search this blog

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (Haak et al. 2015 preprint)


I'll probably end up writing a whole series of posts on this paper. But for now, here's the abstract and a PCA.

We generated genome-wide data from 69 Europeans who lived between 8,000-3,000 years ago by enriching ancient DNA libraries for a target set of almost four hundred thousand polymorphisms. Enrichment of these positions decreases the sequencing required for genome-wide ancient DNA analysis by a median of around 250-fold, allowing us to study an order of magnitude more individuals than previous studies and to obtain new insights about the past. We show that the populations of western and far eastern Europe followed opposite trajectories between 8,000-5,000 years ago. At the beginning of the Neolithic period in Europe, ~8,000-7,000 years ago, closely related groups of early farmers appeared in Germany, Hungary, and Spain, different from indigenous hunter-gatherers, whereas Russia was inhabited by a distinctive population of hunter-gatherers with high affinity to a ~24,000 year old Siberian6. By ~6,000-5,000 years ago, a resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry had occurred throughout much of Europe, but in Russia, the Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding eastern European hunter-gatherers, but from a population of Near Eastern ancestry. Western and Eastern Europe came into contact ~4,500 years ago, as the Late Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced ~3/4 of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery. This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least ~3,000 years ago, and is ubiquitous in present-day Europeans. These results provide support for the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe.


Wolfgang Haak et al., Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, bioRxiv, Posted February 10, 2015, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/013433

438 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 438 of 438
Grey said...

@Earl

"Also, it would have taken generations for people to go from the Middle East to Spain"

If there was already a trade network between the Middle East and Spain might a small group of artisans not be able to do it within a year if they were lucky with the weather?

Grey said...

Phoenician trade routes but probably gives an idea

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/greeksahoy!/greek_trade.jpg

Levant
->Crete
->Sicily
->Sardinia
->Baleares
->Iberia

in five hops.

Earl Snerd said...

@ Grey

I'm going by the radiocarbon dates in the study I referenced in a previous message. The Cardial Culture is as old as 5800 BC in the Eastern Mediterranean, but in Spain the Neolithic doesn't appear at all until 5400 BC. The period I talking about is the beginning of the Neolithic in the Mediterranean not when it was fully developed yet.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Earl,
That goes against the paper. The Samara sample was the oldest and pure EHG. There is no evidence of farming spreading without Near Eastern autosomal DNA. R1b not Indo European? All of the Yamnaya men are R1b. You're not making any sense.

Mike,
I think a split between Lake Baikal and Samara makes sense. Pure EHGs closely related to MA-1.

It's a bit like someone claiming that I2 is from the Near East, when we have pure HG's in Europe with it... anachronistic...

Grey said...

@Earl

Fair enough. I was just stressing that artisan groups could potentially travel quite rapidly along pre-existing networks if they existed.

Grey said...

Was it someone on here or Dionekes' blog who once said something about a theory there was an independent domestication of sheep or goats in (IIRC) Kazakhstan?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The Neolithic in Iran starts at 8000BCE. There's no pure EHG coming out of there between 6000-8000BCE, and we have no evidence of EHG in Iran.

Mike Thomas said...

I'm not sure we can say with utter confidence that R1 first evolved in northwestern Eurasia just because the Mesolithic R1 we did find there was 'pure EHG'.

Earl Snerd said...

@ Chad Rohlfsen

"Earl,
That goes against the paper. The Samara sample was the oldest and pure EHG. There is no evidence of farming spreading without Near Eastern autosomal DNA. R1b not Indo European? All of the Yamnaya men are R1b. You're not making any sense."

Lack of evidence doesn't mean it isn't there. The study isn't the holy grail of the Yamnaya culture, it left alot of questions unanswered. Obviously the Samara were Neolithic and had contact with Neolithic people, therefore some geneflow is obvious, besides one sample isn't enough to make the point that there wasn't any neolithic DNA. The Karelia sample had one haplogroup from EHG and one from east Asia (Hg C) but still had no east Asian component. But the elephant in the room is that there are two samples with R1b and each have a different autosomal component. At this point you have to use logic to make sense of it so, 1. because of the distance the age is meaningless. 2. The Cardial Culture is older. 3. The Spanish sample is more basal, which means it more than likely came from its place of origin. 4. R1b1 is in Chad about the same time it is in southern Russia. 5. Iran has some of the most basal lineages of R1 in general including R1*,R1b*, R1a*, R1b1a2* and R1b1a2a*. I'm not going against the paper because the paper doesn't give an origin of R1b based on this evidence. Whatever the origin at this point it's just hypothetical. But a Near Eastern origin is much more likely based on the five points above.

Earl Snerd said...

@ Chad Rohlfsen

"The Neolithic in Iran starts at 8000BCE. There's no pure EHG coming out of there between 6000-8000BCE, and we have no evidence of EHG in Iran"

If R1* did move from the steppes to Iran at some point in prehistory, and then migrate from there to Anatolia by 6000 BC they could have become a part the EEF by then through admixture. Which is probably the reason R1b1 in Spain is pure Near Eastern.

Grey said...

off-topic but related in some ways

1) map of genetics England & Wales

h/t Dionekes

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GfBY7dXFSEE/VNrz4CIcBhI/AAAAAAAAJ6w/Hv38EASWsR4/s1600/UK.jpg

2) map of physical geography

http://gepeskonyv.btk.elte.hu/adatok/Anglisztika/49Pint%E9r/LRSetup/UK/GEOGRAPHY/images/UK_topo_ok.jpg

note the blue cluster surrounded by red on the genetic map maps onto the uplands surrounded by lowlands on the physical geography.


Mike Thomas said...

Btw where Maju gone ? I'd like to see his breakdown, esp given the material in diskuse

postneo said...

@chad
"The Neolithic in Iran starts at 8000BCE. There's no pure EHG coming out of there between 6000-8000BCE, and we have no evidence of EHG in Iran"

Are you talking about technology or adna. There are modern HGs living in South Asia in close proximity to urban and farming populations.

How do you know R1 and EHG were always correlated?

Alberto said...

@Fanty

"Do modern day Armenians have 60% ANE to arrive at 50% ANE for Yamna?"

As I wrote, modern day Armenians might be direct descendants of these ANE people from Central Asia and Iran. But they moved to the Near East at least 5000 years ago. Hence, their very high Near Eastern admixture.

The ones that entered the steppe and founded the Yamnaya culture had much higher ANE component (actually this component will have to be slightly corrected, and renamed, once a genome from the original population is obtained).

EHG as such ceased to exist once this population (ANE) entered the steppe. A few might have survived a little while longer in Karelia or other remote areas, but they didn't go anywhere. They just went extinct, like WHG before them. (Though of course their genes also survived, but carried by other people, in this case the Yamnaya people).

