PDA

View Full Version : R1b and its sibling R1a possible route(s) into Europe



Pages : [1] 2 3

MJost
02-24-2015, 05:55 PM
Steve, you mentioned, I quoted below, that R1b-L51 left Yamnaya and migrated into central Europe.


Yes, and apparently Z2103's brother clade of R1b-L51 was on the western end of the steppe, spawned L11, and went with those westward thrusts of Yamnaya into Central Europe, some up the Danube valley (IMHO the L11 line leading to P312) and some around the north side of the Carpathians (IMHO the L11 line leading to U106).

I hope they test some of the remains in those thousands of kurgans along that up-the-Danube-valley route soon.

I see you pushing the north side of Carpathians route and I have thought that the route from the western Black Sea up the Danube with my own variance study of L23 being the very highest in this area and the L23xL51 subclade pressing into the Balkans from L51's expected conception point 600 km upstream from the Danube River outlet area and L51's sibling, Z2103's clade then branched off southwards. leaving L51 continue up river at the 1km year movement. With my recalibration dates, L51 portion of the route will be key to understand hw !B subclades ended up in this Beaker site location.



7155bc
R1b1a2a - M269


5711bc
R1b1a2a - L23


5093bc
R1b1a2a1 - L51


4268bc
R1b1a2a1a - L11


2618bc
R1b1a2a1a2 - P312


2206bc
R1b1a2a1a2 - L21 (end of P312)




After I utilized the two latest calibrated dates for ChrY-R branch with MAl'ti boy (MA1) and I0806 Beaker samples dated 24kya and 2206 bc repectively. These new upper and lower range timing dating of the older clades were pushed back further. These newest dates become point in time barriers when considering when R1b entered into Europe.

Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
Wolfgang Haak et al
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

In the study, "Tracing the genetic origin of Europe's first farmers reveals insights into their social organization"
Szécsényi-Nagy et al. September 3, 2014

This study produced calibrated date ranges at Cal BC (2σ) of a mininum of 5.2Kbc to a max of 6.2ka in various cultures such as Starčevo, LBK and one Mesolithic from 14 sites. Alsónyék, Lánycsók, Vinkovci, Vukovar, Balatonszárszó-Kis-erdei-dűlő, Balatonszemes-Bagódomb, Bölcske-Gyűrűsvölgy, Budakeszi, Harta, M85 Enese elkerülő 02. Kóny Proletár-dűlő II, Szemely-Hegyes & Tolna-Mözs

Not one R1b was not found.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664

In another recent study, "Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland"
Hovhannisyan et all 2014 Nov 30.

"...in comparison with all analyzed populations from the Near East, Europe, and Anatolia, the haplogroup R1b1a2-M269 occurs with the highest genetic variances in the western parts of the Armenian plateau, in Sasun and Salmast (Figure 5).

See Figure 5A Geographical distribution maps of haplogroup frequencies and genetic variances ( V P ): (A) R1b1a2, (B) J2, and (C) G.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/

With the recent study we do know that R1b based have not been found prior to 2206bc in Europe.

R1a was discovered in 4,600-year-old graves near Eulau, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, close to the discovery site
of the world famous Nebra sky disk. Eulau is not far from the Kromsdorf Beaker site. These samples belonged materially and anthropologically to the Corded Ware culture. Found were haplogroup R1a1, haplogroup G and possibly haplogroup I.

From this study: "One burial (grave 99) (see Fig. 2), consisting of male and female adult individuals and two children facing each other in pairs, was shown to contain a nuclear family. The woman (ind. 1) and both children (inds. 2 and 4) share the same mtDNA haplogroup K1b. Additionally, the Y chromosome haplogroup R1a of the boys corresponds with the man’s (ind. 3)." The age of the paternal R1a male is date to 4074 +-24 BP and is 2631–2571 cal B.C.


"Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age" Wolfgang Haak et al November 17, 2008
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/11/17/0807592105

Haak, in his 'Massive migration from the steppe' paper, stated: "R1a and R1b are the most common haplogroups in many European populations today, and our results suggest that they spread into Europe from the East after 3,000 BCE."

Kromsdorf beaker site distance northeast to Eulau coredware site is about 50 miles.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Kromsdorf,+Germany/Eulau,+Germany/@51.8996535,8.3346811,6z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x47a41ba0533457fd:0x420 8ec174357940!2m2!1d11.373611!2d50.998889!1m5!1m1!1 s0x47a690ba65726c11:0xa208ec4045380b0!2m2!1d11.854 444!2d51.179444

The two Bronze Age Beaker samples, now in the strongly based U106 Germany, were tested U106-. This assumes that U106 was part of the further eastern or south eastern based Corded Ware culture.

This now allows further discussion for timeing and routes taken entering Europe up to the P312+ calibrated 4206 ybp (2206 bc) where as the R1a site is dated around 4074 BP (2631–2571 cal bc); almost a 400 year difference in dates. This leaves no U106 dna discovered or not even co-located with either's final ending routes.

As the CWC paper suggested, further thoughts on the permeability of cultural boundaries to trace the pathways of individuals and groups, their origins, and their familial (and social) networks may help find routes into Europe.

MJost

MJost
02-25-2015, 03:38 PM
I have ran some Armenian Highland R1b1a2 (M269) variance numbers from this study

'Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland' Hovhannisyan et al 2014 Nov 30
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/

"The peopling of Europe and the nature of the Neolithic agricultural migration as a primary issue in the modern human colonization of the globe is still widely debated. At present, much uncertainty is associated with the reconstruction of the routes of migration for the first farmers from the Near East. In this context, hospitable climatic conditions and the key geographic position of the Armenian Highland suggest that it may have served as a conduit for several waves of expansion of the first agriculturalists from the Near East to Europe and the North Caucasus. ... unrelated (at the paternal grandfather level) self-identified ethnic Armenian males, representing four geographically distinct Armenian regions of the historical expanse of Armenia."

The regions are shown below:

Table S2. Y-chromosomal STR haplotypes within haplogroup R1b1a2.

Eight loci haplotypes in study, I removed DYS389I leaving
DYS393 DYS390 DYS19 DYS391 DYS439 DYS392 DYS389b.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/figure/Fig1/

3843

R1b1a2 All n=201
Mean VAR 3.295
Modal FVAR 3.562
Mean Generations 180.4
Modal Gen Age 195.1

Salmast (n=47 R1b)
Mean VAR 3.689
Modal FVAR 4.170
Mean Generations 202.1
Modal Gen Age 228.4


Eastern (Karabakh n=41 R1b and Syunik n=38 R1b)
(Both n=79)
Mean VAR 2.919
Modal FVAR 3.101
Mean Generations 104
Modal Gen Age 169.8

Karabakh only
Mean VAR 2.791
Modal FVAR 2.902
Mean Generations 152.9
Modal Gen Age 159.0

Syunik only
Mean VAR 2.989
Modal FVAR 3.316
Mean Generations 163.7
Modal Gen Age 181.6


Central (Alashkert n=15 R1b and Bayazet n=27 R1b)
(both n=42)
Mean VAR 2.674
Modal FVAR 3.405
Mean Generations 146.4
Modal Gen Age 186.5

Alashkert
Mean VAR 3.324
Modal FVAR 4.267
Mean Generations 182.1
Modal Gen Age 233.7

Bayazet
Mean VAR 1.973
Modal FVAR 2.296
Mean Generations 108.0
Modal Gen Age 125.8


Western (n=33) parts of the Armenian plateau.
Mean VAR 3.829
Modal FVAR 4.000
Mean Generations 209.7
Modal Gen Age 219.1



MJost

rms2
02-26-2015, 02:36 PM
Steve, you mentioned, I quoted below, that R1b-L51 left Yamnaya and migrated into central Europe.
I see you pushing the north side of Carpathians route . . .

I don't think I was exactly pushing the north side of the Carpathians route. I merely mentioned it as seeming likely to me, since 1) that route fed into Globular Amphorae and Corded Ware; 2) the latter is believed to be connected to the genesis of Germanic (and Balto-Slavic); 3) U106 seems to be connected to Germanic; and 4) U106 has a distribution with a center of gravity farther to the east and north than that of P312.

Of course, I could be wrong, but those things still make sense to me and make it seem likely that the branch of L11 that led to U106 was part of that migration stream north of the Carpathians.

It seems to me the southern, up-the-Danube-valley stream makes much more sense for the branch of L11 that led to P312.



With the recent study we do know that R1b based have not been found prior to 2206bc in Europe . . .


Of course, the P312+ Quedlinburg Beaker man dates to about then, but the two R1b Beaker men from Kromsdorf were dated to 2600-2500 BC, and now we have several European R1b's that are much older, including the oldest R1b ever found: the R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer from Samara.

Maybe you meant that the Quedlinburg Beaker P312 is the oldest European P312 we know of?

You could be right about that up-the-Danube-valley route for all of L11; I don't know. Like I said, I only suggested the northern route for the branch of L11 that led to U106 because it seemed to me to make sense of the different distributions and linguistic connections of U106 and P312.

rms2
02-26-2015, 03:14 PM
You know, what is more interesting to me than whether or not the L11 line that led to U106 went north of the Carpathians is the question of exactly how R1b-L23 and Indo-European spread west from the steppe. Of course, asking the question, "How exactly did R1b-L23 and Indo-European spread west from the steppe?", means accepting as given that they did spread west from the steppe together. So, let's leave other alternatives, like the Anatolian hypothesis, aside for awhile. How did R1b-L23 and Indo-European spread west?

It seems pretty obvious that Yamnaya itself only got so far as something that can be identified as Yamnaya. There are thousands of identifiable Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary, but beyond that, as far as I know, Yamnaya itself does not go. Apparently movements farther west were undertaken by successor cultures that were a melding of Yamnaya and the local farmers, who were themselves descended from a mix of Near Eastern Neolithic immigrants and native European hunter-gatherers.

How did this melding process occur? What was the exact succession and mix of cultures involved, and just how were IE languages spread west and by whom? Which y haplogroups were involved in which cultures? Which of them can be traced back to the steppe and the migrations of steppe pastoralists?

These are all interesting questions and not easily answered, it seems to me.

rms2
02-26-2015, 03:22 PM
Maybe that last post wasn't all that clear. What I meant to ask was, how did R1b-L23 and Indo-European spread all the way west to the Atlantic? It's pretty obvious Yamnaya did not take them much past eastern Hungary. So how did they get the rest of the way?

If the answer is Beaker, how exactly did that happen, especially since the origin of Beaker is ascribed by some to the Iberian peninsula?

MJost
02-26-2015, 06:19 PM
My next step in this thread was to use my recalibated Ma-1 to I0806 beaker P312+ Sample SNPs ages and repost them overlaying on the Greenland GISP tempature chart I previous used for references to climate and timing of spawning of the R1b subclades. This dove tales into Alan's new thread on 'Was P297 the Mesolithic lineage that adapted its to serious aridity' here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3907-Was-P297-the-Mesolithic-lineage-that-adapted-its-to-serious-aridity&p=71447&viewfull=1#post71447

My new map here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNUDdib0tnTU5uSms/view?usp=sharing

MJost

alan
02-27-2015, 10:44 AM
Maybe that last post wasn't all that clear. What I meant to ask was, how did R1b-L23 and Indo-European spread all the way west to the Atlantic? It's pretty obvious Yamnaya did not take them much past eastern Hungary. So how did they get the rest of the way?

If the answer is Beaker, how exactly did that happen, especially since the origin of Beaker is ascribed by some to the Iberian peninsula?

I agree that, unless its simply some extreme westward wandering to Iberia by a particularly wanderlust driven group of R1b corded ware lineage c. 2700BC or R1b corded ware people simply adopted some beaker traits when the two cultures bumped into each other in west-central Europe c. 2600-2500BC, then there is a missing link between Yamnaya and the far west and all suggestions to date feel too subtle for comfort.

Other than Corded Ware the only culture I feel bridges a similar chunk of the gap in Remedello 2 to the south which I suppose provides a bridge between the Balkans to SE France. Neither corded ware or Remedello 2 seem to have had influence west of the western Alps so even those two cultures leave this gap -basically much of the width of France -in the bridge between eastern Europe and Iberia. It really is a tough one to call but if it is not linked somehow to those two probably bridging cultures then I dont know what. I also dont know how constantly linked to R1b beaker pot was - was it inked from the start. I now am more convinced that the beaker culture was the result of an intrusion by single burial tradition people in the 2700s but I am not sure then if that means P312 was already spread through middle Europe before this and before beaker pot spread back east or if there was a spread back east from Iberia that was more than just a limited one involving DF27. I think if anyone is very confident about what happened then I would be surprised.

Of course this can all be answered with the following DNA

1. Ancient DNA for beaker in Iberia from the pre-beaker Zambujal type people, earliest beaker burials around 2700 and perhaps also later beaker in the same area c. 2400BC

2. Testing Remedello 2.

3. Testing westernmost corded ware.

alan
02-27-2015, 11:07 AM
My next step in this thread was to use my recalibated Ma-1 to I0806 beaker P312+ Sample SNPs ages and repost them overlaying on the Greenland GISP tempature chart I previous used for references to climate and timing of spawning of the R1b subclades. This dove tales into Alan's new thread on 'Was P297 the Mesolithic lineage that adapted its to serious aridity' here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3907-Was-P297-the-Mesolithic-lineage-that-adapted-its-to-serious-aridity&p=71447&viewfull=1#post71447

My new map here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNUDdib0tnTU5uSms/view?usp=sharing

MJost

Nice graphic. Of course even arid tolerant groups suffered and had to move in periods of extreme aridity and probably expanded when it was not so bad. They may have been adapted to more arid open landscape and hunting the species who lived there but there was probably a fine line between that and getting too arid on the one had and too moist on the other - the latter would cause forestation. The papers I posted above showed that there did appear to be groups who lived on the dryer areas and groups who lived upstream in the less arid ones but both could end up moving - i.e. as it got dryer the dry-tolerant groups moved upstream as the south got mega-arid and the steppe expanded upstream while, when when it got wetter the less dry tolerant groups could expand south while the dry tolerant groups could then return to the driest areas. Basically people tended to follow their preferred environment as it moved if that was possible. In some cases this no doubt led to mixing and/or competition as one population was forced upstream by extreme arid phases and the existing population really had nowhere to go.

This tends to make me think that R1b was probably the group who lived in the drier parts of the European steppes - the east end and the lower parts of the river valleys further west. In periods of extreme aridity they probably had to move up river temporarily where they moved into areas normally held by groups who were less adapted to dry steppe. My hunch is that broadly speaking R1a was dominant in the middle reaches of the western steppe rivers and probably progressively lower stretches of those rivers as we moved from east to west through the sequence of steppe river towards the west end where serious aridity slowly petered out. Very crudely I imagine if you drew a line from the Lower Dneiper to Samara then R1b might have dominated south of that line and R1a to the north. I could be wrong and I havent dug into this enough but it fits the evidence to date IMO.

Piquerobi
02-27-2015, 12:14 PM
In my opinion, they should test the Kurgans along the Danube, as well as other Corded Ware samples. I'm also interested about Mycenae shaft graves. It is quite interesting that after gaining a foothold in Central Eastern Europe, L-11+ came to dominate Western Europe so thoroughly in such a short period of time. I really wonder what was behind it.

rms2
02-27-2015, 12:28 PM
Beaker is convenient for explaining the spread of Italo-Celtic to the west; that is, it would be if we could say that it was simply a spin-off from Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin that then moved westward. The complicating factor is the age of the earliest Beaker sites in Iberia.

I'm going to sound ignorant here, but that's nothing new, so here goes. Very early Beaker burials in Iberia, are they full-fledged single burials in the classic, kurgan-looking Beaker tradition, or do they lack some elements? What I am getting at are any signs that Beaker was intrusive in Iberia and of eastern or steppe origin. I like Jean M's Stelae People idea, but I have not yet seen any photos of steppe-looking stelae in Iberia. Are there such photos available? Jean also mentioned pottery techniques of steppe origin used in making early Beaker pots, like shell tempering. Does anyone have anything on that?

Otherwise, if Beaker really is native to Iberia, then ancient y-dna from early Beaker should be something other than R1b, perhaps G2a or I2a, and R1b won't show up until Beaker hits the East and acquires it from Yamnaya and/or its spin-offs (like Zok-Mako via Vucedol).

I understand Haak et al are supposed to be testing some Spanish Beaker as we speak.

alan
02-27-2015, 07:09 PM
Beaker is convenient for explaining the spread of Italo-Celtic to the west; that is, it would be if we could say that it was simply a spin-off from Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin that then moved westward. The complicating factor is the age of the earliest Beaker sites in Iberia.

I'm going to sound ignorant here, but that's nothing new, so here goes. Very early Beaker burials in Iberia, are they full-fledged single burials in the classic, kurgan-looking Beaker tradition, or do they lack some elements? What I am getting at are any signs that Beaker was intrusive in Iberia and of eastern or steppe origin. I like Jean M's Stelae People idea, but I have not yet seen any photos of steppe-looking stelae in Iberia. Are there such photos available? Jean also mentioned pottery techniques of steppe origin used in making early Beaker pots, like shell tempering. Does anyone have anything on that?

Otherwise, if Beaker really is native to Iberia, then ancient y-dna from early Beaker should be something other than R1b, perhaps G2a or I2a, and R1b won't show up until Beaker hits the East and acquires it from Yamnaya and/or its spin-offs (like Zok-Mako via Vucedol).

I understand Haak et al are supposed to be testing some Spanish Beaker as we speak.

I have not heard that there are any steppe type kurgans in Iberia. However, two papers/chapters have stated in the last year or so that a completely new single burial tradition appears in Iberia in the beaker period. This fact has been obscured somewhat by the re-use of old collective tombs and other factors. Now a radical change in burial tradition after over 2000 years of collective is the sort of profound break in tradition that would indicate intrusion.

The authors who have recently highlighted this seem to have pointed towards a strong similarity to corded ware albeit not claiming it was identical. So, in short I have never seen any claim of actual Yamnaya without an intermediary culture reaching Iberia or a claim of yamnaya Kurgans.

IMO comments on the sudden arrival of a single burial tradition in Iberia in the beaker period point to somewhere like Corded Ware or perhaps Remedello 2. Other than a few small Alpine cultures those two cultures would have run from the western Alps to the Lower Rhine 2700-2600BC or so. So its hard to envisage, other than movement by boat - which I seriously doubt, that one of those two cultures was not the intermediary to the arrival of single burial tradition in Iberia in the beaker era.

As for the pot, I broadly agree with Jean that the basic shape, and apparently the methods, are intrusive. It surely cannot be a coincidence that this novel type of pot shape and single burial appear in Iberia around the same sort of time as similar pots and broadly similar single burial traditions were reaching the Alps and Rhine.

So, it does seem to me that there was an intrusion into Iberia from central or Alpine Europe in the beaker era and that the migrants brought both the single burial tradition and perhaps at least a mental concept of the pot shape. I have no doubt then that the beaker culture also blended in some local Iberian cultural elements too which made the beaker culture unique.

What I would like to know more information on is the dating of definate single burials in Iberia. I am assuming this individual burial traditions coincides with the commencement of beaker in Iberia but I would like it confirmed that the earliest dated beaker burials are of this individual type. If not it raises the possibility that it and perhaps R1b came into Iberia in some sort of reflux after pre-R1b beaker had already probed into the Alpine area c. 2600BC.

However, with the novel shape of beaker pot, apparently new techniques as well as a new burial tradition having similarities with what was happening in central and Alpine Europe at the same time, it is very tempting to think both of these came in at the same time.

newtoboard
02-28-2015, 12:03 AM
Nice graphic. Of course even arid tolerant groups suffered and had to move in periods of extreme aridity and probably expanded when it was not so bad. They may have been adapted to more arid open landscape and hunting the species who lived there but there was probably a fine line between that and getting too arid on the one had and too moist on the other - the latter would cause forestation. The papers I posted above showed that there did appear to be groups who lived on the dryer areas and groups who lived upstream in the less arid ones but both could end up moving - i.e. as it got dryer the dry-tolerant groups moved upstream as the south got mega-arid and the steppe expanded upstream while, when when it got wetter the less dry tolerant groups could expand south while the dry tolerant groups could then return to the driest areas. Basically people tended to follow their preferred environment as it moved if that was possible. In some cases this no doubt led to mixing and/or competition as one population was forced upstream by extreme arid phases and the existing population really had nowhere to go.

This tends to make me think that R1b was probably the group who lived in the drier parts of the European steppes - the east end and the lower parts of the river valleys further west. In periods of extreme aridity they probably had to move up river temporarily where they moved into areas normally held by groups who were less adapted to dry steppe. My hunch is that broadly speaking R1a was dominant in the middle reaches of the western steppe rivers and probably progressively lower stretches of those rivers as we moved from east to west through the sequence of steppe river towards the west end where serious aridity slowly petered out. Very crudely I imagine if you drew a line from the Lower Dneiper to Samara then R1b might have dominated south of that line and R1a to the north. I could be wrong and I havent dug into this enough but it fits the evidence to date IMO.

Then how do we end up with one of the two major subgroups of R1a in that region? There is no north to sotuh migration that could account for this.

rms2
02-28-2015, 01:04 AM
I have not heard that there are any steppe type kurgans in Iberia. However, two papers/chapters have stated in the last year or so that a completely new single burial tradition appears in Iberia in the beaker period. This fact has been obscured somewhat by the re-use of old collective tombs and other factors. Now a radical change in burial tradition after over 2000 years of collective is the sort of profound break in tradition that would indicate intrusion.

The authors who have recently highlighted this seem to have pointed towards a strong similarity to corded ware albeit not claiming it was identical. So, in short I have never seen any claim of actual Yamnaya without an intermediary culture reaching Iberia or a claim of yamnaya Kurgans.

IMO comments on the sudden arrival of a single burial tradition in Iberia in the beaker period point to somewhere like Corded Ware or perhaps Remedello 2. Other than a few small Alpine cultures those two cultures would have run from the western Alps to the Lower Rhine 2700-2600BC or so. So its hard to envisage, other than movement by boat - which I seriously doubt, that one of those two cultures was not the intermediary to the arrival of single burial tradition in Iberia in the beaker era.

As for the pot, I broadly agree with Jean that the basic shape, and apparently the methods, are intrusive. It surely cannot be a coincidence that this novel type of pot shape and single burial appear in Iberia around the same sort of time as similar pots and broadly similar single burial traditions were reaching the Alps and Rhine.

