search this blog

Saturday, October 10, 2015

ASHG 2015 tweets


Tweets from ASHG 2015 can be found here. By the way, I know that today at 5.15pm, Baltimore time, Razib will be at Iosif Lazaridis' ASHG talk on the genetic affinities of Neolithic Anatolians. If his tweets don't appear there, you'll find them here.

Update: Here are some of those tweets from Razib...

@iosif_lazaridis revision of paper @mathiesoniain with more ancestry stuff on biorxiv soon [in fact, see here]

@iosif_lazaridis [Neolithic Anatolian] mtDNA look familiar to EEF. Y mostly G2a2. also J2 H and I at low frequency. C1 too

@iosif_lazaridis anatolian neolithic close to EEF on pca. but EEF shifted toward WHG #ASHG15

@iosif_lazaridis anatolian neolithic different from modern anatolian and se europe populations.

@iosif_lazaridis eurasian steppe, population transect done. 5,500 to 1,200 BC. author told me some R1a1a possibile stuff here yesterday

@iosif_lazaridis indo-european steppe = EHG + near eastern. new data eneolithic samara. 75% EHG ancestry. 25% "armenian" 5,200 to 4,000 BCE

@iosif_lazaridis poltavka people 3000 to 2200 BC basically like yamnaya. 50% EHG and 50% armenian-like. then srubnaya different.

@iosif_lazaridis srubnaya 2/3 yamnaya 1/3 middle neolithic european

@iosif_lazaridis yamnaya/poltavka went from R1b to R1a in the srubnaya period. z93 group found on bronze age steppe samara (s asian R1a)

@iosif_lazaridis there was back migration of EEF to the steppe after the initial yamnaya migration.

145 comments:

Nirjhar007 said...

Remind me, was there any sampling from the Eastern Side of Anatolia?.

Dude ManBro said...

From Razib:

yamnaya/poltavka went from R1b to R1a in the srubnaya period. z93 group found on bronze age steppe samara (s asian R1a)


poltavka people 3000 to 2200 BC basically like yamnaya. 50% EHG and 50% armenian-like. then srubnaya different.

Indo-european steppe = EHG + near eastern. new data eneolithic samara. 75% EHG ancestry. 25% "armenian" 5,200 to 4,000 BCE

srubnaya 2/3 yamnaya 1/3 middle neolithic european

.@iosif_lazaridis there was back migration of EEF to the steppe after the initial yamnaya migration.

Dude ManBro said...

Another from Razib:

mtDNA look familiar to EEF. Y mostly G2a2. also J2 H and I at low frequency. C1 too

Davidski said...

Nice, thanks. I just woke up.

Krefter said...

R1a-Z93 found on the Steppe: It's a done deal R1a-M417 is from Yamnaya-types of the Steppe.

Alberto said...

No mention about the mtDNA of the Khvalynsk period? That would easily settle things and no more speculation about it. If mtDNA is ~50% Near Eastern, it will be clear that females mixed with EHG males. And if mtDNA is only (or almost) from HGs, then it will be clear it was the other way around.

Also: why the conclusion of EEF (MN, probably) migrated to the steppe in Srubnaya? EEF carrying R1a or EEF females only too? Why not Corded Ware people migrating east and replacing previous population (yes, it might require 100% replacement/displacement)?

Interesting to see Y-DNA I already in Anatolia, even if at low frequencies. And J2.

Krefter said...

Sorry, double post.
"srubnaya 2/3 yamnaya 1/3 middle neolithic european"
"@iosif_lazaridis there was back migration of EEF to the steppe after the initial yamnaya migration"

We already knew this with Sintashta. Archaeologically minded people: Would you say Corded ware and Sintashta derived from a population around modern Ukraine and the Black sea?

Davidski said...

Yes, and maybe even from the Carpathian Basin.

Matt said...

@ Alberto, re:Srubnaya and Corded Ware, Corded Ware should be long gone by that time. It would be Unetice and post-Unetice cultures if it were that timeframe, unless the change is a lot less sudden than Laziridis's comments sound.

It is what we knew from Sintashta though - an evening out of the EEF and Yamnaya level autosome across the North Europe to Russian zone, to probaly something like 40% Yamnaya (60% MN) or less in West to 66% Yamnaya (33% MN) in East (and present day levels somewhat even more convergent, plus divergent additional HG admixture).

I'm very curious that per Laziridis' comments we still don't have any 100% or close to Near Eastern people in the steppe transect. It seems like a very strange scenario for people to progressively travel to the steppe in large enough volumes to change the autosome... yet not be detectable as a different group in the bone samples we have (disappearing or being absorbed before this happens)... and then for some reason only females from their group are detectable in uniparentals?

Davidski said...

Here's what I posted in an earlier thread.

"What appears to have happened is that around 4,000 BC during the Khvalynsk phase, highly patriarchal, patrilocal, and territorial bands of young males of steppe hunter-gatherer ancestry got their women from wherever they could, and probably because more southerly populations with a longer history of agriculture and pastoralism had bigger populations, most of the women came from these societies, one way or another.

This process continued until the genome-wide makeup of the steppe groups was ~50% Georgian-like, and it seems that at this point the population density on the steppe was high enough so that it was no longer necessary to import women from the edges of the steppe."

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/yamnayas-exotic-ancestry-kartvelian.html?showComment=1444338606665#c2229077344756012846

Davidski said...

Except it looks like the process started as early as 5,200 BC.

Dude ManBro said...

^ These results make linking the "teal" people to PIE with the exclusion of EHG's less plausible given the early presence (7200 ybp) of the "teal" people in the steppe region, no?

Matt said...

Sounds like an opportunistic "Occasionally go beyond their borders" sort of phenomenon, of one sort or another, to make deals for or raid wives, building up over time (100 generations, so inflow of 0.5% per generation on average?). While the Southern populations mostly stay static (I guess in part because the steppe ones can't really "invade" those areas, through lower population density, not very much cooperation to form an army, etc.) A low continuous flow, which is almost totally one way. Probably balanced by an expansion to the north from near the steppe margin where a balancing but lower EHG flow takes place.

Sounds plausible in the absence of any clear population "on" the steppe to be absorbed, etc and maybe makes more sense than a "conquered" steppe Near Eastern population I guess (if there's no sign of one in the archaeology).

Coldmountains said...

