search this blog

Friday, March 6, 2015

Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, EHG and Yamnaya genomes in the fateful triangle


The Principal Component Analyses (PCA) below are based on my K8 model (aka. fateful triangle) and ancient genomes from Haak et al. 2015. A spreadsheet with the K8 ancestry proportions for the ancient samples is available here. Some of the results are a bit noisy, and there are good reasons for that (like low coverage calls), but overall I think they look quite solid.

Note the total lack of the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) component in the Middle Neolithic (MN) genomes, and its sudden appearance at levels of around 24% in the Late Neolithic (LN) Corded Ware genomes. Keep in mind that these samples are from the same region of Germany and only separated by a couple thousand years at most. Clearly, what we're seeing here is a major migration to Central Europe from the east.


So how do I know that these K8 ancestry proportions are correct? Because when I analyze several of the highest quality genomes with very different methodology, like genotype-based PCA, I get basically the same outcomes.

Bell_Beaker I0112 PCA

Corded_Ware I0103 PCA

Karelia_HG I0061 PCA

Yamnaya I0231 PCA

Yamnaya I0443 PCA

However, I have to admit that I'm now more befuddled than ever as to why anyone would want to model the Yamnaya as 50/50 Karelia_HG/present-day Armenian. I do realize that Haak et al. showed this to be a solid statistical fit, but I just don't see it as a very practical solution considering the surprisingly high ANE and low Near Eastern ancestry in the Yamnaya genomes.

I suspect that inflated Basal Eurasian admixture in the Yamnaya and/or East Eurasian, perhaps ancient Arctic, admixture in Karelia_HG might have skewed the Haak et al. model.

Citation...

Haak et al., Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, Nature, Advance online publication, doi:10.1038/nature14317

See also...

4mix: four-way mixture modeling in R

Modeling Yamnaya with qpAdm

K8 results for selected Allentoft et al. genomes

561 comments:

1 – 200 of 561   Newer›   Newest»
Shaikorth said...

Looks expected I guess, probably the only "oddity" is high Yamnaya ANE.

The ANE component and Near Eastern/SSA components of this calculator probably "negate" each other to some degree. That's the way to reconcile the results with f-stats and the Lazaridis tidbit about Yamnaya fitted as 61% EHG 39% BedouinB.

Perhaps a related phenomenon was that ALDER could fit (ANE-less) BedouinB as Chechen/Yoruba mixes with almost a similar ratio despite Chechens having ANE.

Did you need to modify the test reference- or SNP-wise before running these samples?

Srkz said...

I hope to upload Corded Ware I0124 today, this sample's quality is better then I0443

Srkz said...

Oops, my mistake, I0124 is Samara EHG

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Bell beaker definitely didn't get their ANE from Corded. There's too much. No more talk of R1b having no association with it. Only the ones around 19% are possibly mixed with something.

Alberto said...

Looking at the results still leaves me wondering if Yamnaya could explain all of Europe.

It's not such a stretch as it was with EHG, but I still think that an additional route via Anatolia to Balkans (i.e, without EHG mixing) could make it easier to explain Southern Europe.

@Chad

Could you elaborate? If BB didn't get their ANE from CW, what is your suggestion instead?

Srkz said...

Uploaded Corded Ware I0103 - kit M414769

Srkz said...

Processed to 23andMe format genomes are here https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cnnmb7cym9aer09/AAB-l36I2WjMXNhZYFe6wN3pa?dl=0

Srkz said...

Yamnaya IBD map http://s019.radikal.ru/i606/1503/2d/e97903629173.png

BR2 77,11 ---//Confidence: very low
Moksha 67,05 ---//Confidence: low
Estonian 64,63 ---//Confidence: high
German 63,96 ---//Confidence: medium
Finnish 63,93 ---//Confidence: low
Balt 63,66 ---//Confidence: high
Swedish 63,16 ---//Confidence: high
Kosovar 62,21 ---//Confidence: medium
Ukrainian-East-and-Center 61,45 ---//Confidence: high
Russian-West 60,92 ---//Confidence: very high
Croatian 58,96 ---//Confidence: very high
Udmurt 58,96 ---//Confidence: high
Russian-North-Kargopol 58,86 ---//Confidence: very high
Ukrainian-West-and-Center 58,48 ---//Confidence: high
Norwegian 57,6 ---//Confidence: high
Russian-South 57,14 ---//Confidence: very high
Hungarian 56,87 ---//Confidence: very high
Belarusian 56,64 ---//Confidence: very high
British 55,98 ---//Confidence: very high
Chechen 55,85 ---//Confidence: very high
Karelian 55,53 ---//Confidence: high
Tatar-Volga 55,53 ---//Confidence: high
Russian-North-East 54,99 ---//Confidence: very high
Greek_Azov 54,58 ---//Confidence: low
Veps 54,14 ---//Confidence: medium
Tatar-Crimean 53,56 ---//Confidence: low
Polish 53,08 ---//Confidence: very high
Erzya 52,91 ---//Confidence: medium
Bosnian 51,94 ---//Confidence: medium
Adygei 51,29 ---//Confidence: high
French 51,29 ---//Confidence: very high
Italian 50,92 ---//Confidence: very high
Komi 50,89 ---//Confidence: high
Balkarian 49,52 ---//Confidence: very high
Macedonian 49,13 ---//Confidence: medium
Gagauz 48,62 ---//Confidence: medium
Bulgarian 48,55 ---//Confidence: high
Chuvash 48,54 ---//Confidence: very high
Serbian 48,42 ---//Confidence: high
Uttar-Pradesh-HC 48,26 ---//Confidence: high
Ashkenazi 47,61 ---//Confidence: high
Spanish 47,58 ---//Confidence: very high
Kumyk 47,06 ---//Confidence: high
Lezgin 46,5 ---//Confidence: very high
Ossetian 46,33 ---//Confidence: high
Sicilian 46,26 ---//Confidence: very high
Abkhazian 46,26 ---//Confidence: very high
Nogay 46,25 ---//Confidence: high
Mari 46,14 ---//Confidence: high

Srkz said...

Turkish 45,74 ---//Confidence: very high
Italian-South 45,22 ---//Confidence: high
Romanian 44,11 ---//Confidence: medium
Turkmen 43,4 ---//Confidence: very high
Montenegrian 42,92 ---//Confidence: medium
Greek 42,75 ---//Confidence: very high
Burusho 42,34 ---//Confidence: very high
Basque 42,26 ---//Confidence: very high
Saami 41,25 ---//Confidence: medium
Armenian 41,24 ---//Confidence: high
Syrian 40,37 ---//Confidence: high
Sindhi 39,74 ---//Confidence: very high
Kalash 39,67 ---//Confidence: very high
Tadjik 39,45 ---//Confidence: high
Uygur 39,13 ---//Confidence: medium
Uzbek 39,05 ---//Confidence: high
Pathan 38,99 ---//Confidence: very high
Bashkir 38,82 ---//Confidence: very high
Azerbaijani 38,74 ---//Confidence: high
Ust-Ishim 38,57 ---//Confidence: very low
Georgian 38,44 ---//Confidence: very high
Sephard 38,32 ---//Confidence: high
Iranian 38,32 ---//Confidence: very high
Balochi 37,46 ---//Confidence: very high
Sardinian 36,96 ---//Confidence: very high
Brahui 36,81 ---//Confidence: very high
Shor 35,77 ---//Confidence: very low
Kurd 35,39 ---//Confidence: low
Makrani 34,67 ---//Confidence: very high
Jordanian 34,14 ---//Confidence: very high
Yemenite 33,91 ---//Confidence: medium
Cypriot 33,19 ---//Confidence: medium
Tatar_Lithuanian 33,07 ---//Confidence: very low
Hazara 32,26 ---//Confidence: very high
Kanjar 32,07 ---//Confidence: low
Druze 32,02 ---//Confidence: very high
Mansi 31,98 ---//Confidence: low
Hakas 30,72 ---//Confidence: medium
Palestinian 30,6 ---//Confidence: very high
Gujarati 30,54 ---//Confidence: very high
Saud 30,3 ---//Confidence: very high
Kazah 30,02 ---//Confidence: high
Bedouin 29,33 ---//Confidence: very high
Uttar-Pradesh 29,12 ---//Confidence: very high
UAE 28,09 ---//Confidence: medium
Kirgiz 27,82 ---//Confidence: very high
Tunisian 27,16 ---//Confidence: medium
Selkup 25,93 ---//Confidence: high
Moroccan 25,82 ---//Confidence: very high
Altaian 25,6 ---//Confidence: high
Egyptian 25,57 ---//Confidence: medium
Ket 25,06 ---//Confidence: low
Andhra-Pradesh 24,81 ---//Confidence: medium
Kol 24,61 ---//Confidence: high
Dolgan 23,82 ---//Confidence: medium
Karnataka 23,48 ---//Confidence: medium
LBK 23,07 ---//Confidence: very low
Kalmyk 22,67 ---//Confidence: medium
Nenets 22,17 ---//Confidence: medium
Tamil-Nadu 21,21 ---//Confidence: high
Mongol 20,7 ---//Confidence: medium
NE1 19,73 ---//Confidence: very low
Loschbour 19,07 ---//Confidence: very low
Tuvinian 18,99 ---//Confidence: high
Maya 18,05 ---//Confidence: very high
Nivh 17,13 ---//Confidence: very low
Kerala 16,91 ---//Confidence: medium
Evenk 16,73 ---//Confidence: high
Yakut 15,65 ---//Confidence: very high
Buryat 15,11 ---//Confidence: very high
Nganassan 14,41 ---//Confidence: medium
Munda 14,37 ---//Confidence: very high
Burmese 14,26 ---//Confidence: high
Mongola 14,01 ---//Confidence: medium
Japanese 13,13 ---//Confidence: very high
Oroqen 13 ---//Confidence: low
Xibo 12,24 ---//Confidence: low
Even 12,17 ---//Confidence: medium
Naxi 11,71 ---//Confidence: low
Han-North 10,64 ---//Confidence: medium
Dai 10,56 ---//Confidence: low
Yi 10,55 ---//Confidence: low
Han 9,71 ---//Confidence: very high
Ethiopian 9,67 ---//Confidence: high
Karitiana 9,63 ---//Confidence: medium
Tu 9,54 ---//Confidence: low
She 9,34 ---//Confidence: medium
Tujia 9 ---//Confidence: medium
Lahu 8,41 ---//Confidence: low
Cambodian 8,09 ---//Confidence: medium
Naga 7,7 ---//Confidence: very low
Daur 6,84 ---//Confidence: low
Hezhen 6,81 ---//Confidence: low
Miao 6,76 ---//Confidence: medium
MbutiPygmy 5,82 ---//Confidence: very low
Melanesian 5,7 ---//Confidence: low
BiakaPygmy 4,4 ---//Confidence: very low
BantuKenia 4,36 ---//Confidence: low
Yoruba 3,76 ---//Confidence: low
Papuan 2,66 ---//Confidence: low

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Bell beaker is too Yamnaya like. How can they be 60-80% corded ware descended without sharing diddly squat in uni-parental markers? Most of the ANE is theirs. Some, might be all R1b ANE.

Srkz said...

Yamnaya/Karelian_EHG difference
http://s018.radikal.ru/i513/1503/79/b6aac3f9e73f.png

Shaikorth said...

One point of note in that Yamnaya list is that the Europeans with least IBD sharing with it are Basques, Saamis, and Sardinians, below UP Brahmins, North Caucasians, Maris, Sicilians, even Turks, Turkmens and Burushos. Probably not a coincidence

Maju said...

The real triangle is much smaller and has real late prehistory populations as vertices.