So, it does seem to me that there was an intrusion into Iberia from central or Alpine Europe in the beaker era and that the migrants brought both the single burial tradition and perhaps at least a mental concept of the pot shape. I have no doubt then that the beaker culture also blended in some local Iberian cultural elements too which made the beaker culture unique.

What I would like to know more information on is the dating of definate single burials in Iberia. I am assuming this individual burial traditions coincides with the commencement of beaker in Iberia but I would like it confirmed that the earliest dated beaker burials are of this individual type. If not it raises the possibility that it and perhaps R1b came into Iberia in some sort of reflux after pre-R1b beaker had already probed into the Alpine area c. 2600BC.

However, with the novel shape of beaker pot, apparently new techniques as well as a new burial tradition having similarities with what was happening in central and Alpine Europe at the same time, it is very tempting to think both of these came in at the same time.

Thanks, Alan. I did not mean specifically Yamnaya kurgans in Iberia but just a more or less kurgan-style single burial. It seems to me the classic Beaker burials are very much in that tradition.

Given what you wrote above about early Beaker being intrusive, then we might expect some R1b in it, perhaps even P312.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 01:47 AM
R1a seems to have spread from the north of Russia to the southern Balkans. R1b seems to follow the route of the Danube from the Balkans to Western Europe.

R1b to the west of Europe definitely spread with some type of farmer population. It's a massive founder effect with little homogeneity, which can only be explained by farmer populations who were able to support numerous amounts of children. This is also strongly supported by the Danube path, as farmers stayed close to rivers. R1a is rarely found with more than 20% occurrence except for 4-5 eastern Slavic Countries which probably had that Y-Dna since antiquity. R1a seems like your average "imposed" Corded Ware-like spread.

rms2
02-28-2015, 02:00 AM
R1a seems to have spread from the north of Russia to the southern Balkans. R1b seems to follow the route of the Danube from the Balkans to Western Europe.

R1b to the west of Europe definitely spread with some type of farmer population. It's a massive founder effect with little homogeneity, which can only be explained by farmer populations who were able to support numerous amounts of children. This is also strongly supported by the Danube path, as farmers stayed close to rivers. R1a is rarely found with more than 20% occurrence except for 4-5 eastern Slavic Countries which probably had that Y-Dna since antiquity.

That is ridiculous. I think you must be trolling again.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 02:13 AM
What's ridiculous? R1b has to have been spread by a population who was well accustomed with farming. The distribution along the Danube shows this as well. It's a massive founder effect, just like I1 in Scandinavia, and EV13 in the Balkans. The only way a Y-Dna group can dominate half a continent in such a short amount of time, is if they could have supported dozens of children, which could have only been done by farmer populations who were well nourished.

Bell Beaker populations were accustomed with farming

"The Bell Beaker culture settlements in Southern Germany and in the East-Group show evidence of mixed farming and animal husbandry, and indicators such as millstones and spindle whorls prove the sedentary character of the Bell Beaker people, and the durability of their settlements.[34]"

R.Rocca
02-28-2015, 02:28 AM
What's ridiculous? R1b has to have been spread by a population who was well accustomed with farming. The distribution along the Danube shows this as well. It's a massive founder effect, just like I1 in Scandinavia, and EV13 in the Balkans. The only way a Y-Dna group can dominate half a continent in such a short amount of time, is if they could have supported dozens of children, which could have only been done by farmer populations who were well nourished.

So why isn't all of Western Europe heavily G2a now? If 95% of Early Neolithic farmers were G2a, then the likelihood is much higher that successful founders would simply be downstream subclades of G2a, and yet we don't. What we see instead is pastoralists having a big advantage over farmers ca 2800 BC. Their advantage was likely a combination of several factors, but crop failures may have given them a big advantage over farmers.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 02:34 AM
I never said anything about G2a. Simply that such a rapid and massive founder effect like WE R1b can only be attributed to a population who could have supported numerous amounts of children. I1 was originally a HG group, but it's clear in Scandinavia it spread with a rapid massive founder effect due to the spread from Central European farming communities as shown by the I1 sample in Hungary. I1 was virtually absent in ancient Scandinavia.

Bell Beaker cultures in Germany show a mixture of farming and animal husbandry.

rms2
02-28-2015, 02:37 AM
From The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe:



The Bell Beaker complex, an offshoot of the Vucedol bloc (more precisely of the Zok-Mako group in Hungary) continued Kurgan characteristics. The Bell Beaker of the second half of the 3rd millennium BC were vagabondic horse riders and archers in much the same way as their uncles and cousins, the Corded people of northern Europe and Catacomb-grave people of the North Pontic region. Their spread over central and western Europe to the British Isles and Spain as well as the Mediterranean islands terminates the period of expansion and destruction . . . (p. 104)

In western Hungary and northwestern Yugoslavia, the Vucedol complex was followed by the Samogyvar-Vinkovci complex, the predecessor of the Bell Beaker people. Furthermore, the exodus of the horse-riding Bell Beaker people in the middle of the 3rd millennium, or soon thereafter, from the territories of the Vucedol complex, may not be unconnected with the constant threat from the east. They carried to the west Kurgan traditions in armament, social structure, and religion. The fact of paramount importance of Bell Beaker mobility is the presence of the horse. Seven Bell Beaker sites at Budapest in Hungary have shown that the horse was the foremost species of the domestic fauna (pp. 258-259).

Augustus
02-28-2015, 02:47 AM
"The Bell Beaker culture settlements in Southern Germany and in the East-Group show evidence of mixed farming and animal husbandry, and indicators such as millstones and spindle whorls prove the sedentary character of the Bell Beaker people, and the durability of their settlements"

pastoralism and farming are not mutually exclusive. bell beaker samples also show a great amount of early neolithic farming component.

R.Rocca
02-28-2015, 02:49 AM
I never said anything about G2a. Simply that such a rapid and massive founder effect like WE R1b can only be attributed to a population who could have supported numerous amounts of children. I1 was originally a HG group, but it's clear in Scandinavia it spread with a rapid massive founder effect due to the spread from Central European farming communities as shown by the I1 sample in Hungary. I1 was virtually absent in ancient Scandinavia.

Bell Beaker cultures in Germany show a mixture of farming and animal husbandry.

Of course you didn't mention G2a, because your theory falls apart when you take into account the overwhelming majority of Early Neolithic farmers were G2a and therefore should have populated Europe with 95% of its male children.

Generalissimo
02-28-2015, 03:02 AM
I never said anything about G2a. Simply that such a rapid and massive founder effect like WE R1b can only be attributed to a population who could have supported numerous amounts of children. I1 was originally a HG group, but it's clear in Scandinavia it spread with a rapid massive founder effect due to the spread from Central European farming communities as shown by the I1 sample in Hungary. I1 was virtually absent in ancient Scandinavia.

Not sure what you're trying to argue, but basically what seems to have happened is that the late Neolithic newcomers from the east were more versatile and thus healither than the typical farmers of Central Europe, so they had an advantage which probably added up over time with each generation.


This study focuses on the changes in the human skeleton that are associated with the transition to agricultural subsistence. Two populations from the territory of contemporary Poland that differ in terms of their subsistence strategies are compared. An agricultural subsistence strategy is represented by a Lengyel Culture population from Oslonki (5690-4950 BP), whilst the Corded Ware populations from Zerniki Gorne and Zlota (c. 4160-3900 BP) represent mixed, agricultural-breeding-pastoral economies supplemented with hunting and gathering. The Corded Ware sample consisted of 62 individuals in total, and the Lengyel sample comprised 68 individuals. Health status was examined through skeletal stress indicators, cribra orbitalia, enamel hypoplasia and Harris lines. The analysis of enamel hypoplasia showed the effect of different adaptive strategies on buffering adverse nutritional factors and diseases. The prevalence and severity of the condition proved significantly higher in the Lengyel sample than in the Corded Ware population (64.7% vs. 43.5%, respectively). It is suggested that agricultural subsistence, associated with a less diversified diet, sedentism, exposure to pathogens, spread of infections and increased population density, caused more frequent and severe stress episodes than the mixed economy of the Corded Ware people. The inverse relationship between enamel hypoplasia and the mean age at death found in the agricultural population clearly shows an effect of adverse living conditions on the biological development of the individuals studied.

Krenz-Niedbala M, A biocultural perspective on the transition to agriculture in Central Europe, Anthropologie, 2014/Volume 52/Issue 2/pp. 115-132, ISSN 0323-1119

Krefter
02-28-2015, 03:03 AM
From The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe:

This is consistent with German Bell beaker genomes. It's amazing predicted this stuff decades ago.

So, a lot and if anything most of west Euros ancestors were living around Hungary 5,000YBP. Basque can fit as close to 50% German Bell beaker, so everyone. Maju still thinks R1b-L11 likely came out of Mesolithic or Neolithic Atlantic Europe. He's in denial IMO.

All the posters who denied the R1b-IE connection and massive IE replacement of previous pops in Europe claiming it is simplistic, ethno-centric and romanticized, etc. can't bare that ancient DNA is backing up those ideas. Maybe they'll never be convinced. Even if we get L51 from western Yamna, L21 from British Bell beaker, etc.

ADW_1981
02-28-2015, 03:26 AM
Not sure what you're trying to argue, but basically what seems to have happened is that the late Neolithic newcomers from the east were more versatile and thus healither than the typical farmers of Central Europe, so they had an advantage which probably added up over time with each generation.



Krenz-Niedbala M, A biocultural perspective on the transition to agriculture in Central Europe, Anthropologie, 2014/Volume 52/Issue 2/pp. 115-132, ISSN 0323-1119

The Paleo-Diet strikes again - 6,000 years ago.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 05:10 AM
Of course you didn't mention G2a, because your theory falls apart when you take into account the overwhelming majority of Early Neolithic farmers were G2a and therefore should have populated Europe with 95% of its male children.

G2a DID massively overpopulate ancient Europe. Guess what? They were farmers. They overtook the HG C, I, previous populations. This proves that farming has the ability to make a certain Y-Dna overly- dominate a region. I1 from Central Europe massively replaced I2 in Scandinavia in a short period of time. They adopted farming as well. In the same way, R1b massively dominated W. Europe through overpopulation and whatever other means.

Pure pastoralists can't support such massive and rapid expansions of populations. Farming needs to be a huge part of the lifestyle as well. Most significant founder effects are due to farming.

Moderator
02-28-2015, 05:46 AM
WARNING: Vulgar language/innuendo will not be tolerated.

R.Rocca
02-28-2015, 01:23 PM
G2a DID massively overpopulate ancient Europe. Guess what? They were farmers. They overtook the HG C, I, previous populations. This proves that farming has the ability to make a certain Y-Dna overly- dominate a region. I1 from Central Europe massively replaced I2 in Scandinavia in a short period of time. They adopted farming as well. In the same way, R1b massively dominated W. Europe through overpopulation and whatever other means.

Pure pastoralists can't support such massive and rapid expansions of populations. Farming needs to be a huge part of the lifestyle as well. Most significant founder effects are due to farming.

Yes G2a did massively overpopulate Europe...and yes, they were farmers. Guess what? They were almost completely replaced y pastoralists. And of course, pastoralists also knew farming, that is just common sense, but it doesn't change the fact that the most frequent lineages in Europe where not primarily farmers but pastoralists. By the way, you might want to stop avoiding scientific fact and reply to Generalissimo's quote about the health of farmers versus pastoralists.

alan
02-28-2015, 02:53 PM
This is consistent with German Bell beaker genomes. It's amazing predicted this stuff decades ago.

So, a lot and if anything most of west Euros ancestors were living around Hungary 5,000YBP. Basque can fit as close to 50% German Bell beaker, so everyone. Maju still thinks R1b-L11 likely came out of Mesolithic or Neolithic Atlantic Europe. He's in denial IMO.

All the posters who denied the R1b-IE connection and massive IE replacement of previous pops in Europe claiming it is simplistic, ethno-centric and romanticized, etc. can't bare that ancient DNA is backing up those ideas. Maybe they'll never be convinced. Even if we get L51 from western Yamna, L21 from British Bell beaker, etc.

Although I would still warn against a Blitzkrieg vision. The number of corded ware and bell beaker burials is a tiny fragment of the people who lived then. You will tend to always see whoever was nearer the top of the pile and most will be invisible. Even in collective tombs its often clear that it was only a selection in terms of who were buried there rather than everyone. There are nowhere near enough megalithic tombs in the west for more than a fraction of the population of 5000-2500BC to have been buried in them. So, IMO DNA will always tend to favour the more fortunate part of the population of any period and in the corded ware and beaker grave we are probably seeing the graves of an incoming minority. It may have taken a great deal of centuries for their genes and social advantage in reproduction to lead to the high level we see today. In summary, status burials will always give the impression that genetic change is much more fast and complete than it really was in terms of total population. A lot of people for instance may have been cremated and then scattered into a river.

rms2
02-28-2015, 02:59 PM
Personally, I think it's a case of premeditated trolling to come into a thread like this one and assert that, "R1b to the west of Europe definitely spread with some type of farmer population", knowing full well that such a statement is baloney (i.e., contrary to the ancient dna evidence) but making it anyway in order to get a reaction and stir up strife.

Augustus knows that most of us R1b guys are pretty happy with the Haak et al results and with the notion that R1b was spread west by the early Indo-Europeans. So, what does he do? He comes here and asserts that our ancestors were Neolithic farmers, in other words, not Indo-Europeans.

There is nothing wrong with being descended from Neolithic farmers, but there is something wrong with asserting something one knows is not at all likely to be true and doing it just to stir up strife and create discord.

alan
02-28-2015, 03:33 PM
Personally, I think it's a case of premeditated trolling to come into a thread like this one and assert that, "R1b to the west of Europe definitely spread with some type of farmer population", knowing full well that such a statement is baloney (i.e., contrary to the ancient dna evidence) but making it anyway in order to get a reaction and stir up strife.

Augustus knows that most of us R1b guys are pretty happy with the Haak et al results and with the notion that R1b was spread west by the early Indo-Europeans. So, what does he do? He comes here and asserts that our ancestors were Neolithic farmers, in other words, not Indo-Europeans.

There is nothing wrong with being descended from Neolithic farmers, but there is something wrong with asserting something one knows is not at all likely to be true and doing it just to stir up strife and create discord.

I have a list of invisible men that has grown a lot since Haak. Anyone who persistently raises my blood pressure with troll-like counter intuitive wishful thinking gets the invisibility beam.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 06:30 PM
Yes G2a did massively overpopulate Europe...and yes, they were farmers. Guess what? They were almost completely replaced y pastoralists. And of course, pastoralists also knew farming, that is just common sense, but it doesn't change the fact that the most frequent lineages in Europe where not primarily farmers but pastoralists. By the way, you might want to stop avoiding scientific fact and reply to Generalissimo's quote about the health of farmers versus pastoralists.

Did I ever say anything in this thread about R1b and Indo-Europeans?

I simply asserted 2 facts

1) R1b spreaders must have been well accustomed with farming regardless of whether they were pastoralists or not

2) R1b distribution in Europe follows the path of the Danube, unlike R1a which has more of a north-east to south east distribution. This is concurrent with both ancient and modern y-dna.

vettor
02-28-2015, 06:44 PM
Personally, I think it's a case of premeditated trolling to come into a thread like this one and assert that, "R1b to the west of Europe definitely spread with some type of farmer population", knowing full well that such a statement is baloney (i.e., contrary to the ancient dna evidence) but making it anyway in order to get a reaction and stir up strife.

Augustus knows that most of us R1b guys are pretty happy with the Haak et al results and with the notion that R1b was spread west by the early Indo-Europeans. So, what does he do? He comes here and asserts that our ancestors were Neolithic farmers, in other words, not Indo-Europeans.

There is nothing wrong with being descended from Neolithic farmers, but there is something wrong with asserting something one knows is not at all likely to be true and doing it just to stir up strife and create discord.

He is only stating the obvious , only farming societies can increase the population at a speedy rate................and as I stated before, there was less than 3million australian aboriginals in australia after 50000 years of existance in Australia because they never did any farming.............give any region/area in the world 50000 years of farming and you would see ten times more populace in 50000 years than what the aboriginals did

newtoboard
02-28-2015, 07:07 PM
Did I ever say anything in this thread about R1b and Indo-Europeans?

I simply asserted 2 facts

1) R1b spreaders must have been well accustomed with farming regardless of whether they were pastoralists or not

2) R1b distribution in Europe follows the path of the Danube, unlike R1a which has more of a north-east to south east distribution. This is concurrent with both ancient and modern y-dna.

I don't see how anybody can disagree with the first (for the spread of European R1b and European R1a for that matter to a lesser degree) with that especially if they think L51 will be found in the Lower Dnieper region which one is the regions of the steppe that had the most contact with farming cultures and had the most examples of settled agriculture. And not to mention Bell Beaker and Corded Ware need to be modeled as Yamnaya + LBK type admixture. True pastoralism is really a east of the Don river thing and I don't think there is any reason to believe that either R1b L51 or R1a Z282 will be found there or that they ever had that type of a lifestyle. Probably only R1b Z2103 and R1a Z93 did. So it isn't an R1a or R1b thing but an east vs west thing. I think both Andornovo and Afansievo will be able to be modeled without farmer admixture at least for the start of both horizons. I think there is a major difference between having a farmer lifestyle vs descending primarily from farmers. In Europe it looks clear that R1b was able to adjust to farming better which is why R1b L51 looks more successful than R1a. And the opposite is true in Asia. R1a Z93 managed to adjust to farming better and it is far more populous for that reason.

R.Rocca
02-28-2015, 07:29 PM
1) R1b spreaders must have been well accustomed with farming regardless of whether they were pastoralists or not

2) R1b distribution in Europe follows the path of the Danube, unlike R1a which has more of a north-east to south east distribution. This is concurrent with both ancient and modern y-dna.

1) Yes, they were pastoralists, hunter-gatherers and farmers likely in that order, and apparently that gave them an edge over the farmer-only communities. So, to state that R1b ca 2800 BC was spread by farmers and not by pastoralists is wrong.

R.Rocca
02-28-2015, 07:49 PM
I don't see how anybody can disagree with the first (for the spread of European R1b and European R1a for that matter to a lesser degree) with that especially if they think L51 will be found in the Lower Dnieper region which one is the regions of the steppe that had the most contact with farming cultures and had the most examples of settled agriculture. And not to mention Bell Beaker and Corded Ware need to be modeled as Yamnaya + LBK type admixture. True pastoralism is really a east of the Don river thing and I don't think there is any reason to believe that either R1b L51 or R1a Z282 will be found there or that they ever had that type of a lifestyle. Probably only R1b Z2103 and R1a Z93 did. So it isn't an R1a or R1b thing but an east vs west thing. I think both Andornovo and Afansievo will be able to be modeled without farmer admixture at least for the start of both horizons. I think there is a major difference between having a farmer lifestyle vs descending primarily from farmers. In Europe it looks clear that R1b was able to adjust to farming better which is why R1b L51 looks more successful than R1a. And the opposite is true in Asia. R1a Z93 managed to adjust to farming better and it is far more populous for that reason.

I don't see why how anybody can disagree that the Yamnaya that entered the Danube practiced an almost entirely pastoralist lifestyle when there is a complete lack of settlements and yet thousands of kurgan burrials, not to mention their known association with mobility (wagons and horses). What these R1a and R1b pastoralists later became in the form of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker is after the fact.

newtoboard
02-28-2015, 08:03 PM
I don't see why how anybody can disagree that the Yamnaya that entered the Danube practiced an almost entirely pastoralist lifestyle when there is a complete lack of settlements and yet thousands of kurgan burrials, not to mention their known association with mobility (wagons and horses). What these R1a and R1b pastoralists later became in the form of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker is after the fact.

While there might not be an abundance of settlements (or agriculture) in Yamnaya whatever did exist really existed in the region that I am talking about that most think gave rise to an L51 migration up the Danube.


Again in this period, as in the Eneolithic,
Yamnaya herding communities west of the Don
River (eg, at Mikhailovka on the Dnieper) were
occasionally tethered to small fortified settle-
ments where some agriculture has been found.
It was probably these western Yamnaya com-
munities that migrated into the Danube v
alley and central Europe. The departure of Pre-
Anatolian-speakers from SE Europe into Anat
olia could have been a reaction to the arrival of
this new wave of steppe immigrants.

But eastern Yamnaya communities in the Volg
a-Ural steppes left no evidence of settle-
ments or cultivated grain and they seem to
have lived in wagons — a Bronze Age form of
pastoral nomadism not articulated with farmin
g. Yamnaya individuals in the middle Volga
steppes had no caries in their teeth, dental he
alth not seen among bread-eaters. Yamnaya sta-
ble isotopes do not suggest millet in their diet
(Fig. 5 above). The daily diet for the middle
Volga Yamnaya population probably depended
entirely on domesticated animals, probably
principally sheep and goat products, according to
stable isotopes. After this new pastoral diet
was established, its isotopic signature did not
change throughout the Bronze Age, not even in
the Late Bronze Age when the Srubnaya
population settled in permanent settlements.

From "Two IE phylogenies, three PIE migrations, and four kinds of steppe pastoralism" by Anthony

The bolding is mine.

newtoboard
02-28-2015, 08:12 PM
Notice I only agreed with him that they were familiar with farming not that they practiced it to significant degree (or were farmers) in Yamnaya and that is indeed true.

R.Rocca
02-28-2015, 08:22 PM
While there might not be an abundance of settlements (or agriculture) in Yamnaya whatever did exist really existed in the region that I am talking about that most think gave rise to an L51 migration up the Danube.

From "Two IE phylogenies, three PIE migrations, and four kinds of steppe pastoralism" by Anthony

The bolding is mine.

Yup, with the words "occasionally tethered" spelling out quite clearly that even those Yamnaya were first and foremost pastoralists. No matter what anyone thinks they did further east, the lack of Yamnaya settlements in the Danube is quite telling IMO.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 08:22 PM
1) Yes, they were pastoralists, hunter-gatherers and farmers likely in that order, and apparently that gave them an edge over the farmer-only communities. So, to state that R1b ca 2800 BC was spread by farmers and not by pastoralists is wrong.

Nice straw man, but I only said that the WE R1b was spread by people accustomed to farming.

R.Rocca
02-28-2015, 08:23 PM
Nice straw man, but I only said that the WE R1b was spread by people accustomed to farming.

