/ANE and Near Eastern ancestry.

Swedish foragers lack it because they lack Near Eastern ancestry, even though they do have EHG/ANE. Neolithic farmers lack it because they lack EHG/ANE, even though they do have Near Eastern ancestry.

You need both to have this component, and the two come together in Europe for the first time during the Neolithic on the Eastern European steppe.

Generalissimo
02-17-2015, 01:00 AM
Would you agree EHG leaves room for the possibility that dual WHG-ANE affinity in Asian pops is partly EHG?

All we know is that ANE-WHG-EHG are apart of the same clade and that all west Eurasians and south Asians have ancestry from. There are signals of which one of those three they get some/all of it from, but we can't disprove they don't have ancestry related to 1 or 2 of them.

The WHG showing up in Asia might well be EHG. I'll look into that soon.

newtoboard
02-17-2015, 01:28 AM
The WHG showing up in Asia might well be EHG. I'll look into that soon.

Could you give us a rough estimate about how much WHG is showing up in Iran, Central Asia and South Asia? I know the Tajiks showed a good amount.

Chad Rohlfsen
02-17-2015, 01:31 AM
The paper leaves open the possibility that EHG is in WHG, and it would then be in EEF. There are so many possibilities with EHG and how it affects everything else, including MA-1/ANE, it can make your head spin. Loschbour can be modeled as 48% EHG, I believe it was.

Generalissimo
02-17-2015, 01:41 AM
Could you give us a rough estimate about how much WHG is showing up in Iran, Central Asia and South Asia? I know the Tajiks showed a good amount.

This spreadsheet has most groups from my dataset. The only Indians are from south India though, and they show 0% WHG. Some north Indians that I've tested have shown 8-10% WHG.

K8 spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x8pm8sVcHqceiNFJMO082kxaBF5ePr4__bAK05VQRFw/edit?usp=sharing)

Krefter
02-17-2015, 01:46 AM
The WHG showing up in Asia might well be EHG. I'll look into that soon.

Do you think you can try to make Loschbour a mixture of La Brana-1+Motala12 or La Brana-1+K01?

jesus
02-17-2015, 01:56 AM
This spreadsheet has most groups from my dataset. The only Indians are from south India though, and they show 0% WHG. Some north Indians that I've tested have shown 8-10% WHG.

K8 spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x8pm8sVcHqceiNFJMO082kxaBF5ePr4__bAK05VQRFw/edit?usp=sharing)

There are no Indians in that sheet. The highest WHG in south Asia was found in Haryana Jatt at 7% as far as I remember. That person scored the Highest NE euro in Indians from Harappa. Do you have the samples were sone Indian groups get 8-10% WHG ?
Some Brahmins from NW India(Kenji) are even 0% WHG.

nuadha
02-17-2015, 02:41 AM
These Yamnaya results have shifted some of you up into an emotionally charged place:

More like bored. These findings are a big step in figuring out what happened, and also answered many of the big questions we have been asking for the last 3 years. Yet, the reaction from many is to immediately find these new silly questions and make explanations that are inherently less likely. This paper was supposed to mean more but it looks its become just another tool to argue preconcieved ideas or just argue. I mean this is solid stuff but I keep seeing weird comments. For example, "look at that pattern on the samara HG shifted towards the middle easterners. Do you see that? He is not totally pure (whatever that means). That opens the door wide for r1b to make its way to the samara valley and mix with this hg group..." Its just a ridiculous line of thinking. Even if he were admixed (no evidence) it would be a tiny amount, so the argument is still the same. His autosomal dna is pretty much all non near eastern so his ydna has been in the area for a while.

If you want things to be more complicated than they need to be you could always say that the Samara HG G-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g grandfather was actually from the near east but after 12 generations that leaves no noticeable mark in the autosomal dna. You could also say that east hunter gather is actually from the middle east, its just that every time we find it in europe we were actually looking at a middle east migrant, by luck. Its tiresome to try and explain what the data is suggesting when people keep asking what is possible.

BTW yamnaya results were exactly the ones I was looking for.



You're telling me the yellow diamond conjoined with the teal one is Yamnaya, when Yamnaya is clearly indicated by turquoise squares?

I'm not sure you're viewing the same PCA.

I was talking about the comments from the authors. The dilution of EHG was in reference yamnaya, not samara HG.




Any particular reason you're keen to personalise the discussion? Or is it just a childish personal attachment to this topic (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3807-David-Reich-lecture-9-February-2015&p=68087&viewfull=1#post68087)only?



Rash attempt to stifle discussion. I made a suggestion that could be a possible cause but prefaced it with "Some other explanation may be afoot". Please read through posts properly before shaking your own nerves up.



Not sure what "fluty" is, but the bold bit would've made an appropriate response by itself (learn from Generalissimo above).

You're very welcome to disagree with me or anyone else so long as you maintain a modicum of civility. Check your combativeness in future posts. Consider this a friendly warning.

As an aside, it looks like Generalissimo is correct after viewing the K=16 component scores; the Samara HG looks like it's shifted towards Yamnaya due to more of the teal component. Where it originated from cannot obviously be deduced from the plot in isolation.

Its pretty much as I said, your just getting specific about it.

Generalissimo
02-17-2015, 02:49 AM
Do you think you can try to make Loschbour a mixture of La Brana-1+Motala12 or La Brana-1+K01?

No, I don't think so. Motala12 is too different, while La Brana-1 and KO1 too similar.

However, what I've noticed in different ways is that the vast majority of the WHG-like ancestry in Europe is Motala12-like minus its ANE, rather than Loschbour-like. Not sure what that means yet; I'll need to see the EHG samples and maybe a few UP genomes from Europe to even begin to understand it.

But whatever it means, it doesn't change much about our pre-Neolithic ancestry, except some fine details of its phylogeny.


There are no Indians in that sheet. The highest WHG in south Asia was found in Haryana Jatt at 7% as far as I remember. That person scored the Highest NE euro in Indians from Harappa. Do you have the samples were sone Indian groups get 8-10% WHG ?
Some Brahmins from NW India(Kenji) are even 0% WHG.

There are three south Indians in that sheet. I can't post the other results, because they're private. But one Indian person from this forum did get 8% WHG and shared that result.

parasar
02-17-2015, 04:10 AM
There's no mystery component. It's just a composite of EHG/ANE and Near Eastern ancestry.
...

It may not be a mystery component, but it is not Near Eastern, or alternatively the Neolithics were not Near Eastern.
"The present-day Near East has plausibly been affected by events postdating the migration of Neolithic migrants into Europe, showing negative f3(Near East; Stuttgart, X)"
X here can be South Asian, Native American, MA1, or African, and we still get a negative result.


... Some north Indians that I've tested have shown 8-10% WHG.


Is f3(north Indian; MA1, Loschbour) negative?

jesus
02-17-2015, 04:17 AM
There are three south Indians in that sheet. I can't post the other results, because they're private. But one Indian person from this forum did get 8% WHG and shared that result.[/QUOTE]

Can you provide a link ? The highest till now(from India) is a Haryana jatt and he gets 7%.

Generalissimo
02-17-2015, 05:18 AM
It may not be a mystery component, but it is not Near Eastern.

That's correct, ANE is not native to the Near East.


Is f3(north Indian; MA1, Loschbour) negative?

No, because there's no Basal Eurasian in the equation. However, Hinxton4 + Dai is negative.

everest59
02-17-2015, 02:04 PM
Unsupervised admixture may prove to be correct in the end. For example, I score around 12% Northern Euro. If we look at just the whg, my number will be way lower. However, EHG is a mix of ANE and WHG. We can't look at just the WHG portion. So IMO my 12-13% reflects the EHG ancestry. We may be looking at two different sources of ANE.
I'm not saying that all components are correct.In the end it is just an optimization algorithm. Quite often the software does a good job of finding those pesky 2-3% admixture. Sicilians get some African admixture and that's correct imo. So not everything that admixture outputs is incorrect.
Now we are dealing with ancient admixture, so no question that they are more problematic.

rms2
02-17-2015, 03:37 PM
Everybody seems to agree that the Samara R1b is or is very close to the ancestor of R1b-M269.But seeing the coalescence time of R1b M269 (7.0-8.1 kya BP) which is older than our Samara R1b guy(5.5 kya),
I have my doubt even if I think subclades age based on Snps counting are a little bit over-estimated .

~7600 years ago, not 5.5 kya.



The individual we refer to as ‘Samara hunter-gatherer’

I0124/SVP44 (5640-5555 calBCE, Beta-392490)


is an adult male from grave 1 in a Neolithic-Eneolithic settlement producing artifacts from the
Elshanka, Samara, and Repin cultures. The specific site is Lebyazhinka IV, on the Sok River,
Samara oblast, Russia. (‘Neolithic’ here refers to the presence of ceramics, not
to domesticated animals or plants.) The radiocarbon date of this individual, based on a femur, is
centuries before the appearance of domesticated animals in the middle Volga region.
Lebyazhinka IV and the neighboring Lebyazhinka V site were occupied seasonally by
multiple cultures between 7000-3500 BCE; a few graves were found in the settled areas6 (p. 55 of 172).

. . .
I0124 (Samara_HG)
The hunter-gatherer from Samara belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (L278:18914441C→T), with
upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, he was ancestral for both
the downstream haplogroup R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C) and R1b1a2 (M269:22739367T→C) and
could be designated as R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2). Thus, this individual was basal to most west
Eurasian R1b individuals which belong to the R-M269 lineage as well as to the related R-M73/M478
lineage that has a predominantly non-European distribution17. The occurrence of chromosomes basal
to the most prevalent lineages within haplogroups R1a and R1b in eastern European hunter-gatherers,
together with the finding of basal haplogroup R* in the ~24,000-year old Mal’ta (MA1) boy18
suggests the possibility that some of the differentiation of lineages within haplogroup R occurred in
north Eurasia, although we note that we do not have ancient DNA data from more southern regions of
Eurasia. Irrespective of the more ancient origins of this group of lineages, the occurrence of basal
forms of R1a and R1b in eastern European hunter-gatherers provide a geographically plausible source
for these lineages in later Europeans where both lineages are prevalent4,17,19 (p. 76 of 172).

.

Il Papŕ
02-17-2015, 03:43 PM
~7600 years ago, not 5.5 kya.


.

It's written 5640-5555 BCE(before common era=BP) so it's 5.5 kya (5500-5600 years ago if your prefer).

rms2
02-17-2015, 03:53 PM
It's written 5640-5555 BCE(before common era=BP) so it's 5.5 kya (5500-5600 years ago if your prefer).

No. "Before the Common Era" (BCE) does not mean "Before Present". It is the equivalent of BC ("Before Christ") and refers to the number of years before the traditional first year of the Common Era (CE), or AD 1 (Anno Domini, "The Year of Our Lord", 1).

The Samara HG is about 7600 years old.

ADW_1981
02-17-2015, 03:53 PM
It's written 5640-5555 BCE(before common era=BP) so it's 5.5 kya (5500-5600 years ago if your prefer).

rms2 is correct.... BCE = BC

jdean
02-17-2015, 03:55 PM
~7600 years ago, not 5.5 kya.


.

Presumably this fellow belonged to the Samara culture since the Elshanka culture was too old and AFAICT the Repin culture too young.

Probably not news to most here but I found the wiki page on this culture very illuminating.

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

Il Papŕ
02-17-2015, 03:55 PM
rms2 is correct.... BCE = BC

Yeah right, just a bad translation with french.

parasar
02-17-2015, 04:13 PM
That's correct, ANE is not native to the Near East.

...
If ANE, I doubt it is the type of ANE already present in Samara where the EHG is WHG like.
It is a component present in present-day near-easterners, South Asians, shows up first in Europe with Corded Ware, is present in the Yamna M269 samples, but not present in the Neolithic west Eurasians, WHG, or Samara EHG.

alan
02-17-2015, 04:46 PM
Presumably this fellow belonged to the Samara culture since the Elshanka culture was too old and AFAICT the Repin culture too young.

Probably not news to most here but I found the wiki page on this culture very illuminating.

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

Good point about what culture the hunter was part of. In Russia the term Neolithic only implies pottery use, not farming as we link the term to in the west. So, Neolithic and even copper age people can essentially be non-farmers in that terminology.

alan
02-17-2015, 04:50 PM
This discussed the Neolithic in the same general area file:///C:/Users/Alan/Downloads/URN-NBN-SI-DOC-0RPB28M3%20(6).pdf

Actually this one is from just 2013 http://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/viewFile/40.13/807

Piquerobi
02-17-2015, 05:58 PM
The location of the samples (both the Yamnaya ones and the 2000 year older) is a very meaningful one.