I am very excited to know which kind of Z93 they found in Bronze Age Samara. Probably Z2124 but maybe even L657 if the sample is from an earlier period.

Davidski said...

Dude ManBro,

PIE formed in the ~75% EHG/25% Caucasian steppe population around 4,000 BC in my opinion.

Dude ManBro said...

Davidski,

That is a reasonable opinion at this time, given the ancient data we currently have. Certainly more reasonable than attributing everything PIE-related to the Yamnaya culture as many like to do.

Kurti said...

So those Samara (R1b?) samples had also some 25% "Teal like" ancestry? The Teal wives theory is dying slowly.

Kurti said...

So as I proposed on Eupedia for long. yDNA I doesn't seem to have been taken by "WHG groups" in Europe, but an ancestral part of the EEF.

My theory was that yDNA must have been frequent back in time all the way from Iran to Balkans.

J2 samples (J2b?) probably a mid-late Neolithic introduction from Eastern farmers

Davidski said...

Kurti,

The teal wives theory is looking better thane ever, because there's no other plausible explanation for the gradual rise in the teal ancestry on the steppe from at least 5,200 BC.

Also, the early Neolithic Anatolians had J2. The fact that they also had I and C1 isn't really surprising because the sites they come from are near Europe and the Sea of Marmara, the coastal areas of which were inhabited by hunter-gatherers.

Kurti said...

David said

"The teal wives theory is looking better thane ever, because there's no other plausible explanation for the gradual rise in the teal ancestry on the steppe from at least 5,200 BC."

You think so? You think 25% Teal like ancestry in a 5,200 BC pre Yamna (Eastern H&G) group does not rather prove that the R1b is not local to them?

We will see it's far more complicated than that. Or Are you proposing wild EHG group from Samara went also thousands of miles down to take Teal wives :)

It all seems to be from the perspective someone sees it.

Kurti said...

Alberto

"
Also: why the conclusion of EEF (MN, probably) migrated to the steppe in Srubnaya? EEF carrying R1a or EEF females only too? Why not Corded Ware people migrating east and replacing previous population (yes, it might require 100% replacement/displacement)?"


Sounds also to me like as if they are proposing an East European EEF (CT?) source of R1a.

Kurti said...

Just for the case some people don't know who I mean with CT (Cucuteni-tripolye culture). So those guys were R1a z93? Though I don't know which branch of R1a1a1 I belong to, Nice results.

Davidski said...

Kurti,

Yes, that's correct, finding a woman on the low population density Eneolithic steppe was probably pretty hard for a young male and maybe often lethal if the competition was high.

I'm betting it was easier just to import a bride one way or another from an area of higher population density.

Coldmountains said...

No CT were in no way R1a. They were mainly G2 and I2 in my opinion. But R1a folks mixed with CT and took farmer wives from them.

Davidski said...

Kurti, are you on drugs or what? There's no evidence that CT had R1a.

R1a-Z93 Sintashta shows a close relationship to late Corded Ware, not to any Neolithic or Copper Age samples from the Balkans.

Kurti said...

Daivd said

"Kurti, are you on drugs or what? There's no evidence that CT had R1a.

R1a-Z93 Sintashta shows a close relationship to late Corded Ware, not to any Neolithic or Copper Age samples from the Balkans."

But you seem mad about me being not on your opinion.

As Alberto said, the tweets state an EEF type people migrated into Srubna culture. Than a tweet says during the Srubna period R1a samples appear. Cucuteni is a nearby East European Neolithic culture. It's a simple conclusion not drugs ;)

But the paper will appear anyways let's wait for it.

Kurti said...

"I'm betting it was easier just to import a bride one way or another from an area of higher population density. "

Import a wive from thousands of miles down south, by what? with a car?

So you say a whole lot of horny H&G went periodicly (almost like a ritual) from Samara down South for a simple wive?

Sorry this theory doesn't sound reasonable/logical enough for me. This theory on Yamna was already ridiculous in my eyes but now explaining the Teal admixture in EHG groups in Samara (further North) with the same theory sounds even less likely.

thats just my opinion.

Davidski said...

You misunderstood the tweets.

Sintashta, Srubnaya and Andronovo are derived from groups west of the Trans-Urals related to Corded Ware, like Abashevo.

Corded Ware has R1a and late Corded Ware also has plenty of EEF admixture.

capra internetensis said...

Probably the R1a came from EHG originally, but it isn't clear from what was tweeted whether it was picked up by Yamnaya-like people on the steppe, or Corded-type people in the forest zone, or even by eastern Middle Neolithic farmer from the EHG substrate. We don't know what the original distribution of EHG was, but considering that cultures related to Karelia_HG (Comb Ceramic types) and Samara_HG extended at least to West Ukraine and NE Poland, besides the eastern Baltic, it is likely that they had at least some EHG admixture in those places. Eastern Globular Amphora and later Cucuteni-Tripolye may have had lots of EHG.

Davidski said...

Nice try to re-invent the wheel there Capra.

But early Corded Ware had M417, which is ancestral to Z93, and Corded Ware is widely accepted to be archeologically ancestral to Sintashta/Srubnaya/Andronovo via Abashevo.

Roy King said...

Finding J2 in an Early Neolithic context in NW Anatolia is huge! It will be critical to determine whether it is J2a or J2b--maybe we'll see when the Bioarchiv paper comes out. H and G2a2 of course have been found in Neolithic Europe. Hopefully Lazaridis will push G2a2 deeper to see whether they are L91/PF3146 or L30 or both.

capra internetensis said...

@Davidski

I know Corded Ware had R1a. The question was how they got it exactly.

It sounds from that tweet like it didn't reach the steppe until quite late in the 3rd M BC, which might imply a forest zone origin, but it wasn't explicit (might have come from the western steppe to begin with, for instance).

Davidski said...

Then you should also know that some of the Corded Ware samples barely show any EEF and their ancestors can be modeled as Samara Yamnaya + a bit of extra EHG.

In other words, they came from the east, not from anywhere near Central Europe.

Davidski said...

By the way, Z93 arrived in the Samara area quite late.

We don't know, for instance, what Khvalynsk or Repin had, like maybe R1a*.

Rob said...