Yes, farmers without settlements. Good luck arguing that one.

newtoboard
02-28-2015, 08:34 PM
Yup, with the words "occasionally tethered" spelling out quite clearly that even those Yamnaya were first and foremost pastoralists. No matter what anyone thinks they did further east, the lack of Yamnaya settlements in the Danube is quite telling IMO.

And I don't disagree with that. I just said they knew farming. The people who were ignorant of farming were further east which is what I meant by true pastoralists (which is probably a bad way of putting it). The people west of the Don knew both even though they didn't practice farming much.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 08:50 PM
Farming wasn't just a side thing, it had to be a major part of their lifestyle.

And when it comes to settlements, I am posting this for the 3rd time. Bell Beaker sites show farming was practiced.

"The Bell Beaker culture settlements in Southern Germany and in the East-Group show evidence of mixed farming and animal husbandry, and indicators such as millstones and spindle whorls prove the sedentary character of the Bell Beaker people, and the durability of their settlements"

rms2
02-28-2015, 09:49 PM
Nice straw man, but I only said that the WE R1b was spread by people accustomed to farming.

No, what you said was, "R1b to the west of Europe definitely spread with some type of farmer population." (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3882-R1b-and-its-sibling-R1a-possible-route%28s%29-into-Europe&p=71758&viewfull=1#post71758) That is not the same thing as saying, "R1b was spread by people accustomed to farming."

I think you did it to stir up strife. You were successful in that and have taken this thread off track for quite a few posts.

The early Indo-Europeans were familiar with and accustomed to farming. There are a number of words in the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European lexicon that have to do with farming.

But you said that R1b was part of "some type of farmer population". What was implied by that was pretty clear, as was the statement's purpose.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 10:02 PM
Hence the "some type of". I never explicitly said anything about them being descended from early neolithic farmers. And this thread is about the dispersion of R into Europe, I don't see how this is off-topic.

Some people on this board need to realize that not everyone holds their exact views, and need to respect that, regardless of the "facts", whose connotation has been abused with.

rms2
02-28-2015, 10:07 PM
Hence the "some type of". I never explicitly said anything about them being descended from early neolithic farmers. And this thread is about the dispersion of R into Europe, I don't see how this is off-topic.

Some people on this board need to realize that not everyone holds their exact views, and need to respect that, regardless of the "facts", whose connotation has been abused with.

Say what you want. I have seen a number of your posts, including the one in which mocked everyone involved in genetic genealogy and y-dna testing (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3807-David-Reich-lecture-9-February-2015&p=69132&viewfull=1#post69132).

This thread was never intended to be about having to go back and re-litigate stuff from some years ago, before the advent of convincing results from ancient y-dna testing, like whether R1b was spread by Neolithic farmers from the Near East, or hunter-gatherers from Iberia.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 10:14 PM
Again with the straw man arguments. Don't categorize my arguments with theories that are already proven wrong, like the Iberian paleolithic one. I am simply trying to narrow down the argument, to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. But it seems in this board discussing anything that even slightly SEEMS to challenge, let alone actually challenge, anything R1b-steppe related theories, will be met with angry reactions and straw man arguments.

It is clear by both ancient and modern y-dna that R1a and R1b have somewhat different stories when it comes to their dispersion in Europe, and I am simply trying to narrow down the arguments, to see the main differences in their dispersion, with both regards to their path and method.

P.S. I was not making fun of historical genetics, but people's obsession and identification with their own Y-Dna markers, which prove next to nothing about recent genetic make up.

rms2
02-28-2015, 10:20 PM
Again with the straw man arguments . . .

I don't think you quite understand what that means.

I quoted your own words to you, and you wrote, "R1b to the west of Europe definitely spread with some type of farmer population." (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3882-R1b-and-its-sibling-R1a-possible-route%28s%29-into-Europe&p=71758&viewfull=1#post71758)

That is what you wrote. Perhaps you would care to clear things up, and explain that you did not mean to connect R1b with Neolithic farmers, that you think R1b was spread by early Indo-Europeans who were simply familiar with farming and employed it to some extent, as the reconstructed IE lexicon shows.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 10:23 PM
I am not tying R1b to IE or to neolithic farmers. I am simply trying to figure out the method of its rapid dispersion into Western Europe. If you read my posts, and stop focusing on the same 4 words over and over, maybe you'll understand my argument. "Some type of farmer population" is simply referring to a population that is well accustomed with farming, as I have elaborated about 43 times already.

rms2
02-28-2015, 10:27 PM
I am not tying R1b to IE or to neolithic farmers . . .

To what then?

Augustus
02-28-2015, 10:30 PM
I am not tying it to any archeological horizon. As I have repeated over and over, and I simply trying to figure out the method of its rapid and massive expansion. This method is only seen with populations that know how to farm.

I.E. I1 spread to Scandinavia from Central Europe. This could have been by farmers with that Y-Dna, farmer/HG hybrids, or HG who adopted farming. I am not making any of those claims, simply that farming allowed massive and rapid overpopulations that is not allowed by a pure pastoralist or hunter gatherer lifestyle.

rms2
02-28-2015, 10:42 PM
I am not tying it to any archeological horizon. As I have repeated over and over, and I simply trying to figure out the method of its rapid and massive expansion. This method is only seen with populations that know how to farm.

I.E. I1 spread to Scandinavia from Central Europe. This could have been by farmers with that Y-Dna, farmer/HG hybrids, or HG who adopted farming. I am not making any of those claims, simply that farming allowed massive and rapid overpopulations that is not allowed by a pure pastoralist or hunter gatherer lifestyle.

Personally, I think your refusal to tie R1b to the early Indo-Europeans, despite the Haak et al Yamnaya and Bell Beaker results, speaks volumes.

I'm not sure it's much of a contribution or a revelation to say that, in order to expand, a y-haplogroup had to be part of a people somewhat familiar with farming. But thanks anyway.

Augustus
02-28-2015, 10:54 PM
I'm not sure it's much of a contribution or a revelation to say that, in order to expand, a y-haplogroup had to be part of a people somewhat familiar with farming. But thanks anyway.

Great now that most people agree on that, then the next step is to figure out when, where and how R1b people first become introduced to farming.

rms2
02-28-2015, 11:03 PM
Great now that most people agree on that, then the next step is to figure out when, where and how R1b people first become introduced to farming.

I don't think that was the purpose of this thread. This thread begins with the assumption that R1b was a part of the 4th-3rd millennia BC Yamnaya migration west, up the Danube valley into the Carpathian basin and around the east and north sides of the Carpathians.

Besides, how can one begin to figure out how R1b people in Europe were introduced to farming if one cannot tie them to an identifiable archaeological culture?

Augustus
02-28-2015, 11:12 PM
Besides, how can one begin to figure out how R1b people in Europe were introduced to farming if one cannot tie them to an identifiable archaeological culture?

By looking at modern distributions. The places where R1b overly-dominates over large regions is due to its bearers being able to bear and support dozens of children to work their lands. This practice is still extremely common today in rural areas. The fact that the youngest clades of R1b are also the most dominant in their respective areas attests to this.

This would certainly entail that the modern less populated R1b areas, are ones where farming wasn't common, unless another major reason can be established.

Krefter
02-28-2015, 11:42 PM
Augustus about what you said about Neolithic farmers in Europe: They didn't bring all the native hunter gatherers into their farming community immediately. The majority didn't have west Asian Y DNA simply because they had larger populations than hunter gatherers, it is also because they stayed separate. Saying that's the reason is like someone 5,000 years from now sampling DNA in America from only African-American communities and then saying all Americans were mostly of African decent. I guess eventually overtime hunter gatherers died off and became farmers.

The same goes for Indo Europeans who migrated into Europe. North Europeans can fit as ~50% Samara Yamna, and some of them don't even have 50% Y DNA R1a and R1b. IE Y DNA did not become popular simply because they were elites, it's because they were the elites, the peasants, etc. Like with Neolithic farmers IEs probably stayed distinct from the natives and gradually everyone became IE and mostly(or largely) of steppe decent.

Augustus
03-01-2015, 05:26 AM
Not sure what you're talking about Kefter, I think you probably mis-understood what I was saying.

Anyhow, it's interesting that G2a is associated with EEF component, while EEF is the most common autosomal component in Europe, and G2a is virtually non-existent. To say R1b killed them all would be a bit of a fairytale, since EEF wouldn't be so high in Europeans. But all ancient neolithic samples have been overwhelmingly G2a. In France, 20/22 samples were G2a. It was common in Spain and Hungary. Then all of a sudden it seems to disappear off the map, but its autosomal component is still very high. Maybe R1bs were already highly diluted with that autosomal component before they reached Central Europe, like in Bell Beaker.

Generalissimo
03-01-2015, 07:35 AM
Not sure what you're talking about Kefter, I think you probably mis-understood what I was saying.

Anyhow, it's interesting that G2a is associated with EEF component, while EEF is the most common autosomal component in Europe, and G2a is virtually non-existent. To say R1b killed them all would be a bit of a fairytale, since EEF wouldn't be so high in Europeans. But all ancient neolithic samples have been overwhelmingly G2a. In France, 20/22 samples were G2a. It was common in Spain and Hungary. Then all of a sudden it seems to disappear off the map, but its autosomal component is still very high. Maybe R1bs were already highly diluted with that autosomal component before they reached Central Europe, like in Bell Beaker.

A lot of the Lazaridis et al. EEF in Europe comes from the steppe, so it's not associated with G2a but rather with R1.

The EEF in Haak et al. is different, because it only refers to LBK and Cardial Ware EEF, and it makes a much smaller ratio of modern European genetic structue than the Lazaridis EEF.

alan
03-01-2015, 08:04 AM
One thing that hinders interpretation re differences in levels of farmings skills from the Volga to the Dnieper is whether Yamnaya was a demic expansion from one area or whether it was a cultural change or broad horizon based on innovations like the wheel which swept a variety of steppe groups on the European steppe. There does not appear to be a consensus on that one. It may be a bit of both. I tend to favour that it was a broader change rather than a demic expansion from a compact area. I have server reasons for thinking this

1. The significant patterning or differences in geography of the two major IE driving branches of R1

2. The fact that already around 3000BC Yamnaya autosomal genes are linked with both Samara Yamnaya and Corded Ware groups that probably originated on the NW forest steppe or were linked to Middle Dnieper culture.

3. The fact that L51 and derivatives would appear to be absent around Samara and likely in some area of the steppes further west. The ages of L51 and L23xL51 is a lot older than Yamnaya. So it seems likely, although this cannot be proven as yet, that some sort of geographic separation within the steppes existed between L51 and L23xL51 long before 3000BC.

4. I have read that there is a broad division between the many of the IE languages which have more advanced agricultural vocab and some of the satems which lack it. This is unlikely to just be borrowing off-steppe or as they wandered because the IE languages with more advances agricultural vocab share it. Its often questioned whether it is PIE because some groups like Indo-Iranian lack it but I suspect this distinction could have existed on the steppe itself given the significant difference in traces of agriculture in the steppes even pre-dating the main expansions i.e. simple herding in the east of the Euro steppe contrasting with actual cereal etc in the western part of the Euro steppe.

5. Note that if Yamnaya was more of a broad horizon including a number of older steppe groups rather than a demic expansion from a confined part of the steppe then modelling a single Yamnaya autosomal signature would seem to be badly flawed. It seems abundantly clear to me that the influences of the farming world varied greatly across the Euro steppes so a uniform farming input looks very unlikely to me.

alan
03-01-2015, 08:33 AM
I also think EHG as a concept is a problematic one. It seem very likely EHG is a composite of old Gravettian Ukraine type refugia hunters, western derived post-LGM hunters and Mesolithic Siberian hunters. I find the ENF-WHG-ANE Eurasian model farm more convincing as long as for example it is realised that ANE in Malta is c. 24000 years old while the ANE in Europe probably only moved there 10 or 11000 years ago after spending the LGM around Altai and was probably therefore somewhat drifted from the original Mal'ta population. There is also the complicating factor that, if my suspicion that ANE in Europe is linked to the appearance of pressure flaked microblades in the early Mesolithic, some ANE probably simultaneously entered places like the Zagros where pressure flakes microblades also appear after the Younger Dryas -albeit these blades and perhaps their genes took a 3000 years to spread to the Levant and therefore probably missed out on being incorporated much in the movement of farmers from there to Europe.

The upshot from this pressure flaking theory is that these are found in parts of the Caucasus, the Zagros etc in the post-YD period and IMO it is possible that local rises in the Caucasus and Iran in ANE and perhaps basal R1bxP297 -and even some basal R1a-could be down to this at least in part. This would confuse the picture if some of the more easterly SW Asian groups who took up farming early also had some ANE. When IEs later spilled into SW Asia, some places would be getting a 2nd doze of ANE.

vettor
03-01-2015, 08:46 AM
I don't think that was the purpose of this thread. This thread begins with the assumption that R1b was a part of the 4th-3rd millennia BC Yamnaya migration west, up the Danube valley into the Carpathian basin and around the east and north sides of the Carpathians.

Besides, how can one begin to figure out how R1b people in Europe were introduced to farming if one cannot tie them to an identifiable archaeological culture?

you seem to be missing something,
if in Haak paper he shows that the farmers settled in germany and hungary ( as per his charts ) at least 1500 years before the R1's came in . then is it not obvious that the R1 went through hungary and then germany and mix with these farmers along the way.

since the farmers are older in europe than the hunters (by the haak paper ) , then, are we sure that 100% of these farmers came from Anatolia/levant .............are we 100% sure on this

Generalissimo
03-01-2015, 09:03 AM
since the farmers are older in europe than the hunters

What on earth are you blathering about now?

Jean M
03-01-2015, 12:02 PM
Thanks, Alan. I did not mean specifically Yamnaya kurgans in Iberia but just a more or less kurgan-style single burial. It seems to me the classic Beaker burials are very much in that tradition.

A recent review of BB burials showed that single burials occur over its whole range, as do examples of the reuse of megalithic burials. C. Jeuness 2014. Pratiques funéraires campaniformes en Europe - Faut-il remettre en cause la dichotomie Nord-Sud ? La question de la réutilisation des sépultures monumentales dans l’Europe du 3e millénaire, In P. Lefranc, A. Denaire and C. Jeunesse (eds.), Données récentes sur les pratiques funéraires néolithiques de la Plaine du Rhin supérieur. BAR International Series 2633, 211. Oxford: Archaeopress. https://www.academia.edu/8379295/11_Pratiques_fun%C3%A9raires_du_Campaniforme_-_Bell_beaker_funeral_practices

Jean M
03-01-2015, 12:09 PM
since the farmers are older in Europe than the hunters (by the Haak paper )

The Neolithic farmers (EEF) spread across Europe before the Siberian hunters (EHG) who arrived on the eastern fringes of Europe c. 7000 BC. But there were other hunters in Europe long before. They began to arrive about 46,000 years ago. Their descendants are labelled WHG by Haak 2015 and Lazaridis 2014.


are we sure that 100% of these farmers came from Anatolia/Levant

No. The early farmers moving up the Danube mixed with some local hunter-gatherers who were absorbed into farming communities. We see that in the way that they picked up some Y-DNA I1 and I2. But genome-wide comparisons show that they were generally distinctly different from the European hunter-gatherers. The overwhelming bulk of their ancestry lay in the Near Eastern heartland of the Neolithic.

Helgenes50
03-01-2015, 01:45 PM
The Neolithic farmers (EEF) spread across Europe before the Siberian hunters (EHG) who arrived on the eastern fringes of Europe c. 7000 BC. But there were other hunters in Europe long before. They began to arrive about 46,000 years ago. Their descendants are labelled WHG by Haak 2015 and Lazaridis 2014.



No. The early farmers moving up the Danube mixed with some local hunter-gatherers who were absorbed into farming communities. We see that in the way that they picked up some Y-DNA I1 and I2. But genome-wide comparisons show that they were generally distinctly different from the European hunter-gatherers. The overwhelming bulk of their ancestry lay in the Near Eastern heartland of the Neolithic.

When you say: they were generally distinctly different from the European hunter-gatherers.

What do you mean exactly. Is it the Neolithics who were different, or the WHGs picked up in the Danube ?

KO seems to be close to Loschbour !

newtoboard
03-01-2015, 03:40 PM
One thing that hinders interpretation re differences in levels of farmings skills from the Volga to the Dnieper is whether Yamnaya was a demic expansion from one area or whether it was a cultural change or broad horizon based on innovations like the wheel which swept a variety of steppe groups on the European steppe. There does not appear to be a consensus on that one. It may be a bit of both. I tend to favour that it was a broader change rather than a demic expansion from a compact area. I have server reasons for thinking this

1. The significant patterning or differences in geography of the two major IE driving branches of R1

2. The fact that already around 3000BC Yamnaya autosomal genes are linked with both Samara Yamnaya and Corded Ware groups that probably originated on the NW forest steppe or were linked to Middle Dnieper culture.

3. The fact that L51 and derivatives would appear to be absent around Samara and likely in some area of the steppes further west. The ages of L51 and L23xL51 is a lot older than Yamnaya. So it seems likely, although this cannot be proven as yet, that some sort of geographic separation within the steppes existed between L51 and L23xL51 long before 3000BC.

4. I have read that there is a broad division between the many of the IE languages which have more advanced agricultural vocab and some of the satems which lack it. This is unlikely to just be borrowing off-steppe or as they wandered because the IE languages with more advances agricultural vocab share it. Its often questioned whether it is PIE because some groups like Indo-Iranian lack it but I suspect this distinction could have existed on the steppe itself given the significant difference in traces of agriculture in the steppes even pre-dating the main expansions i.e. simple herding in the east of the Euro steppe contrasting with actual cereal etc in the western part of the Euro steppe.

5. Note that if Yamnaya was more of a broad horizon including a number of older steppe groups rather than a demic expansion from a confined part of the steppe then modelling a single Yamnaya autosomal signature would seem to be badly flawed. It seems abundantly clear to me that the influences of the farming world varied greatly across the Euro steppes so a uniform farming input looks very unlikely to me.

This is exactly what Igmayka suggested. I completely agree with you guys. I think there were at least 3 if not 4 or 5 different autosomal signatures. For example there is no way I think the Yamnaya of the Lower Volga and Ural regions will be as heavily WHG as Samara Yamnaya will be.

newtoboard
03-01-2015, 03:44 PM
The Neolithic farmers (EEF) spread across Europe before the Siberian hunters (EHG) who arrived on the eastern fringes of Europe c. 7000 BC. But there were other hunters in Europe long before. They began to arrive about 46,000 years ago. Their descendants are labelled WHG by Haak 2015 and Lazaridis 2014.



No. The early farmers moving up the Danube mixed with some local hunter-gatherers who were absorbed into farming communities. We see that in the way that they picked up some Y-DNA I1 and I2. But genome-wide comparisons show that they were generally distinctly different from the European hunter-gatherers. The overwhelming bulk of their ancestry lay in the Near Eastern heartland of the Neolithic.

Why couldn't the EHG have been there before the dates for the samples obtained? How was it determined they arrived from elsewhere?

Jean M
03-01-2015, 03:58 PM
When you say: they were generally distinctly different from the European hunter-gatherers. What do you mean exactly. Is it the Neolithics who were different, or the WHGs picked up in the Danube ? KO seems to be close to Loschbour !

KO1 is proof of my supposition that incoming farmers mixed with some of the more successful hunter-gatherers fishing along the Danube, probably at Lepinski Vir, and that is how Y-DNA I2 entered the farming cultures in time to be spread by them. See AJ (2013), p. 65.

The bulk of the farmers of the Körös and Starčevo were not like Loschbour or other WHG. They were EEF in genome-wide terms. Their Y-DNA was predominantly G2a. Their mtDNA haplogroups were Near Eastern.

Jean M
03-01-2015, 03:59 PM
Why couldn't the EHG have been there before the dates for the samples obtained? How was it determined they arrived from elsewhere?

EHG carried ANE, found earliest at Mal'ta in Siberia, not a million miles from Lake Baikal. ANE is found again at Samara among people who had brought the earliest pottery into Europe. It is of the type made initially around Lake Baikal.

newtoboard
03-01-2015, 04:08 PM
EHG carried ANE, found earliest at Mal'ta in Siberia, not a million miles from Lake Baikal. ANE is found again at Samara among people who had brought the earliest pottery into Europe. It is of the type made initially around Lake Baikal.

I get that. I am curious to know how the date of the arrival of EHG (or ANE associated R lineages) is narrowed down to 7000 BC vs something between 7000 BC and 25000 BC.

Jean M
03-01-2015, 04:22 PM
I get that. I am curious to know how the date of the arrival of EHG (or ANE associated R lineages) is narrowed down to 7000 BC vs something between 7000 BC and 25000 BC.

The first pottery in Europe arrived in the Samara region c. 7000 BC. David Anthony noted this in his book, The Horse, The Wheel and Language. He is one of the co-authors of the Haak 2015 study. We can guess that he pointed to this early pottery as a clue to the trail westwards from Siberia. He was right.

There is another innovation from the east that arrived around the same time - pressure blade-making. Afontovo Gora is a site with this technology.

newtoboard
03-01-2015, 04:33 PM
The first pottery in Europe arrived in the Samara region c. 7000 BC. David Anthony noted this in his book, The Horse, The Wheel and Language. He is one of the co-authors of the Haak 2015 study. We can guess that he pointed to this early pottery as a clue to the trail westwards from Siberia. He was right.

There is another innovation from the east that arrived around the same time - pressure blade-making. Afontovo Gora is a site with this technology.

Okay that answered my question. Which i guess would suggest both R1a and R1b spent most of their time in South Siberia and North Central Asia rather than Eastern Europe. The expected paucity of I on the steppe seems confusing. Since maternal lineages associated with WHG should be on the steppe prior to 7000 BC where are their y counterparts (C-V20 and I)?

Jean M
03-01-2015, 04:41 PM
The expected paucity of I on the steppe seems confusing.

Expected paucity? We don't have any Y-DNA from the Mesolithic pre-pottery cultures of any part of the European steppe or forest/steppe, as far as I know. We can deduce that I2 and I1 were present in Mesolithic pre-pottery cultures along the Danube, since they were picked up by farmers along that route. There was even C1a2 in the LBK, though I wouldn't care to guess where that was picked up from.

That's the best I can do for you with actual facts.

newtoboard
03-01-2015, 04:47 PM
Expected paucity? Is this paucity real? Or just expected by you? We don't have any Y-DNA from the Mesolithic pre-pottery cultures of any part of the European steppe, do we?