Notably I don't know why don't you place the ENF dot on Stuttgart and instead imagine an West Asian (tending to African) pop. where no sample stands. I also do not see anymore the need or convenience of using "ANE" when CWC or Yamna play that role much more faithfully and directly.

Srkz said...

Perhaps Yemenite spot is a Basal influence

Maju said...

Actually we must begin to think "out of the triangle": it's a pentagon!

Using "real" (most plausible and direct) source populations within the available data, we need two extra vertices: one is the Levant, which clearly pulls Italy particularly (at least in your plot) but the other one can only be Motala or something like that.

Alberto said...

@Maju

But we cannot leave two thirds of the Europeans outside the triangle, can we? :)

Thanks for that image. It shows better what I tried to explain with words above. A line from what you called Thessalian Neolithic to Yamnaya leaves Italians and Greeks out. To include them we'd need another vertex near Armenians.

Srkz said...

"Uploaded Corded Ware I0103 - kit M414769"
Sorry again, use M966366 instead (kit reloaded)

Krefter said...

Srkz, can you convert a Bell beaker genome now to 23andme format? I think the Bell beaker, Corded ware, and Yamna should obviously be first.

Alberto said...

@Maju

Ah, you made a new one while I was answering, sorry.

Yes, that works too. But we still need to explain why Italians and Greeks are IE speakers. If Yamnaya was the only source of IE languages in Europe they (ancient Greeks and Romans) would speak Semitic (or something else). We need an IE source further south, that's why I mentioned Armenians to fit them in.

Maju said...

@Alberto: even if we stretch the minimalistic triangle to Yamna, the problem remains: it's not just Italians (something already suggested for Sicilians in the Lazaridis paper) but also many NW and almost all NE Europeans.

That's why it is a pentagon: see my previous comment.

Anyhow I'm not sure this plot is the best, I'm still perplex on how Megalithic Swedes now almost overlap Sardinia when in Skoglund and other studies they clearly overlapped mainland SW Europe (Basques, Iberians and French). But working with what I get...

@Srkz: yeah, it seems to be a figment of David's imagination. I'm OK with the notion but the name is confusing, as if there'd be only one type of ENFs Obviously the kind of ENFs that affected Yamna were not of that type but rather in the other extreme of the West Asian range. Also the term is too similar to EEF/ENE and at least to me it creates confusion, more so when that vertice was in Lazaridis placed on Stuttgart (following the logic of using only ancient samples and in any case not imaginary constructs).

Maju said...

@Alberto: (PS) If this graphic is to be believed, then Motala or something of the like (mixed with Megalithic or whatever) is the most parsimonious "Nordic" vertex.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Maju,
ENF is the bottom left corner of the triangle. Those pcas with Gok 2 by Basques was a projection issue. Two runs were overlaid.

Maju said...

@Alberto: "But we still need to explain why Italians and Greeks are IE speakers."

Well, the actual direct source of IE languages in Europe (excepted the Balcans) is Corded Ware but anyhow... Do you have the impression that Roman genetic influence in Spain, France and Portugal is notable? I do not. Yet these populations speak not Latin but languages directly derived of a creolized ("vulgar") Latin that was surely already spoken in Italy in times of Hannibal. It was not literacy nor the Church (neither used Vulgar Latin) but just the elite dominance of Italy in that time, which left a deep imprint but without any apparent genetic impact.

We find lots of similar cases: Turkic in West Asia, Arabic in North Africa or even the Levant, even Chinese in South China: the genetic legacy is small or nil, the cultural and linguistic one is massive. I'd say it's much more politics and convenience than actual people what causes these shifts, although, of course, if a lot of people migrate, that also causes usually a language shift - but it is not necessary.

How did Castilian (Spanish) penetrate in Andalusia? With a grammar book and lots of inquisition! The first Castilian grammar ever was made to teach Spanish to the the Granadino Moriscos: it was politics, ethnic assimilation politics.

... "they (ancient Greeks and Romans) would speak Semitic (or something else)."

They did speak at least largely West Asian derived languages like the mysterious Pelasgian and Etruscan. But there came some tribal armies from the North, gradually or suddenly imposed their rule and eventually also their language. Genetic impact? Not apparent anywhere or very tiny. We are talking Bronze and Iron Age already anyhow. But the Bulgarians and Romanians were surely indoeuropanized much earlier and they don't seem much more Kurgan in their genetic makeup either.

In fact, if you consider the PENTAGON model and take Yamna as vertex of IE genetics, the overall genetic influence of that polarity becomes very blurry and only some East Europeans would be >50% Yamna. Even Corded Ware appear already clearly admixed, barely 50-60% Yamna-like.

Elite dominance has been always an important and even often overwhelming method of ethno-cultural expansion. Colonization is not for the aristocrats: they don't work, only live on others' work.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Gok2 is 'west' of the Basques, on the line between Sardinians and WHG.

Maju said...

@Chad: "Those pcas with Gok 2 by Basques was a projection issue. Two runs were overlaid."

How can you know? How do you know the projection issue is not happening here instead. Nowhere the methodology is explained, just the PCA is shown as if it was a "fact" but neither David nor Haak discuss the method at all.

Krefter said...

Both ESP16(Corded ware) and SVP57(Yamna) had two ancestral alleles in rs182549 and rs4988235, meaning they were probably both Lactose intolerant.

ESP16(Corded ware), SVP57(Yamna), and BR1(bronze age Hungary) had rs16891982 C/G. Also, all Bronze age Euros so far(4) have brown eyes and brown hair. This is enough to prove eye color has changed but after a few more Corded ware individuals it might be.

Krefter said...

Roy, what do you think of Lactose intolerance in CWC and Yamna?

Alberto said...

@Maju

Yes, I agree with your comments about languages expanding by many other methods other than migration. Every case is different, and certainly in Spain, as you point out, we have a good example with Latin being adopted without any migration, just a small elite.

In this case, I was mostly referring to the migration that did have an impact on Southern Europeans. The migration that shifted them east from the Early Neolithic point to where they are now. Whether that migration brought IE languages or not is something we cannot know for sure. But all Europe shifted eastwards at the time when IE languages were introduced, so it seems reasonable to link both events.

In any case I don't disagree with you, and I don't make a case for languages. My main point was about genetic shift and the origin of it. Whether a migration from Yamnaya could explain the genetic profile of South Eastern Europeans or not. And your triangle helped me to visualize the difficulty of it.

Arch Hades said...

Simple question. What ancient sample is used as a reference for ENF here? Is it from Europe?

Mike Thomas said...

@ Alberto

"We need an IE source further south, that's why I mentioned Armenians to fit them in."

I agree. We'll find in due course, I suspect, that IE in Greece and Anatolia had its own trajectory. Possibly linked to Balkano-Anatolian R1b, and possibly even J2, etc, which will require re-assessment of linguistic explanations.

Whatever the case, I think that there is no reason to treat north and south of the Pontic sea as separate regions.



@Maju

You can't use misplaced analogies to explain away the problems with the Kurgan hypothesis. Rome was an empire that had beurocratic apparatus to spread language without mass movement of peoples. Other mechanisms operated which facilitated the spread of IE. The Kurgan hypothesis only appears to only work for northern Europe - and worst of all - this northern Europe might not even have been IE !

And your idea that the Balkan IE derives from CWC is your most hair-brained idea yet. I dare not ask where you pulled that Idea from ? :)


@ Chad

Can you clarify what your point is ? Your last two posts are a bit cryptic.

Davidski said...

Maju,

Stuttgart can't be ENF because it's a Neolithic sample from Germany, with ~27% indigenous European hunter-gatherer admixture.

Surely you don't think that the Neolithic transition was started in Germany by Europeans, rather than in the Fertile Crescent by ancient Near Easterners?

And if you believe Gok2 should cluster with Basques, then please run a PCA with Gok2 and see where it clusters. I can assure you it won't be with Basques, unless you project it into the plot.

Arch,

ENF is the stuff in the Near East after I take out ANE, WHG, SSA, South Asian and East Asian admixtures.

Maju said...

@Chad: Vulgar Latin was no spread by the bureaucracy, the Ottoman Empire used Persian as official language and Arabic as religious one, yet it was Turkish what became dominant. It has to do with a more common level of interactions than written language. Said that, I do not mean that when writing was invented it did not play also a role, just that language is mostly about talking: talking with your neighbors, in the market, at work, and with the all powerful Lord whom you definitely don't want to upset. Most people historically were illiterate.

"The Kurgan hypothesis only appears to only work for northern Europe - and worst of all - this northern Europe might not even have been IE !"

In total disagreement. The genetically loaded version of the theory (not any mere "hypothesis") is what you're looking at, while the era of Gimbutas, the Kurgan theory has been about culture. And language is a primordial aspect of culture (genes are not).

"... your idea that the Balkan IE derives from CWC"...

I did not say that but exactly the opposite. In fact Balcan IEs are the only one originating in a different way (but still from Khvalynsk and Sredny-Stog II, from the same ultimate seed).

Arch Hades said...

I think the Kurgan hypothesis as a viable demic diffusion model works for Southern Europe. Modern Anatolian Turks can be modeled as 13% central Asian Turkic, so Greeks being 20% Yamna and Spaniards being 30% Yamna is plenty. Its the near east and Caucasuses that the model still has work to do IMO to prove it as the ultimate source of PIE.

Maju said...

@David: "Stuttgart can't be ENF because it's a Neolithic sample from Germany, with ~27% indigenous European hunter-gatherer admixture".

Sure. But it's the reference for Neolithic ancestry in Europe, not any other sample so far has produced any significantly "more West Asian" result, be these from Italy or Spain.

Secondary waves from Asia are possible and I'd say that certain: Vinca-Dimini to begin with. But those are likely to have a more northernly component within West Asia (Halafian), as we see in the Balcanic drift, which tends towards Turkey and not the Levant. They don't seem to explain the "Italian anomaly", which instead tends to Palestine, in spite of Ötzi or Sardinians being nearly identical to Stuttgart. So there's something odd going on with Italy, at least if we have to follow this graph - that kind of deviation was not apparent in the Lazaridis graphs and only Sicily was found anomalous in the analyzed data (so I'm still puzzled about the analytical differences, which are in several places and vs. several other reputable and recent studies).

"Surely you don't think that the Neolithic transition was started in Germany by Europeans"...

Stuttgart means not just Stuttgart but represents fairly well all the ENF across Europe: it's the same in Germany, Italy or Spain, whose roots are in two very different (apparently) Neolithic waves: Impressed-Cardial and Painted-Linear pottery traditions. Their similarity can only be explained by their common origin in Thessaly, where both pottery styles are found in the first known European Neolithic. Stuttgart (and Ötzi and Mirador, etc.) represent the Thessalian Neolithic: a very specific founder effect, which affected nearly all Europe.

"And if you believe Gok2 should cluster with Basques, then please run a PCA with Gok2 and see where it clusters. I can assure you it won't be with Basques, unless you project it into the plot".

So you're saying that you're running the analysis with the various ancient samples freely floating? How is it that better than "projecting"? Yes, I'm asking for quality technical explanation here.

I don't know how to run the PCA, so put up with me on this.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Maju

" And language is a primordial aspect of culture (genes are not)."

...only betrays how out of times you are Maju. Whilst I agree with you that genetics and language or culture aren't intimately linked, neither are language and culture. Your idea smacks of 19th century Herderian ideas of langauge and nationality. In reality, all aspects are often decoupled.

' In fact Balcan IEs are the only one originating in a different way (but still from Khvalynsk and Sredny-Stog II, from the same ultimate seed)."