@Chad

"The Neolithic in Iran starts at 8000BCE. There's no pure EHG coming out of there between 6000-8000BCE, and we have no evidence of EHG in Iran"

Of course. EHG were never in Iran. It was a population lately called ANE (thought I can't wait till they rename that as Ancient Central Asian, or Ancient Iranian or whatever) that was there. That population was the one who migrated everywhere, including the steppe, where they replaced (and mixed with) the EHG.

That population was not Basal Eurasian, they were ANE, and had y-dna R since the Paleoplithic.

Krefter said...

@Mike,

Maju wrote a post about this at his blog.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2015/02/kurgan-ancient-dna-suggests-major.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForWhatTheyWereWeAre+%28For+what+they+were...+we+are%29

He's still not very swayed by the idea that R1b-L11 in west Europe is steppe-derived. I'm not 100% convinced either.

I agree with him that R is obviously very old and has a complex history we shouldn't assume is all about Russia or north Eurasia in general.

Davidski said...

Maju's gonna be in denial about R1a-Z93 as a steppe Indo-Iranian marker until we get some aDNA from Asia. That might take a while.

Karl Dark said...

in R1a1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project there's five men belonged at the same subclade of korelian man, an Italian, a Tunisian, two belarusian and a Rusian, they are all R-M459, R1a1 * -M17- M198-, this branche is now called YP1272 sister of M198 subclade

G. Dekaen said...

Judging from Figure 3, we can see that:

Early Neolithics: 90-100% farmer, 0-10% HG
Middle Neolithics: 80% farmer, 20% HG (Esperstedt with 40% HG is outlier)
LN Corded: 80% Yamna, 15% farmer, 5% HG
LN Bell Beaker: 45% Yamna, 40% farmer, 15% HG
LN Karsdorf: 75% Yamna, <5% farmer, 20% HG (outlier, likely Yamna+HG)
LN Benzingerode/Aberstedt: 40% Yamna, 60% farmer
EBA Unetice: 45% Yamna, 25% farmer, 30% HG
LBA Halberstadt: 55% Yamna, 45% farmer
Modern Czechs (closest we have to Germans) : 50% Yamna, 35% farmer, 15% HG
Modern Belarussian (to compare to Corded): 50% Yamna, 25% farmer, 25% HG

CA Hungary: 80% farmer, 20% HG
BA Hungary: 15% Yamna, 50% farmer, 35% HG (Note: K16 shows that the two individuals that make up BA Hungary are very different, one seemingly 0% Yamna, 50% farmer, 50% HG (!) and the second being 30% Yamna, 50% farmer, 20% HG which might show a significant HG bounceback here along with the possibility that mixing in Hungary was not complete yet by 1600BC)
Iron Age Hungarian (from K16): 60% Yamna, 40% farmer
Modern Hungarians: 45% Yamna, 40% farmer, 15% HG

Some ideas:

1. Corded and Bell Beaker are quite different, with the latter potentially being the by-product of a 50-50 cross of Corded and MNE.

2. Bell Beaker and Unetice are somewhat discontinuous as there seems to be a substantial reduction in farmer DNA with a concomitant rise in HG DNA with apparent stability in Yamna ancestry. At first, I thought this would lend credence to my idea that Unetice derives in large part from a source NE. of the Steppe in E. Corded/Fatyanovo-Balanovo as a result of interaction between this possibly non-IE culture and NW IE. Catacomb culture from the south. However, Unetice's Y-DNA is clearly WHG and NOT from NE. Europe, so it could represent a local resurgence of HGs in C. Europe.

3. Discontinuity between BA Unetice and LBA Halberstadt, which is unlike any non-southern European population in that it lacks HG. However, a 50-50 mix of Unetice descendants and Halberstadt would seem to perfectly match Czech's component distribution. I wonder what is the archaeological affiliation of Halberstadt? It's funny, Halberstadt looks like it's Early Hallstatt/Late Urnfield which I figured would be the descendants of, and hence quite similar to Unetice, yet Halberstadt is quite different from Unetice.

G. Dekaen said...

4. There seems to have been a significant change between Corded Ware and modern Belarussians (let alone Lithuanians or Estonians). There was at least a 40% demic displacement following Corded that culminated in the creation of Belarussians. The cumulative change of this/these population(s) was (40-90% displacement): 5-45% Yamna, 40-26.1% farmer, 55-27.2% HG. Given that the absolute minimum HG input was 27%, we need to look for a very strongly HG population which eliminates almost all of W. Europe (BB only had 15% HG, Norwegians only have 15% HG, Scots are the only ones close with 20-25% HG, Icelanders have 20% HG, followed by Orcadians who have about 17% HG). Intriguingly, Unetice basically seems to fit the bill at 45% Yamna, 25% farmer, 30% HG, and if we accept this, it would mean an 80-90% replacement by Unetice; the existence of Y-DNA I2 in Belarus today at 10-20% would seem to indicate an influx from the West at some point, but probably not an 80-90% replacement, so we can probably rule this out. There could have been a separate resurgence of EHG in Corded territory with Y-DNA R1a instead. On a similar note, I have a feeling this post-Corded change came from E. Corded/Fatyanovo-Balanovo along with the BA expansion of blue eyes; that population likely had a moderate amount of Yamna, moderate farmer and high HG to fit the requirements perfectly. In-fact, it seems that all modern N. Euro populations differ considerably from Corded in having much higher HG, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a second major population expansion after Yamna that involved a group with much higher HG, from a population with roughly similar proportions as Unetice, but with possibly different Y-DNA (Unetice can't explain post-Corded change). In-fact, maybe we need to look for a dual expansion, one from resurgent C. Euro HGs/Unetice that re-expanded I2 and a separate E. Corded expansion of R1a, both of which increased blue eyes throughout Europe. This reminds me of this map from the ancient Bulgarian study that showed some sort of expansion out of C. Europe post-3000BC:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/05/ancient-dna-from-balkans-iron-age-thrace.html

5. Building on the above, considering that both EBA Unetice and BA Hungary show a sizable increase in HG in the EBA/MBA, the post-2500BC resurgence in HG can possibly be traced back to Central Europe/Pannonia and with an expansion of Y-DNA I specifically (Carpathians/Alps mountain refuge?). This seems to match all the Unetice samples being Y-DNA I2, along with IIRC the vast majority of Y-DNA from later Urnfield as well, which AFAIK is generally considered to have expanded from roughly the same area as Unetice, S. Germany/Czech/Austria etc. It seems that Y-DNA I2 is particularly associated with this phenomenon, so I'm not sure how Y-DNA I1 fits in and how it went from C. Europe to Scandinavia.

6. Between the CA and BA, Hungarians acquired significant HG mixture separate from the Yamna influx. I wonder what the cause was behind this simultaneous increase in HG in C. Europe 2200-1500BC?

7. Modern Hungarians can be modeled pretty successfully as a 50-50 mix of IA Hungarian with the more Yamna-like BA Hungarian. This would also seem to confirm that Yamna influence into the Balkans was much weaker (30%) compared to its expansion across N. Europe (German Beaker 45% Yamna).