Where should one look for the core US? Finding a middle point in today's US map or looking at the 13 colonies in the East Coast? The first settlement began in the East Coast, from there the US came to be. The core Anglo settlements began there. That's where the roots of the US lie, not in the middle of the US of today, nor in the West Coast. That's the same here. Samara -> Khvalynsk -> Yamnaya. That's where Kurgan burials and other PIE related are considered to have begun (East of the Don, along the Volga, West of the Urals). That's core PIE homeland. If all samples, from a variety of places in that region, have turned out R1b+ (including one which lived there 2000 years before), with clades variation (L23*, L23-Z2103+ and P297+ among the Yamnaya remains), then for sure R1b can be associated with PIE homeland, no matter where PIE expansions took them or whatever happened later.

Yamnaya culture began in that area. West of the Don, it was an intruder. It is a core area then. Before, it was preceded in that area by Khvalynsk. The people who began Yamnaya come from that area and nearby. It is meaningful that not only the Kurgal elite burials from Yamnaya turned out R1b-P297+ (one of them), R1b-L23* (the other) and R1b-L23+-Z2103+ (the others) but also the predecessor was also R1b+.

Gimbutas and David Anthony mention the importance of that area in a PIE homeland context.

A sequence of cultures, intimately related to the PIE urheimat, developed in that region. And Yamnaya was but the final development.

Gimbutas:


The early Eneolithic is called the 'Samara culture'. The name derives from the cemetery of S'ezhee on the bank of the River Samara, the tributary of middle Volga [...] This cemetery revealed the earliest evidence of the horse cult: remains of horse sacrifices and miniature figurines of horses carved out of bone plate. A large sacrificial area in which two skulls of horses were found above the richest graves in pits. Graves were intensively sprinkeled with ochre. [...] The middle period of the Eneolithic is represented by the cemetery of Khvalynsk, located on the bank of the Volga, district of Saratov (just check the location of Saratov in a map) [...] In the late Eneolithic the early Yamna culture appears and is characterized by a wide spread of kurgans, low, low earthen barrows above pit graves. [...] On the steppe, earthen mounds above the graves emerged during the Khvalynsk period. The kurgan is a feature of the steppe. In all respects the late Eneolithic is a continuation from the Khvalynsk period. The continuity of the material culture is best documented by excavations in the same areas where Khvalynsk sites existed previously
From "The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe", pages 49 to 54

Samara culture -> Khvalynsk culture -> Yamnaya culture (all in the same area). Yamnaya culture remains tested: R1b-P297+, R1b-L23*, R1b-Z2013+. Again, the test covered a variety of places. Even more, a sample 2000 years older than the Yamnaya culture, from the same region, turned out R1b+.


These three cultures (the Samara, and successors the Khvalynsk and early Yamna) have roughly the same range. Marija Gimbutas was the first to regard it as the Urheimat (homeland) of the Proto-Indo-European language and to hypothesize that the Eneolithic culture of the region was in fact Proto-Indo-European. If this model is true, then the Samara culture becomes overwhelmingly important for Indo-European studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samara_culture

vettor
02-17-2015, 06:24 PM
is that your choices in order or can everyone select 4 haplogroups?

I will select G2a and R1b

i had a crystal ball

parasar
02-17-2015, 07:41 PM
I had guessed R1b and R1a.
Got it half right, half wrong. Thankfully there is some bonus in form of R1a from Karelia.

rms2
02-17-2015, 09:45 PM
Repin culture artifacts occur between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya. Lebyazhinka IV, the site from which the Samara hunter-gatherer was recovered, has produced artifacts from the Elshanka, Samara, and Repin cultures.



The individual we refer to as ‘Samara hunter-gatherer’

I0124/SVP44 (5640-5555 calBCE, Beta-392490)


is an adult male from grave 1 in a Neolithic-Eneolithic settlement producing artifacts from the
Elshanka, Samara, and Repin cultures. The specific site is Lebyazhinka IV, on the Sok River,
Samara oblast, Russia. (‘Neolithic’ here refers to the presence of ceramics, not
to domesticated animals or plants.) The radiocarbon date of this individual, based on a femur, is
centuries before the appearance of domesticated animals in the middle Volga region.
Lebyazhinka IV and the neighboring Lebyazhinka V site were occupied seasonally by
multiple cultures between 7000-3500 BCE; a few graves were found in the settled areas6 (p. 55 of 172).

. . .
I0124 (Samara_HG)
The hunter-gatherer from Samara belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (L278:18914441C→T), with
upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, he was ancestral for both
the downstream haplogroup R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C) and R1b1a2 (M269:22739367T→C) and
could be designated as R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2). Thus, this individual was basal to most west
Eurasian R1b individuals which belong to the R-M269 lineage as well as to the related R-M73/M478
lineage that has a predominantly non-European distribution17. The occurrence of chromosomes basal
to the most prevalent lineages within haplogroups R1a and R1b in eastern European hunter-gatherers,
together with the finding of basal haplogroup R* in the ~24,000-year old Mal’ta (MA1) boy18
suggests the possibility that some of the differentiation of lineages within haplogroup R occurred in
north Eurasia, although we note that we do not have ancient DNA data from more southern regions of
Eurasia. Irrespective of the more ancient origins of this group of lineages, the occurrence of basal
forms of R1a and R1b in eastern European hunter-gatherers provide a geographically plausible source
for these lineages in later Europeans where both lineages are prevalent4,17,19 (p. 76 of 172).




From David Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language, pp. 275-276:

Repin components occur as far north as the Samara oblast in the middle Volga region, at sites such as Lebyazhinka I on the Sok River, in contexts also thought to predate early Yamnaya. The Afanasievo migration to the Altai was carried out by people with a Repin-type material culture, probably from the middle Volga-Ural region . . .
The Volga-Don late Khvalynsk and Repin societies played a central role in the evolution of the Early Bronze Age Yamnaya horizon beginning around 3300 BCE (discussed in the next chapter). One kind of early Yamnaya pottery was really a Repin type, and the other kind was actually a late Khvalynsk type; so, if no other clues are present, it can be difficult to separate Repin or late Khavlynsk from early Yamnaya pottery. The Yamnaya horizon probably was the medium through which late Proto-Indo-European languages spread across the steppes. This implies that classic Proto-Indo-European dialects were spoken among the Repin and late Khvalynsk groups.

This part of the above -



The Afanasievo migration to the Altai was carried out by people with a Repin-type material culture, probably from the middle Volga-Ural region . . .


- puts me in mind of the rumor that circulated not too long ago that Alexei Kovalev had recovered R1b-M269 and R1b-P25 from ancient Afanasievo and Okunevo remains in the Altai. Of course, we were never able to confirm that rumor, but the recent Haak et al results certainly make it seem more likely to be true than it did at first.

alan
02-17-2015, 10:18 PM
http://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/38.21

This is available on PDF if you google . mentions some links with east Caspian area in terms of elshanka in the period after 6000bc but says not linked to farming. Part of the mystery component? There is also brief mention of hassuna in relation to other aspects

newtoboard
02-18-2015, 12:05 AM
The location of the samples (both the Yamnaya ones and the 2000 year older) is a very meaningful one.

Where should one look for the core US? Finding a middle point in today's US map or looking at the 13 colonies in the East Coast? The first settlement began in the East Coast, from there the US came to be. The core Anglo settlements began there. That's where the roots of the US lie, not in the middle of the US of today, nor in the West Coast. That's the same here. Samara -> Khvalynsk -> Yamnaya. That's where Kurgan burials and other PIE related are considered to have begun (East of the Don, along the Volga, West of the Urals). That's core PIE homeland. If all samples, from a variety of places in that region, have turned out R1b+ (including one which lived there 2000 years before), with clades variation (L23*, L23-Z2103+ and P297+ among the Yamnaya remains), then for sure R1b can be associated with PIE homeland, no matter where PIE expansions took them or whatever happened later.

Yamnaya culture began in that area. West of the Don, it was an intruder. It is a core area then. Before, it was preceded in that area by Khvalynsk. The people who began Yamnaya come from that area and nearby. It is meaningful that not only the Kurgal elite burials from Yamnaya turned out R1b-P297+ (one of them), R1b-L23* (the other) and R1b-L23+-Z2103+ (the others) but also the predecessor was also R1b+.

Gimbutas and David Anthony mention the importance of that area in a PIE homeland context.

A sequence of cultures, intimately related to the PIE urheimat, developed in that region. And Yamnaya was but the final development.

Gimbutas:


From "The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe", pages 49 to 54

Samara culture -> Khvalynsk culture -> Yamnaya culture (all in the same area). Yamnaya culture remains tested: R1b-P297+, R1b-L23*, R1b-Z2013+. Again, the test covered a variety of places. Even more, a sample 2000 years older than the Yamnaya culture, from the same region, turned out R1b+.


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

Hilarious how things change so quickly. Just a few months ago Samara was the uncivilized backwater of the steppe and Yamnaya had its origins in in the Dnieper-Don region with Sredny Stog. PIE could only originate on the Ukraninan steppe and only from there could PIE be spread to Samara. Nobody in the east had the power to impact the entire steppe. But apparently now Samara is the core of the PIE homeland. I wonder what caused you to come around on that. Was it some new archeological paper? Wait I know what it is and it isn't anything scientific or anything worth taking seriously.

Kurgans likely originate in the Caucasus anyways. So the spread was south to north. Not that it matters because even if Kurgans originate further south nothing really makes those regions the core of the PIE area.

(East of the Don, along the Volga, West of the Urals)- I didn't realize all samples from this area are R1b. Correct me if I am wrong but all these samples from the Samara and Orenberg oblasts. Not sure why we should assume this R1b dominance continued down the Volga river? Were there samples all the way from the Astrakhan to Volograd to Saratov to Samara? News to me.

Here is a quote from the paper (pg 61)
EBA Yamnaya evolved into the MBA Poltavka culture in the Volga-Ural steppes and into the MBA Catacomb culture in the Dnieper-Don-Caucasus steppes beginning about 2800 BCE.

And it is the Poltavka culture who encompasses most of Volga region Yamnaya. Since you believe Gimbutas can never be wrong you might want to check up on what she wrote about the Poltavka culture (which actually stretched from Astrakhan to Samara) if she believes if it can be assigned to be the home of an IE group that likely carried R1b. Hint: A resounding No (and Mallory, Kuzmina and David Anthony agree). Maybe they are all wrong but let's wait and see.

Not that it matters since this region is just a small part of the Yamnaya horizon. And nothing makes it more special that the Dnieper, Don, or middle Volga regions. And nothing makes this R1b-Z2103+ from the core region of Yamnaya than the other R1b , R1a and likely I, J and G samples we will find elsewhere.

Blue Diamond
02-18-2015, 12:34 AM
I'm sure we will see some G's come out soon, as it is Indo European.

ADW_1981
02-18-2015, 02:49 AM
I'm sure we will see some G's come out soon, as it is Indo European.

G2a2b was found in the Hungarian and German Neolithic so it's not all that likely to be. I suppose by this argument C-V20 is also Indo-European because it's found among Europeans today.

Blue Diamond
02-18-2015, 03:15 AM
G2a2b was found in the Hungarian and German Neolithic so it's not all that likely to be. I suppose by this argument C-V20 is also Indo-European because it's found among Europeans today.

I was talking about G2a3b1a, the Indo European branch, not the G's found in the Neolithic. G2a3b1a is found throughout Europe and Asia among Indo European people like the Kalash and Indian Brahmins.

ADW_1981
02-18-2015, 03:31 AM
I was talking about G2a3b1a, the Indo European branch, not the G's found in the Neolithic. G2a3b1a is found throughout Europe and and Asia among Indo European people like the Kalash and Indian Brahmins.

Both G2a2a and G2a2b (2015 nomenclature) are found in the European Neolithic. Both distributions match the spread of farming in Europe with a source in eastern Anatolia, the latter being successful and springing P303 and M406, the former not so much. I really don't think there is anything other than R1a/R1b on the steppe with the exception of possibly N1, and C/Q in the far eastern portion. Modern distribution should not be confused with distributions 5,000 BC or even 3,000 BC.

I would predict R1a-Z93 spread IE languages to the east for the most part, but we'll need to wait and see how the aDNA goes, if it ever materializes at all.

parasar
02-18-2015, 04:39 AM
G2a2b was found in the Hungarian and German Neolithic so it's not all that likely to be. I suppose by this argument C-V20 is also Indo-European because it's found among Europeans today.