Dead wrong. But as you say, we can agree to disagree on this issue. You can stick to your essentialist notions of culture -history, which even if one accepts, are neverthelesss wholly wrong, becuase the Copper Age Kurgans of SEE have little directly to do with those simpler ones of the pre-yamnaya steppe foragers.

Maju said...

PS- If I don't recall badly, Lazaridis estimates suggested that the West Asian component of EEF was less and not more extreme than Palestinian Bedouins, at least in its African-like ("Basal Eurasian") tendency. I understand that you're just tracing a straight line WHG-EEF and projecting it to the West Asian tendency axis but it still looks a bit odd considering Lazaridis data on this matter.

Maju said...

"... neither are language and culture"...

Then why IE-ness is not only about language but also about religion and other ideological aspects? Sure some of these can decouple but not necessarily so nor easily. You needed a propaganda genius like Paul to make Indoeuropeans accept a Semitic religion, and that only happened once in 6000 years. Afroasiatics still keep many ancient customs like ablation and circumcision which are pretty much typical from their area, and that may well explain the Christian-Muslim split as we know it to at least some extent. Culture is important and often goes along language, at least as much as, if not much more than, genes.

Davidski said...

Maju,

Obviously Stuttgart is not a pure Neolithic farmer from the Near East, so I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate?

Mike Thomas said...

A genomic tour through Europe :)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1vtTHobiXwVY0dqSGxzZ3g4d0E/view?usp=sharing

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Maju,
What are you talking about, this Vulgar Latin? I never mentioned language or anything else you listed. You must be confusing me for someone else.

Mike,
What points would you like me to clarify?

Maju said...

@Arch: "Spaniards being 30% Yamna"

In this graph at least Spaniards look rather 22% Yamna-admixed, Basques would be around 15%. French would be the ones approaching 30%. Get a ruler and measure it (trace the line trying to go over the CW samples area, the base seems to be Swedish Megalithic and other MNE samples). Corded Ware samples on the other extreme are like 70% Yamna-like.

Maju said...

@Chad: yes, sorry, that was meant for Mike Thomas. :(

Graham Little said...

Basques sit closer with the Late Bronze Age Hungarian.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Maju

" Then why IE-ness is not only about language but also about religion and other ideological aspects? "

That's the thing - it's not. Gimbutas invented this IE world to mirror her left wing, feminist inspired world of Neolithic Europe. In reality, such opposing but homogenoues, self contained worlds did not exist. This outdated view is nevertheless propagated by modern scholars and bloggers (like yourself) alike.

There was no exclusive, universal, Pan-IE theology or 'world-view'. What happened in in 3rd millenium central asia - the dawn of Indo-Aryans- had little directly to do with the balkano-Carpathian ("proto-NW IE) world in central Europe. Sure, certain elements were shared, but this was nothing to do with exclusive pan- IE mythology.

In the same vein, there was no homogenoues Thesalo-Iberian "Neolithic" world-but rather a diverse array of communities only sharing certain aspects of culture, economy and social organization.

Maju, you need to take a bridging course in anthropology. You're otherwise a bright bloke, Im sure you'll understand eventually.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Chad

Whats your point about north- & western European ANE, and R1b? Are you saying it should be exclusively ,more or less, derived from Yamnaya ?

Maju said...

@David: "Obviously Stuttgart is not a pure Neolithic farmer from the Near East, so I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate?"

It's a pure Neolithic farmer from Europe (and now I see that even Starcevo seems to match that homogeneity of early European farmers).

What does your ENF mean? That all West Asians are post-ENF admixtures? Hope not! It's totally speculative and yet you present it on the same light as WHG-Lochsbour or ANE-Ma1, as if it was some sort of "real thing"!

I remember you saying elsewhere that there was "ENF" (sic) in Yamna, yet then that it was a Daghestani thing. So your question can only be answered with another question: what does "ENF" mean to you?

Davidski said...

Maju,

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point?

You think that people like Stuttgart lived in the Near East during the Neolithic?

That doesn't make any sense.

Mike Thomas said...

@ David and Chad, et al

Look at the bar graphs I made of David's data (thanks again to all for the effort)

David - can you see the Baltic and even "EE" components are already present in the SHG, and eve WHG ??

The only truly 'novel' component during the Bronze Age was the West Asian / minorsouth Asia, trace Amerindian.

To me, this points to a possibly more complex scenario than mass arrivals from Yamnaya.

Arch Hades said...

When David gets some real geomes from the near east during the Neolithic i'm sure he'll update his triangle. His ENF is still better than the EEF since EEF is a bit mixed. Complaing that there hasnt been found a pure ENF in Europe is like complaing there hasnt been found a pure ANE in Europe.

Maju said...

@Mike: the identity of IE religions is not something that Gimbutas constructed, it comes from the 19th or early 20th century. And it's obvious: Latin, Greek, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Vedic, etc. are all the same thing with minor variants: overlord god of the sky, dragon/serpent/demon-slayer hero god, horse sacrifices, etc. Yet you get something also 100% European like Basque ancient religion and it is totally different, much more similar to the substrate pre-IE elements we find in Greek or even Hindu traditions.

Other IE common elements (vs. their pre-IE neighbors of various origins) are harsher patriarchy or misogyny, apology of war and victory, etc. All them are also embedded in religion. Some of these are not exclusively IE things and surely relate to the rise of the aristocratic proto-feudal society of the metal ages but the way they are lived culturally have often specific IE forms.

... "there was no homogenoues Thesalo-Iberian "Neolithic" world-but rather a diverse array of communities only sharing certain aspects of culture, economy and social organization".

Genetics says otherwise and very clearly so.

"... you need to take a bridging course in anthropology".

I already have one. Don't be a jerk.

Davidski said...

Mike,

West Asian is a 70/30 composite of Near Eastern/ANE.

Near Eastern was present in Neolithic Western and Central Europe. It was ANE that was missing.

Have a look at this spreadsheet. The middle Neolithic (MNE) samples have 0% ANE, and then the Corded Ware come in with ~25%.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11vadY5p7JajDxpFbbEOjbIP0IoBdY2mG5YvzXzaG3c0/edit?usp=sharing

Mystery solved.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
The K15 components Atlantic, North Sea, Baltic, and East Euro all contain EEF, WHG, and ANE. They are not based on ancient genomes, so they won't work. Only a test based on ancient genomes is informative. We can't take anything in them literally. The only ones you should be looking at are the ENF, WHG, and ANE. Until something better is made with more data, it's the way to go.

Maju said...

"I'm sorry but I don't understand your point?

You think that people like Stuttgart lived in the Near East during the Neolithic?"

Nope! Not at all!

What I understand is that the ENF of the Fertile Crescent were diverse and surely approximate the modern range of West Asians (although this will have to be confirmed by ancient DNA samples in due time).

What I do not understand is your usage of ENF: now means the partial Jarmo-Caucasian origin of Yamna, now an imaginary dot in the middle of the Red Sea... What do you understand by ENF?

Davidski said...

Maju,

The Near East ain't what it used to be.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-near-east-aint-what-it-used-to-be.html

At least in Europe we still have the HGDP Sardinians as genetic fossils from the Neolithic. In the Near East we have nothing.

Mike Thomas said...

@ David,and Chad

Thanks. Dave can you also include the WHG, SHG and Neolithic samples in your new breakdown ?

Davidski said...

Mike, you'll find all the background info and data at these links...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/ane-is-primary-cause-of-west-to-east.html

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/gokhem2-motala12-present-day-swedes.html

Mike Thomas said...

Thanks Dave , we all apprecaite your work
"
Have a look at this spreadsheet. The middle Neolithic (MNE) samples have 0% ANE, and then the Corded"

But let's say I'm right ; and pre-CWC Polish and baltic sites show ANE as does Motala and Karelia HG.

What are you going to do ? Will you finally adapt from a steppe-centric expansion to a broader one of North and northeast to South- southwest ?

Arch Hades said...

@Maju I was speaking of the 3 way ADMIXTURE graph in the Haak paper. But yeah looking at it again its only Northern Spanish that hit 30% Yamna ._.but so do Bulgarians. Both are Southern Europeans.

Davidski said...

Mike,

Have a look at the PCA in Figure 3 here...

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118316

There's nothing remarkable about the Polish Middle Neolithic population (BKG). It's virtually identical to other Middle Neolithic groups from North-Central Europe, and obviously distinct from CWC.

In the K8 the BKG genomes will score 0% ANE.

Mike Thomas said...

Yep; you're right
But it still leaves 1000 years between BKG and CWC (with intervening TRB and GAC) for a Mesolithic revival of EHG.
BKG appears to have been almost a purely Balkan neokithic group focused around a Balkan economy which failed in temperate europe . Around the rims of this - in the baltic coastline we still had (Epi-Neolithic) Mesolithic survivals who possibly made their way South to kujavia by the late neolithic to form a new 'late Neolithic' economy now based on far more diverse practices, which exploited the land to a greater degree.
If this hunch is right , then we might find a bounce back of EHG in TRB and GAC, making its appearance in CWC not so sudden
Time will prove me right or wrong

Chad Rohlfsen said...

BKG is likely from Rossen groups. We have a few TRB genomes. None had ANE. Just extra WHG. It's the same thing in Germany, with Bernburg.

Krefter said...

Pretty much all of our ANE K8 predictions were wrong, because we assumed Haak's tests would translate perfectly to ANE K8. Although by luck EHG turned out like we predicted and CWC isn't too far off.

But German Bell beaker is coming out as expected. Although there is some variation they're clustering right in the North Sea(inclu. Iron age Brits).

Avg. BBC: ANE: 15.5, SE: 1.1, ENF: 36.5, WHG: 44.8.

Iron age Brit: ANE: 15, ENF: 35.4, WHG: 48.5.

Modern Irish individual: ANE: 15.8, ENF: 38.4, WHG: 45.3.

There's no more debating about whether or not (IE?)eastern immigrants made a big impact on the British isles after the Neolithic. No SHG or EHG can explain Brits and Irish.

Think about it. Gok2-like people were probably living in Britain 5,000YBP, yet modern Brits resemble German Bell beakers, who were of mostly eastern decent.

We're talking about big-time re-population of the British isles somewhere between 5,000-2,000YBP. I'm not saying there were mass kill off, just one way or another the native pop left few genes.

Central European Bell beaker fits the profile of the immigrants who came to dominate the British gene pool. 3/3 have R1b so far and the only one tested for P312 was positive. L21 certainly could have existed in continental Beakers who then brought it to the Isles.

Irish might as well be Beaker folk.

Mike Thomas said...

Yes; although it would be great to see Bronze Age and earlier samples form
Britain. I'm still bafgeled as to how we lack aDNA from Britain


what's the ANE in Motala, based on our new calculations ?

ZeGrammarNazi said...

I agree that the puzzle is starting to look that way, Krefter.

I see some people suggesting that a SHG-like population mixed with neolithic northwestern Europeans leading to modern day populations, but that does not explain how present day northwestern Europeans obtained their "Gedrosia/West Asian" ancestry.

A Yamnaya-like or derived population migrating to northwestern Europe does, though.

Maju said...

@David: I didn't want to comment on the Armenian entry because I already comment too often and gets tiresome but it's clear that the Armenian case is exceptional and cannot be extrapolated to any of its neighbors, except the Turks, and even these only to some extent.

When I used to look in depth at R1b haplotypes, it was very obvious that Armenians and Turks were outstanding in terminal branches derived from Europe. Nobody paid attention when I criticized Balaresque 2009 for example, a study with relatively good data but awful analysis (let alone the conclusions) but it was there very apparent that there had been backflows from Europe affecting Turkey and very especially Armenians in that. Yet many have preferred to look at the shallow level and even some study dared to claim recently that Armenians were at the origin of R1b, when all that diversity is partly because of accumulation of terminal branches of European origin.