Simon_W said...

@ Ebizur

Damn, you're right! I took it from Extended Data Table 2, there the Samara EHG has R1b1a as his Y-hg. According to the ISOGG tree this would be equivalent to R1b-P297. But in the chapter on the y chromosomes there is no evidence that he has anything other than R1b1, just like the Iberian farmer. Guess it must be a typo!

Earl Snerd said...

Does anyone know what this new Near Eastern (dark green) component is equivalent to in the older literature. In Haber et al. 2013, is this Levantine component the same as the Caucasus-South Asian component or is it Basal Eurasian?

Iosif Lazaridis (Broad) said...

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

Thanks for catching this!

G. Dekaen said...

I forgot to mention for point 4 that, the study indicates that Corded was the result of a single, major expansion from Yamna and not a gradual process, which would seem to indicate that Corded was a pretty homogeneous culture (except perhaps its Eastern fringes?). This is the reason why I think we can directly compare these German Corded samples with Belarussians from farther East.

I was also just thinking that if there was a post-Yamna double expansion of HG from C. Europe/Unetice and E. Corded, this would help explain why fringe populations in NW. Europe like Scots and Norwegians have higher Yamna than Belarussians, Czechs, Hungarians - who were closer to Yamna and hence would be expected to have more Yamna - because these people were right in the heart of Europe, at the center of these two later, Yamna diluting expansions.

Here is my K16 breakdown (I used a ruler for proportions, so it should be reasonably accurate, sample size in brackets):

W.C.S.N HGs (14): 0% NE, 100% HG, 0% C. Asian
EHG (2): 0% NE, 80% HG, 15% C. Asian, 5% S. American
Early Neolithics (27): 75-85% NE, 15-20% HG, mostly zero, but trace elements (10 and 5%) C. Asian in Stuttgart/EN Hungary
Middle Neolithics (9): 70% NE, 30% HG, 0% C. Asian
Yamnaya (9): 0% NE, 50% HG, 50% C. Asian
LN Corded (4): <5% NE, 60% HG, 35% C. Asian
LN Karsdorf (1): 0% NE, 60% HG, 40% C. Asian
LN Bell Beaker (6): 25% NE, 55% HG, 20% C. Asian
LN Benzingerode Bell Beaker (3): 15% NE, 60% HG, 25% C. Asian
LN Alberstedt Bell Beaker (1): 30% NE, 50% HG, 20% C. Asian
EBA Unetice (7): 20% NE, 55% HG, 25% C. Asian
LBA Halberstadt (1): 20% NE, 55% HG, 25% C. Asian
Modern Czechs (closest we have to Germans): 25% NE, 50% HG, 25% C. Asian
Modern Belarussians (to compare to Corded): 20% NE, 55% HG, 25% C. Asian

CA Hungary (CO1) (1): 70% NE, 30% HG, 0% C. Asian
BA Hungary (BR1) (1): 35% NE, 60% HG, 5% C. Asian
BA Hungary (BR2) (1): 35% NE, 45% HG, 20% C. Asian
IA Hungary (IR1) (1): 20% NE, 40% HG, 35% C. Asian, 5% Siberian
Modern Hungarians: 30% NE, 45% HG, 25% C. Asian

CA Iceman (1): 75% NE, 25% HG, 0% C. Asian
Modern Bergamo: 40% NE, 35% HG, 25% C. Asian

G. Dekaen said...

So, western, central, southern and northern HGs seem to be 100% HG whereas the NE. Euro HGs would seem to have minor traces of the Teal C. Asian component, slightly more in Samara than in Karelia. The existence of pretty basal R1a and R1b among these EHGs testifies to R1a/b being either native to EHGs in NE. Europe OR was brought into NE. Europe via the C. Asian component and was gradually diluted/"decoupled" from its original ancestral background. I think we can effectively eliminate an origin of R1a/b among the ancestors of Neolithics in the Mid. East/West Asia proper. As some have been correct to point out, many of the most basal lineages of R1, R1a and R1b are located in N. Iran (was it also E. Turkey?) which is more strongly associated with the C. Asian than NE component, the former being around 50% with the latter 30% in Iran. Combined with Malta being R* (and IIRC, a basal Bhutanese R1b) and the general scarcity/absence of any R among farmers in Europe, I think we can generally rule out a "West Asian/Mid. East" origin of R1a/b and opt instead for either a C. Asian or NE. European. The Spanish R1b may simply be an early/rare case of R1b decoupling from its C. Asian roots and gradually making its way west with the spread of agriculture; this might also explain how we find an early Y-DNA H2 in C. Europe 5500BC which maybe came from close to Iran and also traveled westward. Alternatively, the Spanish R1b could be decoupled from EHGs that traveled westwards and were assimilated by Neolithics. I'm not sure which is more likely.

I also find the K20 interesting in that it distinguishes between "western" and "eastern" HGs. The "eastern" HG seems to be a merger of parts of the old HG and steals 50-70% from the Teal C. Asian component. This could be further evidence linking Teal C. Asia and EHGs together with R1a/b as the boundaries between these seem to be smaller - and hence, prospective gene flow increases/is more likely - than between the EHGs and the NE component. La Brana, the SHGs and the Hungarian HG seem to be purely "western," whereas curiously, Loschbour is shown as a 50% "western" and 40% "eastern" mix (with 10% NE). This might mean that the Hungarian HG may have been a little more representative of SE. HGs rather than C. HGs and that C. HGs had influence from EHGs, which might be attested by the finding of mtDNA U2e and U4 among Mesolithic German HGs. Still, it's even more curious why Motala and other SHGs show up as 100% "western" when they SHOULD be far more "eastern" shifted than Loschbour since they have vast amounts of mtDNA U2a and U4. As for the EHGs, they turn out to be 60% "eastern," 35% "western" and 5% S. American. Whatever the minutia, the point I'm trying to make here is that if you look at the ancient and modern samples, you see some very interesting changes. Among Neolithic cultures, you see that about 100% of all assimilated HGs are of the western/southern variety. This changes entirely with Yamna and ALL following cultures showing a massive shift to "eastern" HGs until finally we get to modern populations where the Grey "western" HG component is entirely missing/extinct. Mysteriously, it seems to even disappear/not exist among pre-IE peoples like Sardinians, Basques or people with no IE connection like NW Africans. How did this happen and what does it suggest?