And in a Nepalese nep-0172 for the Indo portion!

parasar
02-18-2015, 04:45 AM
I was talking about G2a3b1a, the Indo European branch, not the G's found in the Neolithic. G2a3b1a is found throughout Europe and Asia among Indo European people like the Kalash and Indian Brahmins.
That connection ~10000ybp may well be older that IE unless the glottochronologists are wrong.

vettor
02-18-2015, 05:09 AM
I was talking about G2a3b1a, the Indo European branch, not the G's found in the Neolithic. G2a3b1a is found throughout Europe and Asia among Indo European people like the Kalash and Indian Brahmins.

here you go ancient tyrol raetic people ( austrian ) by rootsi 2013 paper

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/tyrolg_zps5ed61545.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/tyrolg_zps5ed61545.jpg.html)

some G2a3

Humanist
02-18-2015, 05:39 AM
here you go ancient tyrol raetic people ( austrian ) by rootsi 2013 paper

....

some G2a3

From the paper (http://www.blutspendezuerich.ch/Media/File/Publikationen%202013/High%20resolution%20mapping%20of%20Y%20haplogroup% 20G%282%29.pdf):


The distribution of Y-chromosomal haplogroup G2a (G-P15) in present-day paternal lineages in Tyrol (Austria) was analyzed...

nuadha
02-18-2015, 06:25 AM
Good point about what culture the hunter was part of. In Russia the term Neolithic only implies pottery use, not farming as we link the term to in the west. So, Neolithic and even copper age people can essentially be non-farmers in that terminology.

I like how the wikipedia page on Proto-Indo-European genetics has not been updates. It still reads r1a, r1a, spencer wells, ... and no r1b. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans#Genetics

Humanist
02-18-2015, 06:44 AM
I like how the wikipedia page on Proto-Indo-European genetics has not been updates. It still reads r1a, r1a, spencer wells, ... and no r1b. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans#Genetics

Last I checked, just about anyone could edit a Wikipedia page. So, if it bothers you, how about taking a few moments to add the relevant data/information from Haak et al.?

vettor
02-18-2015, 08:47 AM
From the paper (http://www.blutspendezuerich.ch/Media/File/Publikationen%202013/High%20resolution%20mapping%20of%20Y%20haplogroup% 20G%282%29.pdf):

http://www.blutspendezuerich.ch/Media/File/Publikationen%202013/High%20resolution%20mapping%20of%20Y%20haplogroup% 20G%282%29.pdf


I am positive I placed this at least twice before


oops, lol, you did it


And there is also this which has caucasus G as well as austrian

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22588667

DMXX
02-18-2015, 12:14 PM
I like how the wikipedia page on Proto-Indo-European genetics has not been updates. It still reads r1a, r1a, spencer wells, ... and no r1b. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans#Genetics

Is this insinuation there is some sort of anti-R1b pro-R1a agenda in the Wikipedia community of all places?

***

I'd also like to take this moment to remind our members that this is a discussion forum and not a platform to systematically assert any particular agendas or viewpoints (section 3.12 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/faq.php)). The recent Haak et al. paper saw an initial outpouring of vindication, which has in some instances shifted to confrontational language when other users express thoughts which run contrary to the popular notions which have emanated in some circles since. Specifically addressing some of our users; there is no need for the occasional forceful rhetoric I've had the displeasure of reading this past week. Now we have these results, minimise whatever emotional attachment you have with this topic. All it adds is further polarisation in a forum which strives for neutrality.

I (and the rest of the team it seems naturally) allowed the discussions to continue in earnest in spite of the above but an accumulation of private complaints warrant further oversight. Whatever "breathing period" was given no longer applies and any users found to post combative, passive-aggressive or unpleasant materials will be handled as per our rules and violations policy (http://www.anthrogenica.com/faq.php).

An incredible amount of positive and highly informative content has been produced by the bulk of our community since this paper came out and I am grateful to all who have since contributed. I look forward to seeing more productive discussions taking place.

alan
02-18-2015, 12:23 PM
This thread is about the mystery non steppe hunter element in yamnaya which must have come from sw or central Asia.

alan
02-18-2015, 12:30 PM
Repin culture artifacts occur between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya. Lebyazhinka IV, the site from which the Samara hunter-gatherer was recovered, has produced artifacts from the Elshanka, Samara, and Repin cultures.





This part of the above -



- puts me in mind of the rumor that circulated not too long ago that Alexei Kovalev had recovered R1b-M269 and R1b-P25 from ancient Afanasievo and Okunevo remains in the Altai. Of course, we were never able to confirm that rumor, but the recent Haak et al results certainly make it seem more likely to be true than it did at first.

Yep suddenly those rumours seem highly plausible.

alan
02-18-2015, 12:32 PM
Am struggling to find a simple statement about the date and culture that domesticates are first attested around samara

alan
02-18-2015, 01:51 PM
http://www.academia.edu/2284210/The_earliest_appearance_of_domestic_plant_species_ and_their_origins_on_the_western_fringes_of_the_Eu rasian_Steppe

Useful paper on agricultural links between Caucasus and nearby steppe areas. Note that its relatively late but early enough to have contributed into steppe populations well before yamaya

Blue Diamond
02-18-2015, 04:37 PM
here you go ancient tyrol raetic people ( austrian ) by rootsi 2013 paper

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/tyrolg_zps5ed61545.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/tyrolg_zps5ed61545.jpg.html)

some G2a3

Lol Raetic, no just no. G2a l497 has been associated with Celtic tribes and Indo Europeans. Even Maciamo agrees with this. Just because it was found in the neolithic, doesn't mean that they didn't come in later than that. There were several waves that came in. And let's not forget the G found in Poland at the Corded Ware site more proof of Indo European origins of Haplogroup G.

rms2
02-18-2015, 04:39 PM
This thread is about the mystery non steppe hunter element in yamnaya which must have come from sw or central Asia.

Did you mean to post a link to that thread you started over in the autosomal subforum about the mystery Near Eastern element in Yamnaya?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3856-Mystery-component-in-Yamnaya

Because this thread here started out as a place to speculate on which y haplogroups would be found in Yamnaya.

nuadha
02-18-2015, 04:51 PM
Is this insinuation there is some sort of anti-R1b pro-R1a agenda in the Wikipedia community of all places?

No... what?

vettor
02-18-2015, 05:56 PM
Lol Raetic, no just no. G2a l497 has been associated with Celtic tribes and Indo Europeans. Even Maciamo agrees with this. Just because it was found in the neolithic, doesn't mean that they didn't come in later than that. There were several waves that came in. And let's not forget the G found in Poland at the Corded Ware site more proof of Indo European origins of Haplogroup G.

ROFL, G-L497 origins as per the paper are in tyrol, tyrol was always raetic, Tyrol was not conquered by the romans until 15 BC and they noted they fought rhaetic tribes. culture was:
Many of the main and side valleys were settled during the early Bronze Age, from 1800 to 1300 BC. From these settlements, two prominent cultures emerged: the Laugen-Melaun culture in the Bronze Age, and the Fritzens-Sanzeno culture in the Iron Age.

the celts entered italy via switzerland and france destroying the helvetic swiss tribes on their journey

Agamemnon
02-18-2015, 06:49 PM
That connection ~10000ybp may well be older that IE unless the glottochronologists are wrong.

Glottochronology is unreliable, that much is true (though I do agree with the assumption that certain parts of vocabulary are more resistent to change than others, the whole thing just doesn't add up).

R.Rocca
02-18-2015, 07:35 PM
Lol Raetic, no just no. G2a l497 has been associated with Celtic tribes and Indo Europeans. Even Maciamo agrees with this. Just because it was found in the neolithic, doesn't mean that they didn't come in later than that. There were several waves that came in. And let's not forget the G found in Poland at the Corded Ware site more proof of Indo European origins of Haplogroup G.

So I hear one group of G2a folks saying some Europe-specific sublcades in Europe are Mesolithic and another saying it was part of IE waves. While it may be that a G2a straggler here and there is found in future ancient DNA samples, IMO there is no denying that the bulk of ancient DNA G2a results thus far represent migrations of farmers from the Near East.

rms2
02-18-2015, 07:59 PM
So I hear one group of G2a folks saying some Europe-specific sublcades in Europe are Mesolithic and another saying it was part of IE waves. While it may be that a G2a straggler here and there is found in future ancient DNA samples, IMO there is no denying that the bulk of ancient DNA G2a results thus far represent migrations of farmers from the Near East.

I agree. I don't see how one can avoid that conclusion, given the ancient y-dna results thus far. I think where the future finds ancient G2a results among IE groups, that will represent the kurganized descendants of Near Eastern farmers.

parasar
02-18-2015, 08:57 PM
Am struggling to find a simple statement about the date and culture that domesticates are first attested around samara

This is much later when we see a change about 2000BC to settled pastoralists.
Some Vratya like practices.
Midwinter dog sacrifices at LBA Krasnosamarskoe, Russia, and traces of initiations for Männerbünde
"1900-1700 BC"
https://www.academia.edu/2763478/Midwinter_dog_sacrifices_at_LBA_Krasnosamarskoe_Ru ssia_and_traces_of_initiations_for_M%C3%A4nnerb%C3 %BCnde_Paper_presented_at_the_seminar_Tracing_the_ Indo-Europeans_Origin_and_migration_organized_by_Roots_ of_Europe_--_Language_Culture_and_Migrations_University_of_Cop enhagen_12--14_December_2012

From Nat Geo:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130514-dogs-sacrifice-initiation-rite-russia-archaeology-science/

Reading through prayers composed by tribes in India possibly as early as 1400 B.C., the researchers found a description of secret initiation rites for boys destined to become roving warriors.

At the age of eight, the boys were sent to ritualists, who bathed them, shaved their heads, and gave them animal skins to wear. Eight years later, the initiates underwent a midwinter ceremony in which they ritually died and journeyed to the underworld. After this, the boys left their homes and families, painted their bodies black, donned a dog-skin cloak, and joined a band of warriors.

Blue Diamond
02-18-2015, 10:00 PM
So I hear one group of G2a folks saying some Europe-specific sublcades in Europe are Mesolithic and another saying it was part of IE waves. While it may be that a G2a straggler here and there is found in future ancient DNA samples, IMO there is no denying that the bulk of ancient DNA G2a results thus far represent migrations of farmers from the Near East.

So I guess the Corded Ware site at Wroclaw-Jagodno which yielded G2a is Neolithic? We need more ancient DNA to see but I'm thinking G is definitely Indo European.

alan
02-18-2015, 10:50 PM
Did you mean to post a link to that thread you started over in the autosomal subforum about the mystery Near Eastern element in Yamnaya?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3856-Mystery-component-in-Yamnaya

Because this thread here started out as a place to speculate on which y haplogroups would be found in Yamnaya.
Just got wrong thread. I'm struggling getting used to my first tablet computer

newtoboard
02-18-2015, 11:46 PM
I agree. I don't see how one can avoid that conclusion, given the ancient y-dna results thus far. I think where the future finds ancient G2a results among IE groups, that will represent the kurganized descendants of Near Eastern farmers.

Yea I agree. We already see that from the G2 found in the Don steppes later on (they are an Indo-Europeanized group on the outskirts of the steppe).

Blue Diamond
02-19-2015, 12:16 AM
Yea I agree. We already see that from the G2 found in the Don steppes later on (they are an Indo-Europeanized group on the outskirts of the steppe).

Could be true.

R.Rocca
02-19-2015, 03:04 AM
So I guess the Corded Ware site at Wroclaw-Jagodno which yielded G2a is Neolithic? We need more ancient DNA to see but I'm thinking G is definitely Indo European.

EHG mixed with Armenian like populations before moving towards Central Europe to form Corded Ware. So, even if they wound up speaking IE languages in the Early Bronze Age, it doesn't mean they started out as the initiators of PIE's expansions.

yxc
02-19-2015, 03:08 AM
IE was H2 y-dna. Eastern-european neolithic was more H and was base of IE . H weren't pre-neolithic in India either.

Blue Diamond
02-19-2015, 03:54 AM
EHG mixed with Armenian like populations before moving towards Central Europe to form Corded Ware. So, even if they wound up speaking IE languages in the Early Bronze Age, it doesn't mean they started out as the initiators of PIE's expansions.