I'm not saying that West Asia is a fossil but that other than the well known and rather minor flows related to Indoeuropeans and Altaics, I see nothing obvious about immigrants from outside the region since Neolithic.

I'm also saying that in order to draw an "ENF" dot you should have a theory on it, something it seems you do not.

Mike Thomas said...

I agree ; but I don't seem to be able to get past one point:
Both "ANE " and "EE & Baltic" components were present in SHG; up to 15% ! - so not much different to modern Northern Europeans.

What was new was the "west asian" component. Admittedly we also have to contend with the appearance of L51 ; and doubtless this was from the east; possibly the steppe.

Maju said...

@Mike: it's not me "going in circles", it's you driving me in circles. If you don't want to debate straightforwardly and honestly, I will have to pass of discussing with you altogether.

Maju said...

@Mike (again): And it's not me who is making ad-hominems but you. I'm just telling you not being a jerk, meaning: don't go into personal attacks and shit like that. Stick to the facts and leave the personal crap out of the board. This is not about winning or losing: it's about learning and understanding. If you pretend to be scientific, behave as such scientist.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
UP Genomes would be great, but without multiple specimens across a vast amount of space and time, it will be about impossible to figure anything out.

In a perfect world, I would love to see a calculator that separated WHG, EHG, MA-1, Yamnaya the non-EHG of Yamnaya, ENE, and non-West Eurasian components. I don't think it will be possible for David to do this though. If possible, it should give almost perfect representation of ancestry, for about everyone.

As for L51, yes I've already mentioned that I favor a migration from the East. I think they were Kemi-Oba/Lower Mikhailovka related. I don't think they will be like Yamnaya. All of that WHG means they likely came from some region where EHG and WHG were pretty even. Ukraine sounds like a good start. Then mix in some Balkan and North Caucasus. I think Beaker looks just like it should. A Carpathian mixed people, like BR1, with some Corded mixture. I still think Corded came from between Belarus and Samara, and they look as they should, if you ask me.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
UP Genomes would be great, but without multiple specimens across a vast amount of space and time, it will be about impossible to figure anything out.

In a perfect world, I would love to see a calculator that separated WHG, EHG, MA-1, Yamnaya the non-EHG of Yamnaya, ENE, and non-West Eurasian components. I don't think it will be possible for David to do this though. If possible, it should give almost perfect representation of ancestry, for about everyone.

As for L51, yes I've already mentioned that I favor a migration from the East. I think they were Kemi-Oba/Lower Mikhailovka related. I don't think they will be like Yamnaya. All of that WHG means they likely came from some region where EHG and WHG were pretty even. Ukraine sounds like a good start. Then mix in some Balkan and North Caucasus. I think Beaker looks just like it should. A Carpathian mixed people, like BR1, with some Corded mixture. I still think Corded came from between Belarus and Samara, and they look as they should, if you ask me.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Sorry, for the double post.

Maju said...

@Krefter: "No SHG or EHG can explain Brits and Irish".

If all you have is hammer, all problems may look like nails. If you insist on using the simplistic WHG-EEF/ENF-ANE approach, you will fail.

I don't know if those BB samples are people just arrived from Britain or the opposite or whatever; what I say is that, if you can think out of the box, out of the pre-set triangle, then you see that there are other points and deviations. The issue is that with the given points of putative ancestral populations we only get the "minimalistic triangle" and many pops. fall out of it. Some towards West Asia, others towards the Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers of Motala.

If you get three ancestries and mix them (for example: East Asian, Nigerian and NW European) then every admixed individual falls inside the triangle, never outside. Same if you get Yamna (or CW), ENF and Gok.

Said that, you can replace Motala by X WHG + Y ANE or by Z WHG + W Yamna: it would work. But looking at the PCA it seems less parsimonious.

Motala (or something similar) certainly explains a lot of the hard to explain WHG+ANE, which is even harder to explain when you look at the PCA, be this one or Haak's.

Note: notice that the Bell Beaker samples from Germany also have that Motala eccentricity. And notice that replacing CW by Yamna solves nothing in the limitations of the minimal triangle.

It has to be a pentagon and one vertice is something like Motala.

Mike Thomas said...

Maju

I know it sounds condascending, but your archaeological views are very raw. It's how I thought 10 years ago when I first started out. Nice simple equations : kurgans= IE; whilst all neolithic europe was a socialist feminine paradise ; coupled by freebaseless language speculations like basquo-caucasian, Etc

U want facts - you're wrong in your static views of kurgans. you're also wrong about the homogeneity of neolithic groups- what with baseless speculations on Basqo-Caucasian. Just because european neolithic was genetically similar doesn't mean they all spoke the same language and were pacificists. I'm not being personal but its truth- you appear to use your (wrong) views of IE to mirror as a counter example the differing world views of neolithic people's- of whom the basques are a remnant par excellence.

So I reiterate unapologetically, your views are at best simplistic, and at worst biased agenda driven . Either way, I have little further to say to someone who buried his head against half a century of advancement in social theory; the archaeological theory; and postmodernist perspectives of ethnicity. When you do; you'll finally realize that , prior to the modern advent of nationalism, identity and ethnicity operated at a much more fluid, mutable and parochial level to what you envisage.

Maju said...

PS- Even Corded Ware samples already show a clear deviation towards Motala, if you trace the triangle to Yamna. There must be more than just the known reference samples.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Maju

As I've said before
I agree with ur statements on genetics at least
Weird that I so vehemently disagree with the social theory side ..

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Bell Beaker cannot be getting all of their Yamnaya or ANE from Corded Ware. That would require the pre-Corded Beakers to be over 60% WHG. That just goes way outside of anything we have seen. It sure as hell doesn't match those Spanish samples for those that try to say that R1b first expanded out of Iberia. It just doesn't jive. A Bronze Age arrival in Iberia just makes more sense. That would make the Basque 60% Gok2, 40% German Beaker. This just makes a hell of a lot more sense, as it stays within the confines of what we have seen.

Mike Thomas said...

Chad
Why couldn't BB get their ANE from SHG- like survivals, perhaps augmented with certain eastern groups. Surely some Black Sea groups also arrived - hence the west Asian etc
One the one hand I don't think we need to necessarily settle for scenarios of only unidirectional movement; on the other , rigidly limit ourselves on what we think "should have happened" based on calculated proportions

Krefter said...

@Maju,
"If all you have is hammer, all problems may look like nails. If you insist on using the simplistic WHG-EEF/ENF-ANE approach, you will fail. "

Sure we should think outside the box. But we should also say what appears most likely.

Maju said...

@Mike: "I know it sounds condascending, but your archaeological views are very raw."

It does sound condescending, particularly when I have discussed with you before and you don't seem to have any better understanding but surely worse than mine. For example you take a sentence from a very partial study and make it sound as if it was the conclusions. You also like to patronize with offensive and clearly wrongly placed disqualifications, what is a very old political trick, which I learned to counter when I was very young. Then write "u" and "ur" (instead of "you" and "your"), as if you'd be a semi-illiterate teenager messaging on a phone.

No, I'm not having anything of that. If you want to debate (what I sometimes doubt) you must respect. If you really think you are right, you will have to take your time to expose not just your opinions but whatever backs them. You also have to show to have an open mind to well placed criticisms. And you have to learn to agree to disagree: you cannot always persuade others, much less easily, without elaborate discussion, as you'd like. For example Davidski and I have been discussing in forums and such since when he used to go by the name "Polako" (and that's how long: a decade?), and certainly we don't persuade each other easily but sometimes we do because, well, hard evidence. But we do exchange information and that's valuable for both (well, I presume it is for him too). So take it easy and if you have something really good to share with the misguided of Earth, like you think I am, I suggest you write a blog, taking care of documenting and explaining things in a pedagogical and not patronizing way, not just to X person but to a wide potential readership, whom you can't call things because they disagree with you.

For the time being let's just agree to disagree.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I think L51 is the Black Sea part. There's no ANE prior to Corded and Beaker. We don't have anything else really. Maybe a bit with Globular Amphora, if that mixture with Narva was legit. But, that won't be even close to enough. There also is no connection between Globular Amphora and Bell Beaker. I don't think they ever shared a site. Unetice on the other hand, could be as a result of mixing of some GAC coming west. They have more WHG than Beakers, and less EEF. Still, that was after Corded, and Beaker, when we see that mixture.

Maju said...

@Krefter: If it quacks and looks like a duck... then it is Motala.

I look at the graph once and again and I don't see anything else, much less when we already have samples for WHG and EHG and they are not the "strange attractor" deviating Northern Europeans above a straight Gökhem-Yamna line.

Now, what were exactly the Motala-like population(s) causing this effect and more importantly: why don't we see that tendency yet in Gökem and Baalberge, for example? No idea.

Krefter said...

SHG made an impact but eastern Europe made a bigger one.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There's no migration out of Scandinavia during this period. That's a fact. Of course our ancestors likely picked up some intermediary stuff on the way, that is to be expected. That is where the deviation can happen. Those intermediaries could've also been driven west, with pre Beaker and Corded stuff, then mixing later in the Unetice timeframe.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Who's to say it's not just a deviation from the Yamnaya line towards WHG? You can't tell by looking at the PCA which way its coming from or going to. Excess WHG picked up in Central Europe would do the same thing.

Maju said...

Just throwing a hunch: in Fig 5S-2 of Haak, the so-called "Sweden Skoglund MHG and NHG" samples are in that same tendency, more or less. MHG is Stora Forvar 11 and NHG are Pitte Ware people from Götland. In that study we also see that Finns and Swedes share a lot of drift with these Swedish foragers, by contrast Gökhem 2 drift is shared only at comparable levels by Sardinians (and to lesser levels by Basques).

Refs:
→ http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/04/diversity-and-legacy-of-ancient.html
→ http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2015/02/kurgan-ancient-dna-suggests-major.html

Mike Thomas said...

Maju
You're right I'm not patient , because I cannot and should not have to bring you up to date in 4 decades worth of work. For someone who talks as if he is on the leading edge of archaeological knowledge ; Id have thought you're up to date with it all; and hence my particularly heated debates with you. But it seems we have no theoretical common ground at all. So let's leave it, especially given that its a bit peripheral to it all

Maju said...

@Chad: "There's no migration out of Scandinavia during this period."

Yes, that is perplexing. If the MNE would show some of that tendency it could be explained by Funnelbeaker-cum-Megalithism, but nope, no luck.

I still want to see some (or even many) Atlantic and North Sea pre-IE samples. None of the ones we are seeing are that type and even in the Funnelbeaker period, they are all from the Elbe (which is anomalous). Even just some Michelsberg samples would shed some light, but the really good thing would be to sample ancient Brits and Portuguese, IMO, also Danes and West French.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Corded and Beaker both have WHG, which Yamnaya lacks. My WHG explanation would be the reason why they deviate. It is not towards Motala, but Loschbour.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Yes, I would love to see pre-Beaker Brits. I am half-British. I know you don't agree, but signs keep pointing to a late entry of L51, with ANE. You can't have a Spanish MNE, mixing with something over 80% WHG, then mixing with Corded at 60-80% rate to explain the ANE. It just doesn't sync with what we know.

I have a feeling that Brits will be exactly like Gok2. I think GAC will be more WHG than Gok2 though.

Maju said...

@Chad: "Who's to say it's not just a deviation from the Yamnaya line towards WHG?"