G. Dekaen said...

Well, if we extract the Teal C. Asian component (based on K19) from "eastern" HGs to leave only the EHG component in Blue, we can see that EHGs have a frequency ratio of 35:55 "western" HG to "eastern" HG, Loschbour/C. Euro HGs are 50:40, and La Brana/Hungary/Swedish HGs are 100:0. Yamna is 5:20 meaning they absorbed EHGs and not WHGs (we obviously knew that already). Corded is 10:20 also suggesting EHGs (unsurprising because Corded is completely intrusive in Germany). Bell Beaker is 10:25 and Benzingerode Beaker is 15:25 again suggesting EHG influx rather than a contribution from local Loschbour-like HGs. Unetice is 15:35 indicating a continued increase in the EHG:WHG ratio over time until finally, we get to BA Hungarian and LBA Halberstadt which provide the strongest evidence for my hypothesis. I pointed out earlier that the BA Hungarian sample has two very different samples (BR1 and BR2); I believe the earlier 2200-2000BC BR1 to represent the first sample which has a ratio of 25:25 reflecting probably a C. + S. Euro HG mixture. It is only in the Late Bronze Age however that we begin to see samples that are truly "modern" and reflective of the final transformations of the European gene pool (as I have argued). Notice BR2, 1300-1100BC has zero "western" HG and 35% EHG as well as LBA Halberstadt, 1100-1000BC having zero "western" HG and 35% EHG. I think this is pretty clear evidence of a post-2000BC/MBA influx of EHGs from somewhere north of Yamna and E. of German Corded, very likely in the Fatyanovo-Balanovo zone that I have postulated. Cultures that followed Unetice probably played a big role in this, namely Tumulus and Urnfield, and maybe we can even incorporate the Seima-Turbino phenomenon in this since IIRC, it has some sort of connection with Tumulus and seems like a pretty good candidate for bringing an MBA, super-EHG influx into Europe considering it originated way far east.

The IA Hungarian (IR1) sample shows a 20:15 ratio. This individual is obviously heavily derived from the Steppe given he has the highest C. Asian of any ancient sample in K20 (and a decently high K16). Given how high his WHG is in K20 (20%), it's very likely that all of IR1's NE (25%) together with his WHG descends from the Balkans, perhaps, the last stragglers of BR1? The question I have is, is the 15% EHG a part of the "native" Balkanites (since BR1 also had 25% EHG), but that would leave no EHG to remain on the Steppe (and I consider it unlikely IR1 came without any EHG), or was the EHG brought with IR1 and the "native" Balkanites had primarily NE+WHG composition.

Overall, K20 shows us that the HG "resurgence" in BA Europe came not from native/"western" HGs, but rather from "eastern" HGs. Furthermore, the changes from the BA to now show that there was a continued influx of "eastern" HG post-BA that ended up completely replacing "western" HG. That would seem to lend credence to my idea that Fatyanovo-Balanovo was the source of further population expansions post-Yamna and possibly the springboard for at least NW IE languages from Catacomb culture.

G. Dekaen said...

Yamna completely lacks the Neolithic component found in every other EN and MN culture! Neolithic European cultures therefore did not penetrate into Yamna as far as the Volga. Conversely, given the complete absence of Teal/C. Asian among Euro EN and MN cultures, this component was not present in the Middle East responsible for the Neolithic migration wave into Europe until after 6000BC. Teal likely didn't come through the Caucasus into Yamna because all the Caucasus peoples have 20-30% Neolithic and 50-60% Teal components, so if Teal came through the Caucasus into Yamna, Yamna would also have NE but they don't, therefore the Teal in Yamna must've come through C. Asia. You can try to make the case that the Caucasus was 100% Teal at that time, but I don't find that believable, I'm almost certain they had NE. This also means that all the mtDNA H found in Yamna was either C. Asian or less likely, EHG and had little to do with Euro/Mid East Neolithics unless it became "decoupled." Furthermore, if NE didn't reach Volga Yamna, I think that strengthens my case that the later Fatyanovo-Balanovo even further north also lacked NE, probably had even more EHG than Yamna and was responsible for an MBA increase in EHG and very likely, also blue eyes and blonde hair throughout C./N. Europe. IIRC, the northernmost pigmentation samples from Yamna near the Volga-Kama had 33% blue eyes, the highest anywhere in the Yamna cultural horizon.

I believe PIE existed in the N. Caucasus mountains from 3500-3000BC. Yamna shows essentially zero genetic contact with the Caucasus meaning either IE didn't spread into Yamna OR it spread through elite dominance. Since it's much easier/simpler for a language to spread via the momentum of population expansion rather than a complex process of political domination, I think it unlikely PIE spread into Yamna via elite dominance (although given the wealth of Maykop, it IS still possible!). Instead, I think the evidence is stronger for IE languages spreading from the Caucasus into Catacomb culture. The existence of mtDNA R1 at 8.3% in Catacomb may hint at the start of a Caucasus-->Catacomb movement of IE speakers and so we should see the NE component start showing up in Catacomb; we know that at some point, NE must've showed up in the Volga/Urals pre-Slavic expansion because all the Volga populations have it to some degree, Catacomb would be a strong candidate for this. IF this did not happen, then we have two main possibilities: PIE was spoken in another mountainous area with yew trees, the plough, cart, and copper around 3000-3500BC which can only be the Carpathians/Crimea(?) OR PIE transferred their language to Yamna/Catacomb via elite dominance. PIE originating with C. Asian component in C. Asia is impossible since there are no yew trees there (nor carts etc.), the closest ones are in Tajikistan. Here is a distribution map of the yew tree groups:
http://www.worldbotanical.com/TAXNA_files/image002.gif

G. Dekaen said...

It's interesting to examine the sequence of K16 changes from culture to culture post-Yamna in C. Europe (Germany, Hungary, N. Italy). The CA Hungarian and MN Farmers sample show us a ratio of 2.5:1 NE:HG among C. Euro CA farmers just before the Yamna expansion. Using that, we can see that German Corded represented a minimum 95% replacement of CA/MN farmers (no farmer substrate). Also, given the 1:1 HG:C. Asian ratio in Yamna, only 35% out of the 60% of HG in Corded could be explained by Yamna influx, meaning that as the Yamnayans crossed through Belarus/Poland into Germany, they brought an additional 25% HG with them (significant EHG substrate). That could explain the LN Karsdorf sample as a straight Yamna-EHG hybrid (and in-fact, Karsdorf at K20 has a 10:30 WHG:EHG ratio, testifying to its eastern provenance and NOT being native to Germany). German Bell Beaker shows a significant bounce-back of NE and a drop in HG and C. Asian and can be pretty successfully modeled as a mixture of 35% MN/CA Farmer and 65% LN Corded. I doubt this farmer contribution was TRB (or anything more western) because the EHG:WHG ratio between Corded and Beaker doesn't change much (if anything, HGs become slightly MORE EHG during Bell Beaker), so I wouldn't be surprised if Bell Beaker might be some sort of Globular Amphora + Corded combo. Benzingerode Beakers are more Corded, being about 80% Corded and 20% MN/CA Farmer. Using Yamna instead of Corded is less successful in modeling Bell Beaker as a mix with MN/CA Farmers, but that could be due to the Yamna samples being so far east.

