PDA

View Full Version : Revisiting the issue of "Ice Age refugia" in the context of WHG, SHG, EHG ancestries



Tomenable
07-09-2015, 03:52 PM
We have learned by now, that there were at least three, autosomally quite distinct, types of foragers in Europe:

WHG - western (from Iberia to North-Western France) hunter-gatherers
SHG - central (from Scandinavia at least to Hungary*) hunter-gatherers
EHG - eastern (from Karelia to Pontic-Caspian area) hunter-gatherers

*This is what Pinhasi claimed ("Pinhasi’s team has found that the genomes sequenced from hunter-gatherers from Hungary and Switzerland between 14,000 to 7,500 years ago are very close to specimens from Denmark or Sweden from the same period" - LINK (http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/03/ice-age-europeans-on-brink-of-extinction.html)).

There were similarities between them, but also differences. EHG, for instance, was ANE-rich.

Both SHG and EHG were also lighter-pigmented than WHG. WHG were darker, if I remember correctly.

WHG probably had more of Aurignacian ancestry (see Y-DNA of Kostenki14, and then La-Brana).

I think these differences between WHG, SHG and EHG components (combined with lack of significant differences WITHIN each of those components - for example Karelian hunter was autosomally almost identical with Samara hunter) could be the result of their distinct origins from three separate Ice Age refugia. That old concept of Ice Ace Refugia was wrong when it comes to association of certain haplogroups with certain refugia (the map below) - especially when it comes to the spurious association of R1b with the Iberian refugium, on the grounds of modern frequencies.

But it doesn't mean that the entire concept was necessarily erroneous:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum_refugia

http://www.roperld.com/graphics/IceAgeRefugiaR1bR1aIHaplogroups.jpg

Association of three HG autosomal components - WHG, SHG and EHG - with those three refugia as shown above, seems probable to me, and could explain observed differences between them. However, when it comes to Y-DNA, WHG were not R1b, but rather C1 (C-M130) and some subclades of I2. The "central", Balkan or Italian, refugium, could be home to other clades of I2 (e.g. those found in Sweden: I2a1, I2c) and to I1.

To sum up, this is my hypothesis:

http://oi61.tinypic.com/33jsd5e.jpg

What do you think about this ???

=================================

If such an explanation of differences between WHG, SHG, EHG was already proposed before, then I apologize for not checking carefully enough.

Shaikorth
07-09-2015, 04:07 PM
SHG's likely didn't exist in the Balkans, but are a result of WHG-EHG mixture in Southern Scandinavia. KO1 was just a WHG and early Hungarian neolithic farmers did not have EHG either. Balkan HG's probably were fully WHG.

rozenfeld
07-09-2015, 04:35 PM
Yep, SHG=WHG+EHG seems most likely scenario. There will be same paleolithic DNA from Spain, if this link is true: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134.200-red-lady-cave-burial-reveals-stone-age-secrets.html?full=true#.VZ6iiPmkHe4

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5647/54029168.5b/0_9b1cc_1d5ef020_orig.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/rozenfag/album/120263/view/635340)

Tomenable
07-09-2015, 04:37 PM
Yet according to prof. Pinhasi (see the link that I posted in the OP), hunters from Hungary and Switzerland were very similar to those from Sweden and Denmark, if I interpreted that correctly. So how was it in the end, were those hunters more similar to those from Iberia and Luxembourg (WHG), or to those from Sweden (SHG)? BTW - thanks for the map, Rozenfeld.

Shaikorth
07-09-2015, 04:59 PM
Well, SHG's are more similar to WHG's than any other modern or ancient population. But it's hard to say exactly what samples Pinhasi's talking about from that article.

yxc
07-27-2015, 10:23 AM
31 kyr aDNA to get analyzed apparently for Neanderthal adm. Multiple >30ka remains from Austria including local just a decade ago discovered ~32ka double burial of whom dna probes were extract by mid. July . This isn't just a 'european' case.

LGM Refugia never was in such a way , Refugia and Moving was seasonally. Anyways 'Ice Age Refugia' would imply that somebody retreated over the millenia. But the Scandinavian Ice Sheet began to accumulate perhaps~99 kya and Climate was 45ka similiar like was in ~25ka.

Motzart
07-28-2015, 02:04 AM
The idea that SHG had EHG admixture is incorrect, these groups were not related. SHG had a tiny bit of a Eurasian like ancestry but it came from an East Asian like population that carried the EDAR gene, likely a Uralic Y DNA N population. Our EHG examples do not carry this gene.

Generalissimo
07-28-2015, 02:42 AM
The idea that SHG had EHG admixture is incorrect, these groups were not related. SHG had a tiny bit of a Eurasian like ancestry but it came from an East Asian like population that carried the EDAR gene, likely a Uralic Y DNA N population. Our EHG examples do not carry this gene.

SHG did have EHG admixture. The fact that they also had some other minor admixture doesn't change this.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-28-2015, 03:36 AM
The first people to enter Scandinavia were WHG. Read up on the Hamburg, Ahrensburg, Swiderian, and Maglemose cultures. Those Motala hunters are late arrivals and look like they were replaced by Pitted Ware hunters, which were closer to Loschbour and EEF. Neither one looks like it contributed anything outside of a negligible number to our ancestry.

Generalissimo
07-28-2015, 04:16 AM
^ Probably right, but the issue at hand is whether SHG had any EHG admixture.

In fact, all of the Motala, Ajvide and other Swedish HG samples show significant levels of ANE, which basically translates to EHG.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-28-2015, 05:06 AM
They had something. They get a better fit with Samara, but it's still pretty abysmal.

53.4% Samara HG
46.6% WHG
Chi 8.086 tail .325082

Helgenes50
07-28-2015, 05:41 AM
They had something. They get a better fit with Samara, but it's still pretty abismal.

53.4% Samara HG
46.6% WHG
Chi 8.086 tail .325082

Which ones please ? Pitted ware or Motala or both ?
Probably not pitted ware, with their EEF

Hando
07-28-2015, 09:06 AM
They had something. They get a better fit with Samara, but it's still pretty abismal.

53.4% Samara HG
46.6% WHG
Chi 8.086 tail .325082
Who do you mean by 'they'? And what is abysmal?

Chad Rohlfsen
07-28-2015, 10:05 AM
It's Motala. The fit and likelihood are not good.

Kale
07-28-2015, 01:04 PM
Maybe something like Loschbour + Karelia_HG + Nganasan for Motala?

Motzart
07-28-2015, 10:10 PM
SHG did have EHG admixture. The fact that they also had some other minor admixture doesn't change this.

When I think of EHG I think of Samara and Karelia, but if you want to lump every group living in Eastern Europe together as EHG then they have EHG admixture. It was certainly a Saami like Y DNA N group that they mixed with, and the idea that they have admixture from two separate ANE sources is bad. I think of them like ancient Finns.

Generalissimo
07-28-2015, 10:59 PM
When I think of EHG I think of Samara and Karelia, but if you want to lump every group living in Eastern Europe together as EHG then they have EHG admixture. It was certainly a Saami like Y DNA N group that they mixed with, and the idea that they have admixture from two separate ANE sources is bad. I think of them like ancient Finns.

Why don't Motala show the same type of Siberian admixture as Saami and Finns?

Krefter
07-28-2015, 11:34 PM
BTW, Considering the Scandinavian hunter gatherers were probably around 50% EHG, and had 100% Y DNA I and mostly typical EHG mtDNA, the admixture was if anything between WHG males and EHG females. But it would make sense some basal forms of R1a and R1b were in Scandinavian hunter gatherers and may have survived to the present day.


SHG did have EHG admixture. The fact that they also had some other minor admixture doesn't change this.

Would you say that Udmurts have the most EHG and or "Yamnaya"? Also, that most of the West Eurasian ancestry in Siberians is EHG?

Chad Rohlfsen
07-28-2015, 11:39 PM
Maybe something like Loschbour + Karelia_HG + Nganasan for Motala?

Karelia is a worse fit, so is adding Nganasan.

Generalissimo
07-28-2015, 11:44 PM
Would you say that Udmurts have the most EHG and or "Yamnaya"? Also, that most of the West Eurasian ancestry in Siberians is EHG?

Yamnaya has more EHG than Udmurts. The issue with Udmurts is that they're really mixed. So it's difficult to analyze them.

In theory, most of the West Eurasian in Siberians should be EHG, but that might not always be the case.


Karelia is a worse fit, so is adding Nganasan.

qpAdm can't model these sorts of samples successfully. You'd need something like Admixturegraph.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-28-2015, 11:53 PM
Ah. Could you message me about that, and how it works, if you know? Thanks! I've also sent you a question about merging those datasets to use in qpAdm. Thanks, again.

Krefter
07-29-2015, 12:31 AM
Yamnaya has more EHG than Udmurts. The issue with Udmurts is that they're really mixed. So it's difficult to analyze them.

I wasn't clear. I mean amoung modern people do Udmurts have the most EHG/Yamnaya. I add Yamnaya because I assume their EHG is from Yamnaya types.

Generalissimo
07-29-2015, 01:41 AM
I wasn't clear. I mean amoung modern people do Udmurts have the most EHG/Yamnaya. I add Yamnaya because I assume their EHG is from Yamnaya types.

I think so.

Motzart
07-29-2015, 01:50 AM
Why don't Motala show the same type of Siberian admixture as Saami and Finns?

We do in the form of the EDAR snps. In European populations that is where it is found.


BTW, Considering the Scandinavian hunter gatherers were probably around 50% EHG, and had 100% Y DNA I and mostly typical EHG mtDNA, the admixture was if anything between WHG males and EHG females. But it would make sense some basal forms of R1a and R1b were in Scandinavian hunter gatherers and may have survived to the present day.