That would be even more difficult to explain IMO. But anyhow if you trace a line Yamna-CW, where does it go to among the more ancient samples? Just above Gökhem. If you trace it from CW to BB it goes even higher but, in any case, no ancient sample we know of can explain the ancient (and modern) deviation, i.e. admixture apparent in the sequence Yamna → CW → BB. Something is missing and looks HG.

Maju said...

@Chad: "You can't have a Spanish MNE, mixing with something over 80% WHG, then mixing with Corded at 60-80% rate to explain the ANE".

That's why I'm suspecting Motala-like admixture. In British it should be no problem because it can be considered North Sea aborigin. But I presume "NW Europeans" also includes things like Germans and in Germany, at least in East Germany, it doesn't seem to be anything prior that explains that tendency.

Maju said...

... and also affects NE Europeans (what's that? Russians?, Lituanians? Ukrainians?, Finns?)

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Let me explain it a little better, Maju.

Yamnaya averages about 35% WHG. Gok2 is 50% WHG.
That line meets Beaker at 42.5% WHG. Only one Beaker is below that. All the rest are above that mark. Therefore, it is WHG and Loschbour that they deviate towards. It is not Motala.

postneo said...

@@Mike: the identity of IE religions is not something that Gimbutas constructed, it comes from the 19th or early 20th century. And it's obvious: Latin, Greek, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Vedic, etc. are all the same thing with minor variants: overlord god of the sky, dragon/serpent/demon-slayer hero god, horse sacrifices, etc.

While there is resemblance its not exclusive to IE.
Sky god is generic, man vs snake is pre IE. Horse cults are not correlated to language family. e.g. turkish and mongol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai-Ulgan

postneo said...

@@Mike: the identity of IE religions is not something that Gimbutas constructed, it comes from the 19th or early 20th century. And it's obvious: Latin, Greek, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Vedic, etc. are all the same thing with minor variants: overlord god of the sky, dragon/serpent/demon-slayer hero god, horse sacrifices, etc.

While there is resemblance its not exclusive to IE.
Sky god is generic, man vs snake is pre IE. Horse cults are not correlated to language family. e.g. turkish and mongol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai-Ulgan

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Beaker averages like 44-45% WHG. That is where the deviation is. It has nothing to do with Motala.

Maju said...

@Chad: "It is not towards Motala, but Loschbour".

But Lochsbour was dead like Neanderthals by that time! Instead we know that, at least in Sweden, something like Motala persisted. Also notice that the biggest "hump" is among NE Europeans (NW Europeans too but less notorious).

postneo said...

meant @maju not very coordinated today

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Final explanation, sorry.

Yamnaya average 35%
Gok2 is 50%
Bell Beaker average is about 45%, while being 50% Yamnaya. Therefore, the deviation is towards Loschbour. Draw a line from Loschbour to the Yamnaya-Gok line. That might be where you'll find the Yamnaya amount for each Beaker sample.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

But we have WHG comebacks through the MNE. Loschbour wasn't the only WHG. There is no ANE, but just WHG coming up during the MNE.

Srkz said...

Unetice I0047 - kit M370010

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I know it flies in the face of what you want to believe, but everything is starting to seriously align with what I've been saying. R1b comes late from the east, with higher WHG than MNE, and some ANE. Mixes with some locals and some with Corded.

Mike Thomas said...

@ postNeo
I don't buy it. And Wikipedia ain't convincing me :)

Krefter said...

HAL16(I0047) is ancestral for Rs4988235 and Rs182549, like the Yamna and CWC individuals, meaning he was probably Lactose intolerant.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Wow,
Check out the Unetice K13 and Calculator score. Very Scandinavian. I can't wait to see the K8.

Maybe, 32%ENF, 51%WHG, 17%ANE?

North_Atlantic 52.53%
Baltic 30.14%
West_Med 10.51%
West_Asian 6.82%
East_Med -
Red_Sea -
South_Asian -
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian -
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -


EEF 41.51691174
WHG 41.72685569
ANE 16.75623257


Krefter said...

HAL16(I0047)'s GEDmatch admixture scores. Looks most similar to northeast Euros and Scandinavians. Both are probably Unetice descendants.

Note this guy is from 2022-1937 cal BC. So, just a few hundred years younger than the North Sea-like German Beaker folk(with high WHG and ANE).

ANE K7.

ANE 16.25%
ASE -
WHG-UHG 71.33%
East_Eurasian -
West_African 0.30%
East_African -
ENF 12.11%

K15

North_Sea 34.99%
Atlantic 36.93%
Baltic 11.91%
Eastern_Euro 9.33%
West_Med 4.19%
West_Asian 2.65%
East_Med -
Red_Sea -
South_Asian -
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian -
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

K13

North_Atlantic 52.53%
Baltic 30.14%
West_Med 10.51%
West_Asian 6.82%
East_Med -
Red_Sea -
South_Asian -
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian -
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

Maju said...

"Yamnaya averages about 35% WHG. Gok2 is 50% WHG".

Compared with what? Yamnaya is like 0% WHG if EHG is accounted for instead (~50%). This is a good example of how it depends on what references are being used. Gok on the other hand is likely true WHG-admixed.

"It is not Motala." (...) "It has nothing to do with Motala."

You are never comparing with Motala, so you are not testing the hypothesis at all, just resorting once and again to the Lazaridis reference frame. WHG acts as a mediocre proxy for part of the Motala ancestry but not all. In essence Motala is X WHG + Y EHG (which includes more ANE). And that's the key issue: Motala-like admixture (instead of WHG) can explain the extra ANE found in Britain, for example, which otherwise makes little sense.

Of course it can be something between Motala and WHG or Motala and EHG but the vector of the deviation points towards Motala or very close nearby.

We just do not know of anything more WHG-like at that time than Gökhem or the Pitted Ware people of Sweden. This is of course a sampling limitation but also a pointer. In any case Gökhem is not the source of the deviation but rather the counterpart to Yamna or CW in the basic admixture axis in North and West Europe (MNE vs Kurgan), so there is something else that "pulls northwards" and that might be either unsampled Motala-like North Sea aboriginals or Pitted Ware peoples or whatever of the kind but I don't see the strict WHG tendency anywhere.

Maybe it's even more apparent in this graph from Haak (red notes are mine, ignore them). Don't know how to explain it but, unless the admixture is directly with "Middle Neolithic" Iberians and not "MN" Germans, there is a bump towards Pitted Ware/Motala at least among Baltics. David's sample is more extensive no doubt and that's why the bump is more marked, but still more among NE Europeans.

Krefter said...

Here are Hirisplex results of ancient Euros. Yamna, Catacomb, BR1, and ESP16(CWC) make it obvious certain alleles in the Hirisplex were selected for very recently.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1seNbDtuZKjZZguMgMF2XxPalVTa91VjyIDQPp2TWFjc/edit#gid=1862023606

HAL16(I0047) had rs16891982 GG like most modern Euros. BR2 and IR1 who are about 1,000 years younger also have GG.

Maju said...

@Krefter: that's interesting, thanks. What's the geographic and cultural context of "HAL16(I0047)"? He looks extremely HG for a nearly Bronze Age individual, yet very low ENF.

Maju said...

@Postneo: I have said what I had to say. Most scholars agree that there is an IE culture and certainly an IE religion. But believe what you want.

Krefter said...

@Chad,
"Check out the Unetice K13 and Calculator score. Very Scandinavian. I can't wait to see the K8.'

German Beaker and German Unetice are the earliest example of truly North sea and Baltic-type people. High WHG combined with high ANE has been around for over 4,000 years. The CWC samples don't represent all people who lived in central-east Europe in the bronze age.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Maju

"'Motala can explain the extra ANE found in Britain,"

That's what I've been wondering; and haven't heard anything disproving apart from "it doesn't add up"

Krefter said...

Maju,

Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld, Germany 2022-1937 cal BC.

Maybe Haak 2015 has cultural info. It's a female and she had mtDNA V.

Mike Thomas said...

Guys please inform what the ANE of motala is based on the new data?

Krefter said...

One of the Motala HGs was a Ginger!!!!!!!!!! Finally!

He has almost identical Hirisplex markers as me.

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/phenotype-snps-from-prehistoric-europe/

Krefter said...

Suck it South Park.

Maju said...

@Krefter: it's listed as Unetice_EBA (EBA = "early Bronze Age", I guess).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Maju,
I'm using the K8, as that's the PCA that you're using to argue here. So, yes it is valid!
Secondly, you have no idea what the first British Beakers were like, so you can't say that they need any Motala stuff. If the first Beakers were like Quedlinberg, then we really don't need Motala. Just that huge population boom with newbies. These Germans could be just the recently admixed with locals. Maybe, Kromsdorf looks like Corded. We don't know yet.

Maju said...

@Krefter: "One of the Motala HGs was a redhead!!!!!!!!!! Finally. He has almost identical Hirisplex markers as me".

Gratz. I hope that makes you meditate about where all that Scottish "ANE" and red hair come from.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld, Germany 2022-1937 cal BC.

This person is likely Unetice.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Lactose Tolerance in a 1/3 Beakers that had the markers.

Maju said...

@Chad: ... "you have no idea what the first British Beakers were like, so you can't say that they need any Motala stuff."

Of course, what I know is how modern Brits are. And what I say is that modern Brits (and surely others) need something more than Yamna-like immigrant-invaders to become as high in ANE as Estonians and Baltics. They seem to need an HG/Neolithic base that was already at least somewhat high in ANE - and that's not Lochsbour nor Gökhem.

As for BB people, the first were from Iberia and anyhow the users of the "fashion" were quite apparently most diverse (I'm not much surprised that they approach CW - but only in Germany and nearby areas). BB had no major demic impact anywhere in NW Europe, except, it seems, Ireland (CW is the same but the exception is Jutland). See: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/02/neolithic-and-chalcolithic-demographics.html

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There's an LBK with red hair alleles as well. Not just a Motala thing. It was in WHG too.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Maybe the pots, but the people don't look anything like Spanish MNE mixing with Corded, sorry.

Maju said...

@Chad: Exactly: because they are (roughly) Corded Ware people because they are from post-CW Germany. "Beaker people" is a fantasy: BB were maybe a fashion, a religion or a trading guild but certainly not any "people": they almost invariably appear in pre-existent cultural contexts without substantially altering them in any way. It's a case of "just pots", maybe the only one.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Maju,
We finally agree on something!! The pots. Now, if I can just get you to come around on R1b! :)

Mike Thomas said...

@ Maju

""Beaker people" is a fantasy: BB were maybe a fashion, a religion or a trading guild but certainly not any "people": they almost invariably appear in pre-existent cultural contexts without substantially altering them in any waY..."

Wow. Maybe there is hope !! :)

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Maju,
Thought you would like to know, there are several L51's in Poland, Ukraine, and one in Croatia, that we may assist in getting a fullY done on.

Mike Thomas said...

""modern Brits (and surely others) need something more than Yamna-like immigrant-invaders to become as high in ANE as Estonians and Baltics.""

Yes preexisting ANE augmented by CWC which spread right across Northern Europe into Low Countries and Scandinavia .
R1b came from Balkano-Danubian region, proximately. No direct yamnaya spread

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
Where is the R1b in Lengyel, GokTRB, Bernburg, Baalberg, Oetzi, and Treilles? These guys all have some roots in that Danubian Chalcolithic.

Mike Thomas said...

Good point
But that's one subset of Balkan diversity which spread to Carpathians and beyond .
Who knows what was lurking there by the late Neolithic ?
I think the yamnaya origin is certainly looking good; but still feel agnostic overall

Srkz said...