I meant expected paucity during Yamnaya. Everybody on here expects Yamnaya will be most R1 or R1b dominated. I can understand Neolithic lineages being rare because pastoralists will have an advantage over farmers in a region like the steppe where most land is unsuitable for cereal agriculture. But when the EHG arrived they would have likely been on the same level as WHG. And hunter gatherers should have at least managed to survive in the forest steppe and Caspian steppe where cereal agriculture and domestic animals show up a little bit later than the Pontic steppe. The only thing I have heard about I related lineages in that region is the late take off/success of some I2 in the Balkans and Corded Ware.

vettor
03-01-2015, 05:37 PM
What on earth are you blathering about now?

you have always had a tendency to cut short other people posts or rearrange them to achieve your means, you will see I said in the haak paper.

but then again you might be upset that Ryukendo Kendow gave you a hammering on your theories in the eurogenes thread lately, ...........so you are frustrated. I understand:)

Just concentrate on the 7 x R1b in yamnya from haak paper and disect these and the R1a will come later in another paper .............this must have been a shock to you all these R1b, anyway, keep up your "R1 wars" they achieve nothing.

kind regards

vettor
03-01-2015, 05:40 PM
The Neolithic farmers (EEF) spread across Europe before the Siberian hunters (EHG) who arrived on the eastern fringes of Europe c. 7000 BC. But there were other hunters in Europe long before. They began to arrive about 46,000 years ago. Their descendants are labelled WHG by Haak 2015 and Lazaridis 2014.


which are they in hungary and meissen germany?


No. The early farmers moving up the Danube mixed with some local hunter-gatherers who were absorbed into farming communities. We see that in the way that they picked up some Y-DNA I1 and I2. But genome-wide comparisons show that they were generally distinctly different from the European hunter-gatherers. The overwhelming bulk of their ancestry lay in the Near Eastern heartland of the Neolithic.

fine, do we have remains of these hunters on the danube ?....................it is a logical scenario, but the early hunters would not have been from the R1 family

yxc
03-01-2015, 05:46 PM
Everybody on here expects Yamnaya will be most R1 or R1b dominated.

I do not expect Yamnaya R1 or R1b dominated cause I see Samara culture not entirely representive of Yamnaya and just regional that expanded to the East , Tarim basin and Gedrosia .
I expect in the western Yamnaya horizon same Y as in Caucasus Maikop . not R1b .

Augustus
03-01-2015, 06:19 PM
Anywho, it's interesting noting that Ancient European Y-Dna =/= Modern European Y Dna, but Ancient Russian Y-Dna = Modern Russian Y-Dna. R1b Samara correlating with the Bashkirs, and R1a with modern Balto-Slavic tribes.

Krefter
03-01-2015, 06:28 PM
Anywho, it's interesting noting that Ancient European Y-Dna =/= Modern European Y Dna, but Ancient Russian Y-Dna = Modern Russian Y-Dna. R1b Samara correlating with the Bashkirs, and R1a with modern Balto-Slavic tribes.

It's not that simple. Modern Euro mtDNA and Y DNA structure can be explained by the 100s of ancient ones we have. LN/BA is when it all came together. We get the same picture with autosomal DNA.

Jean M
03-01-2015, 06:50 PM
which are they in hungary and meissen germany?

Since I have no idea which people you want identified, or where Meissen comes into this, it would be simplest if you just read the Haak 2015 paper. You could look at my online tables of ancient DNA if that makes things clearer.



Do we have remains of these hunters on the Danube ?

If you are asking about the Lepenski Vir fishermen, we have no DNA from them. We simply know that when farming arrived in their area, they were able to deal with farmers on equal terms. They took wives from farming communities and eventually turned to farming themselves.

What we do have is a sample (KO1) from the Körös early farming culture in Hungary which carries Y-DNA I2a and has a genome-wide resemblance to Western European foragers (WHG). So he was a forager turned farmer.

newtoboard
03-01-2015, 06:59 PM
Anywho, it's interesting noting that Ancient European Y-Dna =/= Modern European Y Dna, but Ancient Russian Y-Dna = Modern Russian Y-Dna. R1b Samara correlating with the Bashkirs, and R1a with modern Balto-Slavic tribes.

Not really. These Russian hunter gatherers belong to branches that are rare. We haven't found the source for Russian R1a until we find some Z645 or Z283 and I expect they will be found elsewhere. Nor is there any evidence that the R1b among Bashkirs and other Volga-Urals groups (likewise for R1a) didn't arrive from a southern (ie Turkic) source regardless of the fact they ultimately can be traced back to Yamnaya. No need for anybody to assume the route Bashkir R1 took is Yamnaya->Volga Urals region when Yamnaya->Central Asia->Volga Urals is just as likely.

Augustus
03-01-2015, 07:13 PM
Not really. These Russian hunter gatherers belong to branches that are rare. We haven't found the source for Russian R1a until we find some Z645 or Z283 and I expect they will be found elsewhere. Nor is there any evidence that the R1b among Bashkirs and other Volga-Urals groups (likewise for R1a) didn't arrive from a southern (ie Turkic) source regardless of the fact they ultimately can be traced back to Yamnaya. No need for anybody to assume the route Bashkir R1 took is Yamnaya->Volga Urals region when Yamnaya->Central Asia->Volga Urals is just as likely.

Im talking more about the Yamna samples. Bashkirs have Z2015 which is downstream of Z2013. Balto-Slavs have M417 and N, which was found on the new samples.

Humanist
03-01-2015, 07:18 PM
Bashkirs have Z2015 which is downstream of Z2013.

No. It is not.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7340/16377632527_4da2cd3fcd_o.png

newtoboard
03-01-2015, 07:30 PM
No. It is not.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7340/16377632527_4da2cd3fcd_o.png

Do you know where PF7558 is typically found?

jeanL
03-01-2015, 07:31 PM
Here's something that I don't know if anybody has noticed before:

3892

While the majority of LBK paternal lineages are G2a, there is no a single G2a paternal lineage in inner Iberia Neolithic populations featured by Haak.et.al.2015, granted the sample size is small, but the Cardial site of Avellanar in Catalonia had 5 G2a and 1 E-V13. Now the presence of F* does mirror the presence of F* in an LBK population from a previous Haak study. Anybody care to comment on it. Also I notice the following:

3885

In the early Neolithic communities we have EEF Starcevo_EN and LBK_EN>Hungary_Gamba_EN>Spain_EN.

In Middle Neolithic communities we have EEF Baalberge_MN>Spain_MN>Esperstedt_MN.

For the sake of completeness here is Table.S4.3 with the paternal lineages of the Hungary_Gamba_EN sample:

3886

Humanist
03-01-2015, 07:38 PM
Do you know where PF7558 is typically found?

I am not very familiar with its distribution. Joe B and/or smal may have a better idea.

Augustus
03-01-2015, 07:45 PM
No. It is not.


Sorry I meant under the same family. (L23)

Joe B
03-01-2015, 08:58 PM
Do you know where PF7558 is typically found?
It's all over the place. We do have one presumed PF7558+ and tested PF7562+, PF7563- individual from Trazbon.
Here are the self reported paternal ancestry countries from presumed and tested PF7558+ haplotypes.
Albania
Algeria
Armenia
Belarus
Bulgaria
England
France
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Kazakhstan
Mexico
Poland
Portugal
Serbia
Syrian Arab Republic
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom

alan
03-01-2015, 10:43 PM
It's all over the place. We do have one presumed PF7558+ and tested PF7562+, PF7563- individual from Trazbon.
Here are the self reported paternal ancestry countries from presumed and tested PF7558+ haplotypes.
Albania
Algeria
Armenia
Belarus
Bulgaria
England
France
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Kazakhstan
Mexico
Poland
Portugal
Serbia
Syrian Arab Republic
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom

Is this from hobby testng Is that one each or do you have numbers for each country. IMO a small amount of a rare clade in highly tested areas like the isles is a lot less significant than examples from countries where testing is rare.

For a zone which often seems poorly represented by hobby testers I find this block of eastern European/adjacent, Balkan etc countries rather significant

Albania
Armenia
Bulgaria
Greece
Serbia
Ukraine
Poland
Belarus
Kazakhstan

lgmayka
03-02-2015, 12:58 AM
Here are the self reported paternal ancestry countries from presumed and tested PF7558+ haplotypes.

But don't most of them belong to a clearly Jewish clade, which would have a single origin no more than 3500 years old? Here are the published Paternal Ancestor Names of the M69+ L23- men in my project:
Moses Bogdanow
Iosel Urowitz
Lazarus Vishnick
Isaiah Chernichovsky
Shimon Mordecai Geluda
Abraham Glickman
Yisroel Jacobs

Look at the first three categories of the ht35 Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=yresults). Most but not all belong to a tight cluster.

Joe B
03-02-2015, 01:29 AM
Is this from hobby testng Is that one each or do you have numbers for each country. IMO a small amount of a rare clade in highly tested areas like the isles is a lot less significant than examples from countries where testing is rare.

For a zone which often seems poorly represented by hobby testers I find this block of eastern European/adjacent, Balkan etc countries rather significant

Albania
Armenia
Bulgaria
Greece
Serbia
Ukraine
Poland
Belarus
Kazakhstan
But don't most of them belong to a clearly Jewish clade, which would have a single origin no more than 3500 years old? Here are the published Paternal Ancestor Names of the M69+ L23- men in my project:
Moses Bogdanow
Iosel Urowitz
Lazarus Vishnick
Isaiah Chernichovsky
Shimon Mordecai Geluda
Abraham Glickman
Yisroel Jacobs

Look at the first three categories of the ht35 Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=yresults). Most but not all belong to a tight cluster.That's just a list of the countries. There certainly is a Jewish clade of R1b-PF7562 that can be seen in subgroup R1b1a2a1* (R-L150*) Group A of the The Jewish R1b Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/JewishR1b/default.aspx?section=ycolorized). That may account for most of the R1b-PF7562 seen in Central and Eastern Europe. R1b-PF7562(M269+, L150+, L23-) is not very well understood or studied. DYS426=11 is one of the marker values often seen with R1b-PF7562.

vettor
03-02-2015, 05:05 AM
Since I have no idea which people you want identified, or where Meissen comes into this, it would be simplest if you just read the Haak 2015 paper. You could look at my online tables of ancient DNA if that makes things clearer.


Halderstadt and Karsdorf




If you are asking about the Lepenski Vir fishermen, we have no DNA from them. We simply know that when farming arrived in their area, they were able to deal with farmers on equal terms. They took wives from farming communities and eventually turned to farming themselves.

What we do have is a sample (KO1) from the Körös early farming culture in Hungary which carries Y-DNA I2a and has a genome-wide resemblance to Western European foragers (WHG). So he was a forager turned farmer.

we have farming in Europe from

The first permanent inhabitants of the island are believed to have arrived around 7000 BC, possibly from Anatolia.1 This founding group was mainly composed of early Neolithic farmers who established their first settlements in the fertile lowland regions of Crete.

-We have G2a ( as many say here on this thread ,ONLY farmers ) from halderstadt and Karsdorf in central Germany.
-We know R1 is the youngest haplogroup. And most of the rest are older by thousands of years.
-Are we to say that G2a waited outside of Europe until R1 entered Europe before they entered (G2a) Europe as Farmers? Even though according to the Haak paper, G2a is older than R1 ?


we even have farming in britain older than anyone thought we did
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/998.abstract

parasar
03-02-2015, 04:19 PM
...

we even have farming in britain older than anyone thought we did
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/998.abstract

Very interesting!

submarine archaeological site off the Isle of Wight in the United Kingdom that has a well-preserved Mesolithic paleosol dated to 8000 years before the present.
...evidence of wheat 2000 years earlier than mainland Britain and 400 years earlier than proximate European sites. These results suggest that sophisticated social networks linked the Neolithic front in southern Europe to the Mesolithic peoples of northern Europe.

seferhabahir
03-02-2015, 05:41 PM
There certainly is a Jewish clade of R1b-PF7562 that can be seen in subgroup R1b1a2a1* (R-L150*) Group A of the The Jewish R1b Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/JewishR1b/default.aspx?section=ycolorized). That may account for most of the R1b-PF7562 seen in Central and Eastern Europe. R1b-PF7562(M269+, L150+, L23-) is not very well understood or studied. DYS426=11 is one of the marker values often seen with R1b-PF7562.

PF7562 (and PF7558 and PF7563) were identified as SNPs of a Jewish M269xL23 clade a couple of years ago when my cousin took his Geno 2.0 test. Subsequently it was found in other far-flung non-Jewish testers and these SNPs appear to be quite old. It took a long time to convince people this was not part of L23 because of confusion surrounding the placement of L150 at that time. Maybe I will think about doing a Big Y on my cousin's kit who will no doubt be closely related to Sobelman.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1467-150-%28R1b-P25-gt-L389-gt-P297-gt-M269-%29-above-below-or-both-or-what-else

rms2
03-02-2015, 08:00 PM
I think what you see in this thread is a couple of guys who, for whatever reasons, seem to want to argue that the seven-for-seven Yamnaya R1b results are some kind of fluke because five of the seven belonged to an eastern clade of R1b-L23 (Z2103/Z2105) that somehow, through some sort of historical accident, happened to be in the right place at the right time to get caught up in Yamnaya. Therefore, the argument seems to go, those results can be disregarded when it comes to the rest of European R1b, i.e., there is no reason to see them as supporting the idea that most of R1b arrived in peninsular Europe with Indo-European languages and as a principal component in the make-up of the original Indo-Europeans.

There are a number of problems with that argument, it seems to me. When the region from Germany west to the Atlantic is viewed as a whole, R1b-L23 is the most frequent y haplogroup. It is represented mostly by R1b-L11, a descendant of R1b-L51, which is a brother clade to R1b-Z2103, found in five of the seven sets of Yamnaya remains. Throughout Europe, including Western Europe, Indo-European languages are spoken and have been spoken since ancient times. Those two facts might be seen as mere coincidences were it not for the Haak et al results.

Those results include a P312+ result for a Bell Beaker man from the site near Quedlinburg, Germany, whose remains date to about 2200 BC. P312, of course, is downstream of L23 like this: L23>L51>L11>P312. A number of scholars throughout the years, including, most recently, David Anthony, have connected the Bell Beaker people to the spread of the Italo-Celtic branch of Indo-European. In addition, the Bell Beaker remains from Haak et al seem to carry a significant autosomal contribution from Yamnaya.

We know that both R1b and the Indo-European languages have an east-to-west phylogeography. A number of scholars, linguists and archaeologists, attribute the spread of early Indo-European to the Yamnaya cultural horizon of the 4th-3rd millennia BC. Steppe pastoralists of the Yamnaya cultural horizon spread west into Europe up the Danube valley at least as far as the eastern Hungarian plain, where there are over three thousand of their distinctive burial mounds or kurgans.

Despite the growing number of published ancient y-dna results from Neolithic sites in Europe (Haak et al cites 70), only one R1b has been found, an R1b1-M415 from the Els Trocs site in Spain, and it seems very likely he was V88+ and not even on the same line as most European R1b.

Given all of these facts, it seems likely that the branch of R1b-L23 that led to L51, and, subsequently, to L11, was part of the Yamnaya migration westward beginning in the 4th millennium BC. That seems the most parsimonious explanation for how Western Europe became both predominantly R1b and Indo-European speaking and why one finds R1b-P312 among an apparently Indo-European-derived single grave culture, Bell Beaker.

Otherwise, one has to find some other way to explain how much of Europe became both R1b and Indo-European speaking. If one attributes early Indo-European solely to R1a, he has the problem that many Indo-European-speaking areas in Europe have very little R1a, and much of what is there can be ascribed to relatively recent historical peoples, e.g., Norse Vikings and Slavs.

Personally, my impression of this thread was that it began with the assumption that R1b-L51 entered peninsular Europe with the Yamnaya cultural horizon. It was meant to be a discussion of the various routes taken by early Indo-Europeans who belonged to y haplogroups R1b and R1a. I don’t think it was meant to be a sounding board for those who wish to attack that assumption and yet offer no viable or even merely intelligible alternative of their own.

Anglecynn
03-02-2015, 08:09 PM
The presence of P312 in Bell Beaker carrying 50% odd of their ancestry from somewhere in the western steppe, and the strong presence of fairly closely related R1b groups in the far eastern end of Yamnaya is pretty striking. This P312 and it's ancestors have to have arrived with an autosomal component, and the Yamnaya component is an intrusive one coinciding in date with the arrival of these branches of R1b is the obvious solution. If one discounts this connection because it seems unlikely, then other possibilities seem even more unlikely. I think more samples from east, south-east Europe, the south-western steppe and Anatolia should be in order.

rms2
03-02-2015, 08:13 PM
The presence of P312 in Bell Beaker carrying 50% odd of their ancestry from somewhere in the western steppe, and the strong presence of fairly closely related R1b groups in the far eastern end of Yamnaya is pretty striking. This P312 and it's ancestors have to have arrived with an autosomal component, and the Yamnaya component is an intrusive one coinciding in date with the arrival of these branches of R1b is the obvious solution. If one discounts this connection because it seems unlikely, then other possibilities seem even more unlikely. I think more samples from east, south-east Europe, the south-western steppe and Anatolia should be in order.

I agree. I think the Yamnaya route west needs to be extensively tested. As I mentioned, there are over 3,000 Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary.

alan
03-02-2015, 08:58 PM
I don't think anyone using Occam's razor could, from all the evidence available now, conclude anything other than the steppe hypothesis and l23's role in the spread of IE looks certain. What I am less interested in is is who was hunters and who was farmers in the steppe copper age mix. Without both you just have just farmers or hunters not proto IEs. Half ther genomes and many cultural aspects wouldn't exist without both elements. The odds do seem high that L23 is from the local upstream hunters but I really don't mind either way.

What is somewhat lost in the debate is just how high yamnayas farming genetic input seems to be in Samara at least. In some ways this is the part of the euro steppes with the least evidence for farming above very basic herding. So that is a seurprise as its towards the Dnieper that farming influence is deeper. Perhaps the high SW Asian input explains the high levels of dark eyes noted in steppe ancient DNA.

alan
03-02-2015, 09:14 PM
I find it interesting that there is a suggestion that the difference between euro farmers and the non hunter input in yamnaya may relate to one of those balloch or gedrosia western inner Asian components. There are hints that south Urals and other northern hunters of pit comb type had contact with kelteminar east Caspian hunters and kelteminar arrows have been found north of the caspian. It's possible that these kind of elements are what makes the sw Asian input into yamnaya seem different from euro farmers. There are a number of culture in the northern fringe ofsw Asia and the area east of the Caspian whose autosomal genetics are unaccounted for.

vettor
03-03-2015, 05:58 AM
I find it interesting that there is a suggestion that the difference between euro farmers and the non hunter input in yamnaya may relate to one of those balloch or gedrosia western inner Asian components. There are hints that south Urals and other northern hunters of pit comb type had contact with kelteminar east Caspian hunters and kelteminar arrows have been found north of the caspian. It's possible that these kind of elements are what makes the sw Asian input into yamnaya seem different from euro farmers. There are a number of culture in the northern fringe ofsw Asia and the area east of the Caspian whose autosomal genetics are unaccounted for.

when all is said and done, a summary below

http://www.nature.com/news/steppe-migration-rekindles-debate-on-language-origin-1.16935

would eventually see that farmers entered first and this is especially true with the latest british discoveries/finds for farming, which makes farming dates in western Europe much more older.

Hando
03-03-2015, 03:23 PM
[Personal attack removed]

All members are reminded to stay on topic and keep it civil.

Jean M
03-03-2015, 04:09 PM
when all is said and done, a summary below would eventually see that farmers entered first and this is especially true with the latest british discoveries/finds for farming, which makes farming dates in western Europe much more older.

Vettor - If you are referring to the discovery of wheat dating to 6000 BC in the Solent ( http://www.newhistorian.com/submerged-english-site-yields-ancient-domestic-wheat-dna/3114/ ), this does not mean that farmers arrived and settled in England at this date. We know that they did not. Farming began in England around 4000 BC, long after its arrival in Crete and the Balkans. Here is a rough chronology from Anne Tresset and Jean-Denis Vigne, Last hunter-gatherers and first farmers of Europe, Comptes Rendus Biologies, 334 (2011), 182-189:

3906

Compare this with the dates for the first appearance of Homo sapiens in Europe. At this time all human beings, everywhere in the world, were hunter-gatherers. Hunting and living off wild plants was the way of life of every single person on the planet until the development of farming many millennia after humans spread out of Africa. Hunting came before farming. Even the history books from your school-days would tell you that basic fact, because it has been known for well over a century.

3907

What seems to be confusing you is the arrival on the eastern fringes of Europe of hunter-gatherers from Siberia at around the same time that farming was entering the Balkans. Their descendants (mixed with the descendants of farmers and earlier European hunters) then swept across Europe in the Copper Age, after farming.

Jean M
03-03-2015, 04:32 PM
In a nutshell there are three main components of the European gene pool:


46,000 years ago: first people in Europe. These were hunter-gatherers. Those who survived the Ice Age became the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers labelled WHG in Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015.
7000 BC: first farmers arrived in Europe and took millennia to spread over it. They are labelled EEF in Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015.
7000 BC: hunters from Siberia arrived around the Urals, the present-day eastern border of Europe, carrying the ANE component found in the Siberian Palaeolithic Mal'ta boy.
3600 BC: By this time the ANE hunters had mixed with farmers and were starting to develop a Copper Age pastoralist society we call Yamnaya. They were not dependant on hunting or foraging for a living.
3300 BC: Yamnaya spread across the European steppe and within a few centuries their descendants spread across Europe.

parasar
03-03-2015, 05:01 PM
In a nutshell there are three main components of the European gene pool:


46,000 years ago: first people in Europe. These were hunter-gatherers. Those who survived the Ice Age became the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers labelled WHG in Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015.
7000 BC: first farmers arrived in Europe and took millennia to spread over it. They are labelled EEF in Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015.
7000 BC: hunters from Siberia arrived around the Urals, the present-day eastern border of Europe, carrying the ANE component found in the Siberian Palaeolithic Mal'ta boy.
3600 BC: By this time the ANE hunters had mixed with farmers and were starting to develop a Copper Age pastoralist society we call Yamnaya. They were not dependant on hunting or foraging for a living.
3300 BC: Yamnaya spread across the European steppe and within a few centuries their descendants spread across Europe.