So I guess this new paper is a nail in the coffin then. R1's are the legendary Aryans, and we the damn farmers lol. Still need more ancient DNA though.

vettor
02-19-2015, 05:04 AM
So I hear one group of G2a folks saying some Europe-specific sublcades in Europe are Mesolithic and another saying it was part of IE waves. While it may be that a G2a straggler here and there is found in future ancient DNA samples, IMO there is no denying that the bulk of ancient DNA G2a results thus far represent migrations of farmers from the Near East.

well, 4... G2a found in the haak paper in central germany and who are all over 5000 years old and coming from yamnya is a major impact IMO

Humanist
02-19-2015, 05:08 AM
well, 4... G2a found in the haak paper in central germany and who are all over 5000 years old and coming from yamnya is a major impact IMO

Where did you read that in Haak et al.?

parasar
02-19-2015, 05:40 AM
IE was H2 y-dna. Eastern-european neolithic was more H and was base of IE . H weren't pre-neolithic in India either.

Perhaps you should look at the distribution of H clades.
H1 (formed 44900 ybp, TMRCA 37000 ybp), H3 (formed 44900 ybp, TMRCA 31700 ybp) almost exclusively in India. H2 in India and scattered trace elsewhere.
http://www.yfull.com/tree/H/

vettor
02-19-2015, 06:43 AM
Where did you read that in Haak et al.?

the whole 172 pages , what specifically did you mean?
this is one
Extended Data Table 2: The 69 samples newly reported on in this study.
with the G2a in germany which is similar example to the
H1 mtdna from T1a yda which is H1bz and found in 2013, the yda was found now.......basically its new ............some ydna are new , some old and revisted

Humanist
02-19-2015, 06:48 AM
the whole 172 pages , what specifically did you mean?
this is one
Extended Data Table 2: The 69 samples newly reported on in this study.
with the G2a in germany which is similar example to the
H1 mtdna from T1a yda which is H1bz and found in 2013, the yda was found now.......basically its new ............some ydna are new , some old and revisted

Why are you claiming that the G2a in Germany is from Yamnaya?

J Man
02-19-2015, 11:21 AM
IE was H2 y-dna. Eastern-european neolithic was more H and was base of IE . H weren't pre-neolithic in India either.

That is a rather bold claim with no real evidence to back it up.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 03:51 PM
That is a rather bold claim with no real evidence to back it up.

While I don't agree with the whole IE connection with haplogroup H2, I think we need some serious aDNA samples from South Asia to see what could have happened. Seeing haplogoup H2 in Europe was quite shocking to me that it makes me rethink this whole haplogroup H being native to India.

This should be a reminder not to get caught up with how modern distribution is like to determine what these haplogroups were associated with in the past.

Blue Diamond
02-19-2015, 04:11 PM
the whole 172 pages , what specifically did you mean?
this is one
Extended Data Table 2: The 69 samples newly reported on in this study.
with the G2a in germany which is similar example to the
H1 mtdna from T1a yda which is H1bz and found in 2013, the yda was found now.......basically its new ............some ydna are new , some old and revisted

This is interesting. G2a may be Indo European after all :).

DMXX
02-19-2015, 04:20 PM
Blue Diamond,

Your most recent post in this thread:


This is interesting. G2a may be Indo European after all :).

When compared with the majority that preceded:


So I guess the Corded Ware site at Wroclaw-Jagodno which yielded G2a is Neolithic? We need more ancient DNA to see but I'm thinking G is definitely Indo European.


So I guess this new paper is a nail in the coffin then. R1's are the legendary Aryans, and we the damn farmers lol. Still need more ancient DNA though.


Lol Raetic, no just no. G2a l497 has been associated with Celtic tribes and Indo Europeans. Even Maciamo agrees with this. Just because it was found in the neolithic, doesn't mean that they didn't come in later than that. There were several waves that came in. And let's not forget the G found in Poland at the Corded Ware site more proof of Indo European origins of Haplogroup G.


I was talking about G2a3b1a, the Indo European branch, not the G's found in the Neolithic. G2a3b1a is found throughout Europe and Asia among Indo European people like the Kalash and Indian Brahmins.

Initiated by the first one:


I'm sure we will see some G's come out soon, as it is Indo European.

Are doing absolutely nothing for the discussion but repetitively assert your supposition that a) we need more aDNA (nobody will contest this) and b) Y-DNA G should be considered "Indo-European" (a line of users have already contested this).

You've repeated these points a surplus number of times as it is. Please provide additional data supporting your rationale, reply to the critique of other posters, or desist from repeating yourself a sixth time.

Blue Diamond
02-19-2015, 04:46 PM
Blue Diamond,

Your first post in this thread:



Along with the majority that followed:









Culminating in the final one:



Are doing absolutely nothing for the discussion but repetitively assert your supposition that a) we need more aDNA (nobody will contest this) and b) Y-DNA G should be considered "Indo-European" (a line of users have already contested this).

You've repeated these points a surplus number of times as it is. Please provide additional data supporting your rationale, reply to the critique of other posters, or desist from repeating yourself a sixth time.

Sorry. Ill stop. But you have my posts in the wrong order. That wasn't my first post in this thread and if it is something is wrong with my computer. My last one also wasn't my last.

vettor
02-19-2015, 05:23 PM
Why are you claiming that the G2a in Germany is from Yamnaya?

hmm?

re read page 3
3/4 of germany markers indicated yamnya origin .............the G2 are LBK_EN samples along with T1 ...............page 32 C is their theory and it shows the coloured circles in germany representing G2, T1 and others

As I said , some samples are new and some are revisted, again I bring up the example of the T1a, the mtdna H1 was found in 2013, but Haak found it was h1bz and the ydna for it was T1a.

If you think their page 32 c theory is an error , then explain to me what do they mean on page 3 from the sentences from "siberian" onwards ...and also..what is your theory on where these G2a central german samples who are all over 5000 years old came from?
Isn't in majority G2a from the caucasus!

ADW_1981
02-19-2015, 05:36 PM
hmm?

re read page 3
3/4 of germany markers indicated yamnya origin .............the G2 are LBK_EN samples along with T1 ...............page 32 C is their theory and it shows the coloured circles in germany representing G2, T1 and others

As I said , some samples are new and some are revisted, again I bring up the example of the T1a, the mtdna H1 was found in 2013, but Haak found it was h1bz and the ydna for it was T1a.

If you think their page 32 c theory is an error , then explain to me what do they mean on page 3 from the sentences from "siberian" onwards ...and also..what is your theory on where these G2a central german samples who are all over 5000 years old came from?
Isn't in majority G2a from the caucasus!

Come on man, look at this map from our very own FTDNA projects. (G2a2a) PF3146 was found in LBK as well as G2a2b from an older LBK study. Look at this rare branch's distribution, it has nothing to do with Yamnaya. The whole point is LBK is earlier than the presence of the steppe ancestry.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/G-PF3146?iframe=ymap

Blue Diamond
02-19-2015, 05:43 PM
Come on man, look at this map from our very own FTDNA projects. (G2a2a) PF3146 was found in LBK as well as G2a2b from an older LBK study. Look at this rare branch's distribution, it has nothing to do with Yamnaya. The whole point is LBK is earlier than the presence of the steppe ancestry.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/G-PF3146?iframe=ymap

You can't rule out the possibility.

vettor
02-19-2015, 06:03 PM
Come on man, look at this map from our very own FTDNA projects. (G2a2a) PF3146 was found in LBK as well as G2a2b from an older LBK study. Look at this rare branch's distribution, it has nothing to do with Yamnaya. The whole point is LBK is earlier than the presence of the steppe ancestry.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/G-PF3146?iframe=ymap

i get the feeling here that most "picked" through the paper and ONLY looked at the things that said Yamnya and did not take the 172 page paper as one complete package.
The paper is about the new markers they found, the old markers they revisted, BUT essentially, its sole purpose of this paper was for AuDna .

BTW, why would I look at any ftdna project maps!, they are modern.
In this T1a sample from the paper, he is PF5604+ ..........I am PF5604+ ..........it does not mean I came from this person

ADW_1981
02-19-2015, 06:17 PM
i get the feeling here that most "picked" through the paper and ONLY looked at the things that said Yamnya and did not take the 172 page paper as one complete package.
The paper is about the new markers they found, the old markers they revisted, BUT essentially, its sole purpose of this paper was for AuDna .

BTW, why would I look at any ftdna project maps!, they are modern.
In this T1a sample from the paper, he is PF5604+ ..........I am PF5604+ ..........it does not mean I came from this person

The non-Yamnaya portions of the paper told us that the EEF ancestry did not die out through most of Europe. After immigration from the steppe came to Europe, the early European farmer ancestry was integrated by the immigrants. This is why all the EBA and Bell Beaker cultures have a lot of early European farmer ancestry, but Corded Ware which is the earliest steppe influence, is closest to Yamnaya. Once 2500 - 2200 BC rolls around, the EEF ancestry is heavily absorbed by the immigrants from Yamnaya. Nothing can be ruled out in terms of YDNA, but T makes an appearance in the LBK so we can assume it arrived mostly with farmers or earlier cultures. The low distribution like G2a2a-PF3146 leads me to believe it arrived in a single wave from Anatolia.

R.Rocca
02-19-2015, 07:15 PM
3/4 of germany markers indicated yamnya origin .............the G2 are LBK_EN samples along with T1 ...............page 32 C is their theory and it shows the coloured circles in germany representing G2, T1 and others

It shows no such thing. It shows Yamnaya overlaying earlier Neolithic groups and forming Corded Ware. Figure 3 shows that Yamnaya autosomal components peak in modern Norwegians at around 50%, so I don't know where you get that 3/4 of German markers are Yamnaya, and don't forget that some of that is female mediated. Just because people in Europe today speak IE languages does not mean that their ancestors were part of the waves that brought IE from the Steppe during the Early Bronze Age. Maybe for every 95 Yamnaya R1+ samples we'll get 5 belonging to haplogroup I, G, J etc, but please don't try kidding people into thinking that the great majority of modern males who carry G2a or T1 aren't related to men who first entered Europe during the Early Neolithic and got swept by a wave of R1+ men. It is contrary to every single data point we have to date.


i get the feeling here that most "picked" through the paper and ONLY looked at the things that said Yamnya and did not take the 172 page paper as one complete package.
The paper is about the new markers they found, the old markers they revisted, BUT essentially, its sole purpose of this paper was for AuDna .

Isn't your discounting of Y-DNA "picking" through the paper? I would say that 100% of Russian samples being R1+ over a 5,000 year time span in areas thought to be the birthplace of PIE is a pretty big deal myself.


In this T1a sample from the paper, he is PF5604+ ..........I am PF5604+ ..........it does not mean I came from this person

Maybe not that specific person, but without a doubt you and that T1a sample share a common ancestor who was T1a. The fact that he was found in an LBK context makes it all the more likely that your ancestor too was around since the Early Neolithic, not before, but certainly since (duh). So you don't accuse anyone else of "picking" through the paper, let's see what the authors had to say about that one T1a individual...


"I0795 (LBK_EN) This individual belonged to haplogroup T1a (PF5604:7890461C→T, M70:21893881A→C). This is the first instance of this haplogroup in an ancient individual that we are aware of and strengthens the case for the early Neolithic origin of this lineage in modern Europeans, rather than a more recent introduction from the Near East where it is more abundant today."

Seems like they are pretty damn certain that T1a is from Near Eastern Neolithics, don't you think?

Blue Diamond
02-19-2015, 07:35 PM
It shows no such thing. It shows Yamnaya overlaying earlier Neolithic groups and forming Corded Ware. Figure 3 shows that Yamnaya autosomal components peak in modern Norwegians at around 50%, so I don't know where you get that 3/4 of German markers are Yamnaya, and don't forget that some of that is female mediated. Just because people in Europe today speak IE languages does not mean that their ancestors were part of the waves that brought IE from the Steppe during the Early Bronze Age. Maybe for every 95 Yamnaya R1+ samples we'll get 5 belonging to haplogroup I, G, J etc, but please don't try kidding people into thinking that the great majority of modern males who carry G2a or T1 aren't related to men who first entered Europe during the Early Neolithic and got swept by a wave of R1+ men. It is contrary to every single data point we have to date.



Isn't your discounting of Y-DNA "picking" through the paper? I would say that 100% of Russian samples being R1+ over a 5,000 year time span in areas thought to be the birthplace of PIE is a pretty big deal myself.



Maybe not that specific person, but without a doubt you and that T1a sample share a common ancestor who was T1a. The fact that he was found in an LBK context makes it all the more likely that your ancestor too was around since the Early Neolithic, not before, but certainly since (duh). So you don't accuse anyone else of "picking" through the paper, let's see what the authors had to say about that one T1a individual...