It kind of seems that mtDNA U5b is WHG and U5a1 is EHG, I agree with that if thats what you are suggesting.

Generalissimo
07-29-2015, 01:56 AM
We do in the form of the EDAR snps.

No we don't.

Motala don't show any of the Siberian component that reaches 20% in Sami and 8% in some Finns.


In European populations that is where it is found.

The EDAR mutation you're talking about is today found at very low levels across Europe, including in Fennoscandia.

So none of what you're claiming adds up.

J Man
07-29-2015, 02:07 AM
We do in the form of the EDAR snps. In European populations that is where it is found.



It kind of seems that mtDNA U5b is WHG and U5a1 is EHG, I agree with that if thats what you are suggesting.

I have considered that before as well. That when it comes to the subclades of mtDNA haplogroup U5 that U5b is WHG and U5a is EHG but really it is probably not that simple.

Motzart
07-29-2015, 03:03 AM
No we don't.

Motala don't show any of the Siberian component that reaches 20% in Sami and 8% in some Finns.



The EDAR mutation you're talking about is today found at very low levels across Europe, including in Fennoscandia.

So none of what you're claiming adds up.

It peaks in Finns and Russians , two populations which have a lot of Y DNA N. https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/mongoloid-edar-snp-rs3827760-allele-frequencies/
I suppose it could have been brought by R1 types given that Karitiana HGs are homozygous for the snp, I just assumed it wasn't them because Karelia and Samara lack the snp.

Generalissimo
07-29-2015, 03:39 AM
It peaks in Finns and Russians , two populations which have a lot of Y DNA N. https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/mongoloid-edar-snp-rs3827760-allele-frequencies/

Not true.

The Asian EDAR mutation obviously peaks in East Asia, Siberia and the Americas.

The reason that Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers and a few Finns and Russians show this mutation is because of minor East Eurasian admixture from Siberia.


I suppose it could have been brought by R1 types given that Karitiana HGs are homozygous for the snp, I just assumed it wasn't them because Karelia and Samara lack the snp.

I never suggested that it was brought by R1 types. What I said was that SHG were mostly a mixture of WHG and EHG, and that they acquired the East Asian EDAR mutation via contacts with a third group of East Eurasian ancestry.

In other words, SHG are mostly WHG/EHG plus minor East Eurasian. And the reason they had high levels of EDAR was either because of selection or founder effect, or both.

Motzart
07-29-2015, 03:57 AM
Not true.

The Asian EDAR mutation obviously peaks in East Asia, Siberia and the Americas.

The reason that Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers and a few Finns and Russians show this mutation is because of minor East Eurasian admixture from Siberia.



I never suggested that it was brought by R1 types. What I said was that SHG were mostly a mixture of WHG and EHG, and that they acquired the East Asian EDAR mutation via contacts with a third group of East Eurasian ancestry.

In other words, SHG are mostly WHG/EHG plus minor East Eurasian. And the reason they had high levels of EDAR was either because of selection or founder effect, or both.

In terms of European populations Finns and Russians is where EDAR peaks, which was obviously my meaning. So what was this mysterious third East Eurasian group you are suggesting who's entire genome apparently consists of just the EDAR snp? You realize this makes no sense?

Generalissimo
07-29-2015, 04:18 AM
So what was this mysterious third East Eurasian group you are suggesting who's entire genome apparently consists of just the EDAR snp?

It's not just made up "EDAR snp", because if it was, it wouldn't show up as East Eurasian admixture. From the paper (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/03/13/016477) in question...


The derived allele in the Motala samples lies on the same haplotype as in modern East Asians (Extended Data Figure 4) implying a shared origin. The statistic f4(Yoruba, Scandinavian hunter-gatherers, Han, Onge Andaman Islanders) is significantly negative (Z=-3.9) implying gene flow between the ancestors of Scandinavian hunter-gatherers and Han so this shared haplotype is likely the result of ancient gene flow between groups ancestral to these two populations.

So you see SHG really did have some faint East Eurasian ancestry, possibly from population movements around the Arctic. But this doesn't prevent them from being mostly WHG/EHG mixtures, as has already been reported in scientific literature, and is obvious by studying their raw data.

However, there's no evidence that their EDAR came from the same population as the EDAR in modern Finns, Saami and northern Russians. Very different population movements might be responsible, because none of the SHG belong to HG N.


You realize this makes no sense?

Only in the parallel dimension that your intellect inhabits.

Krefter
07-29-2015, 06:02 AM
In terms of European populations Finns and Russians is where EDAR peaks, which was obviously my meaning. So what was this mysterious third East Eurasian group you are suggesting who's entire genome apparently consists of just the EDAR snp? You realize this makes no sense?

It does make sense. If you look at available ancient DNA data you can see hardly any mutations were simply handed down to modern people. They were selected for and against, went through founder effects, etc. Lactose Tolerance is a great example. The high amount of EDAR in the Motala HGs is probably a founder effect.

Jean M
07-29-2015, 12:20 PM
We have learned by now, that there were at least three, autosomally quite distinct, types of foragers in Europe ... I think these differences between WHG, SHG and EHG components (combined with lack of significant differences WITHIN each of those components - for example Karelian hunter was autosomally almost identical with Samara hunter) could be the result of their distinct origins from three separate Ice Age refugia.

The important thing that we have learned from the recent spate of ancient DNA results is that ANE and Y-DNA R did not come from an ice age refuge in Europe. The refuge was in Siberia. Any hunter-gatherer in Europe with an element of ANE had ancestors from Siberia. This includes EHG and SHG. Foragers with ANE and Y-DNA R did not arrive in Europe until long after the Ice Age maximum.

I hope this map makes matters clear.

5340

I should have added ANE to Y-DNA R in my key.

alan
07-29-2015, 03:09 PM
The important thing that we have learned from the recent spate of ancient DNA results is that ANE and Y-DNA R did not come from an ice age refuge in Europe. The refuge was in Siberia. Any hunter-gatherer in Europe with an element of ANE had ancestors from Siberia. This includes EHG and SHG. Foragers with ANE and Y-DNA R did not arrive in Europe until long after the Ice Age maximum.

I hope this map makes matters clear.

5340

I should have added ANE to Y-DNA R in my key.

It seems to me people are a bit resistant to all the evidence pointing to R not being anywhere in Europe until the Mesolithic. As you note, the evidence is for refugia in south-central Siberia/Altai and thereabouts as where both R and Q wintered out the LGM. Due to archaeological considerations and the huge geographical gap between that part of Asia and the Gravettians in Europe, I certainly feel R1 couldnt be in two places at the same time during the LGM. AFAIK evidence of contact between east-central Siberia/Altai and Europe is absent (we all looked hard for it) before and during the LGM and indeed until after the Younger Dryas IMO.

Also folks - beware old papers that link figurines in Mal'ta middle upper Palaeolithic (once was called Mal'ta -Buret and somewhat misdated) and the Gravettian in Europe. The styles are quite different and the trans-Siberian railway hadnt been invented yet.

J Man
07-29-2015, 03:33 PM
It seems to me people are a bit resistant to all the evidence pointing to R not being anywhere in Europe until the Mesolithic. As you note, the evidence is for refugia in south-central Siberia/Altai and thereabouts as where both R and Q wintered out the LGM. Due to archaeological considerations and the huge geographical gap between that part of Asia and the Gravettians in Europe, I certainly feel R1 couldnt be in two places at the same time during the LGM. AFAIK evidence of contact between east-central Siberia/Altai and Europe is absent (we all looked hard for it) before and during the LGM and indeed until after the Younger Dryas IMO.

Also folks - beware old papers that link figurines in Mal'ta middle upper Palaeolithic (once was called Mal'ta -Buret and somewhat misdated) and the Gravettian in Europe. The styles are quite different and the trans-Siberian railway hadnt been invented yet.

Even though the art of the culture that the Mal'ta boy belonged to is different from the true Gravettian art of Europe I still find it interesting that the Mal'ta boy belongs to mtDNA haplogroup U just like the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe although of a different subclade. Haplogroup U sure seems to have spread far and wide very early on.

alan
07-30-2015, 01:58 AM
Even though the art of the culture that the Mal'ta boy belonged to is different from the true Gravettian art of Europe I still find it interesting that the Mal'ta boy belongs to mtDNA haplogroup U just like the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe although of a different subclade. Haplogroup U sure seems to have spread far and wide very early on.

It does seem that all European, west and north Asian major Palaeolithic cultures do ultimately go back to a common origin in the Levant sort of area but we are probably talking 50000 years ago.

Motzart
07-30-2015, 03:26 AM
It's not just made up "EDAR snp", because if it was, it wouldn't show up as East Eurasian admixture. From the paper (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/03/13/016477) in question...



So you see SHG really did have some faint East Eurasian ancestry, possibly from population movements around the Arctic. But this doesn't prevent them from being mostly WHG/EHG mixtures, as has already been reported in scientific literature, and is obvious by studying their raw data.

However, there's no evidence that their EDAR came from the same population as the EDAR in modern Finns, Saami and northern Russians. Very different population movements might be responsible, because none of the SHG belong to HG N.



Only in the parallel dimension that your intellect inhabits.

So the implication of the paper, and the one you agree with, is that the EDAR gene existed in the founding populations of IJK, and IJ, and I? and this small group of SHGs hung on to this SNP but was a terminal group. I guess I'm just stupid for thinking this is crazy.