German Corded Ware I0103 map: http://s017.radikal.ru/i408/1503/e6/c0d89e2414b2.png

I0103 minus karelian EHG:
http://s020.radikal.ru/i709/1503/07/4d771d10aafa.png

Sardinian are the first ))

I0103 minus Yamnaya (very noisy):
http://s020.radikal.ru/i702/1503/9e/8f0057e309c7.png

Maju said...

@Chad, Mike: I have always sustained that BB is relatively irrelevant, a phenomenon and not any true culture. And I mean ALWAYS, since I first learned about it. So no idea why you are surprised.

When people began arguing about BB as significant demic-genetic carriers, I always said: no way, either in the E→W way or the W→E way. For the former there is the IE (Kurgan) expansion, for the latter the much more significant Megalithic phenomenon, which does show a clear demographic impact in the archaeological record and in many places it is directly associated to the first Neolithic.

@Chad: "there are several L51's in Poland, Ukraine"

I know, not many in any case. Erratics are not relevant.

@Mike: "Yes preexisting ANE augmented by CWC"...

But not just ANE (i.e. Ma1 affinity) but ANE in another more complex package, which can well be Motala or more generically NW HGs of Hamburgian tradition.

"R1b came from Balkano-Danubian region"

L51? Surely yes. But when and how? I mean: to be as dominant as it is in SW Europe (to focus on the less debatable area) it has to arrive with Neolithic at the very least - yet no Neolithic sample carries it (the R1b of Aragon is not L51). So the possibility of being pre-Neolithic remains very much open. What is impossible is that it has anything to do with the Kurgan expansion, the SW genetics and linguistics do not allow it, nor does its geostructure either, totally unrelated to Eastern Europe.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Not with all of that WHG. They shouldn't be from the Balkans.

I've got a paper that talks about a lot of movements around Ukraine and to the Carpathian Basin, if you're interested. Just email me, and I'll send it back. We can have a dialogue about it.
chadrohlfsen@hotmail.com

Mike Thomas said...

@ Maju

I am surprised. Because you have such a sensible understanding of BB but don't extend it to yamnaya. And I'm not insinuating an across the board pots don't = people; but it's as clear of not clearer for yamnaya . These "kurgan" cultures were even less homogeneous than BB

Chad
@
Yes . There have always been movements between ukraine and Hungary ; since for ever to Scythian period to goths to slavs . So what ?

spagetiMeatball said...

David were finns at one point indo-european speakers? Cause genomically they seem to be similar all-around to yamnaya samples, more so than many other indo-european speaking europeans in fact.

Or is just that they might have very high native EHG ancestry, which they share with yamnaya?

Maju said...

@Srkz: interesting maps. Could they support then a simple EHG+Neolithics scenario rather than Yamna+Neolithics? (Sardinians representing the Neolithic substrate by proxy). Or am I reading too much into them?

Anyhow a detail: "Bedouins" are usually Negev Bedouins, a Palestinian sub-population, and hence should be placed in what is officially Southern Israel (or Sinai if you wish, close enough and maybe more visible) and not in the Empty Quarter of the Arabian Desert.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The L51 in the East isn't very erratic. It has pockets, just like Western Europe. This area was poorly sampled for a long time. L51 is popping up in the East at about as high of a percentage as in the West. There is nothing keeping it from Ukraine and Kemi Oba related movements to Moldova then to the Carpathian Basin, then to Mako and Beaker barrows. Look at the daggers, stone cairn, and menhir burials, hair rings, etc. They are fairly similar to Beaker. They aren't pure Pit-grave, that they are clear on, and I don't debate that. I am totally on the side of them being mixed, probably similar to Beaker.

Mike Thomas said...

Maju
Re R1b
I'm inclined to agree with you. R1B was likely but one group of the neolithic package (with G2; E-V13; I2 caught up). This one survived the late neolithic collapse and then expanded rapidly in the subsequent period

Srkz said...

Maju "Could they support then a simple EHG+Neolithics scenario rather than Yamna+Neolithics? (Sardinians representing the Neolithic substrate by proxy)."

My opinion is the second map represents CWC = Yamnaya+Neolithics+(perhaps some EHG/WHG groups?) scenario. It is the difference map, not similarities

Chad Rohlfsen said...

L51=0/70 Neolithic samples. A possibility? Really?

Davidski said...

sM,

Baltic and Volga Finns are indeed mostly of Indo-European origin genetically. Also, their Uralic ancestors probably had close contacts with early Indo-Europeans. So these results aren't surprising.

Maju said...

@Chad: R1b in general is low in Eastern Europe but L51 (= M412) is effectively non-existent → MAPS from Myres 2010. The R1b pockets you see in Eastern Europe are R1b(xL51). Furthermore the two main subclades of L51, which together comprise like 90% of European R1, must have originated in SW and NW Europe (composite bicolor clinal map for S116 and U106). They just don't make it East of Austria and the Baltic: that's territory of R1a (and other lineages but not L51).

Maju said...

@Chad: "L51=0/70 Neolithic samples. A possibility? Really?"

*shrug*

Sample Atlantic Europe!!! Probably where there was high western-like mtDNA H, there was also Y-DNA R1b-L51. Without enough well placed samples we will never find out.

What is clear is that it is not Yamna and that the Yamna R1b lineages didn't make much of an impact except in their own Volga region and maybe in Central Asia - are Uyghurs 50% Yamna, 50% Turco-Mongol? Someone techier than me check please. In any case the western IE wave only seems clearly associated to certain subclade of R1a (whose number I don't recall right now, Z282 maybe?), so the rest must have other origins. Squeeze minds, I'm tired.

I'll send you an email anyhow because I'm of course curious about your pet study on "Ukrainian R1b".

Maju said...

@Chad: (PS) IF, as someone claimed earlier, Gökhem is 50% WHG, there's a 50% chance that Megalithic peoples were dominated by WHG lineages... like R1b-L51 subclades.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

We have Spanish and French megalith samples, plus TRB stuff in Germany and Scandinavia. You're running out of places to look. No R1b.

postneo said...

@mike @maju
I don't buy it. And Wikipedia ain't convincing me :)

OK what do you not buy? Are you saying that only IE people have conceived of a sky god?

So anthropologists just invented Bai Ulgan and put him in a wiki ?

Apart from the modern age everyone had to look at the sky ... for planting seeds, to navigate to predict when herds would pass their way, to time their hunts, know when plants would fruit or seed. It was life or death.

as for man vs snake have you guys read
http://www.amazon.com/Python-Study-Delphic-Myth-Origins/dp/081960285X

Chad Rohlfsen said...

That's not correct on l51. I'll get you numbers tomorrow. I'm talking Kemi Oba. It's pre- and overlapping Yamnaya to the sw.

postneo said...

@maju, most scholars are repressed, semitized IEs so they are conditioned to seek in a certain way. There's a big fat jesus sitting where an ancestor would normally be placed.

Mike Thomas said...

Postneo
Sorry I misunderstood your statemement
I've re-read what you said- and I agree. There was no specific; exclusive IE religion; but rather concepts and ideas shared and diffused more widely

Maju said...

@Mike: "I am surprised. Because you have such a sensible understanding of BB but don't extend it to yamnaya".

Kurgans are not "just pots" and they don't appear inside previously existing cultures without altering them, all the opposite. There's no possible comparison between the massive impact of the Kurgan expansion and the very subtle impact of the BB network-like phenomenon. In fact it's most likely that BB users East of the Rhine spoke IE and BB users West of it spoke Neolithic languages, at least in part Vasconic. So BB is totally multi-cultural and multi-ethnic with low genetic impact if any at all, while Kurgan macro-culture is single culture, single ethnicity and relatively high genetic impact even in spite of its small demographic showing (per the archaeo-statistical record).

Maju said...

@Postneo: "Are you saying that only IE people have conceived of a sky god?"

Not at all, of course. Although there are/were many religions without such figure or with a very secondary role for its equivalent, focused on Earth-associated deities and with prominence of the femenine aspect, notably in several IE-invaded areas such as SW Europe, Greece or India, which contrast sharply with this IE homogeneous trait.

But it's not that single trait nor any other but the collection of shared traits. Which other religion has a prevalent Apollo-like snake-slaying god? Beats me and it is related to the conflicts with pre-IE Earth-centric religions in which the snake was the male aspect of the gender-dual concept of the Divine, again a pattern that we can see in Basque mythology (Mari-Sugaar), Greek residual pre-IE mythology (Gaia-Eros but also Python, the monster slayed by Apollo, a theme retained in the IE version of Christianity), and Shakti-Shiva versions of Hinduism (or even Yin-Yang in Daoism, although that is more abstract). Nothing of this dual female-male, earth-related mythology is in IE one, nor is its focus on community and fairness, instead having a focus on war and victory.

Even when we go to other sky-centric religions like Judaism or some versions of Egyptian mythology, we fail to see many of the warlike or dragon-slayer "heroic" traits of IE religion. Obviously, whatever its exact origins, that religion did not grow in a bubble and will have some connections with other religions, but the general pattern is different and you don't have to look at the individual trees but to the proverbially not-so-hidden forest, which is made up of the whole set of trees, not just one.

In Judaism for example it is Yaveh who commands the Jews to make wars and massacres. In IE religion nothing like that happens, at most the semi-distant gods play tricks on mortals that drive them to do such things. Similarly in Judaism Yaveh is creator of Earth and Humankind, while in IE religion the gods are not really creators of anything of relevance. So while both may have a sky-related god and even correspond to warlike societies, their overall patterns are very different.

But within IE versions of the religion, the patterns repeat very much once and again. Of course there are variations but they are relatively minor.

Colin Welling said...

@mike

I agree ; but I don't seem to be able to get past one point: Both "ANE " and "EE & Baltic" components were present in SHG; up to 15% ! - so not much different to modern Northern Europeans.

We have already been over this. The idea that the ANE in Northwest Europe could be due to the survival of SHG types was already disregarded by the authors of the first laz paper, and logically so.

The SHG's had around 15% to 20% ANE and the rest was WHG. The contribution of SHG ancestry to a given population is X(100%-SHG) = X(20%-ANE + 80%-WHG) = X(20%-ANE) + X(80%-WHG) where X goes from 0 (meaning that the given population has no ancestry from SHG) to 1 (which means the given population is entirely derived from SHG).

Now, solve X, so that X(20%-ANE) gives you the same amount of ANE northwest europeans have. Now see how much WHG that leaves, X(80%-WHG). If the latter number is much higher than WHG in modern Northwest Europeans then SHG cannot be the primary source of ANE in Northwest Europe.

Its actually a very easy mental calculations for those who understand it. The answer is that SHG cannot by the primary source.

Now, onto corded ware. They can't be the main source of ANE in Northwest Europe since they mostly lacked R1b; anyways, Corded Ware is a bad candidate for Northwest Europe based on archeology alone. That only leaves southeast europe/steppes as an option. We know the balkans lacked ANE during the neolithic, i.e. pre yamnaya. And during the yamnaya period both Greece and Anatolia would have lacked enough ANE and WHG to make a significant impact on Northwest Europe. Therefore a path directly from the steppe is our only option remaining.

You can even see the small stepwise changes from yamnaya, to bell beaker, to modern northwest european. They are all similar autosomally. Furthermore, r1b-L23 is found in yamnaya to the exclusion of most contemporary cultures. The writing is on the wall!

The other major vector of spread in northern europe during the late neolithic was of course the corded ware. I can't say that their ANE path was through the steppes (I actually don't think it was). It is certainly plausible that the eastern end of the corded ware zone (north/northwest of the steppe) had the right mix of ANE and WHG to explain northeast europeans. For example, I seriously doubt the Finns have much yamnaya in them.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Maju
'' instead having a focus on war and victory. ''
Go see a psychologist you obviously have problems....