"I0795 (LBK_EN) This individual belonged to haplogroup T1a (PF5604:7890461C→T, M70:21893881A→C). This is the first instance of this haplogroup in an ancient individual that we are aware of and strengthens the case for the early Neolithic origin of this lineage in modern Europeans, rather than a more recent introduction from the Near East where it is more abundant today."

Seems like they are pretty damn certain that T1a is from Near Eastern Neolithics, don't you think?

Why does Haplogroup G always get labeled as Near Eastern, and with farmers? There is this bias against G that they brought agriculture and nothing else. I have a tough time imagining that I.E. were only R1a and R1b.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 07:42 PM
Why does Haplogroup G always get labeled as Near Eastern, and with farmers? There is this bias against G that they brought agriculture and nothing else. I have a tough time imagining that I.E. were only R1a and R1b.

While I do think it's wrong to label R1a/R1b as the only IE haplogroups, the evidence simply shows that G2a in Europe has been Neolithic so far, this is what we have in regards to current ancient DNA studies, so no need to make something out of nothing until further evidence is revealed.

rms2
02-19-2015, 07:44 PM
Why does Haplogroup G always get labeled as Near Eastern, and with farmers? There is this bias against G that they brought agriculture and nothing else. I have a tough time imagining that I.E. were only R1a and R1b.

Maybe because it has been found in abundance at European Neolithic sites dating to well before the arrival of PIE in Europe west of the steppe? In fact, it would be no exaggeration to say that the evidence indicates that G2a is the Neolithic farmer y-haplogroup par excellence.

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml

There is no bias involved in that.

Blue Diamond
02-19-2015, 07:57 PM
Maybe because it has been found in abundance at European Neolithic sites dating to well before the arrival of PIE in Europe west of the steppe? In fact, it would be no exaggeration to say that the evidence indicates that G2a is the Neolithic farmer y-haplogroup par excellence.

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml

There is no bias involved in that.

I'm officially adopting the Anatolian Hypothesis which would make Haplogroup G as the Indo European Haplogroup lol. That I.E. spread with agriculture.

rms2
02-19-2015, 08:00 PM
I'm officially adopting the Anatolian Hypothesis which would make Haplogroup G as the Indo European Haplogroup lol.

That is one way to go, I guess. If Renfrew is right, then that would make G2a the #1 contender.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 08:12 PM
That is one way to go, I guess. If Renfrew is right, then that would make G2a the #1 contender.

I think it's a dead argument to be honest because I don't see a way how DNA can be connected to the original speakers of a specific language.

rms2
02-19-2015, 08:17 PM
I think it's a dead argument to be honest because I don't see a way how DNA can be connected to the original speakers of a specific language.

I think Renfrew's argument is dead, too, but not for the reason you cited. I think a preponderance-of-the-evidence case can be made for which y haplogroups are likely to have introduced IE into Europe west of the steppe. We may never know exactly who grunted out the very first syllables of IE, but we can get in the ballpark.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 08:30 PM
I think Renfrew's argument is dead, too, but not for the reason you cited. I think a preponderance-of-the-evidence case can be made for which y haplogroups are likely to have introduced IE into Europe west of the steppe. We may never know exactly who grunted out the very first syllables of IE, but we can get in the ballpark.

So basically the argument here is who "introduced" the IE languages as oppose to who the Indo-Europeans were. You may have a better chance there but who's to say the languages came from Yamna to begin with? More on that how do we determine the the folks who carried R1b-L23 in Yamna were not from Anatolia instead of the Steppes? After all R1b-Z2103 which all Yamna samples were is quite rare in Europe today and most common in West Asia, perhaps it's best we wait for more aDNA samples because the more I think of it, the more I question R1b's involvement in Europe through Yamna.

R.Rocca
02-19-2015, 08:38 PM
So basically the argument here is who "introduced" the IE languages as oppose to who the Indo-Europeans were. You may have a better chance there but who's to say the languages came from Yamna to begin with? More on that how do we determine the the folks who carried R1b-L23 in Yamna were not from Anatolia instead of the Steppes? After all R1b-Z2103 which all Yamna samples were is quite rare in Europe today and most common in West Asia, perhaps it's best we wait for more aDNA samples because the more I think of it, the more I question R1b's involvement in Europe through Yamna.

It is dangerous to associate origin with frequency, but even if one wanted to, there is no denying that Z2103 is most common today in the very spot where the Yamnaya samples were from...

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Z2103_Yamnaya.png

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 08:46 PM
It is dangerous to associate origin with frequency, but even if one wanted to, there is no denying that Z2103 is most common today in the very spot where the Yamnaya samples were from...

It's not dangerous, it's just careless, the point I'm trying to make is this study simply does not prove what everyone seems to be rejoicing in this thread because:

a) We're assuming that the Yamna folks brought the IE languages to Europe based on speculations and educated guesses.
b) All the Yamna samples tested Z2103 which is rare in Europe today.
c) If we combine the two points above, we are basically hoping that R1b-L23 (Z2103-) that did migrate to Europe was somehow associated somewhere in the same area and that the ones that carried it into Europe were IE speakers.

See what I mean? Too many IF's going around.

Btw, care to share the modern distribution sample of the map you provided?

Humanist
02-19-2015, 08:55 PM
Btw, care to share the modern distribution sample of the map you provided?

It is based on the frequencies in Myres et al. If you are wondering, Assyrians were not sampled, and the Armenian R1b frequency was only 3.8%. That is why E Anatolia and N Mesopotamia appear to have 0% Z2103.

Richard and I discussed it a few days back here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3807-David-Reich-lecture-9-February-2015&p=69671&viewfull=1#post69671).

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 08:57 PM
It is based on the frequencies in Myres et al. If you are wondering, Assyrians were not sampled, and the Armenian R1b frequency was only 3.8%. That is why E Anatolia and N Mesopotamia appear to have 0% Z2103.

Richard and I discussed it a few days back here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3807-David-Reich-lecture-9-February-2015&p=69671&viewfull=1#post69671).

Which makes sense why that map looks very skewed, mind you I'm kind of surprised that the Armenians only came out to 3.8% where in many other studies along with the FTDNA project they easily go over 20%, kind of fishy, no?

Humanist
02-19-2015, 09:02 PM
Which makes sense why that map looks very skewed, mind you I'm kind of surprised that the Armenians only came out to 3.8% where in many other studies along with the FTDNA project they easily go over 20%, kind of fishy, no?

The Armenian sample was very small, I believe. But yes, Z2103 is the dominant haplogroup among many of the non-Arab populations of the northern ME and Anatolia.

R.Rocca
02-19-2015, 09:04 PM
It's not dangerous, it's just careless, the point I'm trying to make is this study simply does not prove what everyone seems to be rejoicing in this thread because:

a) We're assuming that the Yamna folks brought the IE languages to Europe based on speculations and educated guesses.
b) All the Yamna samples tested Z2103 which is rare in Europe today.
c) If we combine the two points above, we are basically hoping that R1b-L23 (Z2103-) that did migrate to Europe was somehow associated somewhere in the same area and that the ones that carried it into Europe were IE speakers.

See what I mean? Too many IF's going around.

Btw, care to share the modern distribution sample of the map you provided?

a) It is based on deductive reasoning when taking account linguists, archaeology as well. Genetics is as close to a final confirmation as we'll ever get. And there is no doubt that some speculations are a lot less likely than others.
b) All the Yamnaya samples didn't test Z2103 and Z2103 is not rare in Europe today. Haplogroup H is rare in Europe today.
c) Not hoping, we are coming to the best possible and most probable explanation for how both R1b-L23+ and IE got to Europe today.
d) Yes and all of those "IFs" allign much better for success than other "IFs" I've seen floating around the last few weeks that are more personal wishes and completely against the facts of all ancient DNA testing to date.

The map was based on Myres 2010's L23(xL51) only.

J Man
02-19-2015, 09:06 PM
Why does Haplogroup G always get labeled as Near Eastern, and with farmers? There is this bias against G that they brought agriculture and nothing else. I have a tough time imagining that I.E. were only R1a and R1b.

It is quite simple really. Y-DNA haplogroup G2a is clearly the dominant Y-DNA haplogroup found among the Neolithic farmers of Europe so far. The case of haplogroup G2a coming to Europe with Neolithic farmers is looking pretty strong but of course there are most likely some cases of some G2a coming later as well.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 09:13 PM
The Armenian sample was very small, I believe. But yes, Z2103 is the dominant haplogroup among many of the non-Arab populations of the northern ME and Anatolia.

Just checked out the sample from the study, that whole hot spot in the map seemed to be related to a single population, the Bashkirs. Take them out of the equation and things change dramatically even if you choose not to add some of the populations from the Middle East that are hot with Z2103.

R.Rocca
02-19-2015, 09:19 PM
Just checked out the sample from the study, that whole hot spot in the map seemed to be related to a single population, the Bashkirs. Take them out of the equation and things change dramatically even if you choose not to add some of the populations from the Middle East that are hot with Z2103.

Yes, and while we're at it, let's take out R-L21 out of Ireland, and R-U152 out of the Alps and R-DF27 out of Iberia and France and R1a out of Poland... I'm sure at some point we'll wind up with every R1 haplogroup being most common in the Middle East. What a ridiculous statement to make. What are you going to say next, that the Z2103+ Bashkirs are not the living descendants of the men buried in those Yamnaya Kurgans, or are the Bashkirs now from the Middle East too?

Please people, stop the madness, up is not down and white is not black.

Humanist
02-19-2015, 09:22 PM
Just checked out the sample from the study, that whole hot spot in the map seemed to be related to a single population, the Bashkirs. Take them out of the equation and things change dramatically even if you choose not to add some of the populations from the Middle East that are hot with Z2103.

I do agree that the Myres et al. data is not the most representative when it comes to understanding the modern distribution of Z2103. However, I still find it interesting that Bashkirs, living in such (relatively) close proximity to the sites sampled in Haak et al. display such a high frequency of Z2103.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 09:26 PM
a) It is based on deductive reasoning when taking account linguists, archaeology as well. Genetics is as close to a final confirmation as we'll ever get. And there is no doubt that some speculations are a lot less likely than others.

The problem is these are still educated guesses and not exactly a confirmation as you like to call it. Genetics hardly has anything to do with it really and the further you go back the hazier the picture gets. Also it may seem to you that it's a speculation that has less doubt in it but the reality is it's the only one that has been researched heavily. The lack of aDNA from other vital parts for example leave out a lot of unanswered questions.


b) All the Yamnaya samples didn't test Z2103 and Z2103 is not rare in Europe today. Haplogroup H is rare in Europe today.

Haplogroup H has nothing to do with anything nor is it part of what we're talking about. If Z2103 is not rare in Europe care to explain why your map makes it seem like it is? I have not checked out the distribution of Z2103 yet but if anything, I'm willing to take a good guess that in Europe, it would be most common in the Balkans. Do you have any data showing the modern distribution of it?


c) Not hoping, we are coming to the best possible and most probable explanation for how both R1b-L23+ and IE got to Europe today.

Probable is still not evidence, and it's only probable because other options have not been explored yet.


d) Yes and all of those "IFs" allign much better for success than other "IFs" I've seen floating around the last few weeks that are more personal wishes and completely against the facts of all ancient DNA testing to date.

Again, that's because the lack of research only allows us to talk about these IF's, maybe it's better to wait for other ancient DNA outside of Europe.


The map was based on Myres 2010's L23(xL51) only.

Thank you, which illustrates why your map looks misleading.

Chad Rohlfsen
02-19-2015, 09:26 PM
I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Early Mako and Vucedol are ancestral to a good chunk of German Beakers. Lo and behold, our Beakers plot with and East of Mako's BR1. Put two and two together. This isn't difficult to figure out L51>L11's route.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 09:29 PM
Yes, and while we're at it, let's take out R-L21 out of Ireland, and R-U152 out of the Alps and R-DF27 out of Iberia and France and R1a out of Poland... I'm sure at some point we'll wind up with every R1 haplogroup being most common in the Middle East. What a ridiculous statement to make. What are you going to say next, that the Z2103+ Bashkirs are not the living descendants of the men buried in those Yamnaya Kurgans, or are the Bashkirs now from the Middle East too?

Please people, stop the madness, up is not down and white is not black.