Generalissimo
07-30-2015, 03:37 AM
So the implication of the paper, and the one you agree with, is that the EDAR gene existed in the founding populations of IJK, and IJ, and I? and this small group of SHGs hung on to this SNP but was a terminal group.

Have you considered taking up a different hobby?

Krefter
07-30-2015, 03:57 AM
So the implication of the paper, and the one you agree with, is that the EDAR gene existed in the founding populations of IJK, and IJ, and I? and this small group of SHGs hung on to this SNP but was a terminal group. I guess I'm just stupid for thinking this is crazy.

Motzart this is very simple. The Motala HGs had minor East Asian ancestry. It's very possible that's where their EDAR mutation is from. The high frequency of the EDAR mutation in them is probably a founder effect. This mutation could be very ancient and a old-Eurasian mutation, or could have popped up independently in the Motala HGs, but that isn't very likely.

Motzart
07-30-2015, 04:14 AM
Motzart this is very simple. The Motala HGs had minor East Asian ancestry. It's very possible that's where their EDAR mutation is from. The high frequency of the EDAR mutation in them is probably a founder effect. This mutation could be very ancient and a old-Eurasian mutation, or could have popped up independently in the Motala HGs, but that isn't very likely.

How do you propose it got there though? Who is this East Asian pop that contributed to the SHGs? Everything I suggests gets called pathetic or stupid :)

Motzart
07-30-2015, 04:17 AM
Have you considered taking up a different hobby?

I follow this stuff because I like learning the truth about human evolution, not because I want to convince the world that at some point my polish ancestors were badasses. A lot of the stuff you suggest doesn't make any sense and you obviously have some sort of agenda that you are hell bent on promoting so I can't take you seriously.

Moderator
07-30-2015, 04:37 AM
A REMINDER TO PLEASE KEEP THINGS CIVIL.

Generalissimo
07-30-2015, 04:42 AM
How do you propose it got there though? Who is this East Asian pop that contributed to the SHGs?

No one knows, but it happened, so we might find out soon when more samples come in from Scandinavia and north Russia. But it might have been indirect admixture, or mixing via female exogamy, so it's not certain we will ever find an accompanying East Eurasian Y-chromosome signature.

What is certain is that this phenomenon is not linked to the rapid spread of Y-HG N across Northeastern Europe, which came much later. That's not to say the East Eurasian population that mixed into SHG didn't carry any N, but even if it did, this is irrelevant to the later admixture events that probably brought Uralic languages to the north Baltic and Siberian admixture to Saami, Finns and nearby Russians.


Everything I suggests gets called pathetic or stupid.

You have a habit of pushing ideas even when they're clearly wrong and it'd be better to move on. Then you get frustrated and start insulting those who don't agree with you.

Take some time to understand the issues you're discussing, and always consider the possibility that you haven't covered all the angles.

Jean M
07-30-2015, 06:59 AM
I follow this stuff because I like learning the truth about human evolution

One crucial truth about human evolution is that it involves sexual reproduction. This means that Y-DNA haplogroups are not passed down together with every single autosomal SNP that the male parent carries. The existence of (for example) a gene for big ears in one man who carries Y-DNA haplogroup I does not mean that all men carrying I have big ears. It does not mean that there is an unbroken line of big ears from the very start of the mutations that define haplogroup I and even its ancestors IJ etc. A new mutation can crop up at any time. A mutation can be passed down by either parent.

genetiker
07-30-2015, 09:38 AM
The important thing that we have learned from the recent spate of ancient DNA results is that ANE and Y-DNA R did not come from an ice age refuge in Europe. The refuge was in Siberia. Any hunter-gatherer in Europe with an element of ANE had ancestors from Siberia. This includes EHG and SHG. Foragers with ANE and Y-DNA R did not arrive in Europe until long after the Ice Age maximum.

Nonsense. We've learned no such thing.

We have no Y-DNA samples from Europe from 36,000 to 8,000 years ago, so for you to claim that "Y-DNA R did not arrive in Europe until long after the Ice Age maximum" is ridiculous.


I hope this map makes matters clear.

Yes, your fanciful annotations aside, it certainly does. It makes it clear that there was no physical barrier inhibiting the migration of people or the flow of genes across the steppe-tundra ecoregion that stretched continuously from Iberia to Lake Baikal. Which makes the notion that R was confined to Siberia or Siberia and Eastern Europe "until long after the Ice Age maximum" absurd.

GTC
07-30-2015, 10:05 AM
Okay, this is the final warning here to all members. Keep the tone of posts civil and free from personal attacks. Any more infractions will result in suspensions.

lgmayka
07-30-2015, 10:05 AM
How do you propose it got there though? Who is this East Asian pop that contributed to the SHGs?
If you are looking for modern yDNA evidence of the introgression, please keep in mind that such yDNA may today be extinct in Europe, or extremely rare. Only recently did we discover a rare North European clade of Q-M25 over 13,000 years old (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-YP1669/) (separate from the more common Eastern European Q-M25 which may be only 5000 years old (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-L715/)). This suggests the possibility that (small amounts of) yDNA Q preceded R into Europe.

Jean M
07-30-2015, 10:12 AM
We have no Y-DNA samples from Europe from 36,000 to 8,000 years ago, so for you to claim that "Y-DNA R did not arrive in Europe until long after the Ice Age maximum" is ridiculous.

Not at all. I look at DNA samples in their cultural context. The regions I outlined in red contain hunter-gatherer sites that survived the LGM. These refuge areas were relatively protected in the Ice Age. The coniferous forest refuge near Lake Baikal includes the Mal'ta site (24,000 years ago) with a boy carrying ANA and Y-DNA R. Early pottery was present in the Lake Baikal region - the type that arrived in the Samara region on the Volga c. 7000 BC.

The refuge around the upper Yenisei river was sheltered by mountains. It includes the site at Afontova Gora, with a male carrying ANE (17,000 years ago). This site had pressure blade-making technology. This complex technique was most probably handed down within families and so would have spread by migration. Like pottery, it arrived between the Urals and the Caspian in the Mesolithic. It also reached Lapland by a more northerly route about 5836 BC.


there was no physical barrier inhibiting the migration of people

The major barrier was the expanded Caspian, which butted up against the Urals, as David Anthony pointed out in The Horse, The Wheel and Language. It was not completely impassible, but it seems that the bands of hunter-gatherers who clustered around the Yenisei and Lake Baikal were more tempted to roam from their refuge after the climate improved.

Krefter
07-30-2015, 11:40 AM
Nonsense. We've learned no such thing.

We have no Y-DNA samples from Europe from 36,000 to 8,000 years ago, so for you to claim that "Y-DNA R did not arrive in Europe until long after the Ice Age maximum" is ridiculous.


No offense, but you need to let go of your stubbornness about R1 in Upper Palaeolithic Europe.

Isidro
07-30-2015, 02:01 PM
No offense, but you need to let go of your stubbornness about R1 in Upper Palaeolithic Europe.

I for one look forward to what Genetiker has to say. I also know for a fact that he is not alone, it's a matter of fact Krefter, AFAIK in the rest of the world has not made up their mind yet based on evidence except for you and a few vociferous voices here.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially if it is a logical one.

Kale
07-30-2015, 03:57 PM
Both sides could be right to a degree. R1* could have been in Europe in the upper paleolithic, but not enough of it to the point where it matters.

Krefter
07-30-2015, 05:19 PM
I for one look forward to what Genetiker has to say. I also know for a fact that he is not alone, it's a matter of fact Krefter, AFAIK in the rest of the world has not made up their mind yet based on evidence except for you and a few vociferous voices here.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially if it is a logical one.

He ignores Ancient DNA, that's why I'm frustrated. He thinks somehow western European R1b-L11 recolonized West Europe after the Ice age. This is simple impossible. We know both R1b-L11 and R1a-M417 take up 99% of European R1, and both are likely Bronze age lineages that expanded out of Russia/Ukraine. There's nothing special about R1 in Europe, besides that two R1 lineages became mega-founder effect lineages and very popular in the Bronze age. Most of the male ancestors of Europeans had hg I, G2a, C1a2, T, H, etc.

alan
07-30-2015, 05:33 PM
I imagine that the small amount of east Asian in SHG could be down to some minor mixing with ANE populations in Altai prior to expansion west into Europe. I would guess this happened at some point during the LGM or even as late as 10000BC in Altai/south-central Siberia area. Microblades - basically a Siberian technology arrived in Scandinavia in the Mesolithic. Some strands of this Siberian input could have including a little east Asian picked up way back in the east prior to moving into Europe. We know that Q people mixed with east Asians prior to arriving in the Americas so perhaps the groups who headed west did the same in a much more minor way. What I am not clear on is what YDNA the northern thrusts into northern Europe carried. There could even have been a long drawn out minor flow of Siberian genes into Mesolithic northern Europe because you have the pressure flaked microblades and then the pre-farming pottery arriving with a significant gap in time (2000 years?) between them despite both apparently having their closest earliest non-European source around Altai and south-central Siberia.