"iosif_lazaridis yamnaya/poltavka went from R1b to R1a in the srubnaya period. z93 group found on bronze age steppe samara (s asian R1a"

ha ha told ya !
population turnover. From west-Asian/ steppic to true "Baltic/ east European" !!!!

Rob said...

Anyone know the specifics of Hg I in Anatolia ?

andrew said...

"yamnaya/poltavka went from R1b to R1a in the srubnaya period. z93 group found on bronze age steppe samara (s asian R1a)"

Wholesale patrilineal replacement in a few centuries implies a pretty damn apocalyptic scenario which is stunning considering that I can't think of a single reason technology wise or culture wise that one would have a decisive edge over the other. Maybe Yamnaya turf gets hit harder by an arid era climate event than folks further north or something. Or maybe the other guys had an awesome leader and their leader was a corrupt goof.

Davidski said...

We knew for a while now that Sintashta came from the west.

"Yamnaya was succeeded northeast of the Caspian by its offshoot, the Poltavka Culture, which in turn was replaced by the Sintashta Culture. The most widely accepted theory, based on archaeological data, is that Sintashta formed from a chain of cultures derived from the late Corded Ware horizon of East-Central Europe. This is backed up by the D-stats below, which suggest some western admixture in Sintashta that is missing in Yamnaya."

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/no-significant-genetic-substructures.html

Davidski said...

andrew,

Abashevo and Sintashta look more technologically advanced and more militaristic than Yamnaya.

Kurti said...

@Roy King

Those J2 beside, I and C1 might represent the "WHG" like portion in EEF.

Rob said...

@ Kurti

"yDNA I doesn't seem to have been taken by "WHG groups" in Europe, but an ancestral part of the EEF."

Nope.
Certain Hg I clades are found in Mesolithic Sweden which has little to do with EEF.
Rather, some I groups came from Turkey with EEF. My own views suggest that it was quite possibly I2a2 found in Neolithic and BA Hungary, MN Germany, and MN and Copper Age Iberia. (but i'll guess I have to wait for full publict.)

Kurti said...

It could be J2b. Cause I still think J2a is connected to Teal farmers.

Kurti said...

Rob said

"Nope.
Certain Hg I clades are found in Mesolithic Sweden which has little to do with EEF.
Rather, some I groups came from Turkey with EEF. My own views suggest that it was quite possibly I2a2 found in Neolithic and BA Hungary, MN Germany, and MN and Copper Age Iberia. (but i'll guess I have to wait for full publict.) "


Please read carefully. I was widespred from Iran all the way into Europe my a WHG/UHG like people, just like C1 was widespred in the same region as we see. IJ in Iran is an good indication for this. So no there wasn't any freakn backmigration of "WHG" groups this has been disproven a dozen times. EEF itself is made up by 50-60% of WHG/UHG like ancestry, that can't be all explained by "Backmigration". Backmigration theory here is dead. We are dealing with an H&G population which was widespred in most of Eurasia (including Anatolia) and went into fusion with an Basal Eurasian group and became EEF.

Romulus said...

Do Uyghurs show any EEF admixture?

Rob said...

@ David.

"We knew Sintashta came from the West"

Maybe a handful of individuals. But that's certainly not how the traditional narrative goes,

And even till yesterday I was highlighting the highly likely possibility of a significant turnover of yamnaya , to which you replied :

"Catacomb has a higher frequency of forager derived mtDNA haplogroups like U4, but overall it's still very similar to Yamnaya."

Even @ matt a couple of weeks ago tried to dismiss it as something relate to the woeful plight of women on the steppe.

The inescapable conclusion is what I have always maintained: the steppe was liable to significant population turnovers/ admixtures (even more than central Europe). It is an excellent transmitter of ideas/ people/ languages, but not an originator.

It was a 'middle man' between the important centres of NW Eurasia - the north Balkans-Carpathian region and the Caucasian piedmont.


@ Krefter

"Would you say Corded ware and Sintashta derived from a population around modern Ukraine and the Black sea?"

Who knows. I've always thought Cucuteni-Tripolye, and other late Neolithic / copper age groups from the Carpathian to the Baltic is possible. Obviously not yamnaya.

I bet L51 isn't from yamnaya either.

Rob said...

@ Kurti

"So no there wasn't any freakn backmigration of "WHG" groups this has been disproven a dozen times. EEF itself is made up by 50-60% of WHG/UHG like ancestry"

Yes I agree that WHG was present in pre-Neolithic Anatolia. it was essentially one landmass with the Balkans during the pleniglacial.

Davidski said...

Rob,

The Pontic-Caspian steppe was an expansion point of a unique people and culture that formed there gradually from 5200 BC to 4000 BC.

It was not an area colonized by any discernible cultures from the Balkans or the Caucasus, except on its edges.

Sintashta and Srubnaya were also steppe people. They just had admixture from more westerly farmer girls than Yamnaya.

Rob said...

Dave

So are those R1a people who replaced Z2013 'western farmer girls' ?

Davidski said...

R1a-M417 is a Corded Ware marker, and Corded Ware aren't derived from any Central European or Balkan farmers. You should know this by now. This bullshit about R1a being from CT or whatever won't fly.

Sintashta and Srubnaya are the descendants of Corded Ware-derived forest steppe groups like Fatyanov-Balanovo, who had some western farmer girl admixture.

Nirjhar007 said...

Jolly :).

Rob said...

Im not sure or insisting as to where R1a came from.
I wholly agree it is from CWC. Im not stating it came from "farmers" in central Europe or the Balkans, when we all know it didn't.

But what I am stating is that (whether R1a-M417 first expanded from the East Baltic or the middle Dnieper) is that these R1a guyr replaced the Yamnaya Z2013. It is likely they were different peoples - culturally and linguistically also. To anyone who has a clue about archaeology, this is self-evident. We can't just lump like ignorami everything & anything east of the Danube to the Altai together and call it "Kurgan' and "IE". That's not how culture, identity and language worked.

You can't have your cake and eat it too

andrew said...

"Abashevo and Sintashta look more technologically advanced and more militaristic than Yamnaya."

You can always find some differences in technology, but we have metal using, horse utilizing, food producing cultures that prevailed over their respective domains for centuries unchallenged before confronting each other on both sides.

In contrast, the Maori of New Zealand (who started out with an early Neolithic level of technology at the time of first European contact) managed to hold their own with less demographic impact that the Yamnaya did in the first war on Earth ever waged with machine guns, a few decades before WWI (they invented trench warfare). Yes, one side had an edge, but how did they get such extreme leverage out of it.