I would reverse the first two (not their occupations).
At a minimum they were there together.

vettor
03-03-2015, 05:57 PM
Vettor - If you are referring to the discovery of wheat dating to 6000 BC in the Solent ( http://www.newhistorian.com/submerged-english-site-yields-ancient-domestic-wheat-dna/3114/ ), this does not mean that farmers arrived and settled in England at this date. We know that they did not. Farming began in England around 4000 BC, long after its arrival in Crete and the Balkans. Here is a rough chronology from Anne Tresset and Jean-Denis Vigne, Last hunter-gatherers and first farmers of Europe, Comptes Rendus Biologies, 334 (2011), 182-189:

3906

Compare this with the dates for the first appearance of Homo sapiens in Europe. At this time all human beings, everywhere in the world, were hunter-gatherers. Hunting and living off wild plants was the way of life of every single person on the planet until the development of farming many millennia after humans spread out of Africa. Hunting came before farming. Even the history books from your school-days would tell you that basic fact, because it has been known for well over a century.

3907

What seems to be confusing you is the arrival on the eastern fringes of Europe of hunter-gatherers from Siberia at around the same time that farming was entering the Balkans. Their descendants (mixed with the descendants of farmers and earlier European hunters) then swept across Europe in the Copper Age, after farming.

I am asking a few questions here...........firstly as per a month ago , these questions have been posed by scholars
How would ancient wheat have moved from the Near East to Bouldner? Given that the first evidence for Neolithic crops in North West Europe only appears 500 years later, it seems more likely to me that the movement was coastal, rather than by land, using small boats to navigate along the coastline of the Mediterranean and Atlantic.

It is possible that Mesolithic people were growing Wheat at the time but the evidence of this was lost to the flood which created Britain as an island – of course that’s pure speculation. Whether or not the wheat was “traded” between Neolithic and Mesolithic peoples is also speculation. What is not in doubt is that the evidence is building for a sophisticated Mesolithic culture in Britain, and not small bands of hunter gatherers eking out an existence in the wildwood.

second, explain to me how ENF from LBKN who are more than 1000 years older than R1's found in Central Germany, not play any part in BB and CW when they are basically in the same lands. Clearly if you are a farmer, older than the othe rmarkers and your skeletons are found there undicates your ancestors where still living there at the time when the hunters arrived from yamnya..........

skeltal evidence, site of findings, and peoples stating ENF (LBKN ) are purely only farmers indicate that farming arrived in germany before yamnya people arrived.
Clearly the error is here in indicating that ALL G2a are farmers, ALL I1 are hunters, etc etc. ............the final conclusion is that the early haplogroups who entered central Europe where both hunters and farmers ( same persons)

Thirdly, hunters lived together in small camps/communities, getting kills, gutting kills, drying kills, making new weapons etc etc...if the area was good, they might not have moved for years.............clearly they had women with them and then you can continue what this lifestyle entailed. Hunting was not kill and move on the next day or so.....it was no Gypsy lifestyle.


in reference to your last sentence..........it is not what Haak shows in his map , farmers did not wait for yamnya people to enter central europe first.

vettor
03-03-2015, 06:05 PM
In a nutshell there are three main components of the European gene pool:


46,000 years ago: first people in Europe. These were hunter-gatherers. Those who survived the Ice Age became the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers labelled WHG in Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015.
7000 BC: first farmers arrived in Europe and took millennia to spread over it. They are labelled EEF in Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015.
7000 BC: hunters from Siberia arrived around the Urals, the present-day eastern border of Europe, carrying the ANE component found in the Siberian Palaeolithic Mal'ta boy.
3600 BC: By this time the ANE hunters had mixed with farmers and were starting to develop a Copper Age pastoralist society we call Yamnaya. They were not dependant on hunting or foraging for a living.
3300 BC: Yamnaya spread across the European steppe and within a few centuries their descendants spread across Europe.


these WHG,EEF and ANE are currently being replaced, the Laz mix was basically a "beta" mix, an early experiment............by the end of the year it will mean nothing. We already have other mixtures ENF, EHG etc etc

alan
03-03-2015, 06:33 PM
when all is said and done, a summary below

http://www.nature.com/news/steppe-migration-rekindles-debate-on-language-origin-1.16935

would eventually see that farmers entered first and this is especially true with the latest british discoveries/finds for farming, which makes farming dates in western Europe much more older.

I would seriously wait and see about that. Underwater site, cereal DNA etc might not be a safe closed undisturbed context.

alan
03-03-2015, 06:35 PM
In a nutshell there are three main components of the European gene pool:


46,000 years ago: first people in Europe. These were hunter-gatherers. Those who survived the Ice Age became the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers labelled WHG in Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015.
7000 BC: first farmers arrived in Europe and took millennia to spread over it. They are labelled EEF in Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015.
7000 BC: hunters from Siberia arrived around the Urals, the present-day eastern border of Europe, carrying the ANE component found in the Siberian Palaeolithic Mal'ta boy.
3600 BC: By this time the ANE hunters had mixed with farmers and were starting to develop a Copper Age pastoralist society we call Yamnaya. They were not dependant on hunting or foraging for a living.
3300 BC: Yamnaya spread across the European steppe and within a few centuries their descendants spread across Europe.


Would it not be safer to add that ANE hunters mixed with WHG or similar c. 7000BC give or take and produced EHG. Then EHG mixed with farmer.

alan
03-03-2015, 06:40 PM
I noticed that the paper was a bit iffy about the idea that EHG is WHG plus ANE but I wouldnt expect a perfect fit when you consider that ANE may have spent 14000 years in Siberia between Mal'ta and appearing in Europe. I think the basic concept of EHG=WHG plus ANE still seems likely albeit ANE may have drifted a bit. I also suspect some ANE did enter SW Asia directly from central Asia/SW Siberia in the Mesolithic.

Jean M
03-03-2015, 07:04 PM
How would ancient wheat have moved from the Near East to Bouldner? Given that the first evidence for Neolithic crops in North West Europe only appears 500 years later, it seems more likely to me that the movement was coastal, rather than by land, using small boats to navigate along the coastline of the Mediterranean and Atlantic..

You are perfectly right that farming moved across the Mediterranean in an island-hopping progress. But the Einkorn wheat found in the Solent near Bouldner did not have to come all the way direct from the Near East. There were farmers across the Channel by this time. Take another look at the map I provided with dates of the progress of farming across Europe. It was earlier in what is now France than in Britain. What the researchers who found the wheat are suggesting is that farmers in France were trading wheat to foragers in Britain. Whether they are right is another matter. I am dubious that they can accurately date this wheat. It is no big deal either way, regardless of the big splash in the media.

Jean M
03-03-2015, 07:08 PM
It is possible that Mesolithic people were growing Wheat at the time but the evidence of this was lost to the flood which created Britain as an island.

No. Doggerland was populated by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. http://education.nationalgeographic.co.uk/education/maps/doggerland/?ar_a=1



the evidence is building for a sophisticated Mesolithic culture in Britain, and not small bands of hunter gatherers eking out an existence in the wildwood.

Beware of prehistorians using the word 'sophisticated'. What they mean is 'I adore the Mesolithic and I wish Romanists and Egyptologists didn't get all the juicy TV contracts. It's unfair. A harpoon is every bit as clever an invention as writing.' I wouldn't care to enter into argument over which is the cleverer, but the Mesolithic life in Britain was no more sophisticated than it was in Continental Europe. These were the same people in fact. Britain was populated in the Mesolithic from southern European refuges.

Jean M
03-03-2015, 07:24 PM
farmers did not wait for yamnya people to enter central europe first.

Of course they didn't. Once again:


46,000 years ago: first people in Europe. These were hunter-gatherers. Those who survived the Ice Age became the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers labelled WHG in Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015.
7000 BC: first farmers arrived in Europe and took millennia to spread over it. They are labelled EEF in Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015.
7000 BC: hunters from Siberia arrived around the Urals, the present-day eastern border of Europe, carrying the ANE component found in the Siberian Palaeolithic Mal'ta boy.
3600 BC: By this time the ANE hunters had mixed with farmers and were starting to develop a Copper Age pastoralist society we call Yamnaya. They were not dependant on hunting or foraging for a living.
3300 BC: Yamnaya spread across the European steppe and within a few centuries their descendants spread across Europe.


The farmers are before the Yamnaya, but after the early European hunter-gatherers.

parasar
03-03-2015, 07:54 PM
I noticed that the paper was a bit iffy about the idea that EHG is WHG plus ANE but I wouldnt expect a perfect fit when you consider that ANE may have spent 14000 years in Siberia between Mal'ta and appearing in Europe. I think the basic concept of EHG=WHG plus ANE still seems likely albeit ANE may have drifted a bit. I also suspect some ANE did enter SW Asia directly from central Asia/SW Siberia in the Mesolithic.

I doubt that is the only reason. ANE (MA1) is admixed with a component missing in Americans. This was apparent from Lazaridis et al., but they went with a simple scenario that MA1 was un-admixed.

And that same component is missing in EHG-Karelia.

Anglecynn
03-03-2015, 07:55 PM
David got his hands on the genomes. It's interesting that the average using the K15 V2 for those Bell Beaker individuals is pretty close to the modern northern German average.

Yamnaya has 19% West Asian on average and 6% South Asian, and 4.5% Amerindian. The other major components are East Euro and North Sea (28% and 25% respectively), and Baltic is at 13% - Atlantic only at 4%.

Looks like the incomers to western Europe didn't come directly from Samara, but from the same sort of region. I'd guess much further west. Not surprising though given the R1b1 in Samara is mostly eastern.

Averages

Yamnaya
North_Sea 24.72714286
Atlantic 4.054285714
Baltic 13.04714286
Eastern_Euro 28.68
West_Med 0
West_Asian 18.85285714
East_Med 0
Red_Sea 0
South_Asian 5.894285714
Southeast_Asian 0
Siberian 0
Amerindian 4.572857143
Oceanian 0.025714286
Northeast_African 0
Sub-Saharan 0.151428571

Corded Ware (German)
North_Sea 28.4375
Atlantic 19.0075
Baltic 15.3775
Eastern_Euro 19.295
West_Med 0
West_Asian 11.1975
East_Med 0
Red_Sea 0
South_Asian 3.4525
Southeast_Asian 0
Siberian 0.1175
Amerindian 2.0725
Oceanian 0.425
Northeast_African 0.62
Sub-Saharan 0

Bell Beaker (German)
North_Sea 30.75714286
Atlantic 27.08
Baltic 12.53571429
Eastern_Euro 10.63571429
West_Med 9.06
West_Asian 5.017142857
East_Med 0.732857143
Red_Sea 0.29
South_Asian 0.925714286
Southeast_Asian 0.01
Siberian 0.605714286
Amerindian 1.814285714
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

Gokhem (For comparison)
North_Sea 16.76
Atlantic 27.67
Baltic 3.74
Eastern_Euro 0
West_Med 45.23
West_Asian 0
East_Med 4.73
Red_Sea 0.87
South_Asian 0
Southeast_Asian 0
Siberian 0
Amerindian 0
Oceanian 1
Northeast_African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

Anglecynn
03-03-2015, 09:15 PM
One particularly interesting thing is that the one BB guy confirmed P312 is also the one with 0% West Med, which was the dominant component in the Neolithic. If P312's ancestors were a local Neolithic lineage that got passed on to incomers, you'd expect some sort of that component especially at this transitional time, unless his y-ancestor was the only one who carried West Med which seems unlikely given the results of the others. Makes it look for sure like P312 came from somewhere where there was no (or very little) of this component. And of course the Unetice individuals who are somewhat similar to the BB individuals carry a good amount of I2, a much better candidate of course.

ADW_1981
03-03-2015, 10:30 PM
One particularly interesting thing is that the one BB guy confirmed P312 is also the one with 0% West Med, which was the dominant component in the Neolithic. If P312's ancestors were a local Neolithic lineage that got passed on to incomers, you'd expect some sort of that component especially at this transitional time, unless his y-ancestor was the only one who carried West Med which seems unlikely given the results of the others. Makes it look for sure like P312 came from somewhere where there was no (or very little) of this component. And of course the Unetice individuals who are somewhat similar to the BB individuals carry a good amount of I2, a much better candidate of course.

I saw this too, but this could be entirely coincidental since it's only 1 sample. :) The J1c5 BB sample also has the highest West med among them. It was previously noted that mtDNA J1 lineages may have spread with Early European farmers as per the Neolithic Spanish study from a few years back- quickly cross-referencing JeanM's site, this appears to hold up.

Leeroy Jenkins
03-03-2015, 10:38 PM
Here (http://www.filedropper.com/steppeancestraloracle) is an Excel-based spreadsheet that will let you use the basic Oracle function to compare your Eurogenes K15 results to those of the two hunter-gatherers from Karelia and Samara, as well as the average results of the Yamnaya, CWC and BBC samples.

My results:

http://i58.tinypic.com/dhfpjk.png

One interesting point:

The least squares distance between CWC and BBC is closer than the least squares distance between CWC and Yamnaya.

CWC to BBC: 16.6423015
CWC to Yamnaya: 19.88808328

Humanist
03-03-2015, 11:01 PM
Here (http://www.filedropper.com/steppeancestraloracle) is an Excel-based spreadsheet that will let you use the basic Oracle function to compare your Eurogenes K15 results to those of the two hunter-gatherers from Karelia and Samara, as well as the average results of the Yamnaya, CWC and BBC samples.

My results:

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/dok101044/haak_distances_hum.jpg

MfA
03-03-2015, 11:33 PM
Here's mine:
http://www.abload.de/img/djkd9.jpg

rms2
03-04-2015, 12:12 AM
Fun stuff.

Here's mine.

3909

How do I get the photo to show up full sized?

MJost
03-04-2015, 12:16 AM
SteppeAncestralOracle

Mine:



Karelia
43.19385


Samara
42.61644


Yamnaya
33.31696


CWC
17.35296


BBC
6.228201





Eurogenes K15v2



North Sea
33.31%


Atlantic
26.22%


Baltic
14.97%


Eastern Euro
10.31%


West Med
7.77%


West Asian
2.33%


East Med
0.94%


Red Sea
2.17%


South Asian
0.38%


Southeast Asian
0.00%


Siberian
0.00%


Amerindian
0.96%


Oceanian
0.42%


Northeast African
0.00%


Sub-Saharan
0.21%




MJost

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 12:22 AM
My sister and wife's results, respectively:

http://i59.tinypic.com/ka5u1f.png

http://i62.tinypic.com/20qjjx5.png

My results are coming out a bit more steppe-like than those of my sister and wife. The three of us are closest to the BBC references over all, with my sister being the most Beaker-like.

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 12:23 AM
Here's my results:

Karelia: 43.77
Samara: 43.11
Yamnaya: 32.8
CWC: 17.95
BBC: 6.50

Think i'm closer to this average than to some of the Hinxtons lol. My mother is comparatively closer to Yamnaya due to having about 8% West Asian.

Father:
Karelia: 44.01
Samara: 43.37
Yamnaya: 34.19
CWC: 20.30
BBC: 9.36

Paternal Grandfather:
Karelia: 43.93
Samara: 43.30
Yamnaya: 33.46
CWC: 18.63
BBC: 8.42

Paternal Grandmother:
Karelia: 45.47
Samara: 44.91
Yamnaya: 34.82
CWC: 21
BBC: 7.65

Mother:
Karelia: 44.39
Samara: 43.87
Yamnaya: 31.81
CWC: 17.03
BBC: 6.45

Aunt:
Karelia: 44.52
Samara: 43.96
Yamnaya: 33.36
CWC: 19.37
BBC: 6.82

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 12:26 AM
Perhaps it is also worth seeing if there are any real differences in the groups at different sites/different periods? Doesn't seem like there will be though...they seem pretty varied.

Joe B
03-04-2015, 12:30 AM
Lowest Yamnaya so far at 28.63%.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8633/16709437715_8e35502d41.jpg

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 12:32 AM
Perhaps it is also worth seeing if there are any real differences in the groups at different sites/different periods? Doesn't seem like there will be though...they seem pretty varied.

I am interested in seeing how Western European and Eastern European results contrast in relation to the Samara and Karelia samples. So far, everyone of predominately Western Euro descent is closer to Samara than Karelia. I wonder if the inverse is true for Eastern Europeans?

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 12:37 AM
I am interested in seeing how Western European and Eastern European results contrast in relation to the Samara and Karelia samples. So far, everyone of predominately Western Euro descent is closer to Samara than Karelia. I wonder if the inverse is true for Eastern Europeans?

That would be pretty interesting to see - Also interesting would be eastern European results in comparison to CWC and BB, because on the PCA in the Haak paper they were a bit removed even from eastern Europeans, so perhaps there has been more change in eastern Europe since then than in western Europe?

Augustus
03-04-2015, 12:42 AM
R1b samples in Samara with a lot of West Asian non-Neolithic ancestry. Interesting.

Gray Fox
03-04-2015, 12:44 AM
Anyone care to do mine?

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 38.25
2 Atlantic 24.5
3 West_Med 12.12
4 Eastern_Euro 8.41
5 Baltic 7.79
6 West_Asian 5.17
7 South_Asian 1.9
8 Red_Sea 0.66
9 Northeast_African 0.66
10 Oceanian 0.5
11 East_Med 0.04
12 Sub-Saharan 0.01

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 12:49 AM
Anyone care to do mine?

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 38.25
2 Atlantic 24.5
3 West_Med 12.12
4 Eastern_Euro 8.41
5 Baltic 7.79
6 West_Asian 5.17
7 South_Asian 1.9
8 Red_Sea 0.66
9 Northeast_African 0.66
10 Oceanian 0.5
11 East_Med 0.04
12 Sub-Saharan 0.01

Karelia: 44.96
Samara: 44.23
Yamnaya: 33.27
CWC: 20.34
BBC: 9.75

Gray Fox
03-04-2015, 12:51 AM
Karelia: 44.96
Samara: 44.23
Yamnaya: 33.27
CWC: 20.34
BBC: 9.75

Many thanks to you, sir!

Humanist
03-04-2015, 12:51 AM
Anyone care to do mine?

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 38.25
2 Atlantic 24.5
3 West_Med 12.12
4 Eastern_Euro 8.41
5 Baltic 7.79
6 West_Asian 5.17
7 South_Asian 1.9
8 Red_Sea 0.66
9 Northeast_African 0.66
10 Oceanian 0.5
11 East_Med 0.04
12 Sub-Saharan 0.01

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/dok101045/Sam_haak.jpg

rms2
03-04-2015, 12:56 AM
Here are my dad's and mom's results.

3910

3911

Gray Fox
03-04-2015, 12:59 AM
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/dok101045/Sam_haak.jpg

Thanks to you as well! :)

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 01:06 AM
North German average is very close to the BB average, closer than N Dutch, Danes, West Germans or East Germans. German BB average is just slightly to the south of modern northern Germans:

Karelia: 43.43
Samara: 42.84
Yamnaya: 32.04
CWC: 15.63
BBC: 4.46

icebreaker
03-04-2015, 01:29 AM
http://i.imgur.com/whelqKW.jpg

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2015, 01:44 AM
On K15 I'm pretty 'Bell Beakery"...especially on the top 4 listed. Not too surprising as my closest population on K15 is North German at GD of 2.34

Bell Beaker (German)
North_Sea 30.75714286
Atlantic 27.08
Baltic 12.53571429
Eastern_Euro 10.63571429
West_Med 9.06
West_Asian 5.017142857
East_Med 0.732857143
Red_Sea 0.29
South_Asian 0.925714286
Southeast_Asian 0.01
Siberian 0.605714286
Amerindian 1.814285714
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

Me
North_Sea 32.49
Atlantic 28.56
Baltic 14.40
Eastern_Euro 10.89
West_Med 6.34
West_Asian 3.59
East_Med 1.63
Red_Sea 0.36
South_Asian 1.3
Southeast_Asian 0.0
Siberian 0.0
Amerindian .37
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0.07
Sub-Saharan 0

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 01:49 AM
On K15 I'm pretty 'Bell Beakery"...especially on the top 4 listed. Not too surprising as my closest population on K15 is North German at GD of 2.34

Me
North_Sea 32.49
Atlantic 28.56
Baltic 14.40
Eastern_Euro 10.89
West_Med 6.34
West_Asian 3.59
East_Med 1.63
Red_Sea 0.36
South_Asian 1.3
Southeast_Asian 0.0
Siberian 0.0
Amerindian .37
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0.07
Sub-Saharan 0

Very close, indeed!

Karelia 42.99736593
Samara 42.41166485
Yamnaya 32.31134719
Corded Ware 15.75869366
Bell Beaker 4.158871754

MJost
03-04-2015, 01:55 AM
Fun stuff.

Here's mine.

3909

How do I get the photo to show up full sized?

Its got to be the size you captured it at.

Also, your BB 7.888 is further away then my 6.228, so your overall aDNA has some further east. Too bad we cant plot these. Also just read your parents and they are into the 6's, odd.

Edit: so I am just a hair further east than you overall then.

MJost

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 01:58 AM
After running a few tests, it seems all European populations are slightly closer to the Samara HG than the Karelia HG. Lithuanians are close to being equally distant to the two Hg's, but they are still ~0.07 closer to Samara. I believe this is due to the Karelia HG's elevated Amerindian score (16.47) relative to the Samara HG (12.02).

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2015, 02:02 AM
Here are my dad, me, and mom

Agamemnon
03-04-2015, 02:45 AM
My results:

http://pichoster.net/images/2015/03/04/Haak%20et%20al.jpg

My mother's results:

http://pichoster.net/images/2015/03/04/Haak%20et%20al%202015%20samples%20FST.jpg

Augustus
03-04-2015, 03:41 AM
So every single person is 45-50 45-50 30-35 20 etc...

Táltos
03-04-2015, 03:48 AM
After running a few tests, it seems all European populations are slightly closer to the Samara HG than the Karelia HG. Lithuanians are close to being equally distant to the two Hg's, but they are still ~0.07 closer to Samara. I believe this is due to the Karelia HG's elevated Amerindian score (16.47) relative to the Samara HG (12.02).
Oh darn I can't get on GEDmatch now to check my score out. I'm pretty much half Eastern European so I would like to see how much different my score would be to the Western Euros.

seferhabahir
03-04-2015, 04:54 AM
Here are my results:

Karelia: 52.1314
Samara: 52.0242
Yamnaya: 49.0911
CWC: 38.0791
BBC: 37.7922

So, why are the results on CWC and BBC for me, Humanist, MfA, and Icebreaker so much higher than everyone else?