If the pressure flaked microblades and pre-farming pottery can be traced back to distant parts of Siberia and taken as proxy for at least some Siberian gene-flow in the Mesolithic then its also worth noting that in some areas like Scandinavia they had competition from western derived hunters who were already there before them and perhaps were just a minor addition. In other areas like the central Urals the pressure microblade groups may have arrived in a near-empty landscape (so perhaps pure ANE). To the south in the Euro-steppes its hard to intepret. The Epi-Gravettian groups seem to have faded away leaving few obvious Mesolithic descendant cultures if any. So, I have a suspicion that when Mesolithic groups around the Euro-steppe are tested they could be very high ANE. Further north in the forest zone and northern edge of the forest steppe they would have encountered western derived hunters. However, as I have posted a few times, the pattern of moving up and down rivers as the environments did the same as aridity varied probably would lead to some mixing between the steppe, forest steppe and forest groups.

alan
07-30-2015, 05:49 PM
Question for Jean. We have a P297 on a branch closer to M73 in Mesolithic Samara. I am presuming this is Elshanka then. Is that correct? Its usually considered the earliest pottery in Europe although I am not sure if that still stands or not. So, it is possible that P297 might not be related to the microblade groups c. 8000BC but more to the pottery which authors seem to date variously to some point 7000-6000BC - there more convincing arguments apparently placing it closer to 6000BC. This and other aspects has been linked to pottery among hunters in the Aral/East Caspian area in a couple of recent papers/books, possibly like to an arid phase there. It is curious in this regard that M73 still has a strong concentration in Turkmen. In a secondary phase of Elshanka there is apparently pottery links with the Lower Volga. I dont know what that all stack up to mean but it is interesting.

alan
07-30-2015, 06:02 PM
Jean - do you have this? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011011000663

alan
07-30-2015, 06:13 PM
Interdisciplinary research of the Neolithic Volga-Kama pottery by Aleksandr Vybornov, Irina Vasilyeva (2013) has some interesting comments on the early pottery groups and influences on the Volga and adjacent.

lgmayka
07-30-2015, 07:44 PM
We know that Q people mixed with east Asians prior to arriving in the Americas so perhaps the groups who headed west did the same in a much more minor way.
Yet another mysterious exclusively European Q, namely Q-L804 (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-L804/), diverged from the mostly Native American Q-M3 (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-M3/) about 15,200 years ago. Their common parent, Q-M930 (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-M930/), diverged from another mostly Native American clade, Q-Z780 (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-Z780/), about 15,700 years ago. Some people have even wondered whether Q-L804 is the remnant of a back-migration (from Beringia back into Asia and then later Europe).

alan
07-30-2015, 07:47 PM
someone asked me about pressure flaked microblades recently - this is not bang up to date but is a good overview http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/swarch/Swiatowit-r2002-t4_%2845%29-nB-s229-242.pdf

Krefter
07-30-2015, 07:58 PM
Karelia_HG and Samara_HG have more East Asian than the Motala_HGs. So, they probably got their East Asian from EHG.

rms2
07-30-2015, 08:06 PM
He ignores Ancient DNA, that's why I'm frustrated. He thinks somehow western European R1b-L11 recolonized West Europe after the Ice age. This is simple impossible. We know both R1b-L11 and R1a-M417 take up 99% of European R1, and both are likely Bronze age lineages that expanded out of Russia/Ukraine. There's nothing special about R1 in Europe, besides that two R1 lineages became mega-founder effect lineages and very popular in the Bronze age. Most of the male ancestors of Europeans had hg I, G2a, C1a2, T, H, etc.

Yes, one would think that if the biggest y haplogroup in Western Europe actually spent the last Ice Age there and expanded from there afterwards, it wouldn't be so flagrantly MIA at Neolithic sites, which thus far have been dominated by G2a and I2a.

And the person to whom you are referring has argued that Indo-European began in Western Europe during the Paleolithic Period. That's just not even serious.

R.Rocca
07-30-2015, 08:17 PM
I for one look forward to what Genetiker has to say. I also know for a fact that he is not alone, it's a matter of fact Krefter, AFAIK in the rest of the world has not made up their mind yet based on evidence except for you and a few vociferous voices here.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially if it is a logical one.

Isidro, as I've pointed out many times, all things are still "possible" when it comes to areas where we still lack ancient DNA. However, there is no getting around the fact that there is an order of "probability" based on the areas that have been tested thus far and what it means for those areas of Western Europe that are still not tested. When taking the known tested areas into account and the results of their ancient DNA, Y-DNA, autosomal DNA, archaeology, phylogeny etc., a Western European Paleolithic R1b-L51 ancestor as an ancestor of all modern Western European L51+ men, is pretty low on the probability meter IMO.

As for Genetiker he does himself no favors adding words like "absurd" to comments made by everyone and anyone that differs from his opinion.

Jean M
07-30-2015, 08:38 PM
Question for Jean. We have a P297 on a branch closer to M73 in Mesolithic Samara. I am presuming this is Elshanka then. Is that correct?

So I presume. From Haak 2015:


The individual we refer to as ‘Samara hunter-gatherer’ I0124/SVP44 (5640-5555 calBCE, Beta-392490) is an adult male from grave 1 in a Neolithic-Eneolithic settlement producing artifacts from the Elshanka, Samara, and Repin cultures. The specific site is Lebyazhinka IV, on the Sok River, Samara oblast, Russia. (‘Neolithic’ here refers to the presence of ceramics, not to domesticated animals or plants.)

Pottery following in the Elshanka tradition spread from the Samara region westwards and northwards. I don't imagine for one moment that it was all associated with P297 on its way to M73. One swallow does not make a summer. ;)


Jean - do you have this? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011011000663

Afraid not. All the relevant papers I have are in Archaeology > Ceramics > European Hunter


Interdisciplinary research of the Neolithic Volga-Kama pottery by Aleksandr Vybornov, Irina Vasilyeva (2013) has some interesting comments on the early pottery groups and influences on the Volga and adjacent.

Just added that.

nuadha
07-31-2015, 07:59 PM
Yep, SHG=WHG+EHG seems most likely scenario. There will be same paleolithic DNA from Spain, if this link is true: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134.200-red-lady-cave-burial-reveals-stone-age-secrets.html?full=true#.VZ6iiPmkHe4

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5647/54029168.5b/0_9b1cc_1d5ef020_orig.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/rozenfag/album/120263/view/635340)

Im still troubled by the arbitrary extension of WHG all the way to the southern balkans.

Generalissimo
07-31-2015, 08:20 PM
You're probably right. It should be stretched out to western Anatolia.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-31-2015, 11:54 PM
You're probably right. It should be stretched out to western Anatolia.

Hello, new here
Interesting discussions.
I think we need to re-define what we mean by "WHG". Obviously it stretched all the way to anatolia, and probably Caucasus, and even Samara etc looks very WHG albeit with some ANE admixture, right ?

Motzart
08-01-2015, 12:05 AM
As for Genetiker he does himself no favors adding words like "absurd" to comments made by everyone and anyone that differs from his opinion.




On a side note, to Genetiker's credit, he posted the phenotype SNPs from the Haak paper months before the official paper came out and he was 100% spot on accurate. He has also posted a ton of other phenotypic SNP data that continually proves to be accurate, including data on Stora Forvar and Afontava Gora that one is not able to find anywhere but his blog.

Generalissimo
08-01-2015, 03:52 AM
On a side note, to Genetiker's credit, he posted the phenotype SNPs from the Haak paper months before the official paper came out and he was 100% spot on accurate. He has also posted a ton of other phenotypic SNP data that continually proves to be accurate, including data on Stora Forvar and Afontava Gora that one is not able to find anywhere but his blog.

It's not very difficult to call genotypes from bam files and get most of them right (which is what you're giving credit to genetiker for).

The trick is to analyze data correctly and then come up with plausible explanations for the results.

Here's an example:


It doesn’t look like these Anglo-Saxon immigrants left a big impact on the genetic makeup of modern-day Britain.

Source (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/anglo-saxons-left-language-maybe-not-genes-modern-britons)


However, if I was told that Hinxton4, the only high coverage genome in this collection, was a modern sample, I'd say it belonged to an Irishman from western Ireland, rather than an Englishman from eastern England.

Thus, unless Hinxton4 was an ancient migrant from Ireland, then it does seem to me as if there was a fairly significant admixture event in England between the indigenous Irish-like Celts and newcomers from the east, which eventually resulted in the present-day English population.

Source (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/hinxton-ancient-genomes-roundup.html)


By analyzing the distribution of shared rare variants across ancient and modern individuals, we find that today’s British are more similar to the Iron Age individuals than to most of the Anglo-Saxon individuals, and estimate that the contemporary East English population derives 30% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrations, with a lower fraction in Wales and Scotland.

Source (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/17/022723)

Now have a look at the analyses of the same Hinxton genome by genetiker and Maciamo (of Eupedia fame), and compare them to the Eurogenes analysis.

nuadha
08-01-2015, 08:35 AM
You're probably right. It should be stretched out to western Anatolia.

Why do you think that?

Lets say there are two types of WHG, 1 is the standard WHG based off of Brana and Lo. and 2 is the non standard WHG which was partially found in Stuttgart and is slightly different from 1. Now, how do you know where 2 was at the start of the neolithic? How do you know that the southern balkans was not a mix of 1 and/or 2 and basel eurasian?

the only things archeology is telling us is that,

the balkan mesolithic didn't have a large population
the european neolithic seems to go from levant, to cyprus, to greece and beyond

The balkans may have lacked a large population in the mesolithic but maybe that furthers the idea that WHG really is derived from western europe and not the balkans. Also, out of ancient levant, cyprot, and greece which do you think had WHG 2? In any case I don't see why there won't be a mix of WHG 2 and Basel Eurasian in meso greece. And how is turkey being drawn into this?

To me it almost looks as if people are expecting the ancients to have been separated by political/continent borders. What is the big difference between the southern balkans and the near east during the mesolithic?

nuadha
08-01-2015, 08:42 AM
You're probably right. It should be stretched out to western Anatolia.

So WHG stretched to Turkey, Basel Eurasian is from the levant, and "teal" (if it was a thing during the mesolithic) is from where?

I think we have to admit that we don't know.