Davidski said...

You're ignoring the fact that proto-Corded Ware was from the east and very much like Yamnaya, except with some extra EHG.

So the replacement of Yamnaya was just a back migration of a steppe people with some farmer admixture from the edge of the steppe in the west.

It's not more complicated than that, nor is it earth shattering, considering that major genetic shifts happened everywhere in Europe and the Near East during prehistory.

Rob said...

@ Dave

"It's not more complicated than that, nor is it earth shattering, considering that major genetic shifts happened everywhere in Europe and the Near East during prehistory"

Of course they did.

"You're ignoring the fact that proto-Corded Ware was from the east and very much like Yamnaya, except with some extra EHG."

Yes. Same general 'ballpark". But a different people, culture, ethnos nevertheless.. Unless we argue that all "EHG" spoke one language since times immemorial. But the, that sounds like tale from the Bible rather than actual history.

Romulus said...

Isn't proto-Corded Ware FunnelBeaker?

Davidski said...

Point is, the steppe wasn't just a highway. Its peculiar character was formed over a long period of time starting around 5200 BC.

Yamnnaya, Corded Ware, Sintashta etc. were all closely related and of steppe origin.

Davidski said...

Romulus,

That's very funny.

But here you can see a comparison of Corded Ware and Funnel Beaker (Esperstedt MN) with PCA.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/badasses-of-bronze-age-analysis-of.html

Nirjhar007 said...

How old is the Z-93? around 2000 BC?.

Davidski said...

Z93 moves in from the west to the Samara region after Poltavka disappears.

That's around 2100 BC.

Nirjhar007 said...

I see thx, now we wait for more, its great time we are living in really....

Nirjhar007 said...

BTW
David, do you think that SC Asian men were moving north taking 'northern ' brides ?.

Davidski said...

No I don't.

R1a-M417 moved from the Corded Ware horizon to Central Asia and eventually to South Asia.

Romulus said...

I think the Funnel Beaker zone was the area in which R1a/EHG,EEF/WHG, and R1b Steppe people began to mix with each other. From this area emerge the Bell Beaker & Corded Ware cultures which spread West and East respectively as Central Europe would have been already heavily populated since the Neolithic. Obviously Corded Ware was not exclusively a direct descendant of Neolithic Farmers, but rather a culture born out of the overlapping contact zone. The evidence contradicts Corded Ware being derived directly from Yamnaya and there are no other cultures in the Corded Ware zone that serve as candidates.

Davidski said...

Romulus,

No, early Corded Ware are like Samara Yamnaya but with minor Neolithic farmer ancestry and slightly higher than expected level of EHG.

What this means is that proto-Corded Ware was like Yamnaya but with slightly elevated EHG ancestry.

So the early Corded Ware population was intrusive to Central Europe from somewhere close to Samara.

Rob said...

Dave

"Yamnnaya, Corded Ware, Sintashta etc. were all closely related and of steppe origin"

'Closely related ' well yes sort of. Lets put Sintashta aside for now because its later

At a very general level, Yamnaya and CWC are indeed similar. But their similarity boils down to a convergent claims of male social status in heterarchical societies composed of more or less equal status males, with no over-arching ruler or 'king'.

But the symbols used by CWC and Yamnaya are different. CWC has different ceramics and burial inventory (Axes) compared to yamnaya - which actually looks impoverished in comparison. So one does not derive from the other. In fact, the very fact that CWC is earliest toward its eastern margin confirms that Yamnaya and CWC appear to have been *oppositional* networks (because it is on frontiers/ contact zone where identity matters).

The obvious corollary is that CWC and Yamnaya had different identities and probably spoke different sets of languages. Arguing that both spoke dialects of one language just because they both share a Y lineage from 18kya is completely missing the point.

Davidski said...

Yamnaya and Proto-Corded Ware were the same population in terms of overall genetic structure and clearly from the same part of Eneolithic Eastern Europe.

So why shouldn't they have spoken similar languages and what does the split between R1a and R1b got to do with anything?

Rob said...

@ Dave

"why shouldn't they have spoken similar languages "

I thought I just explained it. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
Add to that: Proto-CWC and proto-Samara Yamnaya have wholly different roots. Widespread foraging groups over the eons since E.E. and the western Siberian littoral were resettled after the LGM (c. 16000) would have linguistically drifted away into separated languages over and above their already mixed (WHG and ANE) character. So a variety of languages must have been spoken, probably belonging to wholly different families by 3000 BC.

Your reasoning would further imply would that all Neolithic groups, because of their broadly similar genetic make up and dominance of G2a, should also have spoken more or less one language (ie some proto-Vasconic). Your conclusion would imply that only 2 languages were spoken from Iberia to the Urals (north of the Levant/ Anatolia) during M4.


Which is an absurd proposition

Just look at how many languages were spoken by the Australian Aborigines, or Plains Indians (the latter is more or less a discreet region with many similarities in culture).

Romulus said...

I choose to respectfully disagree. I find the ubiquitous presence of the EEF component more compelling than ratios which can vary greatly from individual to individual, also considering the low number of samples. According to your own PCA here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2015/03/bell-beaker-corded-ware-ehg-and-yamnaya.html) the CWC samples cluster between Volga Ural and North West Europeans, rather than between Volga Ural and Yamnaya.

Davidski said...

Yamnaya and Corded Ware form a clade relative to all ancient groups except Afanasievo.

So they're not just broadly similar; they derive from the same Eastern European Eneolithic population. Afanasievo does as well.

Considering these genetic links, there's no reason to assume that they didn't speak similar languages.

Time to move on now.

Davidski said...

Romulus,

It would be strange if Corded Ware didn't have any EEF ancestry considering the samples we have are from North-Central Europe.

You seem to be focusing on this non-remarkable fact and ignoring the remarkable fact that some of these Corded Ware individuals have very little EEF ancestry, and the Corded Ware sample overall forms a very robust clade with Yamnaya groups from near the Caspian Sea, no less.

Why are you ignoring this fact that Corded Ware forms a very robust clade with Yamnaya groups from near the Caspian Sea?

epoch2013 said...