From Bell Beaker to Unetice, we see relative continuity with a steady increase in the EHG:WHG ratio indicating continued migrations from NE. Europe. The same applies from EBA Unetice to LBA Halberstadt, the K16 proportions remain identical, but WHG at K20 disappears completely due to continued migrations involving EHGs, making LBA Halberstadt direct ancestors of C. Euros like Czechs/Germans.

As for Belarussians and Corded Ware, post-Corded we see a minimum of 30% total demic displacement. Going from 30-90% replacement, the cumulative change is from (a) population(s) with 64.2-23.1% NE, 34.2-51.7% HG, 1.8-25.1% CAS. Considering that after 3000BC, there aren't really any cultures left in E./C. Europe without any Central Asian (CAS), we can increase the minimum to at least 40% replacement with the following cumulative requirements: 48.5-23.1% NE, 40.8-51.7% HG, 10.6-25.1% CAS. This doesn't really help to narrow down possibly migrations too much considering we're looking at a 5000 year timeframe, but we can essentially eliminate any migration from S. of the Alps/Carpathians or the Caucasus. At some point, Belarus must have gone from ultra-low NE during Corded to 20% present NE, maybe that was with Urnfield/Lusatian considering Urnfield seems to have been a major player and source of migrations during the MBA. Also, at some point, the remaining WHG in Belarus (which almost certainly existed since it was present in Yamna/Corded) must've disappeared from a migration from further east.

G. Dekaen said...

The change from CA Hungary to BR1 is really an oddity. BR1 indicates at least a 50% replacement of previous CO1 inhabitants (max. of 50% CO1 substrate in BR1) with a doubling of HG compared to CO1.This HG had a WHG:EHG frequency ratio of 25:25, and this combined with its only 5% CAS makes it extremely unlikely that this overall HG increase came from the east. It seems to reflect a local (and short-lived), perhaps combined C. Euro + S. Euro HG resurgence. BR1 is likely a dead end, that was neither IE nor left too many descendants today. BR2 represents an entirely new population with zero WHG, attesting to some sort of NE. Euro migration and can be pretty successfully modeled as a mixture of 50% CO1 with 50% of a NE. Euro population north of Yamna with 10% more HG and 10% less CAS. BR2, like LBA Halberstadt seems like a perfect, direct ancestor of Hungarians, with only a minor change of -5% NE and +5% CAS, so we seem to have a relatively stabilized European gene pool by 1000BC and major changes taking place between 2000-1000BC. IR1 doesn't seem to have affected the Hungarian population after BR2 given it has 5% Siberian, N1c Y-DNA, G2a mtDNA, and a 20:5 WHG:EHG ratio, all of which are extremely uncharacteristic of modern Hungarians. Yet again, another dead end IMO.

Nevertheless, IR1 may be pretty useful in determining the genetic composition of the Steppe and at what point it ceased to play a major demographic role in Europe. If IR1 truly represents Cimmerians, given its date of 800-1000BC, we can associate it with at least the Novocherkassk/Chernogorovka culture and assert that this culture and the Steppe from then on (given the gradual increase in Asiatic DNA) had a minimal demographic impact on Europe. If IR1 had 5% Siberian and if we estimate that its 20% WHG and 25% NE were picked up in the Balkans, then we can estimate that Steppe cultures from at least 1000BC in Ukraine probably had around 10% Siberian and zero/little NE, and therefore couldn't be the ancestors of basically any Europeans today. Even populations that experienced Steppe invasions for 1000 years (Moldavians/Romanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians) display only the faintest traces of Siberian <1%. It should've been obvious to everyone judging from the very Asiatic Scythian mtDNA circa 500BC and their likely R1a-Z93 that Scythians are not the ancestors of basically anyone in Europe. This same analysis is relevant for later Turkic peoples. I have previously postulated that Srubna may also have been the source of some MBA migrations between 2000-1000BC as a result of Catacomb+Fatyanovo-Balanovo mixture and a back-migration onto the Steppe followed by an expansion into Europe increasing blue eyes/blonde hair in a similar manner as Andronovo. The question on my mind is, did Srubna - which ended 1200BC - also have this 10% Siberian or did it end via migrations from further east by people who brought the 10% Siberian DNA, i.e. Andronovo/Karasuk. Maybe it was the very last major migration from the Steppe before nomadism became dominant?

Following Otzi, 3300BC, N. Italy experienced a cumulative population change of at least 50% to the modern day. The cumulative genetic proportion of this change ranging from 50-90% replacement was: 12-40.4% NE, 40-32.9% HG, 60-26.7% CAS. This strongly points to the most significant migration post-3000BC coming from around the Steppes.

G. Dekaen said...

As for C. Asia itself, we can confirm HG (specifically EHG) throughout the entire C. Asia as far South as Afghanistan and into Gujaratis and Sindhis, but no further. It seems to be a pretty constant 5-10% (elevated 15% among Tajik Pamirs). However, Burusho also seem to have 10% HG, did this come from Indo-Iranians? I doubt it, Burusho have shown to be tied with Kalash for having the most ANE in the Old World and I find it extremely unlikely that Burusho got their 35% ANE entirely from the powerful Indo-Iranian people without also switching their language like just about everyone else in the region. Furthermore, Burusho have high R1a (25%), R1b* (10%), C (8%), have a strong Siberian and E. Asian autosomal component and alleged links with Yeniseian languages farther north which might hint at time spent on the Steppe. The question is when? It's possible they could've been on the Steppe as early as Andronovo since Andronovo will likely have some E. Asian component due to having Y-DNA C (although no E. Asian seems to have filtered through to the 1000BC IR1 sample). Alternatively, Burusho E. Asian/Siberian ancestry (both absent in all I-I peoples) could perhaps be via Turkic contacts since there are Turkic loanwords into Burusho. This pre-I-I HG substrate could explain why Tajiks have a bit more HG than the other C. Asians (who could be mostly pre-II substrate descended like Pathans, Gujarats, Sindhs or have had their HG diluted by Turkic migrations, Turkmen, Uzbek) because Tajiks have HG from both the pre-I-I substrate and the later I-Is themselves. So, maybe HG already existed in C. Asia at 5-10% with the Indo-Iranian people bringing an additional 5-10%. Either way, if the Yamnayan 1:1 ratio between HG and CAS holds, then roughly 10-30% of C. and S.C. Asian genes derive from Yamna Indo-Iranians.