Maju said...

@Nirjhar: why don't you try your own medicine? Anyhow, that's a personal attack and only underlines your obvious lack of arguments. Disqualifications, personal attacks, are childish boomerangs unless your victim is overly susceptible: they expose the attacker for what they are: dogmatic bullies.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Colin
Thanks for your lengthy explanation, it is certainly appreciated.

“Its actually a very easy mental calculations for those who understand it.”
I appreciate that the calculations are a matter of understanding and simple arithmetic, but how confident are you that the (pre-)historical reality as straightforward as suggested by the calculations, esp. given artefacts associated with the processes of meaning the data, sampling and models used to extrapolate data. But nevertheless,

You claim “Corded Ware is a bad candidate for Northwest Europe based on archeology alone.”
Err, what ?? Do you know where Corded Ware Culture was, and where northwest Europe is ? It’s the perfect archaeological correlate of Bronze Age gene flow in northeastern as well as northwestern Europe.

You also say CWC “can't be the main source of ANE in Northwest Europe since they mostly lacked R1b; “
And “SHG cannot by the primary source.”
Yes, but I never said any of the above statements. Rather, I stated there were multiple sources of ANE in NW Europe. I think I have been clear about that, and that I never doubted some migration from the steppe.
Apart from being wholly incorrect about CWC above, you somehow overlooked that nothing remotely resembling Yamnaya appears in northwest Europe. So somehow you’ve got the story cross-wired.
My conclusion is a simple one, ANE is present in modern NW Europeans due to a continual ,cumulative presence there. That some ANE from SHG survived is also evidenced by the continued North Sea and Atlantic presence in NW Europe. Moreover, there cannot be any doubt that ANE also arrived later, from the east, undoubtedly via different paths, including Danubian and across the north European plain further north. To claim a singular source of origin is to miss what was really happening, criss-crossing movements of individidual families, clans and parts of tribes around northern Europe, and not a ‘wave’ from East to West.

“Furthermore, r1b-L23 is found in yamnaya to the exclusion of most contemporary cultures. The writing is on the wall!”
True, but those ‘contemporary cultures’ yet sample is limited to 4 out of 18 parts of west Eurasia. There is always the possibility that the L23 has a complex story.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Maju
Come to India and Learn, its easy to bark on the basis of a theory and putting pile after pile of wishful suggestions for that, Catholic church still proposes the validity of Earth as the center of the Universe...

Maju said...

@Mike:
"You claim “Corded Ware is a bad candidate for Northwest Europe based on archeology alone.”
Err, what ??"

Totally in agreement here. What else but Corded Ware can be the vector for Yamna-like immigration to Central Europe and Scandinavia? That claim of Colin is clearly wrong.

The R1b comment is also very suspicious but I don't want to get swamped into too many R1b speculations before Neolithic Atlantic Europe is properly sampled.

Maju said...

@Nirjhar: "Catholic church still proposes the validity of Earth as the center of the Universe"...

LOL it doesn't. Anyways, I'm not Christian at all. In fact I'm very much anti-Judeo-Christo-Islamism, but in general very much against any dogmatic religion anyhow.

In any case your lack of arguments is being replaced by (failed) attempts of insult, what is just pathetic.

Nirjhar007 said...

Maju You are mad and mad Med Farmer nothing else you are just wasting your time to insult people and their culture without having any actual experience whatsoever and actual study also i pretty much doubt you have a job or not....

Mike Thomas said...

# Maju

whatever your calculations:

To me, David's calculations using North Sea, Atlantic, EE, West Asian certainly break it down nicely, despite Chad claiming that they're modern pseudo-categories. On the contrary, using ANE seems to be falling back a resolution or three.

A northern (CWC) source for ANE is also corroborated by the fact that it is definitely higher in modern northern populations (granting population density has always been higher in the south). Nevertheless, modern Iberians, and Balkanains have lower significantly ANE despite the Germanic and Slavic migrations of the post-Roman era, recent and relatively large scale; as does the Bronze Age sample from Hungary- which was the first stop-off point for Yamnaya immigrants.

I agree that 50% replacement of NW gene pool is possible, but as low as 30%, esp if we admit the possibility of admixture from a SHG-like Epi-neolithic groups from the peri-Baltic region.

Finally, what few if any have commented on is the appearance of WHG elements in yamnaya , which are otherwise missing in the Karelian and Samaran HGs.

Ultimately, the fact that cannot be overlooked is that the precipitant to all this was the appearance of West Asian elements, whatever they really represent.

Alberto said...

@Mike, Maju

I discussed some 5 months ago with David about the shortcomings of the ANE component, being based on a low quality 24.000 ybp genome, that peaks on Karitiana Amerindians and is present all across north Eurasia and Central and South Asia. It's just not useful to track Neolithic movements across Europe and Western Asia.

I argued that until we don't have an ancient genome from Central Asia (or Caucasus, or wherever), even using "West Asian" was a better solution than ANE, but he disagreed and I didn't completely disagree with his arguments against it either.

I'm hoping that now with the Yamnaya genomes he'll come up with a better alternative than the current triangle.

In any case, as an alternative to David's K8, but using "West Asian" instead of ANE, you can also check Dienekes k7b spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadHZ6SHpiLTNTa3lsUmZJY2pQblVRR2c#gid=0

Ultimately only more ancient DNA will give us reliable answers, but for now I agree that using different tools can give some good hints (also some false ones, so beware not read too literally into all of what they tell).

Alberto said...

By the way, to check ancient genomes' results in k7b format you can also check on this site:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/

But mostly they are as expected: WHG show as 100% Atlantic_Baltic, EEF as a mix of Atlantic_Baltic and Southern, and with Yamnaya the West Asian appears in Europe.

Davidski said...

The West Asian label is misleading. That component should be called "70/30 Near Eastern/ANE from the steppe", but I guess that's a bit long winded.

Also, you can take off a few per cent of West Asian from the Yamnaya results because of the calculator effect.

Matt said...

Re: K8, interesting results for subjects -

EHG 38% ANE, 4% S_Eur, 0 Near_East, 5% East_Asian, 52% WHG, 1% Oceanian

Yamnaya 34% ANE, 5% S_Eur, 24% NE, 0% East Asian, 36% WHG, 1% Oceanian, 1% Pygmy

Based on a 50 EHG:50 "something else", the mixing population would then go to

"Something Else" 31% ANE, 6% South_Eurasian, 48% Near_Eastern, -5% East Asian, 19% WHG, 1% Pygmy

That's kind of interesting as it suggests that SE would have only a moderate level of Near Eastern itself (English hit around 40%, French 46%), a relatively substantial level of WHG and something which decreases affinity to East Asian a little.

It would look kind of like this in the Fateful Triangle PCA - http://i.imgur.com/B4VG2Jx.png but of course more distant from European in a towards SE Eurasian direction and an anti-NE Asian direction than the PC is representing.

These populations seem very slightly outside the triangle, although David has said this is noise, so lets see - it would be a little odd that the noise would seem to specifically cancels away from NE Asia and towards SE Asia, comparing Yamnaya to EHG?

I'll boring and repeat again my demand to test the Basal Eurasian level of Yamnaya f4 stats with Ust_Ishim - this K8 NE level would predict that Yamnaya should be closer to Ust-Ishim than Lithuanians, as their NE level and thus Basal Eurasian would be lower. Laziridis's prediction that Yamnaya are 50% NE would predict that they should be further from Ust Ishim than Lithuanians, and further from UI than most Northern Europeans, to boot.

Also, if the MN_Spain get the same ANE K8 levels as MN_Germany despite having different K15, that would be interesting to see.

Srkz said...

Bell Beaker I0112 M117132

Helgenes50 said...

@Srkz

Thanks for all these kits

Alberto said...

@David

"The West Asian label is misleading. That component should be called "70/30 Near Eastern/ANE from the steppe", but I guess that's a bit long winded."

You know perfectly well that what you said is not correct. I don't need to prove it to you (thought for others it might be useful to note that Russians and Poles have 12% of it, but Iranians 52%).

What I really don't understand is why having the knowledge and the tools, and having the opportunity to get ahead of the "mainstream", you seem to prefer to trail behind in a safe place.

The next paper from the Lazaridis, Reich, Patterson et al. team will have a different model, with genomes from other places to prove it. But by then it will be late for you to add anything new.

I'm not into conspiracy theories or black hands, so I can just respect whatever reasons you have for making your decisions. And I'll do.

Fanty said...

@Maju:
"I'm very much anti-Judeo-Christo-Islamism, "

There is a word for those: "Abrahamitic Religions"

Based on the fact, that all 3 Religions claim to be the God that revealed himself to the character Abraham, who is suposed to be a stockbreeding nomad Chieftain in 2600 BC Mesopotamia.

And that this kind of Religion is specially anoying to you, bases on the fact, that 2/3 of the planets population worships that god. A Religion-Family more successfull than Indoeuropean languages. Thats a very large target for hate.

Marnie said...

"What I really don't understand is why having the knowledge and the tools, and having the opportunity to get ahead of the "mainstream", you seem to prefer to trail behind in a safe place."

That would be a good question, not only for Davidski, but for *all* of the authors on the Haak paper, including Patterson and Reich.

"The next paper from the Lazaridis, Reich, Patterson et al. team will have a different model, with genomes from other places to prove it. But by then it will be late for you to add anything new."

Why is there a next paper from the Reich lab without an official retraction of their current very flawed paper, which received mass media attention?

Having looked at the spreadsheets of the Haak data and the bar graphs that Mike Thomas generated, the "mass migration hypothesis" from the Steppe hypothesis, the very hypothesis that the Reich Lab hung their hat on, can only be supported at the extreme upper end of the error bars of their data.

Moreover, there is no way for the Reich Lab paper to have made the assertion of Bronze Age migration from the Steppe directly associated with the timeframe for a hypothesized "proto indo European" homeland, whatever that is.

I don't care what the Reich lab has to say any more. I'm tired of their overhyped half baked research. After the overly simplistic evolutionary models of the last five years, the flawed "Basal Eurasian Model" and this very overstated Haak paper, I have no confidence in the objectivity of the Reich lab at all.

Moreover, I'd like to know why Reich Lab researchers are using pseudonyms to advance their research ideas, a phenomena that is known to further unlevel the playing field for women's voices in research. This is in direct opposition to the policies of the National Academy of Sciences.

This research was in part funded by a 2 million dollar + grant from the NAS. As a taxpayer and female scientists/engineer, I'm tired of paying for half baked sloppy research.

I'll be letting NAS and AAPA know.

Furthermore, I'd like to know why "journalists" like Michael Balter, Ewan Callaway and Carl Zimmer, continually rubber stamp the half baked publications of the Reich Lab.

That's another question I have for the National Academy of Scientists.

Fanty said...

"Similarly in Judaism Yaveh is creator of Earth and Humankind, while in IE religion the gods are not really creators of anything of relevance"

That reminds me that Judaism PARTLY accepts the existance of other religions gods.

It claims that Angels that had been banned by Yahwe, did go to earth and reveal themselfs to humans and claimed to be gods.

Hlding enough magical powers that mortal beeings could be tricked to believe that.

postneo said...

@maju

So you are implicitly extending the scope of these myths outside of IE to west asia and more and non IE as well.

Tiamat the dragon is pre judaic.
What about hurrian kumarbi he is non IE non semitic. And resembles the Chronos and Gaia story.

I suspect that all mesolithic populations had shared myth including both sky and earth lore.

Dospaises said...