Do we have any idea of the *sizes* of populations back then? CT (Cucuteni-tripolye culture), Yamnaya, Sredny Stog and what not? Because if these Steppe people were relatively small compared to surrounding farmers it could simply be political marriages, swapping wives. We see that up until historical times. The genetic effect would be significant in small groups and neglectable in the large ones.

If after these events, for some reason of another, the small groups grew in size to become about equally sized the teal part would inflate accordingly.

Romulus said...

I think that is simply because they share a common EHG ancestor.

Davidski said...

That's impossible. They must derive from the same population in the east which not only had significant EHG ancestry but also some Caucasus ancestry.

Late Khvalynsk comes mind.

Davidski said...

epoch2013,

That's pretty much it, although some of us suspect that it was more violent at times.

In other words, the farmers and nomads weren't just swapping women as part of political ties, but also sometimes the nomads would take women from the farmers and get rid of the farmers.

This might not be a popular view among lefty anthropologists, but I think it's more realistic.

capra internetensis said...

Where exactly were these farmers living, anyway; what archaeological culture are we talking about?

Nirjhar007 said...

R1a-M417 moved from the Corded Ware horizon to Central Asia and eventually to South Asia.
Not Possible.
Time to move on now.
Yep, Some Central Asian-Iranian aDNA will be very welcomed now, its getting rather boring and stale now....

Davidski said...

They had to be in the northwest Caucasus. During the early Khvalynsk period, I have no idea what culture that would be, but later Steppe Maikop seems plausible.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/272027328_The_Steppe_and_the_Caucasus_during_the_Bronze_Age_Mutual_Relationships_and_Mutual_Enrichments

The admixture certainly did happen from 5,200 BC and it was with a Georgian-like population.

Nirjhar007 said...

I think it should be close to 6000 BC indeed, yes....

Rob said...

@ Dave

" they derive from the same Eastern European Eneolithic population. Afanasievo does as well."

..........which was not monolingual. Genetic arguments do not override sociolinguistic realities

@ Epoch

'Because if these Steppe people were relatively small compared to surrounding farmers it could simply be political marriages, swapping wives. The genetic effect would be significant in small groups and neglectable in the large ones.'

Epoch, what's your opinion about forager linguistics ?
Do you think an (R1a) forager from Karelia spoke the same language to one in Samara ? Granted we have a combination of centrifugal and centripetal linguistic forces. But overall, I'd say its well nigh impossible they all spoke one family

Romulus said...

Steppe theory is for the 'lefty' anthropologists, it is the cornerstone of Feminist archeology and written as a reaction to all the previous work done. I consider my ideas in line with Madison Grant.

"THE NORDIC RACE

We have shown that the Mediterranean race
entered Europe from the south and forms part of
a great group of peoples extending into southern
Asia, that the Alpine race came from the east
through Asia Minor and the valley of the Danube
and that its present European distribution is merely
the westernmost point of an ethnic pyramid, the
base of which rests solidly on the round skulled
peoples of the great plateaux of central Asia.
Both of these races are, therefore, western exten-
sions of Asiatic subspecies and neither of them can
be considered as exclusively European.

With the remaining race, the Nordic, however,
the case is different. This is a purely European
type, in the sense that it has developed its physical
characters and its civilization within the confines
of that continent. It is, therefore, the Homo euro-
pceus, the white man par excellence."

Rob said...

Dave

The Shishlina paper is very good.
"The Steppe Majkop population penetrated into the steppe at the end of the first half of the fourth millennium BC,"

In line with my reasoning. This probably occurred from as early as 5200 BC (as we are seeing). In turn, the Nth Caucasus probably received it from somewhere in central Asia, from M7- M6.

Davidski said...

Steppe Maikop didn't exist as far back as 5200 BC. It's an Early Bronze Age culture, not an Neolithic/Eneolithic one.

Datings are here...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/essential-reading-paleoecology.html

Khvalynsk people are the earliest pastoralists on the steppe. They're 75% EHG.

Davidski said...

Romulus,

Quit trolling.

Rob said...

Dave

Yes, obviously Majkop doesn't date back to 5000 BC. But the "corridor" was operational.

The beginnings of steppe Eneolithic must have had fresh genetic impacts, which continued and amplified c. the Majkop period.

Kristiina said...

@David “Yamnaya and Corded Ware form a clade relative to all ancient groups except Afanasievo. Considering these genetic links, there's no reason to assume that they didn't speak similar language.

In all trees (e.g. http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/08/13/024554.full.pdf) Uralic grops (excluding Samoyeds) are on the same branch with IE groups. If a close genetic link means that people spoke a similar language, then proto-Corded Ware spoke Indo-Uralic as Corded Ware is intermediary between NW European and Volga-Ural, cfr
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQcmpYMVpaS09aWEk/view

In the above map, Yamnaya is quite far from Corded Ware, and so Samara Yamnaya hg language could even be a kind of proto-Turkic. Maybe Tocharian language is related to Andronovo as Tocharian texts are only from 6th to the 8th century AD.

Nirjhar007 said...

One Route Was Caucasus the other E Caspian, by 6000 BC Teal reached Ural-Samara areafollowing East Caspian route IMO, this is not surprising as archaeology agrees, this is why its now really really important to see the Samples of Hotu and Belt Caves to see what Hg's and Autosome they reveal.
OTOH Maykop Intruded Steppes is obvious and even CWC and GAC may have come from it! I'm working on the thesis, will reveal after completing.

Nirjhar007 said...

Kristiina,
If you Put Tokharian with Andronovo, then how IE languages acccording to KH reach SC Asia? that will be more ridiculous...

Rob said...

Kristiina

Glad someone can see beyond 1 dimension :)

Davidski said...

Corded Ware and Yamnaya come from the same population. It's possible to see this even when using the most admixed Corded Ware samples.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ma0-ZIw4UR_2Hh5DN30JEDEpLTp3AUlpty6b2yam7Fg=w949-h631-no

Why wouldn't all those populations on the same branch as the Kalash speak Indo-European languages?

And what the hell do the languages of the Karelia and Samara forgers have anything to do with this? The Karelia forager isn't even R1a-M198, and they lived way too early for anything resembling Indo-European speech.

Coldmountains said...