It's equal madness when I see rejoicing a little too much in this thread when there's some serious lack of aDNA studies in other parts of the IE world that could shed further light.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 09:39 PM
I do agree that the Myres et al. data is not the most representative when it comes to understanding the modern distribution of Z2103. However, I still find it interesting that Bashkirs, living in such (relatively) close proximity to the sites sampled in Haak et al. display such a high frequency of Z2103.

It is interesting but we're talking about a single population here. Could very be a similar scenario of R1b that is dominant among our modern Assyrian people, and that usually falls back on the lack of mixing.

R.Rocca
02-19-2015, 09:39 PM
It's equal madness when I see rejoicing a little too much in this thread when there's some serious lack of aDNA studies in other parts of the IE world that could shed further light.

Yes, more ancient DNA from other parts may change how IE got to those other parts, but the probability of it changing how it got to Europe based on this paper is highly unlikely to change.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 09:42 PM
Yes, more ancient DNA from other parts may change how IE got to those other parts, but the probability of it changing how it got to Europe based on this paper is highly unlikely to change.

That will remain to be seen, but glad to see you acknowledge that it could change since we lack aDNA and that what you have is probable, not set on stone evidence.

Humanist
02-19-2015, 09:43 PM
It is interesting but we're talking about a single population here. Could very be a similar scenario of R1b that is dominant among our modern Assyrian people, and that usually falls back on the lack of mixing.

But that would actually strengthen the argument that it is a relic from a time far removed from the present, rather than a product of a more recent population movement into the region where the Bashkirs live today.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 09:49 PM
But that would actually strengthen the argument that it is a relic from a time far removed from the present, rather than a product of a more recent population movement into the region where the Bashkirs live today.

That relic could easily be a recent ancestor, when I say recent, I'm talking recent ancient times where identities and tribal names are carried on to our modern society (A good example us Assyrians can relate to perhaps is the adoption of Christianity).

newtoboard
02-19-2015, 10:56 PM
IE was H2 y-dna. Eastern-european neolithic was more H and was base of IE . H weren't pre-neolithic in India either.



Yea that makes a lot of sense. H1, H2, H3 all found in South Asia and only H2 found outside so lets make all H non South Asia.Good logic. Do you think India was inhabited before the Neolithic or were there nothing but mtdna M women waiting for West Asian males to arrive?

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 11:06 PM
Yea that makes a lot of sense. H1, H2, H3 all found in South Asia and only H2 found outside so lets make all H non South Asia.Good logic. Do you think India was inhabited before the Neolithic or were there nothing but mtdna M women waiting for West Asian males to arrive?

To be fair the H2 found outside of India is ancient, so until further ancient DNA studies are done in India, anything is possible.

Btw, to answer your question about haplogroup M women, I'm sure haplogroup C* (Later C5) make strong candidates as the earliest humans in India with potential haplogroup D* and possibly O2 from the East.

newtoboard
02-19-2015, 11:18 PM
But that would actually strengthen the argument that it is a relic from a time far removed from the present, rather than a product of a more recent population movement into the region where the Bashkirs live today.

Possible although Tomasso's theory might work too ( a recent founder). If I recall Bashkirs have multiple regional variation. Some groups are R1b dominant, and some are N1c dominant and some are R1a dominant too I think. But I could be wrong. But that is strange. For different ydnas to dominant based on which city you are from.

newtoboard
02-19-2015, 11:26 PM
To be fair the H2 found outside of India is ancient, so until further ancient DNA studies are done in India, anything is possible.

Btw, to answer your question about haplogroup M women, I'm sure haplogroup C* (Later C5) make strong candidates as the earliest humans in India with potential haplogroup D* and possibly O2 from the East.

No reason to see any potential y D*. Its presence in Andaman Islanders and Tibetans doesn't somehow suggest it was once common everywhere in between and it has died out. C1b is also seen as a Northern or western intrusion in the eyes of the people who seem to think H originated in West Asia.

And it doesn't change the point about H1 and H3. Those lineages are old. So suggesting they might not be "native" to India is quite different to suggesting they arrived in the Neolithic.

newtoboard
02-19-2015, 11:29 PM
To be fair the H2 found outside of India is ancient, so until further ancient DNA studies are done in India, anything is possible.

Btw, to answer your question about haplogroup M women, I'm sure haplogroup C* (Later C5) make strong candidates as the earliest humans in India with potential haplogroup D* and possibly O2 from the East.

O2 is restricted to Austroasiatic tribals and groups closest SE Asia. Not to mention the Austroasiatic migration according to some people is the last migration (along with Sino-Tibetans) to South Asia. O2 in South Asia might be younger than R1a-Z93+ L657+ in South Asia.

Tomasso29
02-19-2015, 11:44 PM
O2 is restricted to Austroasiatic tribals and groups closest SE Asia. Not to mention the Austroasiatic migration according to some people is the last migration (along with Sino-Tibetans) to South Asia. O2 in South Asia might be younger than R1a-Z93+ L657+ in South Asia.

This is why I said possibly, though C*/C5 make the strongest candidates as the earliest arrivals in India imo if you trace the coastal migration out of Africa.

Haplogroup H is debatable but I would not be surprised if it originated on its way to India rather than in India itself. Seeing an old H2 all the way in Europe makes me think that haplogroup H might have had a Near Eastern presence before reaching South Asia, the same goes for haplogroup C btw (Which was also observed in ancient Europe).

newtoboard
02-19-2015, 11:59 PM
This is why I said possibly, though C*/C5 make the strongest candidates as the earliest arrivals in India imo if you trace the coastal migration out of Africa.

Haplogroup H is debatable but I would not be surprised if it originated on its way to India rather than in India itself. Seeing an old H2 all the way in Europe makes me think that haplogroup H might have had a Near Eastern presence before reaching South Asia, the same goes for haplogroup C btw (Which was also observed in ancient Europe).

Pretty sure nobody really believes in the coastal migration theory anymore.

This would likely all be pre Neolithic. Even if H originated on the way to India than in it the fact that H1 and H3 are restricted to South Asia would suggest H diversified and MRCA of modern H lived in South Asia.

I am not sure y C has any West Asian presence. C1a is predominantly North Eurasian. C1b is predominantly South Asian. And I believe the rest of C1 (C1c etc) is SE Asian. Looks more Central Asian to me.

What about F? I remember that it has 3 subclades pretty much restricted to East Asia, India and Sri Lanka. Sahikoroth or Ebizur might know more about this.

parasar
02-20-2015, 04:13 AM
To be fair the H2 found outside of India is ancient, so until further ancient DNA studies are done in India, anything is possible.

Btw, to answer your question about haplogroup M women, I'm sure haplogroup C* (Later C5) make strong candidates as the earliest humans in India with potential haplogroup D* and possibly O2 from the East.

The C1 (C5 is now part of C1-F3393) found in Europe is lot more ancient (~39000ybp) than the ancient H2 find in Europe, and that C1 is associated with mtDNA U2 another ~40000ybp line with significant South Asian presence.

vettor
02-20-2015, 06:25 AM
It shows no such thing. It shows Yamnaya overlaying earlier Neolithic groups and forming Corded Ware. Figure 3 shows that Yamnaya autosomal components peak in modern Norwegians at around 50%, so I don't know where you get that 3/4 of German markers are Yamnaya, and don't forget that some of that is female mediated. Just because people in Europe today speak IE languages does not mean that their ancestors were part of the waves that brought IE from the Steppe during the Early Bronze Age. Maybe for every 95 Yamnaya R1+ samples we'll get 5 belonging to haplogroup I, G, J etc, but please don't try kidding people into thinking that the great majority of modern males who carry G2a or T1 aren't related to men who first entered Europe during the Early Neolithic and got swept by a wave of R1+ men. It is contrary to every single data point we have to date.



Isn't your discounting of Y-DNA "picking" through the paper? I would say that 100% of Russian samples being R1+ over a 5,000 year time span in areas thought to be the birthplace of PIE is a pretty big deal myself.



Maybe not that specific person, but without a doubt you and that T1a sample share a common ancestor who was T1a. The fact that he was found in an LBK context makes it all the more likely that your ancestor too was around since the Early Neolithic, not before, but certainly since (duh). So you don't accuse anyone else of "picking" through the paper, let's see what the authors had to say about that one T1a individual...


"I0795 (LBK_EN) This individual belonged to haplogroup T1a (PF5604:7890461C→T, M70:21893881A→C). This is the first instance of this haplogroup in an ancient individual that we are aware of and strengthens the case for the early Neolithic origin of this lineage in modern Europeans, rather than a more recent introduction from the Near East where it is more abundant today."

Seems like they are pretty damn certain that T1a is from Near Eastern Neolithics, don't you think?


read the brothertan 2013 paper as its about the exact same markers in central germany I only refer to only the mtdna .
this haak paper talks about the same mtdna markers but revisted and updated.
2013 paper stated the markers arrived in germany about 4000 bc, so the other 1200-1400 years of its life was elsewhere

rms2
02-20-2015, 01:15 PM
So basically the argument here is who "introduced" the IE languages as oppose to who the Indo-Europeans were. You may have a better chance there but who's to say the languages came from Yamna to begin with? More on that how do we determine the the folks who carried R1b-L23 in Yamna were not from Anatolia instead of the Steppes? After all R1b-Z2103 which all Yamna samples were is quite rare in Europe today and most common in West Asia, perhaps it's best we wait for more aDNA samples because the more I think of it, the more I question R1b's involvement in Europe through Yamna.

I stayed off the computer last night, and there has been a lot of water under the bridge on this thread since then, but you are kidding, right?

What are the chances that an R1b-L23 group from Anatolia would serendipitously elect to settle in a region in which an R1b1-L278 hunter-gather had died and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier? And what a funny coincidence that he was buried at a site that would produce artifacts from cultures that preceded but contributed to Yamnaya in succession, i.e., Elshanka, Samara, and Repin? It's almost as if those R1b-L23 guys were just too clever in masking their Anatolian origin, making it look like their ancestors had already been on the steppe for millennia!

I wonder what the odds are that those Volga-Ural kurgans, some of them widely separated from one another, would produce seven men all belonging to the same y haplogroup, if that y haplogroup is not to be connected to Yamnaya, and what we have thus far is not really evidence.

Lastly, I think one has to abandon the Pontic-Caspian steppe as a possible Urheimat of Indo-European if one is going to begin questioning the role of Yamnaya in its spread.

Tomasso29
02-20-2015, 03:16 PM
I stayed off the computer last night, and there has been a lot of water under the bridge on this thread since then, but you are kidding, right?

What are the chances that an R1b-L23 group from Anatolia would serendipitously elect to settle in a region in which an R1b1-L278 hunter-gather had died and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier? And what a funny coincidence that he was buried at a site that would produce artifacts from cultures that preceded but contributed to Yamnaya in succession, i.e., Elshanka, Samara, and Repin? It's almost as if those R1b-L23 guys were just too clever in masking their Anatolian origin, making it look like their ancestors had already been on the steppe for millennia!

I wonder what the odds are that those Volga-Ural kurgans, some of them widely separated from one another, would produce seven men all belonging to the same y haplogroup, if that y haplogroup is not to be connected to Yamnaya, and what we have thus far is not really evidence.

Lastly, I think one has to abandon the Pontic-Caspian steppe as a possible Urheimat of Indo-European if one is going to begin questioning the role of Yamnaya in its spread.

I'm sorry, but what we have is evidence for a probably answer, not a definite answer.

Silesian
02-20-2015, 03:43 PM
I'm sorry, but what we have is evidence for a probably answer, not a definite answer.