Generalissimo
08-01-2015, 09:35 AM
So WHG stretched to Turkey, Basel Eurasian is from the levant, and "teal" (if it was a thing during the mesolithic) is from where?

I think we have to admit that we don't know.

We don't know. But I suspect it might be a function of the Bronze Age expansions from the steppe and thus an artifact of basing Admixture analyses on modern genomes.

In other words, it might not have existed anywhere until people from the steppe started mixing with the more easterly Neolithic farmers, like the Kumtepe guy.

alan
08-01-2015, 02:05 PM
Why do you think that?

Lets say there are two types of WHG, 1 is the standard WHG based off of Brana and Lo. and 2 is the non standard WHG which was partially found in Stuttgart and is slightly different from 1. Now, how do you know where 2 was at the start of the neolithic? How do you know that the southern balkans was not a mix of 1 and/or 2 and basel eurasian?

the only things archeology is telling us is that,

the balkan mesolithic didn't have a large population
the european neolithic seems to go from levant, to cyprus, to greece and beyond

The balkans may have lacked a large population in the mesolithic but maybe that furthers the idea that WHG really is derived from western europe and not the balkans. Also, out of ancient levant, cyprot, and greece which do you think had WHG 2? In any case I don't see why there won't be a mix of WHG 2 and Basel Eurasian in meso greece. And how is turkey being drawn into this?

To me it almost looks as if people are expecting the ancients to have been separated by political/continent borders. What is the big difference between the southern balkans and the near east during the mesolithic?

If WHG is ultimately a pan-European Gravettian signal then we know that hunters of ultimately Gravettian origins were squeezed into separate refugia and probably didnt mix between 25000 and 10000BC. So there was plenty of time for WHG to drift into variants during the LGM and even after that.

Indeed if you look at the western derived late upper palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultures (Spain, France, Germany, Scandinavia, Baltic, NW Russia) and the epi-Gravettians (Ukraine, Balkans, Carpathians, Italy, they barely overlap at all at any time. This IMO is indicative that different variants of WHG that had drifted for would have existed in the period between the LGM and the start of farming.

alan
08-01-2015, 02:17 PM
So WHG stretched to Turkey, Basel Eurasian is from the levant, and "teal" (if it was a thing during the mesolithic) is from where?

I think we have to admit that we don't know.

Thing to remember SW Asia was probably variable, changed massively over time and some parts - probably Levant - do not have much in the way of remnants of the population of the Mesolithic and even the early Neolithic. I suspect in the upper Palaeilithic the north and west of Anatolia and perhaps even Levant could have been WHG-like and then this was replaced from further inland in SW Asia by the European Med. type early farmer populations. In turn they were largely replaced after the Neolithic by something closer to the modern mix. I suspect if we ever get enough samples we will see parallel (but not identical) phenomenon of major changes around 6-7000BC with hunters being replaced by classic Neolithic farmers from further east in the cradle of agriculture (perhaps very similar to European farmers) and again perhaps around 4000-2000BC when the Early Neolithic farmer signal would start to be eroded by a sequence of intrusions and empires. Then it gets very complex as we know Anatolia and the Levant have a crazily complex history of empires and population changes. Generally speaking, particularly NW Anatolia, I expect a similar sequence of changes to Europe, albeit the IE element was not so big.

alan
08-01-2015, 02:41 PM
One connection I once wondered about was that teal could have something to do with the possible links with Keltimar and the east Caspian noted in Elshanka c. 6000BC or so in terms of pottery and even some lithics. However, the Samara hunter lived at a point when any such connection should have already appeared in his DNA. So I think that option is scratched. Curious though because it could be taken as suggesting the east Caspian area also had an EHG type population c. 6000BC. This to me wouldnt be that odd because Keltimar people also used the pressure flakes microblades known further to the north.

avalon
08-01-2015, 03:38 PM
It's not very difficult to call genotypes from bam files and get most of them right (which is what you're giving credit to genetiker for).

The trick is to analyze data correctly and then come up with plausible explanations for the results.

Here's an example:



Source (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/anglo-saxons-left-language-maybe-not-genes-modern-britons)



Source (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/hinxton-ancient-genomes-roundup.html)



Source (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/17/022723)

Now have a look at the analyses of the same Hinxton genome by genetiker and Maciamo (of Eupedia fame), and compare them to the Eurogenes analysis.

I don't pretend to understand all the technical stuff but the recent Schiffels paper has a PCA plot on which the Iron Age samples (Linton and Hinxton) clustered closer to modern English and French than to modern Scottish.

How does this square with your interpretation of the data in which you said Iron Age samples were closest to modern Irish? Obviously Schiffels didn't refer to any Irish samples but we might expect Scottish to be similar to Irish, so to my mind the Eurogenes analysis isn't quite the same as the Schiffels one.

Generalissimo
08-01-2015, 03:49 PM
I don't pretend to understand all the technical stuff but the recent Schiffels paper has a PCA plot on which the Iron Age samples (Linton and Hinxton) clustered closer to modern English and French than to modern Scottish.

How does this square with your interpretation of the data in which you said Iron Age samples were closest to modern Irish? Obviously Schiffels didn't refer to any Irish samples but we might expect Scottish to be similar to Irish, so to my mind the Eurogenes analysis isn't quite the same as the Schiffels one.

Their PCA isn't very good. See the discussion here...

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/17/022723

Generalissimo
08-01-2015, 04:02 PM
Let's modify this quote from the paper a little...


There is a small but significant difference between the three modern British sample groups, with East English samples sharing slightly more alleles with the Dutch, and Scottish samples looking more like the Iron Age samples.

to this...


There is a small but significant difference between the three modern British sample groups, with East English samples sharing slightly more alleles with the Dutch, and Irish samples looking more like the Iron Age samples.

Makes sense. But at the same time it's at odds with the PCA in the paper.

avalon
08-01-2015, 04:49 PM
Makes sense. But at the same time it's at odds with the PCA in the paper.

That's what I noticed.

I will take your word for it about the PCA. :)

vettor
08-01-2015, 06:17 PM
I don't pretend to understand all the technical stuff but the recent Schiffels paper has a PCA plot on which the Iron Age samples (Linton and Hinxton) clustered closer to modern English and French than to modern Scottish.

How does this square with your interpretation of the data in which you said Iron Age samples were closest to modern Irish? Obviously Schiffels didn't refer to any Irish samples but we might expect Scottish to be similar to Irish, so to my mind the Eurogenes analysis isn't quite the same as the Schiffels one.

When did west-scotland get invaded by Gaelic Irish ? ( Argyll ) ..................was it pre-Roman

Christina
08-11-2015, 11:55 PM
It is worth noting, whilst considering the premise of this post, that there is no academic or scientific supervisorial board that determines what "WHG" or "ANE" or "EHG" etc. mean. There is no one combining the genomes of the continuing finds to paint a composite picture of the genome of what the Western Hunter Gatherers was, for example.

Remember, instead, that our acronym constructs are based on ONE FIND each. For example, what we call "WHG" is based on Loschbour ONLY. Not a composite.

I have seen the discussions devolve into shorthand -- like, "I have X% Western Hunter Gatherer." No. You have that % of relation to the Loschbour sample, i.e., one individual.

It'd be like in the future finding the skeleton of say, Nietzsche, and using him as the proxy for all Germans. Germans also include Heidi Klum, etc. There is no guarantee that one individual, whether living now or in the distant past, is representative or composite of the entire group.

Generalissimo
08-12-2015, 12:34 AM
It is worth noting, whilst considering the premise of this post, that there is no academic or scientific supervisorial board that determines what "WHG" or "ANE" or "EHG" etc. mean. There is no one combining the genomes of the continuing finds to paint a composite picture of the genome of what the Western Hunter Gatherers was, for example.

Remember, instead, that our acronym constructs are based on ONE FIND each. For example, what we call "WHG" is based on Loschbour ONLY. Not a composite.

And now here are the facts:

- Loschbour, La Brana 1 & 2 and KO1 form a single distinct WHG clade.

- Karelia HG and Samara HG form a single distinct EHG clade.

- MA1 doesn't form a clade with any other ancient genomes, but that's because AG2, also from UP Siberia, is contaminated, but still very similar to MA1

- WHG, EHG and ANE are indeed meta populations that existed in prehistoric Eurasia, and admixture from them can be isolated in more recent Eurasian populations.

Christina
08-12-2015, 05:10 AM
Jman, I dare say it is your reading comprehension and that of Generalissimo that suffers. I never said the populations didn't cluster or form a clade. I said that the comparisons run online are to one sample.

My point remains. comparing genes of 1 or 2 or 3 individuals, and drawing broad conclusions is as invalid for people today as it is for people who lived thousands of years ago.

Christina
08-12-2015, 05:13 AM
The scientific papers say the exact thing I did, by the way. You have to read and comprehend them. And not just look for your science to fit in the neat little shorthand of the theory du jour.

Hector
08-12-2015, 07:09 AM
Nonsense. We've learned no such thing.

We have no Y-DNA samples from Europe from 36,000 to 8,000 years ago,

But we have Oase which is close to 36000 and he belonged to K2a by your own estimation.


so for you to claim that "Y-DNA R did not arrive in Europe until long after the Ice Age maximum" is ridiculous.

Not any more ridiculous than your claim that it did.



Yes, your fanciful annotations aside, it certainly does. It makes it clear that there was no physical barrier inhibiting the migration of people or the flow of genes across the steppe-tundra ecoregion that stretched continuously from Iberia to Lake Baikal. Which makes the notion that R was confined to Siberia or Siberia and Eastern Europe "until long after the Ice Age maximum" absurd.