@Marnie
"Moreover, I'd like to know why Reich Lab researchers are using pseudonyms to advance their research ideas"

There is plenty of evidence that the people that you accuse of being professional researchers really aren't. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?

postneo said...

@Maju:
"I'm very much anti-Judeo-Christo-Islamism, "

regardless of overt anti religious stances. Modern studies in humanities is dominated by western scholars.

And the clinical detachment expect of naturalists and anthropologists is missing in studies of anything remotely connected to what they perceive as their own past.

Thus purported IE ancestors are thus overly demonized or glorified and stereotyped.

BTW I have nothing in general against religions or atheism.

Dospaises said...

@Marnie

You hurt yourself and scientific research by making those statements. Do you really want to spend your free time making baseless statements?

Dospaises said...

@Maju @ Chad

Which ancient specimens are you guys calling Megalithic?

Marnie said...

@Dospaises

"You hurt yourself and scientific research by making those statements. Do you really want to spend your free time making baseless statements? "

Baseless? I'm not the one blogging under the pseudonym "Dospaises". Anyway, I know this kind of anonymous crap that you guys engage in can go on for hours, so I won't be commenting to you, "Dospaises", further here today.

Science is a search for the truth. If you can't even back your statements with your identity, you're wasting our time in any discussion of a scientific nature.

Thought patterns of an individual researcher evolve in a social context and need to be recognizable in that context.

Maju, Roy King, Mike Thomas and I all blog under traceable identities. It's the bloggers backing the "Mass Migration from the Steppe Bronze Age PIE theory" that *all* blog under pseudoyms and are all, based on their comments, directly associated with the Haak paper researchers or funders.

Dospaises said...

@Marnie

Yes, baseless. You accuse actual research scientists of posting under pseudonyms which is evident to not be the case. If you can't see that I question what you can see.

I am not a researcher and I don't have a need to post with my real name. I am not contributing scientific content and I have posted very little at Eurogenes.

The biggest crap here are your baseless accusations. It really stinks too.

Yes, science is the search for the truth based on facts yet you repeat an imaginary scenario that you can't back up with any facts, not a single one.

You are wasting a lot of people's time by straying from the discussions about genetics, archaeology, and anthropology with your libel about research scientists.

I really do wish Haak et al. would sue you so their reputation can be retained and you would stop posting irrational statements about their online persona.

If an anonymous poster decides to make a statement it doesn't make the statement false or erroneous. Conversely, a person posting under their real name doesn't make their posts factual or error free. It is the statements and the data that support them that matter and not who made them.

The researchers that have a need to be recognizable in a social context are the professionals such as Roy. However, the real recognition doesn't come from posts in a forum on a blog that belong to a citizen scientist. It comes from publications and well developed resume or Curriculum Vitae.


PersonaMan said...

@Marnie

Dospaises already put it well. But from my perspective it seems that you are trying to 'frighten' the posters here who disagree with you. Yes one or two have been rude, but it was not unprovoked (doesn't justify it, however). And of course you seem to be using your status as a woman as a weapon rather than anything else.

I'm not sure if you actually believe most of the claims you make about people being certain researchers, but i find it very hard to imagine that the 'insiders at the Reich lab' would spend literally hundreds and hundreds of hours creating an elaborate game in which they use fake identities, purely for the purpose of speculating over their own data in the public domain, that of course they had to pretend to know nothing about until it's official release, and that among all that they would single you out for abuse.

To be blunt, are you associating these posters to particular academics because you have some form of 'beef' with them and are using this as a way to get at them, or because you genuinely believe that there is some sort of 'Eurogenes conspiracy' going on, and you are DI Blogbuster here to save the day?

I don't mean to be rude, but i kinda like 'DI Blogbuster' and felt like using it.

Anyway, the point is - it's pretty selfish for you to cause these academics trouble just because some people disagreed with you on a blog.

Davidski said...

Alberto,

The so called "West Asian" component is 70/30 Near Eastern/ANE. I am correct when I say this and I've already proved it.

So what that Iranians have 52% of it? Obviously they have to get their ANE from somewhere in these tests, since there's no ANE cluster.

If there was no West Asian cluster they'd have to get it instead from North European, South Asian, Amerindian, or whatever else that these tests have.

Why are we still discussing how ADMIXTURE works? I thought it was obvious years ago?

Davidski said...

Marnie,

This blog is not about you. Stay on topic or your posts will be removed.

Colin Welling said...

@david

"70/30 Near Eastern/ANE from the steppe"

you mean the NEANES?

More serious, you think that west asain is a mix of 70% of some kind of near eastern (what exactly) and 30% of some central asain type of ANE contemporary to the Samara HG? Why does it show up in runs so consistently. what is special about this particular mixture?

Davidski said...

Colin,

It's the Caucasian samples that create the West Asian cluster from the 70/30 NE/ANE mix. South Central Asians from the HGDP create a more complex variation on this theme, which also includes a lot of South Asian input, and is usually know around the traps as the Gedrosia component.

There are different reasons why certain populations are so effective at creating clusters in ADMIXTURE, but usually it's because of recent isolation or rapid expansions. From what I've read about Dagestan, I'm guessing that in this case it's the former.

In any case, once ADMIXTURE has partitioned the genetic variation in a dataset, it has to work within this framework to make sure all of the samples have the correct levels of the real ancient/ancestral components.

So Iranians get 52% of the West Asian component, plus bits of North Euro, South Asian and even sometimes Amerindian to make sure they somehow end up with their ~20% of ANE. And so on and so forth.

Southern Europeans also get a lot of West Asian, especially relative to North Europeans, because they have a high ratio of Near Eastern ancestry. This is just the easiest way for ADMIXTURE to make sure that they get the correct levels of ANE.

It seems to me that some people here are getting frustrated because they don't understand the basics (not referring to you here Collin). So we end up discussing the same basic crap over and over again, with a few hissy fits along the way.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Davidski

can you elaborate as to how to formally calculate the ANE contribution of SHG to modern europeans ? The original Lazaridis paper doesn't really discuss it at length, and neither does the most recent one

Davidski said...

Mike,

SHG have ~15-19% ANE.

Modern North Europeans have ~14-18% ANE.

Therefore, the contribution of SHG to the genetic structure of modern North Europeans is virtually non-existent.

That's because if North Europeans received any substantial amount of ANE from SHG, then they would be mostly ANE/WHG, with very little or no EEF.

So as you can see, modern North Europeans received the vast majority of their ANE from a population like the Yamnaya, which has a much higher ratio of ANE to WHG, because it's also part Near Easten.

To sum up, the SHG ratio of ANE to WHG is far too low for them to be important in this context.

Davidski said...

Matt,

Here are the K8 results for the MN Spanish samples. Now that you've seen the K15 and K8 results, can you make a list of the f3/f4 stats you think might be useful, and I'll run them later today.

Spain_MN_I0408

ANE 0
South_Eurasian 0
ENF 0.5347
East_Eurasian 0
WHG 0.446
Oceanian 0.0045
Pygmy 0.0144
Sub-Saharan 0.0003

Spain_MN_I0407

ANE 0
South_Eurasian 0
ENF 0.5584
East_Eurasian 0
WHG 0.4112
Oceanian 0.0156
Pygmy 0.0001
Sub-Saharan 0.0147

Spain_MN_I0406

ANE 0
South_Eurasian 0
ENF 0.5252
East_Eurasian 0.0176
WHG 0.4315
Oceanian 0.015
Pygmy 0.0019
Sub-Saharan 0.0088

Spain_MN_I0405

ANE 0
South_Eurasian 0
ENF 0.5427
East_Eurasian 0.0165
WHG 0.4364
Oceanian 0
Pygmy 0.0006
Sub-Saharan 0.0039

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Spain MNE Yamnaya German
Germany MNE Yamnaya German
". ". French
". ". English
". ". Norwegian

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Spain MNE Yamnaya Beaker
German MNE Yamnaya Beaker
CO1 Yamnaya Beaker

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Spain ENE Loschbour German MNE
LBK Loschbour German MNE

Spain ENE Loschbour Gok2
German ENE Loschbour Gok2

LBK La Brana German MNE
LBK Loschbour German MNE
LBK KO1 German MNE

LBK CO1 Baalberg

Krefter said...

More Haak genomes were added to Geneticker's phenotype list.

The results for EHG and SHG are very surprising. Looks like they made a big impact on modern Euro phenotype. I got used of the La Brana-1 looking Mesolithic man, but they may change soon.

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/phenotype-snps-from-prehistoric-europe/

Chad Rohlfsen said...

David,
I'm curious about something. In the paper, they show Esperstedt as nearly twice the WHG as Baalberg, but the K8 has them as quite Near Eastern. Do you have any ideas on why there is such a difference?

Davidski said...

Where are you seeing this?

They look more or less even on the PCA and ADMIXTURE graph in Haak et al. in terms of hunter-gatherer ancestry.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFbDYzTGx6QmI0aWs/view

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Page 23 or 24 of the paper, with WHG, EEF, and Yamnaya components.

Davidski said...

In Figure 3 Baalberge_MN appears to have more of its WHG sitting inside its EEF component (defined by LBK_EN). On the other hand, Esperstedt_MN does not.

I suspect this is because Baalberge_MN is a better fit to LBK_EN. Esperstedt_MN seems like a worse fit, so it ends up looking more Loschbour.

In any case, that analysis seems somewhat cryptic to me. I don't think it's meant to be taken too literally. All of the MN samples most certainly have around the same levels of WHG-related ancestry.

Davidski said...

OK, Marnie's driven off the cliff...

http://linearpopulationmodel.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/population-genetics-today.html

She's mentally unstable. Why are you guys still arguing with her?

Fanty, what the hell is wrong with you?

Mike Thomas said...

Something I came into when re-reading the paper:

As we know Kostenki was haplogroup C. Now, the interesting thing is he appears closer to WHG than its sucessors, the EHG guys (karelia, Samara).

Now, admittedly all we have is n=1 and 20 thousand years of void, but it suggests that the R1 -dominated EHG guys arrived sometime after the UP and before the Mesolithic. I think David favoured a south Siberian LGM refuge (Im not sure as to how solid evidence for this is - as the palaeolithic of the Lake Baikal region isn;t too well studied).

But I'd put the origin of R* further south than that.

Colin Welling said...

@david

Thanks for the explanation!

In any case, once ADMIXTURE has partitioned the genetic variation in a dataset, it has to work within this framework to make sure all of the samples have the correct levels of the real ancient/ancestral components.

I had to read that part a few times but I get it now. I think that explains a lot.

Srkz said...

I0112 Bell Beaker map http://s018.radikal.ru/i519/1503/c9/b1ced625e7af.png

I0112 minus Karelian EHG map
http://i004.radikal.ru/1503/ff/a638ab00325c.png

Comparations with CWC and Yamnaya samples are too noisy

Alberto said...

@David

We don't have to discuss how ADMIXTURE works. You know well how it works. Basically there's no magic to it. It works however you (the person using it) wants to make it work.

In other words, it can give you awful results if you use it badly, and good results if you use it intelligently. And the methods you use depend on what you are trying to measure, not on some higher laws written in the sky.

The question is, do you really want to engage in a meaningful debate about it to try to see the possible flaws and maybe improve it or will you stick to statements like the one I quoted and triggered my reaction?

As I said, I respect whatever you want to do. It's your blog, and I don't want to waste your time, nor mine.

But if you do want to discuss about it, then we can do it.

Davidski said...

Alberto,

Indeed, I do know how ADMIXTURE works. I even know how it was never meant to work, but does.

That's why you should listen to me when I tell you that what you're focusing on is for practical purposes nothing more than a Chimera.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 561   Newer› Newest»