I also seem to have the highest Yamnaya score of anyone as well. Must mean something, but I have no idea what.

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 05:08 AM
Here are my results:

Karelia: 52.1314
Samara: 52.0242
Yamnaya: 49.0911
CWC: 38.0791
BBC: 37.7922

So, why are the results on CWC and BBC for me, Humanist, MfA, and Icebreaker so much higher than everyone else?

I assume that unlike Yamnaya and the two hunter-gatherers, CWC and especially BBC have admixture from Old European populations (EEF, WHG, etc.) that is mostly restricted to modern day Europeans.

Táltos
03-04-2015, 05:21 AM
Here are my results:

Karelia: 52.1314
Samara: 52.0242
Yamnaya: 49.0911
CWC: 38.0791
BBC: 37.7922

So, why are the results on CWC and BBC for me, Humanist, MfA, and Icebreaker so much higher than everyone else?

I also seem to have the highest Yamnaya score of anyone as well. Must mean something, but I have no idea what.

Well I was finally able to get on GEDmatch for my Eurogenes k15. Here are mine.
3923
All of mine seem pretty evenly distributed. My BBC seem a little higher than everyone else too, but not as high as yours or the others you mention. :)

jesus
03-04-2015, 07:17 AM
Mine

http://i.imgur.com/AfsiQiU.png

My sister's

http://i.imgur.com/WzlNi1y.png

Rukha - 1/2 Afghan Tajik 1/2 Afghan Pashtun

http://i.imgur.com/VelOzHy.png

NK19191 - Iranian

http://i.imgur.com/HHTC0D8.png

DMXX

http://i.imgur.com/Owjsjil.png

Caspian - Azeri

http://i.imgur.com/H6eAJGH.png

Kurd

http://i.imgur.com/QGY8H8x.png

zarafshaan - Iranian Baloch

http://i.imgur.com/XXk3tx8.png

jesus
03-04-2015, 07:55 AM
Some Population averages

Afghan Pashtun

http://i.imgur.com/455vMxW.png

Pakistani Pashtun

http://i.imgur.com/DdJ4Eef.png

Punjabi Jatt

http://i.imgur.com/s6BRKB0.png

Iranian

http://i.imgur.com/viqo6g5.png

Kalash

http://i.imgur.com/knL0oXP.png

Lezgin

http://i.imgur.com/K01FtCk.png

Tajik

http://i.imgur.com/RX1IvFE.png

David Mc
03-04-2015, 08:34 AM
The calculator doesn't seem to be working for me. Would someone be so kind as to run my figures, please?

North_Sea 39.03%
Atlantic 24.05%
Baltic 10.34%
Eastern_Euro 9.56%
West_Med 10.85%
West_Asian 2.52%
East_Med 1.18%
Red_Sea 0.66%
South_Asian 1.26%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.42%
Northeast_African 0.13%
Sub-Saharan -

MonkeyDLuffy
03-04-2015, 08:42 AM
Is it just for R1b or R1a1a can post too?

DMXX
03-04-2015, 08:44 AM
Lezgin


As anticipated.

I privately estimated to a friend before this calculator was released that, in Asia, North Caucasians (if we were to count them as such) would display the highest affinity towards the Samara Yamnaya. They would be followed by isolated South-Central Asian groups (Kalash, Pamiri Tajiks), followed by Afghans, then Iranians.

However, for the reason explained here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3179-aDNA-from-Early-Bronze-Age-Cultures-of-the-North-Pontic-Steppe&p=72298&viewfull=1#post72298), it's possible these are underestimates of the Bronze age steppe contribution to these populations.

jesus
03-04-2015, 08:46 AM
The calculator doesn't seem to be working for me. Would someone be so kind as to run my figures, please?

North_Sea 39.03%
Atlantic 24.05%
Baltic 10.34%
Eastern_Euro 9.56%
West_Med 10.85%
West_Asian 2.52%
East_Med 1.18%
Red_Sea 0.66%
South_Asian 1.26%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.42%
Northeast_African 0.13%
Sub-Saharan -

Here you go.

http://i58.tinypic.com/1zl7x47.png

jesus
03-04-2015, 08:52 AM
As anticipated.

I privately estimated to a friend before this calculator was released that, in Asia, North Caucasians (if we were to count them as such) would display the highest affinity towards the Samara Yamnaya. They would be followed by isolated South-Central Asian groups (Kalash, Pamiri Tajiks), followed by Afghans, then Iranians.

However, for the reason explained here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3179-aDNA-from-Early-Bronze-Age-Cultures-of-the-North-Pontic-Steppe&p=72298&viewfull=1#post72298), it's possible these are underestimates of the Bronze age steppe contribution to these populations.

I was surprised that Tajiks and Afghan Pashtuns are closer to Yamnaya than the Kalash. Probably because Tajiks and Afghan Pashtuns received more recent steppe ancestry, while the kalash were more isolated.

MonkeyDLuffy
03-04-2015, 08:55 AM
Anyone...?

DMXX
03-04-2015, 09:03 AM
I was surprised that Tajiks and Afghan Pashtuns are closer to Yamnaya than the Kalash. Probably because Tajiks and Afghan Pashtuns received more recent steppe ancestry, while the kalash were more isolated.

Ah, just saw the results properly. The foibles of speaking in general terms. Based on the recent ADMIXTURE results from Pamiri Tajiks, I am fairly confident they will score more Yamnaya than other Tajiks or Afghan groups. They appear to be like their neighbours with far less East Eurasian and/or South Eurasian component values. As such, that in itself will decrease the GD with Samaran Yamnaya.

I'd agree with that assessment. Afghans likely received additional steppe-mediated ancestry from groups following the initial migration of "late" (post-BMAC) Indo-Iranians (Yuezhi, their Kushan descendants, Hepthalites etc.). Which is likely part of the reason why they are substantially closer to Yamnaya than Iranians are (aside from the "dilution effect" caused by wavefront absorption of intermediaries, which in this instance, probably came from the aboriginal north Iranian farmers). As such, it's easy to misinterpret this sort of objective data without a context.

A calculator with a distinct "Yamnaya" component will probably satisfy our enquiries better, but this spreadsheet's quite informative otherwise (thank you to whomever created it).

Tolan
03-04-2015, 09:25 AM
Can anyone do it for me?
Thanks!


North_Sea 23.99%
Atlantic 31.16%
Baltic 11.05%
Eastern_Euro 8.28%
West_Med 14.53%
West_Asian 3.06%
East_Med 5.22%
Red_Sea 1.26%
South_Asian 1.18%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.01%
Northeast_African 0.26%
Sub-Saharan -

MonkeyDLuffy
03-04-2015, 09:42 AM
Punjabi Ramgarhia/MonkeyDLuffy result

http://i.imgur.com/8FasHtL.png

Michał
03-04-2015, 12:10 PM
Also interesting would be eastern European results in comparison to CWC and BB, because on the PCA in the Haak paper they were a bit removed even from eastern Europeans, so perhaps there has been more change in eastern Europe since then than in western Europe?
Here are mine results. I am a very typical Pole in all admixture tests.

Karelia 34.6281
Samara 34.5594
Yamnaya 28.7475
CWC 20.5017
BB 25.4541

My distance to BB is much higher than in the case of all Western Europeans. Also, I am closer to Yamna, Samara and Karelia than any other modern sample shown above (including the Lezgian one). On the other hand, my distance to CWC is quite high, even slightly higher than for mjost, rms2 and Sam_Isaack who are of Western European origin (and who are much closer to BB than I am). This may suggest that 1) the Eastern CWC differed quite significantly from Western CWC and 2) that those early CWC samples (by contrast to BB ) represented a relatively non-admixed "Eastern European" population. The latter would suggest that BB had been already significantly admixed when expanding in Western Europe, which is consistent with my hypothesis suggesting that a relatively small band of early L51 (or even pre-L51) people had left the Eastern European steppe long before the Yamnaya horizon was formed (ie. about 4500-4000 BC) and they had enough time to get a strong admixture from a local Central European (or Circum-Alpine?) population.

My K15 results
North_Sea 19.58%
Atlantic 16.82%
Baltic 34.31%
Eastern_Euro 19.78%
West_Med 4.87%
West_Asian 3.52%
East_Med 1.13%
Red_Sea -
South_Asian -
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian -
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

Michał
03-04-2015, 12:33 PM
North German average is very close to the BB average, closer than N Dutch, Danes, West Germans or East Germans. German BB average is just slightly to the south of modern northern Germans:

Karelia: 43.43
Samara: 42.84
Yamnaya: 32.04
CWC: 15.63
BBC: 4.46
It seems also that this North German average is closer to CWC (or ate least to German CWC) than any other group of modern Europeans.

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 12:36 PM
There is also a spreadsheet of the new Neolithic results as well, would be interesting to add them in to the oracle spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xS830gSmb1QvPdrZqcF0YOdygLCIyDNJP5IXO-QychI/edit#gid=1351765170

Very high in West Med as always, can see a bit of a change from Early neolithic to Middle Neolithic, increase in North Sea and Baltic in some samples. Interesting how the MN samples from Spain are so low in East med compared to most of the others.

rms2
03-04-2015, 12:50 PM
Here are mine results. I am a very typical Pole in all admixture tests.

Karelia 34.6281
Samara 34.5594
Yamnaya 28.7475
CWC 20.5017
BB 25.4541

My distance to BB is much higher than in the case of all Western Europeans. Also, I am closer to Yamna, Samara and Karelia than any other modern sample shown above (including the Lezgian one). On the other hand, my distance to CWC is quite high, even slightly higher than for mjost, rms2 and Sam_Isaack who are of Western European origin (and who are much closer to BB than I am). This may suggest that 1) the Eastern CWC differed quite significantly from Western CWC and 2) that those early CWC samples (by contrast to BB ) represented a relatively non-admixed "Eastern European" population. The former would suggest that BB had been already significantly admixed when expanding in Western Europe, which is consistent with my hypothesis suggesting that a relatively small band of early L51 (or even pre-L51) people had left the Eastern European steppe long before the Yamnaya horizon was formed (ie. about 4500-4000 BC) and they had enough time to get a strong admixture from a local Central European (or Circum-Alpine?) population.

My K15 results
North_Sea 19.58%
Atlantic 16.82%
Baltic 34.31%
Eastern_Euro 19.78%
West_Med 4.87%
West_Asian 3.52%
East_Med 1.13%
Red_Sea -
South_Asian -
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian -
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

It seems to me the L51 band or bands that fed or evolved into Beaker would not need 2,000 years or more to acquire sufficient EEF and WHG admixture. A few generations would do. There was still a large Yamnaya component in Beaker, according to Haak et al.

Of course, Gimbutas posited three "kurgan waves" west, the first one coming in the 5th millennium BC, the second in the mid-4th millennium BC, and the last one being Yamnaya in the late 4th millennium BC and into the 3rd millennium.

Generalissimo
03-04-2015, 01:07 PM
This may suggest that 1) the Eastern CWC differed quite significantly from Western CWC and 2) that those early CWC samples (by contrast to BB ) represented a relatively non-admixed "Eastern European" population.

Two of the Corded Ware are certainly admixed, maybe with GAC or something. One is probably admixed, and one looks like a fresh migrant from the east. Individual results are here...

Link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQdnBjb0Myb3F0Nk0/view?usp=sharing)

alan
03-04-2015, 01:08 PM
I think people need to bear in mind that the steppe population in Europe had very variable quantities and perhaps direction of farming influence. Some groups like Sredny Stog would appear to have a very large amount of contacts with European farmers when you look at archaeology, farming practices, crania etc. So, IMO there could have been great variation on the European steppe prior to Yamnaya. Modelling Samara to be Yamnaya could very well be misleading as it is an extreme east end of both that culture and also the European steppes in general. IMO groups closer to the Dnieper could have had far more farmer DNA than in Samara and probably less central Asia type genes.

ADW_1981
03-04-2015, 02:29 PM
I'm not as close to BBC as some Euro folks here.

Karelia : 44.6....
Samara: 43.9....
Yamnaya: 34.0....
CWC: 20.88....
BBC: 10.3....

J Man
03-04-2015, 02:30 PM
Anyone...?

Anyone can run these tests as long as you have had your autosomal DNA tested by 23andme or FTDNA and you have your results uploaded to GEDmatch. It does not matter what your haplogroups are.

Michał
03-04-2015, 02:58 PM
It seems to me the L51 band or bands that fed or evolved into Beaker would not need 2,000 years or more to acquire sufficient EEF and WHG admixture. A few generations would do.

This is correct. However, if the L51>L11 lineage was present on the Pontic steppe between let’s say 4200 BC and 2900 BC and was a part of the expanding Sredny Stog and Yamna populations, I would expect to see some hypothetical “Eastern” sublineages of L51 (and L11) being found in modern SE Europe, a major target territory for the initial Yamna expansion. It is hard to believe that 1) Western Yamna was dominated by L51 but no Y-DNA trace of this expanding population was preserved in SE Europe (including the Balkans and the Carpathian region) or 2) the entire L51 clade was only a very minor component in Western Yamna but was nevertheless able to completely dominate the westward expansion of the steppe people.

My initial prediction for Western Yamna was that it will turn out to be dominated by R1b-Z2103, and I still think this the most likely option.



There was still a large Yamnaya component in Beaker, according to Haak et al.

Are you able to rule out a significant possibility that the so-called “Yamnaya component” represents in fact a pre-Yamna Eastern European ancestry (with Yamna simply constituting the least admixed descendants of that hypothetical “ancestral” population”)?

lgmayka
03-04-2015, 03:16 PM
However, if the L51>L11 lineage was present on the Pontic steppe between let’s say 4200 BC and 2900 BC and was a part of the expanding Sredny Stog and Yamna populations,
YFull shows the TMRCA of L51 to be 5600 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L51/), but that is a mere bifurcation into Z2111 (which is apparently present as far east as Mongolia) and L11. L11 itself does not begin to expand until 5000 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L151/), according to YFull. YFull's estimations are presumably based on this recently published mutation rate (http://rjgg.molgen.org/index.php/RJGGRE/article/view/150/172), which Dienekes calls "the value to use." (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/03/y-chromosome-mutation-rate-082x10-9.html)


I would expect to see some hypothetical “Eastern” sublineages of L51 (and L11) being found in modern SE Europe, a major target territory for the initial Yamna expansion.
Do you mean countries like Serbia? They are still woefully undersampled. (Not that Poland is heavily sampled yet either.)

It is hard to believe that 1) Western Yamna was dominated by L51 but no Y-DNA trace of this expanding population was preserved in SE Europe (including the Balkans and the Carpathian region)
"The Carpathian region" includes southern Poland, which certainly does have ancient L51 (and progeny) lineages. Or again, are you referring to very poorly sampled countries farther south or east? My project has plenty of L51 (and progeny) lineages "crying" for a Big Y, if someone wants to donate.

Once again I must remind everyone that Slavs in R1b are generally less likely to order extensive further testing precisely because of the unwarranted but common stereotype that all Slavic R1b must be of recent Germanic or Celtic origin. I myself paid for a Big Y for my R1b-Z49 cousin, only to find that he is a true R1b-Z49* . His most recent connection to Western Europeans is 4600 years ago, according to YFull (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Z49/). (Note that the Big Y does not ordinarily test Z49 or Z68, so an R1b-Z49* man actually gets listed as R1b-L2 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L2/).)

Silesian
03-04-2015, 03:32 PM
Here are mine results. I am a very typical Pole in all admixture tests.
I'm Pole with a little different admixture & R1b-Z2103+ to compare in red.

Karelia 34.6281-35.022
Samara 34.5594-34.617
Yamnaya 28.7475-27.105
CWC 20.5017-16.079
BB 25.4541-20.1343
My K15 results
North_Sea 19.58%-21.24%
Atlantic 16.82%-19%
Baltic 34.31%-26.94%
Eastern_Euro 19.78%-18.49%
West_Med 4.87%-6.7%
West_Asian 3.52%-4.69%
East_Med 1.13%-1.09%
Red_Sea -
South_Asian - 1.57%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian - .09%
Amerindian -
Oceanian -.21%
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

lgmayka
03-04-2015, 03:44 PM
Here are mine. I am almost 100% southern Polish, yDNA I-CTS5966.
Karelia 31.3
Samara 30.5
Yamnaya 24.1
CWC 15.8
BBC 21.3

Here are my uncle's numbers (again, almost 100% southern Polish), yDNA G-L660.
Karelia 32.9
Samara 32.4
Yamnaya 26.9
CWC 18.1
BBC 22.4

And here are my cousin's numbers, yDNA R1b-Z49.
Karelia 34.8
Samara 34.7
Yamnaya 27.6
CWC 17.9
BBC 21.9

Here is another cousin, yDNA R1a-Y6956.
Karelia 32.8
Samara 32.0
Yamnaya 25.2
CWC 13.7 - closest to Corded Ware that we have seen?
BBC 19.3

It is difficult to reconcile these numbers with the infamous Total Population Replacement hypothesis, according to which all of these numbers ought to be identical to those from Kyiv.

alan
03-04-2015, 03:50 PM
We dont know yet for sure whether L51 or perhaps L11 took a north or south of the Carpathians route or both. I think L51xL11 is a problematic clade to read much into as its rare. I personally think L51 was probably a rare lineage from the pre-expansion era that was carried by some L11 dominated group and just happened to survive around the Alps. L51 seems to have lived in the doldrums before a big expansion under L11. Its date even suggests it is pre-Yamnaya. Its L11 whose date coincides with the great expansion of Yamnaya into Old Europe and indeed is close to the date Corded Ware also originated. So, IMO its L11 in the east that might be being misinterpreted as a late wave eastwards and it could in fact be the origin end - albeit heavily erased by later groups. Also IF L11 took both the Danube and north of Carpathian CW routes west then geography would tend to suggest the parting of the ways would have happened around western Ukraine. Anyway the core message IMO is that L51xL11 is a pre-expansion clade which was probably on the steppes in bare-survival mode doing little and it is L11 that is the crucial one.

One other thing to consider is that L51xL11 might have taken a north of Carpathian route which means it wouldnt reach the Danube until around Austria - precisely where it picks up and this would explain its apparent lack in the Balkans and Lower Danube.

alan
03-04-2015, 04:04 PM
This is correct. However, if the L51>L11 lineage was present on the Pontic steppe between let’s say 4200 BC and 2900 BC and was a part of the expanding Sredny Stog and Yamna populations, I would expect to see some hypothetical “Eastern” sublineages of L51 (and L11) being found in modern SE Europe, a major target territory for the initial Yamna expansion. It is hard to believe that 1) Western Yamna was dominated by L51 but no Y-DNA trace of this expanding population was preserved in SE Europe (including the Balkans and the Carpathian region) or 2) the entire L51 clade was only a very minor component in Western Yamna but was nevertheless able to completely dominate the westward expansion of the steppe people.

My initial prediction for Western Yamna was that it will turn out to be dominated by R1b-Z2103, and I still think this the most likely option.



Are you able to rule out a significant possibility that the so-called “Yamnaya component” represents in fact a pre-Yamna Eastern European ancestry (with Yamna simply constituting the least admixed descendants of that hypothetical “ancestral” population”)?

Clearly R1b-Z2103 did move west to the Balkans and into Anatolia and SW Asia. The Caucasus route doesnt look well supported at present. So the upshot of this is if we want to link R1b-Z2103 with both Anatolian linked with the wave 1 Suvorovo offshoot of Sredny Stog as well as much later Satem branchings like Armenian, Greek etc then this would require a long term presence of R1b-Z2103 in the western end of the steppes c. 4300-3000BC in both Yamanaya and Sredny Stog to work. So that does squeeze the options for L51 although in mobile groups its not easy to rule anything in or out.

We dont have much to work with other than the end result of L11 linked with Celtic, Italic and probably Germanic - all early branches of the IE tree. I think at present the biggest clue to the location of L51 is its poor performance as a clade and the non-existence so far of L23xL51xZ2103 i.e. L23xL51 ancestral to L51. That is a long long time to be doing very little demographically. So we need to consider that L51 wasnt up to much until the L11 expansion and hope we can get agreement on when the latter happened - above says 3000BC but I believe I have heard a little earlier. Either way, the L51 clearly wasnt associated with Anatolian and in Anthony's model that means it wasnt associated with Suvorovo Sredny Stog offshoot c. 4300BC. Dating is rather crucial -Larry's date would suggest L51 didnt even exisit in the latter Suvorovo wave 1 period. However does that sort of date not also mean that R1b-Z2103 didnt exist in the Suvovovo period.

Michał
03-04-2015, 04:11 PM
YFull shows the TMRCA of L51 to be 5600 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L51/),
I suspect this is a significant underestimation. Please note that L51 shows only 4 SNPs downstream of L23 while its sister clade Z2103 shows 10 SNPs under L23. This indicates that L51 is extremely unlikely to be younger than Z2103, and the TMRCA of Z2103 is dated by YFull to 6300 ybp (4300 BC), which is perfectly consistent with the "massive" presence of Z2103 in Yamna.



but that is a mere bifurcation into Z2111 (which is apparently present as far east as Mongolia) and L11.
And both these daughter clades of L51 (L11 and Z2111) are associated predominantly with Central-Western Europe while being absent in SE Europe, the only region (besides the Pontic steppe) where a huge number of typical Yamna kurgans were found.



Do you mean countries like Serbia? They are still woefully undersampled. (Not that Poland is heavily sampled yet either.)
No, I mean any sufficiently old subclade of L51 or L11 that would be more frequent (or more diversified) east of the Gdańsk-Trieste line (which of course includes SE Europe).


"The Carpathian region" includes southern Poland, which certainly does have ancient L51 (and progeny) lineages.
Do you mean early separated lineages of L51 and L11 that are more frequent (and/or more diversified) in Southern Poland than west of it? I must admit I am not aware of such cases.

Of course, I wouldn't count any downstream "progeny" with multiple "cousins" located further west, as these are much more likely to represent some more recent migrations from the west.

Táltos
03-04-2015, 04:12 PM
Here are mine results. I am a very typical Pole in all admixture tests.