But if any took advantage of that "steppe highway" they may have belonged to the K2a line as Ust Ishim and Oase exemplify. R or P line probably came much later probably was of a provenance much further East.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-12-2015, 08:38 AM
All I can say is that I cannot wait for the series of palaeolithic genomes on the way. Im sure it'll lay to rest many debates

Tomenable
08-12-2015, 09:33 AM
We have C1 near Voronezh 36 kya (Kostenki14), C1 in Mesolithic Iberia (La-Brana1), C1 in Neolithic Hungary (Apc-Berekalja1, Kompolt-Kigyoser).

So it seems that Aurignacians were C1 and then Gravettians were I (mostly I2) plus some C1 from assimilated Aurignacians.

Hector
08-12-2015, 10:53 AM
We have C1 near Voronezh 36 kya (Kostenki14), C1 in Mesolithic Iberia (La-Brana1), C1 in Neolithic Hungary (Apc-Berekalja1, Kompolt-Kigyoser).


It is somewhat unreliabe a claim by genetiker but K14 may be C1b1 while the latter two are C1a or C1a2.
The current distribution of C1's probably indicates that these are from separate populations and "C1-ness" was just a coincidence.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-12-2015, 11:39 AM
We have C1 near Voronezh 36 kya (Kostenki14), C1 in Mesolithic Iberia (La-Brana1), C1 in Neolithic Hungary (Apc-Berekalja1, Kompolt-Kigyoser).

So it seems that Aurignacians were C1 and then Gravettians were I (mostly I2) plus some C1 from assimilated Aurignacians.

maybe. But I suspect it's more complex than that. .. .

alan
08-12-2015, 11:57 AM
We have C1 near Voronezh 36 kya (Kostenki14), C1 in Mesolithic Iberia (La-Brana1), C1 in Neolithic Hungary (Apc-Berekalja1, Kompolt-Kigyoser).

So it seems that Aurignacians were C1 and then Gravettians were I (mostly I2) plus some C1 from assimilated Aurignacians.

That is basically how I see it.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-12-2015, 12:12 PM
That is basically how I see it.

More complex surely. For a start, Oase was IJK; not C. Although found without context, it was most likely Aurignacian, or proto-Aurignacian.

J Man
08-12-2015, 12:50 PM
Jman, I dare say it is your reading comprehension and that of Generalissimo that suffers. I never said the populations didn't cluster or form a clade. I said that the comparisons run online are to one sample.

My point remains. comparing genes of 1 or 2 or 3 individuals, and drawing broad conclusions is as invalid for people today as it is for people who lived thousands of years ago.

On the contrary it is clearly your comprehension and general understanding of genetics that suffers. There is far more than 1 genome out there now from the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe. We have Loschbour, La Brana, KO1, Motala, Samara and Karelia. And guess what even if originally these populations such as WHG and EHG were based off of one individual that does not really matter as other individuals who have been tested tend to match up very well with them...The Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Western Europe such as Loschbour and La Brana cluster together and form the WHG population while the two samples Eastern Europe cluster together to form the EHG population. Yes there are only two individuals so far from Eastern Europe but the fact that they lived during different times and lived in locations far apart from each other but are still incredibly similar genetically lends a lot of credence to them both belonging to a large EHG population. Also the fact that the Motala hunters from Sweden look like a mix of the WHG and EHG populations genetically lends credence to WHG and EHG being distinct and real large populations. Testing of more individuals in the future will just add to this.

Isidro
08-12-2015, 01:08 PM
And now here are the facts:

- Loschbour, La Brana 1 & 2 and KO1 form a single distinct WHG clade.



La Brana 1 @ 2 were brothers, DNA sample of #2 was almost useless, but they got enough information to figure out they were indeed brothers.

I believe Carlos Lalueza Fox is working to expand La Brana 1 from X2.5 to X30 runs.

Christina
08-12-2015, 04:01 PM
On the contrary it is clearly your comprehension and general understanding of genetics that suffers. There is far more than 1 genome out there now from the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe. We have Loschbour, La Brana, KO1, Motala, Samara and Karelia. And guess what even if originally these populations such as WHG and EHG were based off of one individual that does not really matter as other individuals who have been tested tend to match up very well with them...The Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Western Europe such as Loschbour and La Brana cluster together and form the WHG population while the two samples Eastern Europe cluster together to form the EHG population. Yes there are only two individuals so far from Eastern Europe but the fact that they lived during different times and lived in locations far apart from each other but are still incredibly similar genetically lends a lot of credence to them both belonging to a large EHG population. Also the fact that the Motala hunters from Sweden look like a mix of the WHG and EHG populations genetically lends credence to WHG and EHG being distinct and real large populations. Testing of more individuals in the future will just add to this.

I find it sad that you believe your arguments are so weak that you cannot make them without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

My point was simple and clear and remains unchallenged. When people compare their genome to "WHG," they are comparing their genome to ONE INDIVIDUAL. That remains uncontroverted.

http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html

It doesn't matter how similar that one individual was to another sample we have found. It is one sample.

It doesn't matter whether your prediction ("the other samples will bear this out") comes true or not. We are comparing to one sample.

It is therefore misleading ab initio to act like we are comparing modern genomes to a composite of hunter gatherers. We are not. We are comparing modern genomes to an EXEMPLAR of a hunter gatherer.

Recall my original analogy. I am sure that Nietzsche and Heidi Klum share 99.7% of key markers, since they are both Germans born within a relatively close time frame.

However, if one used Klum or Nietzsche as an exemplar for a German, it would be very misleading to say or imply (or use shorthand to indicate) that Klum or Nietzsche is a composite or even a case-closed representative of all Germans. And no matter which way you cut it, there will be significant differences (height, pigment, etc.)

Logic also dictates that no matter how close the samples we have are, from the distant past, that there were then relict and isolated populations, just like now, that have quite different genomes.

J Man
08-12-2015, 04:13 PM
I find it sad that you believe your arguments are so weak that you cannot make them without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

My point was simple and clear and remains unchallenged. When people compare their genome to "WHG," they are comparing their genome to ONE INDIVIDUAL. That remains uncontroverted.

http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html

It doesn't matter how similar that one individual was to another sample we have found. It is one sample.

It doesn't matter whether your prediction ("the other samples will bear this out") comes true or not. We are comparing to one sample.

It is therefore misleading ab initio to act like we are comparing modern genomes to a composite of hunter gatherers. We are not. We are comparing modern genomes to an EXEMPLAR of a hunter gatherer.

Recall my original analogy. I am sure that Nietzsche and Heidi Klum share 99.7% of key markers, since they are both Germans born within a relatively close time frame.

However, if one used Klum or Nietzsche as an exemplar for a German, it would be very misleading to say or imply (or use shorthand to indicate) that Klum or Nietzsche is a composite or even a case-closed representative of all Germans. And no matter which way you cut it, there will be significant differences (height, pigment, etc.)

Logic also dictates that no matter how close the samples we have are, from the distant past, that there were then relict and isolated populations, just like now, that have quite different genomes.

I do not think that my argument is weak at all. It really does not matter if these components/populations are based off of one individual at this point. We already know this but give it some more time and you will see that those individuals are great examples for larger ancient populations.

alan
08-12-2015, 05:00 PM
More complex surely. For a start, Oase was IJK; not C. Although found without context, it was most likely Aurignacian, or proto-Aurignacian.

Yes I am grossly simplifying but I basically see a C dominated Aurignacian and an I dominated (with absorbed substrate C) Gravettian. I think its to do with successive waves both coming into Europe from a similar are with 10000 years in between. I think back in say 46000BC there was a mix of C and K in SW Asia but for some reason the K largely headed north into Siberia. A contemporary and culturally similar group to those K Siberians were the Bohunicians. They both appear to have stemmed from the initial upper palaeolothic Emiran culture (with their distinctive mix of upper and late middle Palaeolithic techniques) of the Levant/SE Anatolia. I am pretty sure the early Siberians were K (Ust Ishm), leading to P and eventually R and Q. So I suspect their terrible twins who headed into Europe in the form of the Bohunician were also K. However the main thing to note is the Siberians thereafter basically survived right down to the LGM and beyond but the lookalike Bohunicians of Europe didnt survive. Hence, apart from perhaps a small substrate absorbed by the Aurignacians.

yxc
08-12-2015, 05:54 PM
palaeolithic genomes on the way ? How many?
I read a Team is working on dna <32ka burial from above the Danube. Find was in 2005 at ~5m Deep covered by Mammoth scapula and the small sceletons are preserved like no other that old. The Site is tied especially due zoomorphic Clay figurines to Dolni Vestonice which yielded U5, U8 .
No I don't think that any R1b or K2 were in Europe before ~19 ka or the accelarated re-advance of the Ice Sheet . But the Progenitors 45ka in form of IJK yes of course.

Shaikorth
08-12-2015, 05:54 PM
Yes I am grossly simplifying but I basically see a C dominated Aurignacian and an I dominated (with absorbed substrate C) Gravettian. I think its to do with successive waves both coming into Europe from a similar are with 10000 years in between. I think back in say 46000BC there was a mix of C and K in SW Asia but for some reason the K largely headed north into Siberia. A contemporary and culturally similar group to those K Siberians were the Bohunicians. They both appear to have stemmed from the initial upper palaeolothic Emiran culture (with their distinctive mix of upper and late middle Palaeolithic techniques) of the Levant/SE Anatolia. I am pretty sure the early Siberians were K (Ust Ishm), leading to P and eventually R and Q. So I suspect their terrible twins who headed into Europe in the form of the Bohunician were also K. However the main thing to note is the Siberians thereafter basically survived right down to the LGM and beyond but the lookalike Bohunicians of Europe didnt survive. Hence, apart from perhaps a small substrate absorbed by the Aurignacians.