On a similar note, I found it interesting that Chuvash almost completely lack the E. Asian component that generally exists at a ratio of 1:2 E. Asian:Siberian (K16) among Oghuz Turks like Altaians/Tubalars. It's not entirely absent though because we can see it at trace frequencies in K17, 18 and 20. Given that Chuvash have 20% Siberian (a large part of which may derive from their Mari substrate who are known to have around 25% Siberian), we should expect to see about 10% of the Yellow component. Either Chuvash is yet another case of elite dominance by a Steppe people and language shifting by the local substrate OR Oghur Turks were noticeably different from their Oghuz cousins in being much less E. Eurasian. I consider the elite dominance model the most likely since that seems to be a pattern among modern Turkic-speaking peoples (Turks, Azerbaijans, Kumyks, Gagauz etc. all are predominantly "natives" of non-Turkic ancestry). We know many/most of the "Turkic" loans into Mongol came from an unknown Oghuric language, so they interacted closely early on. That makes it unlikely that Oghuz became "Mongolified" with extra E. Asian while somehow Oghurs escaped that fate. Therefore, Oghurs were likely just as E. Asian as Oghuz Turks. What's also interesting is that Altai Turks (assumed to be the Turkic homeland) differ considerably from their alleged Altaic relatives, the Tungus and Mongols in having what seems to be genuinely Yamna ancestry (1:1 HG: CAS ratio) in the amount of 30% for Tubalars and about 20% for Altaians and Kyrgyz (with some extra CAS not Yamna-derived). We can compare this to Tajik Pamiris who likely have 35% Yamna ancestry. Mongols like the Daur and Oroqen have none, nor do Tungus like the Hezhen and Ulchi. It's tempting (and sensible) to say that this Yamna component in Oghuz Turks reflects the Indo-Iranian Steppe substrate that was assimilated by Turks. Alternatively, it's possible, this could partially represent Turks having slightly higher W. Eurasian, non-Yamna substrate from pre-IE HGs that existed in Siberia since we know Euro HGs existed far to the east.

G. Dekaen said...

Also of interest is that the K16 has seven Uralic samples and not one (not even the far eastern Mansi and Ket-admixed Selkups) have any of the yellow East Asian component. Nor do the Yukaghirs, which I think suggests (given the ubiquity of this yellow E. Asian component among all Altaics) that Uralo-Yukaghiric did not originate/spread from the Baikal (IIRC, Jaska's idea), but further west and was not associated with Altaic languages (IIRC Janhunen's idea), OR Altaic was associated with Uralo-Yukaghiric and was primarily Siberian, only later absorbing E. Asian OR that Uralo-Yukaghiric WAS in the Baikal before Altaic moved in. I think all in all, this evidence strengthens cases of Uralic homelands further north and west of the Baikal. Even the Mansi which are among the eastern-most of Uralic peoples (apart from small tribes of Samoyeds) have about 30% HG, 20% C. Asian, 40% Siberian, 5% Far East Siberian. Some of that HG-C. Asian might be Yamna derived as Ugrics allegedly have a pastoralist history (max 40% Yamna ancestry). Saami in comparison are 50% WHG, 20% C. Asian, 20% Siberian, 10% N. Eastern, 5% Far East Siberian. It would've been great if they tested those 1500BC HGs from Karelia as well to see how much Siberian and Far E. Siberian pre-Saamic peoples had, maybe Saami/F-U people lowered Siberian rather than raised it in Finland? What is Uralic's connection to Far E. Siberian? I wouldn't be surprised if in both Mansi/Saami cases, they acquired this from some pre-Uralic contact/substrate.

Some other observations:

-Karelia HG is 60-62% WHG, 38-40% ANE in comparison to Motala12 being 80% WHG, 20% ANE. If we know EHGs were 60% WHG, 40% ANE and we know that Armenians (15% ANE) are 5% HG and 50%, we can calculate how much ANE CAS has. So, 2% of Armenian ANE comes from HGs, and the remaining 13% comes from their 50% CAS meaning CAS is 26% ANE. Surprisingly, that's less than EHG. Yamna is 50% HG, 50% CAS, so they likely had about 33% ANE.

-As for R1a, maybe it was more popular to the N. of the Steppe and expanded after R1b? We should remember that all these R1b samples come from a small area and are probably not fully representative of all Yamna. I'm confident that R1a WILL be found in the Yamna culture because Samara and Karelia seem to be very close, so I would imagine R1a/b existing in a single population; furthermore, Corded Ware which is supposed to be 75-80% Yamna has 3/3 R1a samples it seems which almost certainly guarantees R1a existing in Yamna as well.

-No Haplo I or N from the Steppe or E. Euro forest-zone/HGs prior to 3000BC. Y-DNA N's absence from the Steppe until 1000BC (Gamba IR1) could mean that it expanded across N. Eurasia 3000-1000BC through the Forest-Belt and gradually filtered onto the Steppes. N is fairly infrequent among Turkic groups AFAIK, so could this be an indication that early Steppe Nomads like Cimmerians and Scythians were Ugrics or had a very strong Ugric substrate (Scythian mtDNA is also super-eastern, mtDNA F1b, A4, D, that doesn't even fit Uralics, might even be Turkic!) Either way, I think we're seeing some pretty solid evidence for early Turkic and Ugric substrate/peoples all the way in the western Steppes as early as 1000-500BC.

G. Dekaen said...

-Starcevo had Y-DNA H2! I'm not too familiar with H, but could this mean either H was introduced into India via the Neolithic (possibly with Dravidian languages?) OR this H2 originates from India/S.C. Asia, and traveled westward with agriculture. Given Starcevo lacks the CAS component in K16, could this mean ANE was absent in/near India/South-Central Asia 5000-6000BC? Stuttgart has 10% CAS, we also see it in one EN Hungary sample at <5%, so maybe it just got diluted/decoupled and there WAS CAS/ANE in India? Interestingly, Stuttgart's HG admixture seems to be EHG-derived, not WHG, so maybe some of the CAS comes from the assimilated EHGs? Judging by the absence of CAS in Munda-speaking Kharia, I think we can say that prior to Dravidians, India probably didn't have CAS and low ANE (Lodhi are also supposed to be Munda speaking, but they look admixed which explains their CAS; MA1 is mostly HG and CAS, only about 10% S. Asian which is the dominant component among all S. Asian Aryan speakers, so S. Asian is not very strong in ANE). Kalash lack the NE component that exists in other Iranic peoples like Tajiks and Pashtuns, not sure why (maybe they have less non-Yamnayan/I-I substrate?). It also looks like there may be a second H2, I0405 from Spain_MN that can be either I2a1a1 or H2. If it is I2a1a1, it is of the type popular among Sardinians and SW. Euros/Basques.

-The absence of Y-DNA J and E3b once again points to these lineages likely being largely confined to SE. Europe until maybe the MBA or EBA.

-They confirmed what many (including myself) have speculated before, that mtDNA I, T1, W, U2e, U4, U5a (and probably R1 & C1g IMO) strongly represent the inflow of ANE into Europe. Both EHGs and Yamna have mtDNA C, yet lack the Siberian component which I think means we can consider at least C1g/C4a6 as ANE. IIRC, we also have an mtDNA C sample from PPNB in Syria. It's interesting that they list H (certain subclades) as also being representative of ANE. That might explain the H found in Karelian HGs earlier. It's also interesting that they don't associate mtDNA J with Early Neolithics, I wonder where that leaves it? In the Fernandez study on PPNB from Syria, J was noticeably absent while being present in Mesolithic Greece, so could it be a southern HG marker?