If R1a-Z93 entered Samara just around 2000 BC than Xiahoe R1a is even a bigger mystery. It is possible that Yamnaya replaced R1a in the Transural/Volga steppe region and got later replaced by other more "western" R1a-Z93 folks. That would explain why R1a was found on the opposite ends of the Eurasia but not so much in the middle during the broader period.

Rob said...

Those ""Caucasian wives"" might have taught IE to the Para-Uralic steppe forager-pastoralists

"Ethnic exogamy can bring mothers who speak a prestige language and who speak asymmetric bilingualism into a position where they ensure that their language is the primary one transmitted to their children in a new location".

( Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective).

Nirjhar007 said...

Corded Ware and Yamnaya come from the same population.
Yeah Dave, The Yamnayan women killed their male partners and took CWC men, they were more handsome actually....

Aram said...

Ok Yamna was proposed to be Nakh-Dagestani, then Hurrian, then Kartvelian and now Proto-Turkic.
But all this is of course is wrong because Yamna was Afro-Asiatic. The proof is the R1b-V88.

P.S. More seriously the R1b/R1a couple was absent from Early Neolithic Anatolia. And this is another hit to their supposed Neolithic connections.

Rob said...

Dave

"Corded Ware and Yamnaya come from the same population"

As In Humans from Eneolithic eastern Europe,? Yes I agree.
But beyond that they're different. Its as plain as day. Different haplogroups, different levels of admixture, different cultures, different economies, different burials, different pots, == different original language.

Rob said...

Aram

Well said, Another pearler

Aram said...

Well Rob in reality I think we will never find a better candidate than the R1b-Z2103 to explain the Anatolian IE languages.
It's modern distribution speaks itself.
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-Z2103.png

And I think there is no surprise that after Poltavka culture the Z2103 disappears from Steppes. It was predicted. Again by modern distribution.

Aram said...

Just one thing remains unclear for me.
Will be the level of EHG be sufficient to explain a Northern origin for Proto-Anatolians. Or it will be insufficient then we will start to look for other Southern origins for them.

Alberto said...

@Matt

Yes, Srubnaya is post-CW, but I was referring more to the CW-like people than to the culture itself.

I'm just a bit surprised of what seems to be their conclusion: EEFs migrating east to turn Yamnaya-like Poltavka (and R1b) into a CW-like Srubnaya (and R1a).

It would imply that: 1 - These EEFs were all R1a. And 2 - That only men migrated and took all the Poltavka women and got rid of the men.

Sounds strange. Did R1a EEFs even exist?

To me it's more likely that CW-like people (from whichever post-CW culture) moved east and replaced Poltavka people (yes, still 100% replacement looks strange, but the steppe seems to be unstable for populations).

Alberto said...

And I insist it's a pity they didn't say a word about mtDNA of the Khvalynsk period. They obviously know it, and it would save us a lot of possibly useless speculation.

The 75% EHG / 25% "Georgian-like" population (that we know about for long, though not officially confirmed) is not conclusive in itself. I can think of much better hypothesis for R1b coming from the Georgian-like side than the other way around to explain this. But I'm tired of speculating and people are probably tired of listening to (my) speculations. So better to just wait for the data.

Davidski said...

We already knew years ago who migrated east to form Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubna. They were indeed the descendants of Corded Ware.

The only thing that the archaeologists got wrong was that they thought Sintashta was derived in large part from a union that included Poltavka.

But the population turnover in the southern Urals at this time, and the dramatic change in male lineages, suggests that this union was more like a shark merging with a man.

There were battles just southwest of the Urals at this time. The casualties or prisoners of war were decapitated and thrown in mass graves.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fEK-BkqXfJAC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Abashevo+mass+grave&source=bl&ots=ugX3Mate5A&sig=8gopt3p-Q0DHh2GNP0aoBkm7ie8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAWoVChMIhv_B2MC3yAIVhqSUCh3JeQ-F#v=onepage&q=Abashevo%20mass%20grave&f=false

epoch2013 said...

@Rob

Epoch, what's your opinion about forager linguistics ?
Do you think an (R1a) forager from Karelia spoke the same language to one in Samara ? Granted we have a combination of centrifugal and centripetal linguistic forces. But overall, I'd say its well nigh impossible they all spoke one family


First of all, I am an amateur. So I aim to keep far from strong opinions.

You mentioned it before: The examples of hunter-gatherers we know about are show enormous language diversity. You forgot to mention the champion language diversity, Papuan languages. However, for every rule we have for all human affairs there are exceptions. And European HG's went through a very tough bottle neck, which may be a reason for an exception in this case. Apart from that - with the risk of becoming a nuisance by repeating it too much - I think that the similarities between Uralic and IE are very different from loan words. Do we have known examples where a language loans its personal nouns, its negation and "what", "who", "which" and so from another language?

So, while I don't know I tend to think they did.

Alberto said...

@David

Yes, that's most likely how it went. But why do you think that Lazaridis' conclusion is that EEFs migrated east to the steppe? It would seem like he's a bit confused?

Matt said...

@ Alberto - Agree a mixture of 100% EEF into steppe is unlikely and probably Laz is not really suggesting that; my comment is that I think whichever LNBA Europeans migrated to the steppe then might well have been closer to 50:50 Yamnaya:MN_European, like Unetice Culture and other LNBA Europeans. Not like the Corded Ware samples, where they model as like 75% Yamnaya, 25% EEF.

So you would not need 100% replacement of Yamnaya by LNBA Eastern Europeans, more like 60% (mostly Yamnya females, LNBA European males combinations being reproductively successful / surviving more than Yamnaya male, LNBA female). We don't seem to have 100% replacement at any other time in our samples, except very early Neolithic.

The LNBA Europeans would've acquired R1a at high frequencies through a founder effect of some kind (there are lots of founder type effects within cultures in LNBA and later with expansions of certain male lineages *within* cultures, e.g. Niall of the Nine Hostages).

Davidski said...

They're just tweets. They can't be taken too literally. I doubt that Lazaridis is confused about anything here.

When Razib tweeted that EEF back migrated to the steppe, what he's really saying is that a population with admixture from Middle Neolithic farmers, probably from somewhere in East Central Europe, moved to the Urals to form Sintashta and thus Srubnaya.

We already knew this from the Allentoft et al. data. But it's interesting to confirm that Poltavka was still just like Yamnaya, so the change was sharp and probably to some degree at least violent.

epoch2013 said...