A minor note: Ust-Ishim's line leads to pre-NO. According to Genetiker Oase's K is supposed to be similar but that genome is of much lower quality. Paleolithic Y-DNA is making the history of K movements look a bit complicated.

Tomenable
08-12-2015, 07:02 PM
I am sure that Nietzsche and Heidi Klum share 99.7% of key markers, since they are both Germans born within a relatively close time frame.

Are we talking about the same Nietzsche, who claimed about himself:

1) "Und hiermit berühre ich die Frage der Rasse. Ich bin ein polnischer Edelmann pur sang, dem auch nicht ein Tropfen schlechtes Blut beigemischt ist, am wenigsten deutsches. Denke ich daran, wie oft ich unterwegs als Pole angeredet werde und von Polen selbst, wie selten man mich für einen Deutschen nimmt, so könnte es scheinen, dass ich nur zu den angesprenkelten Deutschen gehörte."

2) "Und doch waren meine Vorfahren polnische Edelleute: ich habe von daher viel Rassen-Instinkte im Leibe, wer weiss? Zuletzt gar noch das liberum veto."

3) "Ich danke dem Himmel, daß ich in allen meinen Instinkten Pole und nichts andres bin."

4) "Ich selbst bin immer noch Pole genug, um gegen Chopin den Rest der Musik hinzugeben."

5) "Meine Vorfahren waren polnische Edelleute, noch die Mutter meines Großvaters war Polin."

6) "Man hat mich gelehrt, die Herkunft meines Blutes und Namens auf polnische Edelleute zurückzuführen, welche Niëtzky hießen und etwa vor hundert Jahren ihre Heimat und ihren Adel aufgaben, unerträglichen religiösen Bedrückungen endlich weichend: es waren nämlich Protestanten."

??? :noidea:

Well, he certainly did not consider himself to be an ethnic German.

GailT
08-12-2015, 09:10 PM
Recall my original analogy. I am sure that Nietzsche and Heidi Klum share 99.7% of key markers, since they are both Germans born within a relatively close time frame. However, if one used Klum or Nietzsche as an exemplar for a German, it would be very misleading to say or imply (or use shorthand to indicate) that Klum or Nietzsche is a composite or even a case-closed representative of all Germans.

If they share 99.7% of their key markers, then it really won't matter very much if 30,000 years from now some future researcher uses either Nietzsche or Klum as an exemplar of 20th century German autosomal DNA. This seems to undercut your argument.

If your point is that all conclusions are provisional and interpretations might change when more samples are available, then I think most people would agree, and you are just stating what should be obvious. But if you are saying that results from a single sample are so uncertain as to be useless and that we should not do any analysis, you probably underestimate the value of one ancient sample. Hunter-gathers had low population density and were likely very mobile, so it seems less probable that there were multiple isolated relict populations in western Europe. Not impossible, but not so likely that we should wait to do any analysis until we have enough samples to be absolutely certain we have a representative data set.

Christina
08-12-2015, 09:20 PM
I do not think that my argument is weak at all. It really does not matter if these components/populations are based off of one individual at this point. We already know this but give it some more time and you will see that those individuals are great examples for larger ancient populations.

Now you acknowledge my original point but state "it doesn't matter?" That's quite the 180 from your original posts.

I was trying to help the OP, who asked about whether the new knowledge about Western Hunter Gatherers (etc) can re-inform our theories about ice-age refugia. My point, which remains uncontroverted, is that "WHG" is Loschbour and "EEF" is Stuttgart. One sample, each. Doesn't help with refugium theories, or for broad generalizations on much else.

And forgive me if Nietzsche was a bad example of a German, but the point remains.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-12-2015, 09:29 PM
A minor note: Ust-Ishim's line leads to pre-NO. According to Genetiker Oase's K is supposed to be similar but that genome is of much lower quality. Paleolithic Y-DNA is making the history of K movements look a bit complicated.

Oase was IJK *. Genetiiker's K* is an overcall. Imo ;)

J Man
08-12-2015, 09:32 PM
Now you acknowledge my original point but state "it doesn't matter?" That's quite the 180 from your original posts.

I was trying to help the OP, who asked about whether the new knowledge about Western Hunter Gatherers (etc) can re-inform our theories about ice-age refugia. My point, which remains uncontroverted, is that "WHG" is Loschbour and "EEF" is Stuttgart. One sample, each. Doesn't help with refugium theories, or for broad generalizations on much else.

And forgive me if Nietzsche was a bad example of a German, but the point remains.

Actually I said this is my earlier post to you.

''And guess what even if originally these populations such as WHG and EHG were based off of one individual that does not really matter as other individuals who have been tested tend to match up very well with them.''

Either way this is going to go nowhere so take care and have a good day.

Hector
08-13-2015, 01:02 AM
No I don't think that any R1b or K2 were in Europe before ~19 ka or the accelarated re-advance of the Ice Sheet.

It is Genetiker's speculative result but Oase may have been K2a.


Oase was IJK *. Genetiiker's K* is an overcall. Imo ;)

Oase is certain up to being F*. All markers that define GHIJK HIJK had either no calls or Genetiker failed to list them.
He had only 2 markers for IJK*, 1 marker for K*(2 if you include a very recurrent one), 1 marker for K2a("pre-NO").
This is the only line with no negative call along the line with all other collateral lines reasonably excluded.
IJK* is far more certain than K* but I don't see a huge difference between them(and K2a* as well).

But I find it curious that Oase and Ust Ishim are completely identical up to K2a*.
Oase has far fewer "good calls" because it is of a far inferior quality but I find it hard to believe this is just a coincidence.
This makes me wonder whether they represent a now-extinct male line of moderately successful population that dominated that part of the world.

Hector
08-13-2015, 01:35 AM
... I am pretty sure the early Siberians were K (Ust Ishm), leading to P and eventually R and Q. ...

Ust Ishim's K2a status may not be absolutely certain however his not being K2b* is far more certain. In fact such an idea is ridiculous.
The most charitable interpretation of the above is that the population included various K2(M526) lines and Ust Ishim's was one that went extinct while a single sublineage of K2b line survived.
However this is contradicted by the modern distribution of K2b.

It is noted that ancient results often contradict the modern distribution.
However this is of a different nature by a several order of magnitude.
P is very very very deeply rooted in SE Asian K2b(and possibly K2 as a whole though the abundance of non SE ancient K2a's made this a bit more puzzling).
It is like 3 level deep. There is just no possible explanation if one subscribes to the theory that they were transplated from a place as far a way as Central Asia or even further West while in the place of the origin and along the way they became completely extinct except just one tiny puny(in phylogenetic sense) sub lineage.

This won't stop people clinging to hope by a thread but that is just not science.

parasar
08-13-2015, 02:03 AM
Oase was IJK *. Genetiiker's K* is an overcall. Imo ;)

I there any reason you are discounting Genetiker's read of K or possibly pre-X while at the same time accepting an IJK call (why IJK and not GHIJK or HIJK)?
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/analyses-of-the-oase-1-genome/

The Y-SNP calls for Oase 1 show that he belonged to Y haplogroup K. He had positive calls for the IJK-defining SNPs PF3497 and PF3500, and for the K-defining SNP PF5495. Like Ust’-Ishim, Oase 1 had a positive call for the SNP Z4842 and a negative call for the SNP F650. These are two of the SNPs that define haplogroup X, which was created when the Y chromosome of an Indian Telugu was found to share seven mutations with haplogroup NO Y chromosomes. Like Ust’-Ishim, Oase 1 had only negative calls for NO-defining SNPs.
Like the 45,000-year-old Ust’-Ishim sample from Siberia, and the 40,000-year-old Tianyuan sample from China, the largest autosomal components for Oase 1 were the Veddoid South Asian or Indian components.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-13-2015, 10:58 AM
I there any reason you are discounting Genetiker's read of K or possibly pre-X while at the same time accepting an IJK call (why IJK and not GHIJK or HIJK)?
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/analyses-of-the-oase-1-genome/

Possibly because the call in question occurs multiply and is not wholly reliable

Hector
08-13-2015, 12:44 PM
Possibly because the call in question occurs multiply and is not wholly reliable

At the current size of YSNP "vocabulary" I would say about 90 percent are recurrent. SNPs used to be the biggest component of UEP(unique event polymorphism) but they don't even qualify as UEP these days.

Of V1438/YSC0001319/PF3497/M2684, PF3500/M2696 which are among SNPs that define IJK, the first one is unique while the second one is recurrent.

K-V3169/PF5495/F2006/M2688 is recurrent 4 times but you can rule out the other 3 on the I branch because he lacks all the SNPs that define IJ.
K2a-Z4842/M2308 is unique however.

These two together are not so much weaker than IJK*'s.

P.S. But per lineage a back mutation is very rare so SNPs may still be called UEP.

Isidro
08-13-2015, 01:34 PM
I believe Carlos Lalueza Fox is working to expand La Brana 1 from X2.5 to X30 runs.

Correction, 3.4 copies is what they have now and they are aiming at 20 copies to achieve a high quality at par with current genomes.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=es&u=http://www.diariodeleon.es/noticias/cultura/el-mesolitico-leones-ha-cambiado-panorama-genetico-prehistoria_998928.html&usg=ALkJrhjXQGHEcjlZYMWDKUHSMNKK1EmXMg

lgmayka
08-13-2015, 02:02 PM
Possibly because the call in question occurs multiply and is not wholly reliable
According to YFull, Z4842 occurs only at K-M2335 (http://yfull.com/tree/K-M2335/)(i.e., pre-NO). On the YFull haplotree, you can search for all known occurrences of a SNP by clicking on the Search button in the upper right corner.