Hey Tomasso I'd like for you to meet some of my distant relatives. At the bottom of the page R1b-Z2103+ with copper mace.
Assyrians carrying R1b-Z2103 are only one small part of the puzzle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture
The Yamna culture 3500-2000 BC

Genetics

[I]DNA from the remains of nine individuals assiciated with the Yamna culture from Samara Oblast and Orenburg Oblast has been analyzed. The remains have been dated to 2700-3339 BCE. Y-chromosome sequencing revealed that one of the individuals belonged to haplogroup R1b1-P25, one individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1a2a-L23 and five individuals belonged to R1b1a2a2-Z2103. The individuals belonged to mtDNA haplogroups U4a1, W6, H13a1a1a, T2c1a2, U5a1a1, H2b, W3a1a and H6a1b.[5]


02-15-2015, 05:26 PM #157 - http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting/page15

I think the calculations that have been recently posted by Ebizur are very reasonable............... recent rough estimates (in ky) taken from the notes I have with me:

R1b-M269 7.5 (7.0-8.1)
R1b-L23 7.2 (6.7-7.7)
R1b-Z2103 6.4 (5.9-6.9)
R1b-L51 6.7 (6.2-7.2)
R1b-L11 5.7 (5.2-6.2)
R1b-P312 5.6 (5.1-6.1)
R1b-U106 5.5 (5.0-6.0)

R1a-M417 6.2 (5.7-6.7)
R1a-CTS4385 5.8 (5.3-6.3)
R1a-L664 4.8 (4.3-5.2)
R1a-Z645 5.6 (5.1-6.1)
R1a-Z93 5.4 (4.9-5.9)
R1a-Z282 5.4 (4.9-5.9)

Yamnaya- R1b-Z2103+ can also be found amongst for one reason or another.
Irish-Italians-Greeks-Anatolians-Albanians-Armenians-Ossetians-Jászság,Poles-Russian-Iranian/Kurds-Pakistani/Pashtun-Punjabi- All of these carry R1b Z2103 some only in trace amounts others in higher frequencies.

http://oi58.tinypic.com/5p06xt.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d864bwyCAoA[/QUOTE]



Soon we will get autosomal:)

rms2
02-20-2015, 05:20 PM
When it comes to pre-literate languages, evidence of a probable answer is likely to be the best evidence we'll ever get, and pretty doggoned good evidence to boot.

I think it's becoming clear that the original IE y haplogroups are R1a and R1b, and I doubt it will be possible to say which one was first. In fact, I think it likely both arose in the same geographical, cultural, and linguistic milieu. I think Davidski's idea of a bifurcation of R1 in Eastern Europe is reasonable and very likely, given what we have learned from the Haak et al paper.

What I am mainly interested in is the story of how IE and R1b got to Western Europe. We know that R1b-L23, and especially one particular branch of it, Z2103/Z2105, was present in Yamnaya on the steppe in the 4th-3rd millennia. So, what about R1b-L51>L11 and subsequent developments? As I have said before, I think we need ancient y-dna results from Yamnaya and earlier kurgan waves west, into the Danube valley and eastern Hungary. There are thousands of kurgans there. It sure seems likely some of them contain males who were R1b-L51.

Now we have the Quedlinburg Bell Beaker man, c. 2300-2200 BC, who was P312+ and L51>L11. It seems likely that Beaker was one of the successor cultures that helped spread IE to the West. We simply need to fill in the gaps between him and his L51 ancestors to see the route his y-dna took to get to him.

Tomasso29
02-20-2015, 05:46 PM
I think it's becoming clear that the original IE y haplogroups are R1a and R1b, and I doubt it will be possible to say which one was first. In fact, I think it likely both arose in the same geographical, cultural, and linguistic milieu. I think Davidski's idea of a bifurcation of R1 in Eastern Europe is reasonable and very likely, given what we have learned from the Haak et al paper.


I would hold off on to that thought until they test ancient DNA from West Asia, South Asia, and their surroundings.

Megalophias
02-20-2015, 05:49 PM
What are the chances that an R1b-L23 group from Anatolia would serendipitously elect to settle in a region in which an R1b1-L278 hunter-gather had died and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier?


Why on earth not? Why would R1b be limited to a small area? It's something like 20 000 years old. It was in Neolithic Spain at the time. Why could it not have been in Anatolia?

That is not to say R1b isn't connected to Yamnaya, it clearly is, and I agree that it most likely got to Western Europe from the Yamnaya region. But that is R1b-L23, and Samara HG was not L23, or even M269. His last patrilineal common ancestor with Yamnaya could go back to the LGM!

Or not, the Yamnaya R1b could come from the local foragers of course. But there is no strong evidence one way or the other.

ADW_1981
02-20-2015, 05:59 PM
Why on earth not? Why would R1b be limited to a small area? It's something like 20 000 years old. It was in Neolithic Spain at the time. Why could it not have been in Anatolia?

That is not to say R1b isn't connected to Yamnaya, it clearly is, and I agree that it most likely got to Western Europe from the Yamnaya region. But that is R1b-L23, and Samara HG was not L23, or even M269. His last patrilineal common ancestor with Yamnaya could go back to the LGM!

Or not, the Yamnaya R1b could come from the local foragers of course. But there is no strong evidence one way or the other.

The fact that R1b1* turned up in 5000 BC Spain, and R1b1* and R1a1* turned up around 5800 BC is only bringing more evidence on the youthful age of M269 and M17 branches. If L23+ turns up 20,000 years ago I will be extremely surprised considering Ma'lta only had some SNPs for R1* at 24,000 ybp. As more data is collected, I think we'll see many of these neolithic and earlier lineages are dead or lower frequency, and the successful lineages will be from downstream mutations of the Neolithic or later age.

Tomasso29
02-20-2015, 06:21 PM
What are the chances that an R1b-L23 group from Anatolia would serendipitously elect to settle in a region in which an R1b1-L278 hunter-gather had died and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier?


The chances are good given that you can cross to the Steppes via the Caucasus from Anatolia.

R.Rocca
02-20-2015, 06:46 PM
The chances are good given that you can cross to the Steppes via the Caucasus from Anatolia.

You didn't answer his question. He asked what the probability of that scenario happening thousands of years apart, not how easy it is to cross from one geography to another.

Megalophias
02-20-2015, 06:54 PM
The fact that R1b1* turned up in 5000 BC Spain, and R1b1* and R1a1* turned up around 5800 BC is only bringing more evidence on the youthful age of M269 and M17 branches. If L23+ turns up 20,000 years ago I will be extremely surprised considering Ma'lta only had some SNPs for R1* at 24,000 ybp. As more data is collected, I think we'll see many of these neolithic and earlier lineages are dead or lower frequency, and the successful lineages will be from downstream mutations of the Neolithic or later age.

MA-1 didn't have any R1* SNPs. He had 1 R1b SNP, an R2 SNP, a Q SNP, a G SNP, and 2 I SNPs. None of them are phylogenetically relevant, he branches off before both R1 and R2.

L23 is probably 5500-8000 years old, and M17 7000-10000 years old (but M417 is probably only 4500-6500 years old).

I absolutely agree with your last point. For instance, a lot of our Neolithic samples are G2a2a (like Oetzi), but that is rare in Europe now, and we mostly have certain subclades of G2a2b. It looks like more than just generic Neolithic survival.

alan
02-20-2015, 07:14 PM
I would say the chances of 3 out of 3 beaker burials, albeit only from 2 different sites, being R1b seems very unlikely to be chance. Has anyone dug out any details of the archaeology of the burial at Quedlinburg.

Of course the first thing that is clear is this is a relatively late beaker burial centred on 2250BC. Kromsdorf dates to the very start of German beakers so its a great shame we can say no more than one was M269xU106. L51xL11 just seems far too rare to be a match for the sudden widespread appearance of beaker across central and north-west Europe over just a generation from around 2500BC. That surely can only only be matched by a widespread, large rapidly branching lineage like P312.

L11xL51 is hard to fathom with a peak apparently along the south Baltic coast and another around Switzerland. What I would say though is its hard to imagine an into-the-Baltic movement without going back towards the copper or bronze age. So seems to me that at least part of this went to the Baltic area early. Switzerland has a more complex history so its harder to make simple statements about. However, it hard to imagine how L11 xL51 could get to the Baltic south shore and Switzerland without it having passed through central Europe.

I have to say on the surface it looks to me like L11xL51 was at least partly linked to Corded Ware. Beaker would be a very feeble explanation for a peak on the south Baltic and Sweden. It seems clear it was a fairly minor clade until its big 2 branches spun off it and grew. If P312 in beaker simply didnt just jump from corded ware at some point then L11 looks like it would have had to have bifurced somewhere to the east like the west of Ukraine because there is no natural bifurk further west between corded ware and other cultures due to the Carpathians. Those mountain kind of force the issue to go by the Dnieper etc north or south towards the Danube.

Once the idea that L11 itself could have emerged on the steppes seemed unlikely but now it does appear to be old enough to have existed in Yamnaya before its expansion and perhaps at the origin of corded ware too. If so then then L11 cannot have split into two direction until 3000BC as neither corded ware or Yamnaya had really begun their journeys across farming Europe in earnest until around that date.
http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/R1b-L11.jpg

Tomasso29
02-20-2015, 07:37 PM
You didn't answer his question. He asked what the probability of that scenario happening thousands of years apart, not how easy it is to cross from one geography to another.

The probability will need to wait for aDNA collected from West Asia.

rms2
02-20-2015, 08:11 PM
You didn't answer his question. He asked what the probability of that scenario happening thousands of years apart, not how easy it is to cross from one geography to another.

Exactly. There is some amazing nonsense that has been posted here since pre-print Haak et al came out. You characterized it as calling white black and up down, as I recall, and that seems really apropos.

rms2
02-20-2015, 08:22 PM
Why on earth not? Why would R1b be limited to a small area? It's something like 20 000 years old. It was in Neolithic Spain at the time. Why could it not have been in Anatolia?

. . .

Seriously? You think it likely that those seven R1b-L23 Yamnaya men were the product of a movement of L23 to the Volga-Ural region from Anatolia that just happened to alight in a place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer had died and was buried around 3000 years earlier, at a site that has produced artifacts from successive cultures that preceded and contributed to Yamnaya?

I think that sooo unlikely as to be nearly impossible. In fact, the suggestion seems laughable to me.

Joe B
02-20-2015, 08:31 PM
Here is a cold map of Eurasia with the general location of the Yamnaya Y-graves.
3815

Leeroy Jenkins
02-20-2015, 08:42 PM
Lazaridis recently posted this in the comments section of Eurogenes:


Samara_HG is R1b1. In a previous version of the analysis there was a single read for R1b1a-L320, which is a C->T (or G->A) site at the beginning of the read and represents damage in the ancient molecule. This was filtered out in the final analysis, but the wrong designation was kept in Extended Data Table 2.

Thanks for catching this!

I find it somewhat humorous to think that Patterson and Lazaridis both read the comments section of David's blog. If you ever want a good laugh, just imagine Patterson sitting in his boxers and t shirt at about 1 AM, reading Eurogenes comments before going to bed.

Megalophias
02-20-2015, 08:53 PM
I just can't follow your reasoning.

If R1b was common over a wide area, then obviously R1b people are going to be buried near other R1b people. Why would this be surprising? Why would you expect branches of R1b separated by over 10000 years to restricted to the same small area?

ADW_1981
02-20-2015, 09:03 PM
Lazaridis recently posted this in the comments section of Eurogenes:



I find it somewhat humorous to think that Patterson and Lazaridis both read the comments section of David's blog. If you ever want a good laugh, just imagine Patterson sitting in his boxers and t shirt at about 1 AM, reading Eurogenes comments before going to bed.

If I could give 2x thanks to your comment I would. Gave me a good chuckle.

Tomasso29
02-20-2015, 09:45 PM
Seriously? You think it likely that those seven R1b-L23 Yamnaya men were the product of a movement of L23 to the Volga-Ural region from Anatolia that just happened to alight in a place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer had died and was buried around 3000 years earlier, at a site that has produced artifacts from successive cultures that preceded and contributed to Yamnaya?

Yes, because it's so uncommon for a group to move in where another group lived 3000 years before? Also a successive culture does not mean they could have been the same people, a good example of that is the Akkadian period being successive to the Sumerian period and they both were in the same region while being completely different people.


I think that sooo unlikely as to be nearly impossible. In fact, the suggestion seems laughable to me.

What's laughable is you're stuck on this idea based on a personal agenda (Judging by your haplogroup of course). I bet people would have laughed if they were told that Y-DNA haplogroup H would be found in Neolithic Europe, but long and behold, aDNA showed us that it did exist. It's far from impossible when the only ancient DNA evidence we have is from Europe and Russia. So until then, I think you need to put the pint down with all due respect.

Scarlet Ibis
02-20-2015, 10:16 PM
People, I really hate to do this, but let's try to keep things civil. It's the weekend.

Jean M
02-20-2015, 11:07 PM
Kurgans likely originate in the Caucasus anyways.

That was the conclusion of one radiocarbon dating paper: Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004. But now the Repin culture has been redated by Morgunova and Khokhlova 2013*:

Thus, on the basis of 14C dating, the chronological limits of the early (Repino) stage of the Pit-Grave culture in the Volga-Ural region are approximately between 4000 and 3300 cal BC. This is ~500 yr older than previously thought (Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004). At this stage, the Pit-Grave culture developed synchronously with the early stage of the Maikop culture in the northern Caucasus, according to the archaeological evidence and the calibrated 14C dates obtained for the early stage of the Maikop culture (Korenevsky 2004).