@Rob

Do you think an (R1a) forager from Karelia spoke the same language to one in Samara ?

Actually, I don't know. Has there been an effort to see if Yamnaya's EHG is more related to Karelia or Samara? Would be interesting.

Also, Caucasian languages are several unrelated families. Samara could have spoken one of them.

Matt said...

Hopefully the transect has enough detail from 2200 (end of Poltavka per JP Mallory) to 1800 / 1600 (beginning of Srubnaya per Mallory) to talk about this in detail. I expect that's a bit optimistic though.

A change from 0% to 33% over 400 years is sharp (if all the change is between end of P and beginning of S) for sure, but potentially only 8% per 100 years or 1.5% increase in EEF fraction per generation.

epoch2013 said...

@David

Did you ever do something like Mbuti Yamnaya Karelia Samara?

Alberto said...

@Matt

Yes, I see your point. They mention Srubnaya being 1/3rd MN, so that's already more western than early CW. Sintashta too is more Western.

So yes, it's possible that it was not a 100% replacement if the original population was more like 50/50, though it could be either way (the steppes are big and not densely populated, so quite unstable regarding populations), sometimes replacement could mostly mean displacement, not extermination of the previous population occupying the area.

@David

Yes, you're probably right. Just some not well explained tweet is most likely.

Rob said...

Matt/ Alberto/ Dave

To shift from my hypothetical linguistic debating (:)), how do you guys think this new snippet of information affects the central Asia invasion scenario ?

Rob said...

Aram

"I think we will never find a better candidate than the R1b-Z2103 to explain the Anatolian IE languages. It's modern distribution speaks itself.
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-Z2103.png"


Fair enough.

Davidski said...

epoch2013,

Ju_hoan_North Yamnaya Karelia_HG Samara_HG 0.0043 0.818
Mbuti Yamnaya Karelia_HG Samara_HG 0.0035 0.657
Yoruba Yamnaya Karelia_HG Samara_HG 0.0031 0.635

Rob,

The Indo-Iranians migrated to South Asia from the Andronovo horizon via BMAC, not directly from Srubna, so I don't think it changes anything.

Alberto said...

@Rob

Unfortunately nothing too new in the information, so I don't think it changes things much. I wish they had at least mentioned the mtDNA of the early steppe cultures, but it seems we'll have to wait for that.

Rob said...

Thanks Dave, Alberto
Was just a general question from the perspective of ANE / WHG / EEF modelling

Rob said...

@ Kurti

"So no there wasn't any freakn backmigration of "WHG" groups this has been disproven a dozen times. EEF itself is made up by 50-60% of WHG/UHG like ancestry"

Back to this interesting question: a back migration is still possible. Between the post glacial and neolithic period, Anatolia was sparsely populated and appears to have been a south-eastern periphery of Mesolithic Europe. It will be interesting to see the selection of specific I clades present there

Vincent said...

The lack of Y-DNA E among Neolithic Anatolians is significant, because it confirms the hypothesis by Battaglia et al. (2008) that V13 (rather, its immediate ancestors CTS1975 and L618) is Mesolithic in Europe. Its presence was initially restricted to Southeastern Europe, and when the Anatolian farmers came, they took some V13 with them around the rest of Europe.

Davidski said...

The fact that Anatolian farmers had I and C1 is pretty strong evidence that there was a back migration from the Balkans to the Near East, although these sites are near the Sea of Marmara, so it's not really surprising.

I'll be very surprised if we see I and C1 in farmers from Jordan, Syria and Iran.

Davidski said...

Vincent,

There's no evidence here that E was in Mesolithic Europe.

Nirjhar007 said...

If Poltavka was R1b, then its very problematic to connect it with IIr R1a carrying group of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltavka_culture

Dmytro said...

There's still a huge area from which we have no adequate aDNA and a number of archaeological cultures which have not been subjected to adequate genetic scrutiny. So even if "the big picture" seems to be clarifying (or is this still an illusion?) much of the various contentions remain at the level of intelligent guesswork. The relationship between Corded Ware and Yamna remains problematic and will continue to remain problematic until the genetic results (obtained and forthcoming) shall have been properly coordinated with archaeological, anthropological and linguistic analysis.

Nirjhar007 said...

Actually Shrubnaya has been connected with Cimmerians, who have
Iranian linguistic affinities...
Of course Dmytro, we need more sampling, especially from Asia.

Davidski said...

Cimmerians didn't exist when proto-Andronovo Z93 moved from Eastern Europe to Central Asia.

Nirjhar007 said...

Of course they did, you will find out stuffs one by one.....
I don't know what is ''proto-Andronovo'' however, yes, the Tarim R1a-M417+ when we will have it? any ideas?.

Nirjhar007 said...

I meant Xiahoe.

Davidski said...

No idea.

Ariele Iacopo Maggi said...

David

"There's no evidence here that E was in Mesolithic Europe."
Come on, is there any other conceivable explanation?

Davidski said...

I'm assuming that's you being ironic.

Ariele Iacopo Maggi said...

Epicardial Spain (5000BC) and Sopot (500BC Hungary?) have E1b1 but it didn't came with anatolian farmers! I mean, we are in a tertium non datur situation here (HG or EEF). In my opinion V13 remained stuck in the balcans for millenia and then was dragged across Europe by anatolian farmers.

Vincent said...

Davidski,

There is evidence. E-V13 being present in the Early Neolithic of Spain but not in that of Anatolia, for example. Or the fact that L618* cases (L618 being a close ancestor of V13) have been found only in Europe. Or the mtDNA haplogroups of Mesolithic Greece that are completely different from the mtDNA lineages from the rest of Mesolithic Europe.

Roy King said...

@Vincent
I'm inclined to agree with you that V13 is Mesolithic in the Balkans/Greece and was picked up by Neolithic farmers and transported to Spain. It is significant that no E lineages are found in NW Anatolia farmers. The YSTR pattern of the Neolithic V13 in Spain is quite distant from any living V13. Later V13 rapdily expanded in a starburst fashion within the Balkans and the Iron Age Thracian is V13 also.

epoch2013 said...

@David

Ju_hoan_North Yamnaya Karelia_HG Samara_HG 0.0043 0.818
Mbuti Yamnaya Karelia_HG Samara_HG 0.0035 0.657
Yoruba Yamnaya Karelia_HG Samara_HG 0.0031 0.635


Thanks. Very slightly towards Karelia. Far too little to be anything relevenant, I would say.