Karelia 34.6281
Samara 34.5594
Yamnaya 28.7475
CWC 20.5017
BB 25.4541

Michał,
Our results are very similar. :) Here are mine again to compare better.
Karelia 39.0054
Samara 38.6470
Yamnaya 28.4341
CWC 19.6627
BB 20.2182

parasar
03-04-2015, 04:26 PM
Punjabi Ramgarhia/MonkeyDLuffy result

http://i.imgur.com/8FasHtL.png
Almost identical
Karelia - 50.42853367
Samara - 50.03817427
Yamnaya - 38.44691183
CWC - 38.9688331
BBC - 41.66586486


Population
North_Sea 7.35%
Atlantic -
Baltic 0.52%
Eastern_Euro 11.47%
West_Med 1.95%
West_Asian 19.27%
East_Med 0.36%
Red_Sea 0.30%
South_Asian 54.81%
Southeast_Asian 0.32%
Siberian -
Amerindian 2.12%
Oceanian 1.50%
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

alan
03-04-2015, 04:28 PM
I suspect this is a significant underestimation. Please note that L51 shows only 4 SNPs downstream of L23 while its sister clade Z2103 shows 10 SNPs under L23. This indicates that L51 is extremely unlikely to be younger than Z2103, and the TMRCA of Z2103 is dated by YFull to 6300 ybp (4300 BC), which is perfectly consistent with the "massive" presence of Z2103 in Yamna.



And both these daughter clades of L51 (L11 and Z2111) are associated predominantly with Central-Western Europe while being absent in SE Europe, the only region (besides the Pontic steppe) where a huge number of typical Yamna kurgans were found.



No, I mean any sufficiently old subclade of L51 or L11 that would be more frequent (or more diversified) east of the Gdańsk-Trieste line (which of course includes SE Europe).


Do you mean early separated lineages of L51 and L11 that are more frequent (and/or more diversified) in Southern Poland than west of it? I must admit I am not aware of such cases.

Of course, I wouldn't count any downstream "progeny" with multiple "cousins" located further west, as these are much more likely to represent some more recent migrations from the west.

There is a fair amount of L11xP312xU106 on the south Baltic area which I think is Poland and another group around the Alps. Its tempting to see these either as remnants of the first major barriers met when L11 split into a north and south of the Carpathians branches or remnant lines travelling with P312 and U106.

Caspian
03-04-2015, 04:49 PM
Here (http://www.filedropper.com/steppeancestraloracle) is an Excel-based spreadsheet that will let you use the basic Oracle function to compare your Eurogenes K15 results to those of the two hunter-gatherers from Karelia and Samara, as well as the average results of the Yamnaya, CWC and BBC samples.

My results:

http://i58.tinypic.com/dhfpjk.png

One interesting point:

The least squares distance between CWC and BBC is closer than the least squares distance between CWC and Yamnaya.

CWC to BBC: 16.6423015
CWC to Yamnaya: 19.88808328

My results:
http://i.imgur.com/qvOwsP8.png

David Mc
03-04-2015, 04:55 PM
Here you go.

http://i58.tinypic.com/1zl7x47.png

Thank you very much!

MJost
03-04-2015, 05:00 PM
[QUOTE=Michał;72422]I suspect this is a significant underestimation. Please note that L51 shows only 4 SNPs downstream of L23 while its sister clade Z2103 shows 10 SNPs under L23. This indicates that L51 is extremely unlikely to be younger than Z2103, and the TMRCA of Z2103 is dated by YFull to 6300 ybp (4300 BC), which is perfectly consistent with the "massive" presence of Z2103 in Yamna.
[\QUOTE]

Using my recalibrated SNP counting between R-Mal'ti to P312+ BB I0806, Z2103 is closer to 3237 bc


7711
5711
3
R1b1a2a - L23



7093
5093
1
R1b1a2a1 - L51



6886
4886
1
R1b1a2a1 - L51a



6680
4680
1
R1b1a2a1 - L51b



6474
4474
1
R1b1a2a1 - L51c



6268
4268
1
R1b1a2a1a - L11



6062
4062
1
R1b1a2a1a - L11a



5856
3856
1
R1b1a2a1a - L11b



5649
3649
1
R1b1a2a1a - L11c



5443
3443
1
R1b1a2a1a - L11d



5237
3237
1
R1b1a2a1a - L11e
Z2103


5031
3031
1
R1b1a2a1a - L11f



4825
2825
1
R1b1a2a1a - L11g



4618
2618
2
R1b1a2a1a2 - P312




MJost

surbakhunWeesste
03-04-2015, 05:12 PM
My father's and mine

http://i.imgur.com/Htm1qOP.png

http://i.imgur.com/u033iqk.png

Jessie
03-04-2015, 05:15 PM
My results

Karelia 44.4392841
Samara 43.92900666
Yamnaya 33.16445575
CWC 17.3891086
BBC 6.942596195

Edit to add my mother's results

Karelia 45.05193852
Samara 44.4955066
Yamnaya 33.29237322
CWC 18.1633014
BBC 5.974872888

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 05:18 PM
Can anyone do it for me?
Thanks!


North_Sea 23.99%
Atlantic 31.16%
Baltic 11.05%
Eastern_Euro 8.28%
West_Med 14.53%
West_Asian 3.06%
East_Med 5.22%
Red_Sea 1.26%
South_Asian 1.18%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.01%
Northeast_African 0.26%
Sub-Saharan -

http://i58.tinypic.com/28rnk3r.png

MJost
03-04-2015, 05:57 PM
Here a spider (radar) chart that plots the values of each category along a separate axis that starts in the center of the chart and ends on the outer ring. Zero is the closest match using least squares.

3930

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3930



MJost

dp
03-04-2015, 06:08 PM
Here a spider (radar) chart that plots the values of each category along a separate axis that starts in the center of the chart and ends on the outer ring. Zero is the closest match using least squares.

3930

MJost

Dear Mark,
I can't get the attachment to work.
Thanks,
dp :-)

Arbogan
03-04-2015, 06:12 PM
Do you add the percentage sign(%) or commas/periods in the input values?

¤ NVM it seems the calculation randomly multiplies the value by 100 so I moved the decimal.

results:

Karelia:47.38
Samara HG:46.71
Samara Yamnaya:36.71
CWC:32.58
BBC:33.49

I wonder if this is uralo-baltic giving a false proximity to yamnaya. All of my north-euro alleles usually look uralo-baltic. My tests usually show no European-like dna. The exception only being when a K based on Uralics is included.

This tells me three things:

1. I have an ancestor who was from a group related to/or derived atleast partially from yamnaya.
2. I have IE-uralic like ancestry via the Indo-Iranian invasions.
3. The same west-asian/gedrosian-like population that contributed to Yamnaya also contributed to or coalescenced in my homeland( I always score high west-Asian and gedrosian/Caucasus for my area of the world. Caucasus high point being an anomly for my area part of the Iranian plateau.)

lgmayka
03-04-2015, 06:14 PM
Either way, the L51 clearly wasnt associated with Anatolian and in Anthony's model that means it wasnt associated with Suvorovo Sredny Stog offshoot c. 4300BC. Dating is rather crucial -Larry's date would suggest L51 didnt even exisit in the latter Suvorovo wave 1 period. However does that sort of date not also mean that R1b-Z2103 didnt exist in the Suvovovo period.
YFull shows Z2103 with a TMRCA of 6200 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/). According to YFull's numbers, L51 existed at that time but did not begin to expand until later.

lgmayka
03-04-2015, 06:26 PM
No, I mean any sufficiently old subclade of L51 or L11 that would be more frequent (or more diversified) east of the Gdańsk-Trieste line (which of course includes SE Europe).
Do you mean L51xL11 (probable Z2111 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Z2111/)) and L11xP312xU106 (probable CTS4528 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-S1200/))? They are fairly rare and poorly investigated. If you wish to donate toward Big Y testing of a few such cases in my project, please let me know.

Do you mean early separated lineages of L51 and L11 that are more frequent (and/or more diversified) in Southern Poland than west of it?
There are certainly early separated lineages of L51 and L11 (and quite a lot else!) in Poland that are not found elsewhere. But it's rather absurd to discuss "frequency" or "diversity" of rare lineages found in an undersampled and underinvestigated area. By definition, they are "singletons."


Of course, I wouldn't count any downstream "progeny" with multiple "cousins" located further west, as these are much more likely to represent some more recent migrations from the west.
Please re-read what I wrote earlier. My example was my cousin, whose R1b-Z49* has no Western European affinity within the last 4600 years.

MJost
03-04-2015, 06:32 PM
Dear Mark,
I can't get the attachment to work.
Thanks,
dp :-)
Your AV or browser maybe blocking opening a new window. Right click and open in another window.

MJost

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 06:37 PM
Your AV or browser maybe blocking opening a new window. Right click and open in another window.

MJost

I just get a message from the forum saying 'Invalid attachment specified'.

MJost
03-04-2015, 06:40 PM
I just get a message from the forum saying 'Invalid attachment specified'.

I can open it. Hummm.. let me edit it.
MJost

Tolan
03-04-2015, 06:41 PM
http://i58.tinypic.com/28rnk3r.png

Many thanks!;)

A little more distant than other Western Europeans!

MJost
03-04-2015, 06:44 PM
Hummm now the image shows up. But I added the direct link from inside Anthrogenica. Crazy, maybe its being delayed for a time.

MJost

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 06:50 PM
Many thanks!;)

A little more distant than other Western Europeans!

Your results are the first French results I have seen. Here is the results of the French average from the Eurogenes K15 spreadsheet:

Karelia 46.91
Samara 46.50
Yamnaya 35.87
CWC 23.76
BBC 11.50


My results are a little more distant to BBC (11.99) and closer to the other references than yours or the average Frenchman, but my closest modern match using Eurogenes K15 is West Norwegians, so I guess that is to be expected.

Arbogan
03-04-2015, 06:56 PM
Yamnaya seems highly correlated to the east-euro component(Which is based on the uralic mordvins). Hence ethnicities who share the same uralo-baltic ancestry, likely also have closer proximity to Yamnaya. I wonder if Samara yamnaya aren't actually a mixture between PIE+proto-uralics, rather than purely just PIE. While these samples are immensely useful, i'm not sure if they're optimal as examples of PIE. It would be nice to get aAdmixture test with the new samples, + the substitutes for the non-sampled regions.

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 07:16 PM
Yamanaya seems highly correlated to the east-euro component(Which is based on the uralic mordvins). Hence people ethnicities who share the same uralo-baltic ancestry, likely also have less proximity to Yamnaya. I wonder if Samara yamnaya aren't actually a mixture between PIE+proto-uralics, rather than purely just PIE. While these samples are immensely useful, i'm not sure if they're optimal as examples of PIE.

I agree with your basic premise.

I guess the reason northeast Euros are coming out so close to Yamnaya using Eurogenes K15 is because they have relatively high North Sea, Baltic and Eastern Euro scores. Their high EHG-like ancestry is pulling them towards Yamnaya, even though they are deficient in the West Asian component. This is likely why the Haak paper has Norwegians as the modern European population with the highest Yamnaya ancestry and not the Finns.

rms2
03-04-2015, 07:21 PM
Busby's Ukrainian sample of 55 shows ~6% R1b-S127xS21,S116 (L11xU106,P312). Its Romanian sample of 59 is ~2% R1b-S127xS21,S116.

That's not much, but it shows some vestige of the L11 track, perhaps.

I wouldn't necessarily expect the modern population to reflect the situation in the Carpathian basin in the 4th-3rd millennia BC, especially where a fast-moving, evolving, mobile pastoralist society with few settlements is concerned.

The clues, it seems to me, are the presence of R1b-L23 in Yamnaya in the Volga-Ural region, even if mostly in the form of the eastern Z2103 clade; the presence of R1b-L23 in the IE-derived Bell Beaker culture in the form of R1b-P312; a large Yamnaya autosomal component in the latter; and IE languages in Western Europe.

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 07:47 PM
Anyone interested in a least squares method calculator based on Dodecad K12b? I would have to use Genetiker's results for the same references I used in the K15 calculator, but I believe it would be interesting to see how our results differ between Dodecad K12b and Eurogenes K15. If you are interested, then thank this post. If I have enough demand, I will try and produce the calculator quickly. If not, I will do so at my leisure.

Arbogan
03-04-2015, 08:05 PM
Anyone interested in a least squares method calculator based on Dodecad K12b? I would have to use Genetiker's results for the same references I used in the K15 calculator, but I believe it would be interesting to see how our results differ between Dodecad K12b and Eurogenes K15. If you are interested, then thank this post. If I have enough demand, I will try and produce the calculator quickly. If not, I will do so at my leisure.

It would be a great and a very useful pursuit mr.jenkins . Better than Rushing LBR.

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 08:24 PM
Here (http://www.filedropper.com/steppeancestraloraclek12b) is the Dodecad K12b least squares calculator. It is a bit different than the Eurogenes version because I could only use one Yamnaya, CWC and BBC sample instead of the average of all related samples, as that is all genetiker has posted, so far. I labeled the samples using their codes (I0231, etc.).

Here are my results:

http://i57.tinypic.com/2qmn0ib.png

I'm far more similar to the BBC reference now than I was using the BBC average and the K15 scores.

Humanist
03-04-2015, 08:33 PM
My results:

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/dok101046/K12b_haak_hum.jpg

Arbogan
03-04-2015, 08:34 PM
Here (http://www.filedropper.com/steppeancestraloraclek12b) is the Dodecad K12b least squares calculator. It is a bit different than the Eurogenes version because I could only use one Yamnaya, CWC and BBC sample instead of the average of all related samples, as that is all genetiker has posted, so far. I labeled the samples using their codes (I0231, etc.).

Here are my results:

http://i59.tinypic.com/2q37ouv.png

I'm far more similar to the BBC reference now than I was using the BBC average and the K15 scores.

Well now we know why Gedrosia made it all the way to UK.

faulconer
03-04-2015, 08:39 PM
My K15 scores:
Karelia - 43.17291186
Samara - 42.41532493
Yamnaya - 31.78267196
CWC - 17.02885
BBC - 5.89464585

K12b
Karelia - 53.73069827
Samara - 48.67576553
Yamnaya l0231 - 39.03162518
CWC 0104 - 21.07749838
BBC l0806 - 5.756060168

Humanist
03-04-2015, 09:01 PM
Well now we know why Gedrosia made it all the way to UK.

Indeed. I compared R1a, R1b, "Caucasus" and "Gedrosia" in European population a few years ago (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/29537-Your-theory-about-the-spread-of-R-M269-in-europe?p=775552&viewfull=1#post775552). There appeared to be a correlation between very high frequencies of R1b and "Gedrosia."

I am not sure how, if at all, this fits in with R-M269, but here are the European populations from Dodecad, with "Gedrosia" and "Caucasus" components listed. And, whether they are predominantly R1a, R1b, or a rough split. Where uncertain, I referred to Eupedia's frequencies. Sorted in descending order by the "Gedrosia" component. R1b in blue. R1a in red. R1b/R1a indicates a bit more R1b than R1a. R1b/R1a and R1a/R1b in green. The pieces will not fall into place, I reckon, until we have a few more aDNA results. Because, in my opinion, as it stands now, no scenario seems to jibe with the fragments that have been passed down (survived) through the centuries regarding human history, the DNA data of modern peoples, and the limited aDNA data.

Population Gedrosia Caucasus
Argyll_1KG 13.1 0.5 R1b
Orcadian 12 0 R1b
Irish_D 11.9 0.2 R1b
Orkney_1KG 11.8 0 R1b
Cornwall_1KG 11.4 2 R1b
British_D 11.3 1.3 R1b
CEU30 10.6 3.3 R1b
English_D 10.6 3.1 R1b
Kent_1KG 10.5 3.6 R1b
Dutch_D 9.9 4.8 R1b
French_Basque 9.8 0 R1b
British_Isles_D 9.5 2.2 R1b
Norwegian_D 8.2 0.1 R1b/R1a
French_D 8.1 7.9 R1b
French 7.9 8.4 R1b
Swedish_D 7.7 1.2 R1b/R1a
Cataluna_1KG 7.3 9.2 R1b
German_D 7.3 9.8 R1b
Andalucia_1KG 7.2 12.9 R1b
Extremadura_1KG 6.9 10.7 R1b
Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG 6.8 8.8 R1b
Valencia_1KG 6.8 9.9 R1b
Spaniards 6.5 10.8 R1b
Aragon_1KG 6.3 8.8 R1b
O_Italian_D 6.2 28.5 R1b
Spanish_D 6.2 8.8 R1b
Portuguese_D 6 9.7 R1b
Cypriots 5.8 49.3 R1b
Cantabria_1KG 5.7 8.9 R1b
N_Italian_D 5.7 22.8 R1b
S_Italian_Sicilian_D 5.5 36.5 R1b
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG 5.4 10 R1b
Galicia_1KG 5.1 11.1 R1b
TSI30 5 28.6 R1b
C_Italian_D 4.8 32.1 R1b
Tuscan 4.8 30.5 R1b
North_Italian 4.5 22.9 R1b
Sicilian_D 4.5 36.5 R1b
Chuvashs 4.5 10.2 R1a
Hungarians 4.1 16.2 R1a
Mordovians_Y 4 12.3 R1a
Greek_D 3.3 37.4 R1b/R1a
Bulgarian_D 3.3 30.1 R1a
Romanians 3 28.4 R1a/R1b
Russian 2 9.2 R1a
Russian_D 1.8 11.7 R1a
Bulgarians_Y 1.5 30.7 R1a
FIN30 0.9 1.3 R1a/R1b
Polish_D 0.5 12.1 R1a
Finnish_D 0.3 1.3 R1a/R1b
Ukranians_Y 0.3 16.4 R1a
Russian_B 0.2 14.3 R1a
Sardinian 0 20.9 R1b
Lithuanian_D 0 10.1 R1a
Lithuanians 0 8 R1a

Táltos
03-04-2015, 09:09 PM
With my DodcadK12b:
Karelia 50.3789
Samara 46.0893
Yamnaya 38.2067
CWC 22.4537
BB 18.2718

Arbogan
03-04-2015, 09:17 PM
Indeed. I compared R1a, R1b, "Caucasus" and "Gedrosia" in European population a few years ago (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/29537-Your-theory-about-the-spread-of-R-M269-in-europe?p=775552&viewfull=1#post775552). There appeared to be a correlation between very high frequencies of R1b and "Gedrosia."

I am not sure how, if at all, this fits in with R-M269, but here are the European populations from Dodecad, with "Gedrosia" and "Caucasus" components listed. And, whether they are predominantly R1a, R1b, or a rough split. Where uncertain, I referred to Eupedia's frequencies. Sorted in descending order by the "Gedrosia" component. R1b in blue. R1a in red. R1b/R1a indicates a bit more R1b than R1a. R1b/R1a and R1a/R1b in green. The pieces will not fall into place, I reckon, until we have a few more aDNA results. Because, in my opinion, as it stands now, no scenario seems to jibe with the fragments that have been passed down (survived) through the centuries regarding human history, the DNA data of modern peoples, and the limited aDNA data.

Population Gedrosia Caucasus
Argyll_1KG 13.1 0.5 R1b
Orcadian 12 0 R1b
Irish_D 11.9 0.2 R1b
Orkney_1KG 11.8 0 R1b
Cornwall_1KG 11.4 2 R1b
British_D 11.3 1.3 R1b
CEU30 10.6 3.3 R1b
English_D 10.6 3.1 R1b
Kent_1KG 10.5 3.6 R1b
Dutch_D 9.9 4.8 R1b
French_Basque 9.8 0 R1b
British_Isles_D 9.5 2.2 R1b
Norwegian_D 8.2 0.1 R1b/R1a
French_D 8.1 7.9 R1b
French 7.9 8.4 R1b
Swedish_D 7.7 1.2 R1b/R1a
Cataluna_1KG 7.3 9.2 R1b
German_D 7.3 9.8 R1b
Andalucia_1KG 7.2 12.9 R1b
Extremadura_1KG 6.9 10.7 R1b
Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG 6.8 8.8 R1b
Valencia_1KG 6.8 9.9 R1b
Spaniards 6.5 10.8 R1b
Aragon_1KG 6.3 8.8 R1b
O_Italian_D 6.2 28.5 R1b
Spanish_D 6.2 8.8 R1b
Portuguese_D 6 9.7 R1b
Cypriots 5.8 49.3 R1b
Cantabria_1KG 5.7 8.9 R1b
N_Italian_D 5.7 22.8 R1b
S_Italian_Sicilian_D 5.5 36.5 R1b
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG 5.4 10 R1b
Galicia_1KG 5.1 11.1 R1b
TSI30 5 28.6 R1b
C_Italian_D 4.8 32.1 R1b
Tuscan 4.8 30.5 R1b
North_Italian 4.5 22.9 R1b
Sicilian_D 4.5 36.5 R1b
Chuvashs 4.5 10.2 R1a
Hungarians 4.1 16.2 R1a
Mordovians_Y 4 12.3 R1a
Greek_D 3.3 37.4 R1b/R1a
Bulgarian_D 3.3 30.1 R1a
Romanians 3 28.4 R1a/R1b
Russian 2 9.2 R1a
Russian_D 1.8 11.7 R1a
Bulgarians_Y 1.5 30.7 R1a
FIN30 0.9 1.3 R1a/R1b
Polish_D 0.5 12.1 R1a
Finnish_D 0.3 1.3 R1a/R1b
Ukranians_Y 0.3 16.4 R1a
Russian_B 0.2 14.3 R1a
Sardinian 0 20.9 R1b
Lithuanian_D 0 10.1 R1a
Lithuanians 0 8 R1a


Not only that. Yamnaya itself is 1/4th gedrosia. So we know for certain that IE carried a contribution from a gedrosia-like population.

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 09:23 PM
Thanks again for the spreadsheet!

Interesting how high Gedrosia is in Yamnaya and CWC, i'd thought they'd have a fair chunk, but perhaps not that much.

Would it be possible to make a least squares calculator for K12b or K15 that also includes Early & Middle Neolithic individuals as well, and perhaps a WHG?

Here's my results:
Karelia: 58.13
Samara: 52.57
Yamnaya IO231: 41.89
CWC IO104: 24.10
BBC IO806: 8.86

Father:
Karelia: 57.07
Samara: 51.67
Yamnaya IO231: 41.36
CWC IO104: 23.72
BBC IO806: 7.718

Paternal Grandfather:
Karelia: 54.5
Samara: 49.31
Yamnaya IO231: 39.39
CWC IO104: 21.57
BBC IO806: 5.61

Paternal Grandmother:
Karelia: 57.62
Samara: 52.27
Yamnaya IO231: 42.05
CWC IO104: 24.32
BBC IO806: 8.38

Mother:
Karelia: 57.63
Samara: 52.10
Yamnaya IO231: 41.36
CWC IO104: 22.86
BBC IO806: 11.09

Aunt:
Karelia: 56.45
Samara: 51.21
Yamnaya IO231: 41.20
CWC IO104: 23.14
BBC IO806: 8.95

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 09:25 PM
The higher Gedrosia of R1b populations makes sense given R1b's apparently more southern weight on the Steppe, and for example Samara HG has more Gedrosia than Karelia.