Megalophias
08-13-2015, 04:57 PM
No SNP will be unique if you look closely enough. There are only about 50 million base pairs in the non-combining portion of the Y chromosome, and you get on the order of one new mutation per generation, and there are billions of men in the world. Give it a few more years and every SNP on the list will occur in some branch of R1b or the other. ;)

Recurrent SNPs only matter if they recur more than they ought to, i.e. if that portion of the chromosome is especially apt to mutate.

Looking at genetiker's Y SNP calls for Oase-1, a quick and unscientific count of the upper level SNP blocks gives a false positive rate of ~4% and a false negative rate of ~2%. (15/17 A0-T, 2/39 A00, 2/2 A1, 0/28 A0, 1/1 A1b, 35/35 BT, 2/30 B, 16/16 CT, 0/2 DE, 0/20 D, 0/11 E, 1/1 CF, 0/11 C, 13/13 F, 0/19 G, 0/1 H, 2/2 IJK, 0/6 IJ, 0/13 I, 0/14 J, 1/1 K, 0/3 LT, 0/21 L, 1/15 T, 1/2 K2a, 0/3 NO, 1/13 N, 1/8 O, 1/7 P, 1/9 Q, 0/1 R1, 0/20 R2.)

He is unquestionably F, not G, and very unlikely to be H, so IJK is likely a priori. Getting 2/2 IJK by chance is very unlikely, even if the false positive rate was 10% that is still only a 1% chance, so he is clearly IJK. Given that he is IJK, and clearly not IJ, he is likely to be K a priori, and he has 1/1 K, so again there is no reason he shouldn't be K.

Now he has only 1/2 K2a, so if we only consider that then there is a modest but not insignificant chance that he is really K*. But he has the same positive and negative SNPs as Ust' Ishim man does. That is highly unlikely to be a coincidence.

If you can trust the data that led you to believe Oase-1 is IJK, then there is no reason to doubt that he is also K2a*.

Hector
08-13-2015, 07:45 PM
Looking at genetiker's Y SNP calls for Oase-1, a quick and unscientific count of the upper level SNP blocks gives a false positive rate of ~4% and a false negative rate of ~2%. (15/17 A0-T, 2/39 A00, 2/2 A1, 0/28 A0, 1/1 A1b, 35/35 BT, 2/30 B, 16/16 CT, 0/2 DE, 0/20 D, 0/11 E, 1/1 CF, 0/11 C, 13/13 F, 0/19 G, 0/1 H, 2/2 IJK, 0/6 IJ, 0/13 I, 0/14 J, 1/1 K, 0/3 LT, 0/21 L, 1/15 T, 1/2 K2a, 0/3 NO, 1/13 N, 1/8 O, 1/7 P, 1/9 Q, 0/1 R1, 0/20 R2.)



My count has 384 total and 9 possible false positives and 2 possible false negatives.
Assuming Oase is K2a*, 2/89 false negatives and 9/295 false positives.
2.25 and 3.05 percent respectively.

False positives and negatives should occur at about the same rate theoretically in my opinion.

Hector
08-13-2015, 07:58 PM
...Recurrent SNPs only matter if they recur more than they ought to, i.e. if that portion of the chromosome is especially apt to mutate.

Recurrent mutations can always be handled without much difficulty by imposing "contiguity" condition. ( ie. no negative call between the mutation and the next upstream marker that has a good call) This also takes care of false positives most of time.

False negatives and back mutations are problematic but the latter is rare and the former can be made rare by good lab technique.

However you should be careful to count only one of the recurrent mutations when you calculate the rate of false positives or negatives.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-14-2015, 03:41 AM
No SNP will be unique if you look closely enough. There are only about 50 million base pairs in the non-combining portion of the Y chromosome, and you get on the order of one new mutation per generation, and there are billions of men in the world. Give it a few more years and every SNP on the list will occur in some branch of R1b or the other. ;)

Recurrent SNPs only matter if they recur more than they ought to, i.e. if that portion of the chromosome is especially apt to mutate.

Looking at genetiker's Y SNP calls for Oase-1, a quick and unscientific count of the upper level SNP blocks gives a false positive rate of ~4% and a false negative rate of ~2%. (15/17 A0-T, 2/39 A00, 2/2 A1, 0/28 A0, 1/1 A1b, 35/35 BT, 2/30 B, 16/16 CT, 0/2 DE, 0/20 D, 0/11 E, 1/1 CF, 0/11 C, 13/13 F, 0/19 G, 0/1 H, 2/2 IJK, 0/6 IJ, 0/13 I, 0/14 J, 1/1 K, 0/3 LT, 0/21 L, 1/15 T, 1/2 K2a, 0/3 NO, 1/13 N, 1/8 O, 1/7 P, 1/9 Q, 0/1 R1, 0/20 R2.)

He is unquestionably F, not G, and very unlikely to be H, so IJK is likely a priori. Getting 2/2 IJK by chance is very unlikely, even if the false positive rate was 10% that is still only a 1% chance, so he is clearly IJK. Given that he is IJK, and clearly not IJ, he is likely to be K a priori, and he has 1/1 K, so again there is no reason he shouldn't be K.

Now he has only 1/2 K2a, so if we only consider that then there is a modest but not insignificant chance that he is really K*. But he has the same positive and negative SNPs as Ust' Ishim man does. That is highly unlikely to be a coincidence.

If you can trust the data that led you to believe Oase-1 is IJK, then there is no reason to doubt that he is also K2a*.

Point taken!
This kind of thing is partly as much an art as a science :)
I guess the potentiality of the two earliest AMH being Hg K is tantalizingly important in our reconstruction of the earliest peopleing of eurasia.

rothaer
08-31-2019, 02:33 PM
Are we talking about the same Nietzsche, who claimed about himself:

1) "Und hiermit berühre ich die Frage der Rasse. Ich bin ein polnischer Edelmann pur sang, dem auch nicht ein Tropfen schlechtes Blut beigemischt ist, am wenigsten deutsches. Denke ich daran, wie oft ich unterwegs als Pole angeredet werde und von Polen selbst, wie selten man mich für einen Deutschen nimmt, so könnte es scheinen, dass ich nur zu den angesprenkelten Deutschen gehörte."

2) "Und doch waren meine Vorfahren polnische Edelleute: ich habe von daher viel Rassen-Instinkte im Leibe, wer weiss? Zuletzt gar noch das liberum veto."

3) "Ich danke dem Himmel, daß ich in allen meinen Instinkten Pole und nichts andres bin."

4) "Ich selbst bin immer noch Pole genug, um gegen Chopin den Rest der Musik hinzugeben."

5) "Meine Vorfahren waren polnische Edelleute, noch die Mutter meines Großvaters war Polin."

6) "Man hat mich gelehrt, die Herkunft meines Blutes und Namens auf polnische Edelleute zurückzuführen, welche Niëtzky hießen und etwa vor hundert Jahren ihre Heimat und ihren Adel aufgaben, unerträglichen religiösen Bedrückungen endlich weichend: es waren nämlich Protestanten."

??? :noidea:

Well, he certainly did not consider himself to be an ethnic German.

Yes, but his statements were seemingly wrong.

"In den dreißiger Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts erstellte Max Oehler (ein Vetter Friedrich Nietzsches), Mitarbeiter Elisabeth Förster Nietzsches und schließlich bis 1945 Leiter des Weimarer Archivs, eine Ahnentafel (gleichsam einen 'Ariernachweis'). Hier einige allgemeine Ergebnisse dieser mit dem nötigen kritischen Vorbehalt zu deutenden Arbeit über die Herkunft Nietzsches: "Die Familienlegende von der polnischen Herkunft seiner väterlichen Vorfahren, die er öfter erwähnt, hat sich als unhaltbar erwiesen, (...) Die bis jetzt festgestellten Vorfahren Nietzsches gehören in Ihrer überwiegenden Mehrzahl dem Bürgertum kleinerer Städte (Handwerker, Gewerbetreibende, Beamte) und dem Landpfarrerstande an. Das Bauertum ist nur schwach vertreten.(...) Betreffs der landschaftlichen Herkunft bietet die Ahnentafel ein sehr geschlossenes Bild. Mit ganz wenigen Ausnahmen stammen die Vorfahren Nietzsches aus dem engen Raum, der begrenzt wird durch die Orte Langensalza, Sangerhauen, Eisleben, Eilenburg, Zwickau, Plauen (Vogtld.), Saalburg (westl. Plauen), Stadtilm (südl. Weimar); dazu das von der Ostgrenze dieses Raumes ca. 120 km östlich liegende Burgau i.d. Oberlausitz(...)."
Schließlich noch ein kurioses Nebenergebnis der ahnenkundlichen Untersuchung: Der Stammbaum weist über den gemeinsamen Vorfahren Spörel (Saalburg - 16. Jahrhundert) eine Verwandschaft zwischen Friedrich Nietzsche und Richard Wagner nach. Daneben bestehen auch verwandtschaftliche Beziehung zur Familie des berühmten Staatsrechtlers Samuel von Pufendorf und zur Familie Schlegel."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y0mBA4iQMLsJ:www.friedrichnietzsche .de/%3FREM_sessid%3D%26action%3D21+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de

Baltimore1937
09-01-2019, 05:42 AM
My maternal U5 would be WHG, wouldn't it? They are scattered all over western and east-central Europe. But not further east than Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary. That's in my FTDNA ancient origins chart, which are all just HVR1. I have one HVR2 from England.