Dude ManBro said...

Given the current data, it is possible E-V13 has been present in SE Europe since the Mesolithic, and if that is the case, it makes me wonder if the E-V13 carrying population was more similar to Anatolian farmers autosomally than the Mesolithic populations further North.

Supposedly, Mesolithic Balkan mtDNA was similar to EEF populations, so who knows, maybe they were.

Rob said...

Of course it's possible, but unlikely

The 'time of formation' of E-V13 (when it's splits of its NE Afrocan 'cousins') is ~ 7 kya according to Y Full and the Trombetta/Cruciani paper.

That's 5000 BC; which is late Neolithic by near eastern standards.

Also, people keep forgetting the meagreness of the Greek mesolithic; which is evident even with the most cursory of scanning through the literature. Whatever groups were there; they contributed little if at all.

Davidski said...

Anatolia was joined to the southern Balkans during the Neolithic, so it's likely that people moved both west into Europe and east into Anatolia regularly. That's probably why these samples show typically Mesolithic European Y-hg I and C1.

Why don't they show any E if it was present in the Balkans since the Mesolithic?

Dude ManBro said...

E-V13 was already present in Neolithic Spain ~5000 BC, so I don't see how it could have just split from its North African cousins around the same time...?

Davidski said...

The question is interesting but it's not evidence that E was present in the Balkans during the Mesolithic.

At the moment there is no such evidence.

Grey said...

andrew

"You can always find some differences in technology, but we have metal using, horse utilizing, food producing cultures that prevailed over their respective domains for centuries unchallenged before confronting each other on both sides."

Both Corded Ware and Yamnaya had copper at one point but at the date of this potential easterly invasion had the descendants of Corded Ware got access to bronze weapons?

If Yamnaya had copper but not the kind that makes arsenic bronze and no access to tin then that might explain it.

Krefter said...

There's probably less than 20 Y DNA results from Reich's new paper. No E result doesn't mean E didn't exist in Neolithic Anatolia. It is very rare in Neolithic European samples, I think 3% out of 100 or so.

Alberto said...

@Capra

"Where exactly were these farmers living, anyway; what archaeological culture are we talking about?"

I don't think that there is really a pre-Mykop in the north Caucasus. Maykop most likely represents the arrival of new people there. So if these hairy women (with their animals and culture) arrived earlier to the steppe/Volga area than to the Caucasus, they had to come from the east. I would look at the East Caspian area, though it's difficult to say which archaeological culture due to the lack of data. Could be related to Jeitun, or to Kelteminar even (ah, yes, they had domestic animals, at least some groups from a more southern location. I've posted this paper a few times before: http://briai.ku.lt/downloads/AB/11/11_014-021_Lasota-Moskalewska,_Szymczak,_Khudzhanazarov.pdf). I guess that in the absence of other remains, Jeitun DNA would be really interesting (or from the preceding Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq site). Though Maykop and early Kura Araxes shouldn't be very different, probably.

BTW, these Georgian-like farmers seemed to be just like their northern brothers-in-law. I had not seen this paper around, but it seems like they also replaced populations in a similar fashion:

http://www.academia.edu/2635036/The_Population_Replacement_at_Arslantepe_Reflections_on_the_Human_Remains

More here: http://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2001_num_27_2_4733

Rob said...

Alberto

minor point re "I don't think that there is really a pre-Mykop in the north Caucasus. "

There is a pre-Majkop phase in the north Caucasus. it's just poorly researched. AFAIK, only one cemetery has been investigated in the 60's. It looks very unremarkable - almost 'Stone Age'. A few meagre accompanying gifts with possible links to Neolithic cultures further west, most individuals almost wholly without funerary gifts.

Whether by migration or massive social revolution, the succeeding Majkop phase is a stark, stark contrast.

German Dziebel said...

There's a new conference on IE origins coming up (http://www.shh.mpg.de/105110/lag_conference). Lazaridis is presenting again. Abstracts are available.

capra internetensis said...

Thanks for the links, Alberto

German Dziebel said...

BTW, guys, are Lazaridis and Dienekes one and the same person? Just curious. I've heard various things.

Davidski said...

No, Lazaridis is not Dienekes.

Simon_W said...

By the way, V.V. Bunak, the Russian physical anthropologist, noticed already decades ago that the Srubna culture introduced a new type to the steppe which differed a lot from the preceding Yamnaya&Catacomb type. It's quite amazing. He also noted that the Yamnaya type had southern relationships and went into a Caucasian and "Pontic" direction. Whereas he considered the Srubna type to be at the origin of the modern-day "East European" type, in Bunak's typological system. His East European type is basically the core type of the core Russians. Compared to Northwestern Europeans this type has a somewhat broader nose, has less often dark pigmented hair, has weakly developped browridges, a weaker horizontal facial relief, has more often a fold of the upper eye lid, but generally broad eye openings, and high rooted noses are less common. Compared to the Yamnaya type, the Srubna type is about equally dolichocephalic, the upper facial index is clearly higher and the bizygomatic diameter is much lower (EEF ancestry!), the face is also somewhat flatter (less horizontal profile) and the nose less prominent.

This Srubna type was also typical for the northern Scythians, while those in the south allegedly were still closer to the Yamnaya type, though on average they were quite leptoprosopic (upper facial index 53.8).

Simon_W said...

I don't think Romulus was trolling, he probably really believes in the rubbish he posted. Citing Madison Grant as a basis for anything is ridiculous, he's outdated even by the standards of typological anthropology, not to speak of modern genetics.

@ Romulus

Your theory of a central role for the Funnel Beaker culture is falsified by the fact that all Funnel Beaker individuals tested so far were plain middle Neolithic EEFs, they're much closer to Sardinians than to modern northwestern Europeans or "Nordics".

Also when speaking of the place of the Corded people in the West Eurasian PCA you're committing the common fallacy of projecting the modern population groups into the past. At the time of Corded Ware northwestern Europe wasn't inhabited by northwest European-like people! So the fact that Corded Ware is inbetween Yamnaya and Northwest Europeans doesn't mean that they're admixed with Northwest Europeans, but the other way round, modern Northwest Europeans formed as a mix of Yammnaya-like people with Sardinian-like EEFs.