-P. 51 confirms the presence of mtDNA H among Southern HGs (Spanish?) at a remarkably high frequency of 38.5%; U5b is another 38.5%, N* 15.4% and U4 (!) 7.7% and NO U5a. C. Euro HGs (I guess Germany) are equal parts U5a, U5b 32.1% each, followed by U 14.3%, U2 10.7%, U4 7.1%, U8 3.6%. E. Euro HGs are equal parts U5a and U4, 26.7% each followed by 20% U2, 20% C, 6.7% H.

-I hope they manage to add pigmentation data for the final print. Given the large scale of this study in time and geographic scope, it could really help settle many questions, like the timing/expansion of blue eyes, light skin and blonde/red hair, especially given the odd results we've seen from Yamna/Catacomb compared to later Andronovo. There must be some serious discrepancy there. I'm interested to see what pigmentation these EHGs and Samaran Yamnayans had; it's one of the main reasons I'm skeptical of Yamna being the last major demic displacement in Europe and accounting for the spread of IE. My theory is that blue eyes and blonde hair was likely spread by EHGs, especially during the MBA. Western HGs are universally dark-skinned, dark-haired and blue-eyed, but we saw from some of the Swedish HGs (IIRC, Motala12 and StoraForvar11) that some were light-skinned - and I consider it no coincidence that SHGs who are partially EHG are also partially light-skinned - meaning EHGs could also have been light-skinned, in addition to Andronovans being very blonde and heavily EHG derived. I think the connection is strong. EHG also seems to correlate almost perfectly with the European peaks in blonde hair and blue eyes, NE. Europe. Lastly, the Volga Yamna sample from a previous pigmentation study found the highest amount of blue eyes there out of the entire Yamna, 33%.

Shaikorth said...

G. Dekaen, there should be a talk coming out about the phenotype-associated genetic traits of Yamnaya etc. next month. Yamnaya supposedly had traits associated with height.

Re: the unfortunately unsequenced 1500 BC HG's, they are actually from Kola Peninsula and have mtDNA haplogroups (Z1a, D etc) that are present in Nganasans and Yukaghirs today. On an Eurasian PCA of the Human Origins dataset Nganasans and Yukaghirs cluster together although since 19th century admixture with Russians, Altaics and Chukchis has been increasingly present in Yukaghirs. Looking at the PCA below, one could even conclude unadmixed Yukaghirs might be "genetic Nganasans".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQelNRZ01MOU1hTVk/edit?pli=1

Nganasans are also "the Siberian component" having about 100% of it at K=16 due to their ultra-drift, but they aren't unadmixed and have ANE or perhaps EHG like Siberians usually do. Look at K=7 and K=8 where Nganasans don't have their own component and do a comparison as well.

batman said...

@Marni

"Personally, I think that the R1b/R1a split happened either in the Balkans or Baltic, and the R1/R2 split happened in some place like Kazakhstan, but I don't state that, because I know there is not enough data to definitively make that statement."
Congrats - you've found the track.
The archaeological evidence point to a period called "The Younger Dryas" - when the most horrible part of ice-time concluded a climatic swing-and-sway-curve of 12.000 years.
During this time the climate could fluctuate by 12-13* Celsius, as a mean - from very pleasant to very, very unpleasant. The deeper chills happened across the northern hemisphere, starting with the LGM some 24.000 yrs bp, when the famous boy from Malt'a in Siberia was buried. By this time seals and arctic pinguins entered the Mediterranean, where the northerns bays were all frozen for most of the year. 17.000 years ago the penguins disaapeared along with the glaciers of the southern Alps. Until then all of northern Eurasia was a tundra - and all mamooths, rinceros, cavebeers and giant deers had disappeared - along with the hunman populations.
Between 17-13.000 yrs BP some mamoths where still alive, along the shores of the Baltic and the North Sea - due to the mildening effect of the Gulf-stream. But - during the sudden dips of Dryas I and II these last groups died out - from Estonia, Denmark and Skania. Some wood-bears, elks and humans survived though - along with their wolves, dogs and the reindeers, cattles and horses. Around the western Baltics.
12.100 yrs ago the last and worst cold-period was gone - and so was the last, large glaciers in NW Europe. Thus all the species that had made it would rapidly flourish, as they went into a climate that was improving with a mean of +10 C.
Among these species were a certain group of indiviuals that quickly reporduced and started to re-occupy their old dwellings across the southern shores of the Baltic - as well as the Atlantic facade and the river-routes down south (Wizla, Oder, Rhine), south-east (Daugva, Dvina)and east (Ladoga, Volga, Don).

batman said...


During ice-time, when they had to survive the Eurasian winter as "Cro-magnon", "Gravettian" and "Magdalenien" they had all learned all the nessesary triks and methods possible to lead a decent life. Grinding-tools are more than 35.000 years old, so is 'methodic foragering' or 'domestication' of the plants you collect during harvest and grind during winter. Moreover they had long since learned to make fibres and weave, as well as catching both fish and animals. Catching puppys from wolves and bears they could even domesticate them, as long as they had a milk-producing female substitute. Thus they cathced and kept rein-deers and goats. Especially the latter, which are far more easy to 'socialize' to human settlements, since her instincts seem to be of the most positive - among four-legged- to the two-legged animals. Since goats were used for their milking, they would benefit grately by the proximity to humans - as the humans would lok after them, protect and - even - piling grass and branches during harvest to serve them during winters.

Duely they could also rise puppys of wolves and domesticate dogs - more than 35.000 yrs ago.

The main hub for this culture were placed somewhere between Spain and Siberia - where 'Ursulas daugthers' - and perhaps 'Veldas' and 'Taras' - seem to have reigned the domestic domains. The hub was probably placed where the syrvivors came out, just as the Younger Dryas came to an end.

This area is today pretty well defined, since Europeans archeologist have been cross-checking all their results thats C-14-dated, from the period in question. Thus we have a transition from the Paleolithic to the Mesolithic that is pretty well analyzed - as we can follow the last paleolithic populatons - along with the last mamoths and giant deers to their last resorts, some 12.700 to 12.900 yrs BP.

Moreover we have a pretty good check on where the human refugia have had to happen, from where they could start to spread again, as the Younger Dryas started to cease - some 12.300 to 12.100 yrs BP.

At this end of that time-scale we find the first Eurasians starting, as the survivors of the last and toughest ice-time refugia - in the NW of the Eurasian vcontinent, closest possible to the shores of the gulf-stream.

batman said...