So a once north-south divide became sort of east-west i guess.

Generalissimo
03-04-2015, 09:25 PM
This is likely why the Haak paper has Norwegians as the modern European population with the highest Yamnaya ancestry and not the Finns.

Finns weren't included in the analysis.

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 09:29 PM
Actually considering how high the Corded Ware individual is in Gedrosia, maybe there wasn't such a big difference overall, perhaps more of it just remained in west/NW Europe for some reason.

Arbogan
03-04-2015, 09:36 PM
Now I think most people following this thread agree with me, we're waiting for test a that will directly show ones affinities to Yamnaya.

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 09:43 PM
I ran a few tests to see if any European populations were closer to the hunter-gatherer from Karelia instead of Samara using the K12b run (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedEY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEY lE#gid=0).

It appears northeastern Europeans are closer to Karelia, and the similarity towards Samara relative to Karelia increases greatly as one moves west into Germany, although overall similarity to Karelia, Samara and Yamnaya decreases as one moves west, as well. Germans are 4.43 closer to Samara than Karelia, Spaniards are 5.95 closer and the Irish are 5.44 closer. Poles, on the other hand, are 1.12 closer to Samara, while Finns are 1.97 closer to Karelia than Samara.

Finns, Lithuanians and Belorussians are all closer to the two HG's than they are to Yamnaya. This trend stops as you go west into Poland, however, as the Polish samples are more similar to Samara than Karelia and slightly closer to Yamnaya than to either HG.

Here are a few results:

Fin30

Karelia 16.95
Samara 18.92
Yamnaya 26.48
CWC 25.31
BBC 27.56

Lithuanian_D

22.88
23.50
27.98
24.70
28.12

Belorussian

27.48
27.26
29.48
23.89
26.46

Polish_D
32.10
30.98
30.84
22.22
22.25

German_D
49.15
44.72
36.47
19.17
8.19

Irish_D
56.48
51.04
40.70
23.44
8.17

Spanish_D
71.08
65.13
54.62
39.98
29.10

J Man
03-04-2015, 09:43 PM
I do no think that this new Oracle will be all that useful for a person of mixed European ancestry such as myself especially since I have ancestry from regions of Europe that have experienced more recent migrations from the east and southeast but if someone could run my K15 results for me I would appreciate it. :)

Population
North_Sea 31.10%
Atlantic 20.43%
Baltic 10.15%
Eastern_Euro 12.53%
West_Med 7.55%
West_Asian 4.79%
East_Med 7.85%
Red_Sea 1.47%
South_Asian 1.06%
Southeast_Asian 0.21%
Siberian 1.01%
Amerindian 0.91%
Oceanian 0.96%
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 09:45 PM
Finns weren't included in the analysis.

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. The Norwegians did have more Yamnaya ancestry than Lithuanians and Estonians according to page 23, though.

seferhabahir
03-04-2015, 09:57 PM
My results:

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/dok101046/K12b_haak_hum.jpg

Here are mine for K12b (pretty typical Ashkenazi), similar again to Humanist but with a closer affinity to CWC and BBC:

Karelia 72.9694
Samara 66.9548
Yamnaya 57.0057
CWC 46.4660
BBC 45.2072

Gray Fox
03-04-2015, 09:59 PM
My k12b if someone could do the run again.

# Population Percent
1 North_European 42.35
2 Atlantic_Med 37.99
3 Gedrosia 11.05
4 Caucasus 5.84
5 Southwest_Asian 1.83
6 Sub_Saharan 0.69
7 South_Asian 0.17
8 East_African 0.04
9 Northwest_African 0.03

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 10:04 PM
I do no think that this new Oracle will be all that useful for a person of mixed European ancestry such as myself especially since I have ancestry from regions of Europe that have experienced more recent migrations from the east and southeast but if someone could run my K15 results for me I would appreciate it. :)

http://i59.tinypic.com/2i7bvva.png

seferhabahir
03-04-2015, 10:05 PM
My k12b if someone could do the run again.

# Population Percent
1 North_European 42.35
2 Atlantic_Med 37.99
3 Gedrosia 11.05
4 Caucasus 5.84
5 Southwest_Asian 1.83
6 Sub_Saharan 0.69
7 South_Asian 0.17
8 East_African 0.04
9 Northwest_African 0.03

Assuming no Siberian, East Asian or Southeast Asian:

Karelia 56.0356
Samara 50.5604
Yamnaya 39.9871
CWC 21.7470
BBC 7.0820

Leeroy Jenkins
03-04-2015, 10:07 PM
My k12b if someone could do the run again.

Nevermind. Sefer beat me to it.

seferhabahir
03-04-2015, 10:09 PM
I already had the spreadsheet open for mine...

Gray Fox
03-04-2015, 10:13 PM
Assuming no Siberian, East Asian or Southeast Asian:

Karelia 56.0356
Samara 50.5604
Yamnaya 39.9871
CWC 21.7470
BBC 7.0820

Thank you!

lgmayka
03-04-2015, 10:39 PM
Busby's Ukrainian sample of 55 shows ~6% R1b-S127xS21,S116 (L11xU106,P312)..
That's actually a lot. The question then is whether they are all CTS4528, or whether Ukraine hides a heretofore unknown subclade of L11.

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 10:44 PM
Krefter highlighted an interesting blog post by Genetiker - Some of the pigmentation genes common in modern northern Europeans were common in BBC individuals, but not in the earlier Neolithic individuals or in the Yamnaya or Corded Ware individuals:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/two-pigmentation-snps-from-prehistoric-europe

Krefter
03-04-2015, 10:56 PM
Krefter highlighted an interesting blog post by Genetiker - Some of the pigmentation genes common in modern northern Europeans were common in BBC individuals, but not in the earlier Neolithic individuals or in the Yamnaya or Corded Ware individuals:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/two-pigmentation-snps-from-prehistoric-europe

I asked Davidski and he said he'll try to get calls for rs1805008 and rs16891982 for all the samples in Haak 2015. Already BBC, CWC, and Unetice have more light-pigmentation related alleles than their ancestors(EEF and Yamna-types). I except several of them if not most to have GG in rs16891982. One might even be a carrier of red hair(based on having T in rs1805008).

Joe B
03-04-2015, 11:04 PM
My Docecad K12b Steppe Ancestral Oracle

Karelia 56.05
Samara 50.74
Yamnaya 40.52
CWC 22.78
BBC 15.35

Augustus
03-04-2015, 11:36 PM
R1b1* in Spain was Atlanto-Mediterrenean like Modern R1b Spaniards. It's clear that R1b had been living in Iberia for thousands of years with its descendants mutating there *sarcasm*

Megalophias
03-04-2015, 11:48 PM
That's actually a lot. The question then is whether they are all CTS4528, or whether Ukraine hides a heretofore unknown subclade of L11.

That was just one of the samples sets though, which was new for the Busby study. The total for Ukraine (5 sets) was only 3/559, 0.5%, no different from neighbouring Poland (1/202). I don't know if it was just a fluke or the sample that Busby got was from a particular region of Ukraine with high L11*.

Anglecynn
03-04-2015, 11:52 PM
R1b1* in Spain was Atlanto-Mediterrenean like Modern R1b Spaniards. It's clear that R1b had been living in Iberia for thousands of years with its descendants mutating there *sarcasm*

The good modern correlation between high levels of R1b and locally high levels of 'Gedrosia'-like components as well as the presence of M269 in and around the western steppe with even higher levels of Gedrosia suggests that the source of modern western European R1b1 haplogroups is most likely to be associated with those M269 on the steppe. If western European R1b1 is a local early/middle Neolithic from a lineage similar to that found at el Trocs one would have to explain with what lineage(s) these eastern autosomal components arrived.

J Man
03-05-2015, 12:00 AM
http://i59.tinypic.com/2i7bvva.png

Many thanks buddy! :)...My BBC, CWC and Samara scores are lower/closer than I thought they would be.

rms2
03-05-2015, 02:47 AM
These results are obviously different than the Eurogenes K15 results. Here are mine, my dad's, and my mom's, the last of which seemed to take all evening to secure.

3937

3938

3939

rms2
03-05-2015, 02:57 AM
That was just one of the samples sets though, which was new for the Busby study. The total for Ukraine (5 sets) was only 3/559, 0.5%, no different from neighbouring Poland (1/202). I don't know if it was just a fluke or the sample that Busby got was from a particular region of Ukraine with high L11*.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you'd care to explain. Busby lists this Ukrainian sample size as 55 and the percentage of R1b-S127xS21,S116 as 0.055 (~6%).

How does that mushroom to a sample size of 559?

Krefter
03-05-2015, 02:59 AM
I asked Davidski and he said he'll try to get calls for rs1805008 and rs16891982 for all the samples in Haak 2015. Already BBC, CWC, and Unetice have more light-pigmentation related alleles than their ancestors(EEF and Yamna-types). I except several of them if not most to have GG in rs16891982. One might even be a carrier of red hair(based on having T in rs1805008).

Davidski needs the affymetrix IDs of these SNPs to find them in the Haak genomes. This is what a affymetrix SNP looks like; A-8646962.

rms2
03-05-2015, 03:02 AM
Looking at some of these results, I'm wondering how they compare to the old ANE percentages from, say, Eurogenes ANE K7.

Here are my results on that.

3940

Chad Rohlfsen
03-05-2015, 03:05 AM
I wonder about P312 coming out of Cotafeni to Early Mako, and U106 possibly in Globular Amphora. Most of their settlements pop up in Eastern Germany, later on. Both start at about the same time, and within 400 years of the start of L11, according to fullY.

rms2
03-05-2015, 03:22 AM
I wonder about P312 coming out of Cotafeni to Early Mako, and U106 possibly in Globular Amphora. Most of their settlements pop up in Eastern Germany, later on. Both start at about the same time, and within 400 years of the start of L11, according to fullY.

Anthony indicates that what he calls Cotsofeni was a farming culture of Old Europe. You don't mean P312 came out of that, do you?

He shows the site of Cotsofeni as a black dot on the map on page 241 of The Horse The Wheel and Language indicating that it was part of Old Europe. On page 366 he says:




The Cotsofeni culture evolved in mountain refuges in western Romania and Transylvania beginning about 3500 BCE, probably from Old European roots. Cotsofeni settlements were small agricultural hamlets of a few houses.

Gray Fox
03-05-2015, 03:35 AM
Here's my ANE k7 for comparison.

Population
ANE 15.21%
ASE 2.45%
WHG-UHG 61.67%
East_Eurasian -
West_African 1.19%
East_African 0.13%
ENF 19.35%

Chad Rohlfsen
03-05-2015, 03:41 AM
I'm talking Cotafeni III, sorry. Closer to 3000BCE for that. This leads to similarities in Early Mako and Vucedol. Those go onto Beaker.

rms2
03-05-2015, 03:53 AM
I'm not sure about Cotsofeni or Cotofeni. Here's what Gimbutas says about it on page 123 of Three Waves of the Kurgan People into Old Europe, 4500-2500 B.C.:



Towards the end of the fourth millennium, only vestiges of the Old European tradition continued outside the Kurgan pole, such as the Cotofeni complex (in the Danube valley in Oltenia, western Muntenia, southern Banat and Transylvania) dated to the 34th-30th centuries B.C. The Cotofeni were sedentary agriculturalists, living in solidly built houses, using copper tools, and producing ceramics painted red and white and then burnished. Bird-shaped vases appearing in large numbers continue the cult of the Bird Goddess.

Chad Rohlfsen
03-05-2015, 04:52 AM
Gimbutas also thought that Baalberg was Kurganized. They weren't. There are Kemi Oba type burials with stone cyst menhirs under mounds, west of the Carpathians in 3000BCE.

Megalophias
03-05-2015, 05:57 AM
I'm sorry, but perhaps you'd care to explain. Busby lists this Ukrainian sample size as 55 and the percentage of R1b-S127xS21,S116 as 0.055 (~6%).

How does that mushroom to a sample size of 559?

There were 5 Ukrainian populations sampled, one of which had 3/55 L11*. The other 4 combined had 0/504 L11*. Therefore, someone looking for a peak of L11* in Ukraine should probably look wherever Busby got that sample from specifically, or maybe it was just chance and there is no such peak.

Generalissimo
03-05-2015, 06:58 AM
Actually considering how high the Corded Ware individual is in Gedrosia, maybe there wasn't such a big difference overall, perhaps more of it just remained in west/NW Europe for some reason.

Don't forget the calculator effect. The Gedrosia in the Yamnaya samples should be less than it is by a couple per cent.

Actually, probably more than just a couple IMO.

T101
03-05-2015, 07:16 AM
My Eurogenes k15v2:

Karelia 40.58

Samara 40.01

Yamnaya 31.61

CWC 16.68

BBC 9.35


Thanks Leeroy!

alan
03-05-2015, 11:02 AM
Genetiker has some interesting stuff. Seems to confirm that the concept of IEs as fair pigmented people in terms of skin, hair and eyes is not supported by the ancient DNA from Yamnaya although some CW and especially beaker have the markers. So no stereotypical wave of fair nomads into Europe and its looking like the fairer pigment probably was indeed something that was under selection in Old Europeans , which makes sense as its the farming diet that leads to the deficiencies that might select for fair skin. Hair colour would appear to me to be more likely an incidental thing linked to selection for fair skin or just a sexual preference selection.

alan
03-05-2015, 11:28 AM
Gentiker does some interesting autosomal analysis -worth a look if you ignore his oddball big picture interpretation.

DMXX
03-05-2015, 12:57 PM
Genetiker has some interesting stuff. Seems to confirm that the concept of IEs as fair pigmented people in terms of skin, hair and eyes is not supported by the ancient DNA from Yamnaya although some CW and especially beaker have the markers. So no stereotypical wave of fair nomads into Europe and its looking like the fairer pigment probably was indeed something that was under selection in Old Europeans , which makes sense as its the farming diet that leads to the deficiencies that might select for fair skin. Hair colour would appear to me to be more likely an incidental thing linked to selection for fair skin or just a sexual preference selection.

Completely agree with your assessment. One possibility (which I am inclined towards with our current data) is the population-wide selection for fair pigmentation occurred during the entirety of the Neolithic period, was a gradual process, and was partially facilitated by localised genetic drift in the Yamnaya offshoot populations. Thus, Yamnaya derived cultures became lighter by virtue of localised endogamy once the mutations entered (or arose) in the original Yamnaya pool (each loci would need to be addressed separately as genetiker has done). When these Yamnaya derivatives interacted with This would have likely continued until more recent times, with sexual selection possibly being present the entire time (or not, this point is debatable).

Tolan
03-05-2015, 01:23 PM
Busby's Ukrainian sample of 55 shows ~6% R1b-S127xS21,S116 (L11xU106,P312). Its Romanian sample of 59 is ~2% R1b-S127xS21,S116.

That's not much, but it shows some vestige of the L11 track, perhaps.

I wouldn't necessarily expect the modern population to reflect the situation in the Carpathian basin in the 4th-3rd millennia BC, especially where a fast-moving, evolving, mobile pastoralist society with few settlements is concerned.

The clues, it seems to me, are the presence of R1b-L23 in Yamnaya in the Volga-Ural region, even if mostly in the form of the eastern Z2103 clade; the presence of R1b-L23 in the IE-derived Bell Beaker culture in the form of R1b-P312; a large Yamnaya autosomal component in the latter; and IE languages in Western Europe.

There are a few things that bother me in the Yamnaya theory ..

First, 5 Z103: These are not the ancestors of P312 and U306
One L23, L51 perhaps, but we do not know .. So there is no evidence that R1b in the culture of Yamnaya are the ancestors of P312 and U106!

Second, the Atlantic component in Eurogenes K15, very present in BB, even more than in WHG and farmers of Neolithic:
WHG: 23.45% (probably North Atlantic)
Neolithic Farmers: 25.29 (probably South Atlantic)
Yamnaya: 4.05
CW: 19.01
BB: 27.08

This component was not brought by Yamnaya, yet it grows with time.
It's a bit like a population expanded dramatically with this component!
I recall that the Atlantic component in Eurogenes K15 corresponds quite well today with the haplogroup P312 ...
Hence my hypothesis: L51 were perhaps already present in central Europe before the arrival of the descendants of the culture of Yamnaya ...

newtoboard
03-05-2015, 01:27 PM
There are a few things that bother me in the Yamnaya theory ..

First, 5 Z103: These are not the ancestors of P312 and U306
One L23, L51 perhaps, but we do not know .. So there is no evidence that R1b in the culture of Yamnaya are the ancestors of P312 and U106!

Second, the Atlantic component in Eurogenes K15, very present in BB, even more than in WHG and farmers of Neolithic:
WHG: 23.45% (probably North Atlantic)
Neolithic Farmers: 25.29 (probably South Atlantic)
Yamnaya: 4.05
CW: 19.01
BB: 27.08

This component was not brought by Yamnaya, yet it grows with time.
It's a bit like a population expanded dramatically with this component!
I recall that the Atlantic component in Eurogenes K15 corresponds quite well today with the haplogroup P312 ...
Hence my hypothesis: L51 were perhaps already present in central Europe before the arrival of the descendants of the culture of Yamnaya ...

Yea I still think it is possible that L51 and some other lineages migrated out of the PC steppe prior to Yamnaya.

rms2
03-05-2015, 01:33 PM
Gimbutas also thought that Baalberg was Kurganized. They weren't. There are Kemi Oba type burials with stone cyst menhirs under mounds, west of the Carpathians in 3000BCE.

But Anthony also attributes Cotsofeni/Cotofeni to Old Europe and says they were a sedentary agricultural people. Gimbutas was right about a lot.

Honestly, I think you have to scratch Cotofeni from the list of potential sources of P312. It was probably a source of G2a and maybe I2a.

Michał
03-05-2015, 02:10 PM
One other thing to consider is that L51xL11 might have taken a north of Carpathian route which means it wouldnt reach the Danube until around Austria - precisely where it picks up and this would explain its apparent lack in the Balkans and Lower Danube.
When suggesting a predominantly northern route of L51 to Central-Western Europe, we would need to admit that L51 had nothing to do with Yamna, as there is not a single Yamna kurgan found north of the Carpathian range (as opposed to many hundreds of Yamna kurgans known for the region south of it). Of course, some people still claim that CWC was derived from Yamna (instead of being its “brother culture”), but this is totally inconsistent with archaeology (and additionally documented by the most recent analyses of radiocarbon dates), not confirmed by any Y-DNA data (as the available data suggest a strong association of CWC with R1a, while Yamna seems to be dominated by R1b), and not unequivocally proven by the autosomal data (as these ancient DNA data indicate strong relationship between CWC and Yamna but do not allow us to conclude whether Yamna was a father or rather a brother of CWC).

Michał
03-05-2015, 02:13 PM
Clearly R1b-Z2103 did move west to the Balkans and into Anatolia and SW Asia. The Caucasus route doesnt look well supported at present. So the upshot of this is if we want to link R1b-Z2103 with both Anatolian linked with the wave 1 Suvorovo offshoot of Sredny Stog as well as much later Satem branchings like Armenian, Greek etc then this would require a long term presence of R1b-Z2103 in the western end of the steppes c. 4300-3000BC in both Yamanaya and Sredny Stog to work.
Personally, I find the hypothesis that Z2103 was strongly associated with both the Anatolian and “Graeco-Armeno-Daco-Thracian” linguistic groupings to be extremely unlikely, as this wouldn’t make any sense from the phylogenetic and linguistic point of view, but let’s wait and see whether any Z2103 is found in Central Anatolia prior to 1200 BC.


I think at present the biggest clue to the location of L51 is its poor performance as a clade and the non-existence so far of L23xL51xZ2103 i.e. L23xL51 ancestral to L51. That is a long long time to be doing very little demographically. So we need to consider that L51 wasnt up to much until the L11 expansion and hope we can get agreement on when the latter happened - above says 3000BC but I believe I have heard a little earlier.
Absolutely agreed. Apart from the absence of any specific Eastern-Central European sublineages under L51 and L11, it is this apparent lack of any significant demographic expansion between about 4500 BC and 3500-3000 BC that makes any association of clade L51 with the Sredny Stog and Yamna expansions much less likely (though not absolutely impossible).

It should also be noted that when accepting the relatively young TMRCA ages for L11 and P312 (3000 BC and 2700 BC according to YFull, though I again suspect these are significant underestimates), this would suggest that the initial Yamna wave directed westward included only one L11 man whose ancestors survived till today (plus one L51xL11 man). Even more surprisingly, we would need to assume that the single ancestor of clade P312 who lived about 2700 BC had enough great grandsons to make his P312 lineage cover nearly entire Central-Western Europe by about 2600-2500 (not to mention that this would be totally inconsistent with the quite reasonable “DF27=BB” theory suggested by Jean M).

Michał
03-05-2015, 02:15 PM
There is a fair amount of L11xP312xU106 on the south Baltic area which I think is Poland and another group around the Alps. Its tempting to see these either as remnants of the first major barriers met when L11 split into a north and south of the Carpathians branches or remnant lines travelling with P312 and U106.
The existence of two hypothetical modern epicenters for L11* (or maybe just a single clade S1149) located in the West Baltic and Alpine regions is not strongly speaking against any of the three hypothetical scenarios explaining the movement of L51/L11 from East to Central Europe. However, this kind of distribution is much more consistent with the Central-Western European origin of L11 than with the Eastern European one, especially when knowing that L51* is also more frequent in Western Europe (and specifically in SW Europe) than in Eastern Europe.

Michał
03-05-2015, 02:16 PM
Using my recalibrated SNP counting between R-Mal'ti to P312+ BB I0806, Z2103 is closer to 3237 bc
Firstly, it is practically impossible for a progeny of one man living about 3200 BC to dominate such a large portion of Yamna culture (and possibly nearly entire Yamna culture, as we have enough reasons to suspect that Z2103 was a also among the predominant R1b species in Western Yamna).

Secondly, I’m afraid your recalibrated (or Mal’ta-adjusted) estimates are not reliable (I will write more on this when I find a free minute).