* Morgunova, N. L. and Khokhlova, O. S. 2013. Chronology and periodization of the Pit-Grave Culture in the region between the Volga and Ural Rivers based on radiocarbon dating and paleopedological research, in A. J. T. Jull and C. Hatté (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st International Radiocarbon Conference, Radiocarbon, 55 (2–3), 1286–1296.

newtoboard
02-20-2015, 11:42 PM
I would hold off on to that thought until they test ancient DNA from West Asia, South Asia, and their surroundings.

Not really. The only way that can happen is is L278+ originated in the steppe an everything else below that originated on a journey migrated back to the exact same steppe location via a route along the eastern+southern Caspian and southern+western+ northern black sea shores. And somehow this migration managed to not bring along any other y dna lineages and somehow escaped showing up in the archeological record. The chance of this happening is slim. Pretty much close to nil. Not sure why we should pretend it even has a minor chance of being right when it seems crazy.There was likely no R1b in West Asia (except for V88+) west of the Zagros until IE speakers brought it there. Armenian, Turkish, Alawite, and Assyrian R1b is all Z2103+. Why aren't older clades showing up?

newtoboard
02-20-2015, 11:46 PM
That was the conclusion of one radiocarbon dating paper: Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004. But now the Repin culture has been redated by Morgunova and Khokhlova 2013*:


* Morgunova, N. L. and Khokhlova, O. S. 2013. Chronology and periodization of the Pit-Grave Culture in the region between the Volga and Ural Rivers based on radiocarbon dating and paleopedological research, in A. J. T. Jull and C. Hatté (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st International Radiocarbon Conference, Radiocarbon, 55 (2–3), 1286–1296.

So the theory seems to be now they originated on the steppe?

Jean M
02-20-2015, 11:50 PM
So the theory seems to be now they originated on the steppe?

That's it.

alan
02-21-2015, 12:00 AM
I just can't follow your reasoning.

If R1b was common over a wide area, then obviously R1b people are going to be buried near other R1b people. Why would this be surprising? Why would you expect branches of R1b separated by over 10000 years to restricted to the same small area?

Think its pretty conclusive R1b was not common over a wide area. Other than Samara R1b hasnt turned up in any pre-farming people. Other than the one R1b guy in Iberia it has never turned up among the Neolithic farmers of Europe. Quite a few European farmers have been tested now and one single hit doesnt equal common. I have thought with an open mind about the Spanish R1b and IMO he is likely to be a stray V88 person who got caught up in Cardial. We all know that V88Xv69 is an overwhelmingly SW Asia, especially Levantine, clade and that there are also P25 people in SW Asia, especially Iran, who could have been ancestral to V88. So it is possible that a little R1b could have entered the Cardial population at its source in the Levant.

alan
02-21-2015, 12:01 AM
What is the latest thinking about V88 in terms of dating it.

R.Rocca
02-21-2015, 12:15 AM
The probability will need to wait for aDNA collected from West Asia.

We do't have wait for ancient DNA to talk about probability. If that were the case, this forum is pretty much a mute point.

Tomasso29
02-21-2015, 12:24 AM
Not really. The only way that can happen is is L278+ originated in the steppe an everything else below that originated on a journey migrated back to the exact same steppe location via a route along the eastern+southern Caspian and southern+western+ northern black sea shores. And somehow this migration managed to not bring along any other y dna lineages and somehow escaped showing up in the archeological record. The chance of this happening is slim. Pretty much close to nil. Not sure why we should pretend it even has a minor chance of being right when it seems crazy.There was likely no R1b in West Asia (except for V88+) west of the Zagros until IE speakers brought it there. Armenian, Turkish, Alawite, and Assyrian R1b is all Z2103+. Why aren't older clades showing up?

You're complicating things when it should be quite simple really, let's wait for aDNA from other parts outside of Europe before making any claims, this picture is very unclear to me and it's careless to just say things like "Next to impossible" or "Pretty much close to nil" before they study ancient DNA from West Asia, South Asia, so on. The Assyrians, Armenians, Alawites, Turks, etc are not ancient DNA, we need ancient DNA, if we're going by such arguments then R1b has no business being in the steppes by modern standards. Please separate the two subjects as they have very little to do with one another.

There's no evidence that R1b-L23 (Among other R1b lineages) did not migrate out of West Asia, there's no evidence that R1b-L23 was brought to West Asia by Indo-Europeans, and there's no evidence that the Yamna samples did not come from Anatolia, so until further evidence is revealed all claims are purely out of speculation.

I should remind everyone that no one thought Y-DNA haplogroups such as H or C would have any business in ancient Europe, aDNA has shown us that we were wrong, also not too long ago most people thought R1a was the one living in the steppes and R1b was most likely absent (Let alone L23+), once again we were wrong because aDNA showed us that. So maybe it's best to wait and see what aDNA can show us about other areas before we start making such scenarios impossible.


We do't have wait for ancient DNA to talk about probability. If that were the case, this forum is pretty much a mute point.

I never said you have to wait to talk about probability, I'm in agreement there, but to call someone's opinion nonsense because they suggested that R1b might have come out of Anatolia just because this study exists is absurd.

newtoboard
02-21-2015, 12:41 AM
You're complicating things when it should be quite simple really, let's wait for aDNA from other parts outside of Europe before making any claims, this picture is very unclear to me and it's careless to just say things like "Next to impossible" or "Pretty much close to nil" before they study ancient DNA from West Asia, South Asia, so on. The Assyrians, Armenians, Alawites, Turks, etc are not ancient DNA, we need ancient DNA, if we're going by such arguments then R1b has no business being in the steppes by modern standards. Please separate the two subjects as they have very little to do with one another.

There's no evidence that R1b-L23 (Among other R1b lineages) did not migrate out of West Asia, there's no evidence that R1b-L23 was brought to West Asia by Indo-Europeans, and there's no evidence that the Yamna samples did not come from Anatolia, so until further evidence is revealed all claims are purely out of speculation.

I should remind everyone that no one thought Y-DNA haplogroups such as H or C would have any business in ancient Europe, aDNA has shown us that we were wrong, also not too long ago most people thought R1a was the one living in the steppes and R1b was most likely absent (Let alone L23+), once again we were wrong because aDNA showed us that. So maybe it's best to wait and see what aDNA can show us about other areas before we start making such scenarios impossible.



I never said you have to wait to talk about probability, I'm in agreement there, but to call someone's opinion nonsense because they suggested that R1b might have come out of Anatolia just because this study exists is absurd.

Well then we will be waiting a long time. Nothing suggests that we will have ancient aDNA from Asia anytime soon. The trend of not testing samples from a place that isn't Northern and Western Europe will likely continue for a long time. Other than the BEAN project or that Kurdistan focused project nothing is in the works as far as I know. The Farmana thing failed. Even Asian steppe DNA is getting a raw deal given that uni-mainz study still hasn't been published (is it even being worked on? does anybody know?). We can't get any confirmation on Afanasievo, Xiahoe and nobody has even bothered to test Andronovo and Scythian samples for the new SNP's for R1a and C.

As for your points on surprises given by aDNA:
-Some people did predict C in ancient Europe given how C-V20 is restricted to Europe.
-Some people did predict H in the Neolithic except at that time H2-P96 was known as F3-P96. All that changed is that F3-P96 ended up being H2-P96.
-Some people did predict R1b in the steppes or at least nearby. Not sure how we can say R1a is absent given how huge the Pontic-Caspian steppe is. There is plenty of place for R1a, other R1b groups as well as non R1 lineages left.

Tomasso29
02-21-2015, 12:51 AM
Well then we will be waiting a long time. Nothing suggests that we will have ancient aDNA from Asia anytime soon. The trend of not testing samples from a place that isn't Northern and Western Europe will likely continue for a long time. Other than the BEAN project or that Kurdistan focused project nothing is in the works as far as I know. The Farmana thing failed. Even Asian steppe DNA is getting a raw deal given that uni-mainz study still hasn't been published (is it even being worked on? does anybody know?). We can't get any confirmation on Afanasievo, Xiahoe and nobody has even bothered to test Andronovo and Scythian samples for the new SNP's for R1a and C.

As for your points on surprises given by aDNA:
-Some people did predict C in ancient Europe given how C-V20 is restricted to Europe.
-Some people did predict H in the Neolithic except at that time H2-P96 was known as F3-P96. All that changed is that F3-P96 ended up being H2-P96.
-Some people did predict R1b in the steppes or at least nearby. Not sure how we can say R1a is absent given how huge the Pontic-Caspian steppe is. There is plenty of place for R1a, other R1b groups as well as non R1 lineages left.

Some people claimed those points yes, but it was not the main census, much like what we're doing now.

As for waiting for aDNA that might not turn up, well what can I say, I'm the kind of person that does not like to believe in things half assed if you know what I mean.

rms2
02-21-2015, 12:53 AM
I just can't follow your reasoning.

If R1b was common over a wide area, then obviously R1b people are going to be buried near other R1b people. Why would this be surprising? Why would you expect branches of R1b separated by over 10000 years to restricted to the same small area?

So, let me get this straight. You think that R1b was so thick on the ground that no matter where one went in Eurasia in the 4th millennium BC, he was likely to settle near a spot where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer had died and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier?

I see why you can't follow my reasoning.

newtoboard
02-21-2015, 01:15 AM
On a side note I am curious who Jean's dairy farmers were now that R1b looks unlikely?

rms2
02-21-2015, 01:16 AM
Yes, because it's so uncommon for a group to move in where another group lived 3000 years before? Also a successive culture does not mean they could have been the same people, a good example of that is the Akkadian period being successive to the Sumerian period and they both were in the same region while being completely different people.

So, you seriously believe it is likely that those seven R1b-L23 Yamnaya males were the product of a migratory movement from Anatolia that just by merest happenstance landed them in an area where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer died and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier and at a site that was home to a succession of cultures that preceded and contributed to Yamnaya.

What can one say to something so incredible?

And here I would have thought the presence of that hunter-gatherer was a sign that those seven R1b Yamnaya men were probably living in a region their y-dna ancestors had occupied for millennia. Silly me!



What's laughable is you're stuck on this idea based on a personal agenda (Judging by your haplogroup of course). I bet people would have laughed if they were told that Y-DNA haplogroup H would be found in Neolithic Europe, but long and behold, aDNA showed us that it did exist. It's far from impossible when the only ancient DNA evidence we have is from Europe and Russia. So until then, I think you need to put the pint down with all due respect.

The presence of y haplogroup H in Neolithic Europe is a red herring, since it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. It amounts to obfuscation.

Let's see: you're an Assyrian guy constantly stressing the need for ancient dna from West Asia who accuses me of having a "personal agenda"? Good one! :biggrin1:

Tomasso29
02-21-2015, 01:35 AM
So, you seriously believe it is likely that those seven R1b-L23 Yamnaya males were the product of a migratory movement from Anatolia that just by merest happenstance landed them in an area where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer died and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier and at a site that was home to a succession of cultures that preceded and contributed to Yamnaya.

What can one say to something so incredible?


I did not say I believe, I said it's a possibility given that the samples that were found carried a subclade that exists among West Asians today and I see people saying that these were the product of Indo-Europeans from the steppes. All I'm saying is there's no evidence for that until aDNA from West Asia is found and analyzed.


And here I would have thought the presence of that hunter-gatherer was a sign that those seven R1b Yamnaya men were probably living in a region their y-dna ancestors had occupied for millennia. Silly me!

3000 years apart is way too long to make such connections, could it be the same group? Maybe, maybe not.


Let's see: you're an Assyrian guy constantly stressing the need for ancient dna from West Asia who accuses me of having a "personal agenda"? Good one! :biggrin1:

I do have an agenda, my agenda is to discuss things on this forum with a rational approach. I'm not saying that R1b-L23 from the steppes is not Indo-European, all I'm saying is that the current evidence is inconclusive until further aDNA from other vital parts of the IE speaking world is studied. Me being Assyrian and from West Asia has nothing to do with anything given that I'm from a Semitic speaking background and my Y-DNA has nothing to do with the discussion, so it's not a "personal" agenda.

rms2
02-21-2015, 01:40 AM
I did not say I believe, I said it's a possibility . . .

There we very strongly differ. I think it so extremely unlikely that to call it impossible would not be any kind of stretch.



I do have an agenda, my agenda is to discuss things on this forum with a rational approach . . .

If that is truly your agenda, then you failed it when you started accusing me of having a personal agenda merely because I belong to y haplogroup R1b. That was not even remotely "a rational approach".