By 12.000 BP they start all over again in the Ahrensburg area of NW Germany, as well as the Swidrien area of Pomeria, in todays Poland.
Arising from the same refugia the Ahrensburg and the Swidrien starts two separate branches - one to habitate the occident, the other the orient. The river Wizla seems to be their border-line, already at this time. Later we find the megalithic beakers with agriculture from the same line - west to Ireland and south to Spain. But not north of Skania and east of Wizla.

Same with the linguistic AND the gentic pattern, still today. Eventhough both genes and langiages have changed - on both sides of Pommeria. (East of Wizla it used to be all 'uralic' spoeakers, until the East-Roman empire and church made most of it slavonic. West of Wizla it used to 'all german' - until the West-Roman made half of it 'french' - which in turn changed Brittains old norse tounges into 'english'.)
1. First we had a spread of 'hunter-gathers' (actually foragers, herders and fisher/huntrers) that would develop into two various main-groups - from one common ancestor on the male side. Probably making them all pale and blue-eyed. *

Thus we had Ursula, Tara or Velda produce Helena and all her daugthers. On the male side we had y-dna CF/F to produce GHIJKLMOP as foragers, from where came the goat and sheep-herders, before the milk-drinking R* (re)appeared - to start the well-known lines of 'cow&wheat-farmers'.

The inland culture from Ahrensburg/Swidrien still maintained their areas - along coastlines, archipelagos, mountain-areas, rivers and lakes. Thus we find y-dna N and O all over NE Eurasia, still today. But we also find R1a there, among them and south of them - on the larger open plains - where they border herders of J or G to the south.. As we find the R1b in the west, among the herders of G, I1 or I2.
Sine the ancient R1a was found in Carelia and Samaria its clear that thye division between the cow-and-corn farmers have a split similar to the first occidental-oriental ANE-group (GHIJ <-> NO). Thus we find G2 and I1 among the forst farmers - along with R1. Thus we also find R1a and R1b at the sme sites at times - as in the Germany/Poland area. Later they mingle as well, since R1b becomes largely dependant on lowland cowfarms while the R1a keeps their aproximity to rivers and mountains, specializing in cattle and horses for inland, woodøand and highland areas. Thus you still find some "swedish" R1a in Norway, Scotland and northern Ireland - while the "danish" R1b have a monopoly on the meadowlands of England and southern Ireland.
Still today a combination of R1a and R1b is found in western Asia, due to the amncient establishement of agriculture and trade. (The first 'silk-and-spice-route' to Europe went via the Kaspian Sea and Volga.) Thus we find strings of R1 all the way to India, Tocharia, Tibet and China - as well as into the Meds, Mesopotamia and Africa.

Though - when the oldest population to digest milk and inherit laktose-persistens is to be found, we find it in NW Europe, with the bulls-eye circled around Oresund - the straigth between Denmark and Sweden.
It may of course appear peculiar, but the origin of agriculture - as well as the origin of writing-systems and the processing of metals - are not anymore an exclusive trait of the Middle East, but skills and traditons started by our common, paleolithic ancestors - to spread and develop during mesolithic time.

Davidski said...

Batman,

You're posting utter garbage. It has very little to do with reality.

weure said...

G. Dekean:
" however that we begin to see samples that are truly "modern" and reflective of the final transformations of the European gene pool (as I have argued). Notice BR2, 1300-1100BC has zero "western" HG and 35% EHG as well as LBA Halberstadt, 1100-1000BC having zero "western" HG and 35% EHG. I think this is pretty clear evidence of a post-2000BC/MBA influx of EHGs from somewhere north of Yamna and E. of German Corded, very likely in the Fatyanovo-Balanovo zone that I have postulated. Cultures that followed Unetice probably played a big role in this, namely Tumulus and Urnfield, and maybe we can even incorporate the Seima-Turbino phenomenon in this since IIRC, it has some sort of connection with Tumulus and seems like a pretty good candidate for bringing an MBA, super-EHG influx into Europe considering it originated way far east. "
Bull's eye according to me. I'am very clearly from North(east) Dutch stock.
Your story is an illustration of my autosomal DNA, according to the MDLP K11 admixture:
1 Halberstadt_LBA @ 1.753964
2 Alberstedt_LN @ 1.883032
3 Bell_Beaker_Germany @ 2.323992
4 Bell_Beaker_Czech @ 3.536243
5 British_Celtic @ 4.103508
6 British_AngloSaxon @ 5.348632
7 British_IronAge @ 5.791267
8 Nordic_MN_B @ 5.830501
9 Nordic_LN @ 6.482782
10 Unetice_EBA @ 6.646599
My Autosomal DNA is related to the Elp culture or as the Germans call it the Sögel Wohlde Kreis. This is a Tumulus/Urnfield culture in the Northern Netherlands, Northwestern Germany up to Jutland.
The archeologist Prof. H. Fokkens stated (1998):''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture was an immigration of Sögel warriors."

weure said...

The Sögel warrior swords were according to wiki: "Swords found together with the Nebra skydisk, ca. 1600 BC. Typologically, these swords are of the Sögel type, but their shape and decoration shows influence of the Hajdúsámson-Apa type found in Hungary."
and
"Typologically, the swords from Nebra and Vreta belong to the Sögel blades, which copy the shape and decoration of Hajdúsámson-Apa swords [...] Concerning the provenance of the swords, the area between the rivers Danube and Tisza in present-day Hungary and Romania has been suggested, as also the production in present Germany [...] Vandkilde (1996:240) proposed that these swords and daggers of the Sögel and Wohlde type in southern Jutland could have been manufactured locally." Roland Schwab, Inga Ullén, Christian-Heinrich Wunderlich, A sword from Vreta Kloster, and black patinated bronze in Early Bronze Age Europe, Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science 17, 27–35 (2010)."
These Sögel warrior were all well groomed with Mycenaean kind of razor blades.
So the tumulus and urnfield culture were a major impuls for the Nordic Bronze Age and forms a warrior culture with long distance trade, marriage and prestige networks even up until the Carpathian/Hungarian region or your "Fatyanovo-Balanovo zone."
And last but not least after the Corded Ware (also present in my aDNA region) there came with the Tumulus Culture again a major impuls of Yamna gene; streamed right up the Northwest!?
Euler (2009) stated that there were lots of loan-words from Celtic into Germanic. But he was in the conviction that the Celtic influence was more or less a cultural and commercial relationship. Based on the archeological and your genetic facts and figures we can presume that the influence was bigger, most probably a migration of at least a warrior elite (as Haak c.s recently stated this was 1:10 a men affair). And the loanwords of Euler fit in the environment of this elite (from about 1000 BC, so during the Elp or Sogel-Wohlde culture).
From the Frisians til the Cimbri, the Celtic influence was always suspected. And sometimes called 'in between German and Celtic.' And based on the Frisian history the definitive Germanisation was not earlier than in the 4th century AD (along the Anglo Saxon invasion of England). But this is all never fully recognized....according to me you have given some prove. Thanks!

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 438 of 438   Newer› Newest»