search this blog

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

La Brana 1 had blue eyes

Update 27/01/2014: Mesolithic genome from Spain reveals markers for blue eyes, dark skin and Y-haplogroup C6.


Last year Current Biology put out a paper on the partial genome sequences of two Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers, dubbed La Brana 1 and 2, which showed that they were genetically more similar to modern-day Northern Europeans than Iberians. According to Spanish news portal, the genome of La Brana 1 has now been fully sequenced, and the more comprehensive new data not only back up the initial findings, but also suggest that this individual had blue eyes:

El mesolítico 'leonés' afín al ciudadano del norte de Europa

As per the link above, the new paper will be published in a few weeks. I suppose this means we'll finally see a Y-chromosome haplogroup result from pre-Neolithic Europe. I'm betting on hg R, considering that this was the marker of the Mal'ta boy from Upper Paleolithic South Siberia (see here). Siberia might seem like a long way from Iberia, but in fact, for thousands of years both regions were connected by the Mammoth Steppe, which was inhabited by highly mobile herds of animals and human hunters who followed them. However, I won't be surprised if it turns out that La Brana 1 belonged to hg I or even Q.

See also...

Ancient DNA from Iberian Mesolithic hunter-gatherers


1 – 200 of 202   Newer›   Newest»
spagetiMeatball said...

Haplogroup N?

barakobama said...

Davidski is it for sure Brana-1 had blue eyes? This is exactly what most people excepted since so many people like you who study autosomal DNA of the ancient and modern samples. Say that a very high amount of hunter gatherer ancestry exists in Baltic's and Scandinavia(mainly Finnish and Sami) all who have majority blue eyes. This will probably prove the theory's that the first person with blue eyes lived only 6,000 years ago wrong. Most I have heard think that paleness in Europe is from the Neolithic farmers when I think it most likely is from the Mesolithic-Palaeolithic hunter gatherers. New predictions of 11,000-19,000ybp make's a lot of sense to me.

I have been very skeptical of the idea a lot of hunter gatherer ancestry survived in Europe because of the little amount of mtDNA that survived. Since I don't understand the science of autosomal DNA. I have been waiting for their pigmentation if they had high amounts of non dark hair and eyes which is unique to Europe. That would probably convince me a lot of their blood did survive.

Why is everyone excepting Y DNA R or some other recent Y DNA haplogroup in Europe. This is really getting annoying Y DNA I2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y DNA I has been in Europe since the Palaeolithic age it may be the oldest paternal lineage in Europe. It makes a lot of sense to say I2a1a1 M26 in west Europe is from farmer-hunter gatherer inter marriage. I think it is likely both La Brana's had I2a1a1 M26. They did though have a pretty good amount of farmer ancestry and hunter gatherer mtDNA U5b2c1 so possibly farmer Y DNA G2a, E1b1b V13, and some type of J(J2b, J1a).

Davidski you are basing your opinion a 7,000 year old Spaniard had Y DNA R on a 24,000 year old Siberian with Y DNA R. Even if your Y DNA R mammouth steppe hypothesis is correct(I do think there is good evidence it is). A lot happens in 17,000 years. There is no evidence that I know of that a pre Neolithic R lineage exists anywhere in Europe only I lineages.

barakobama said...

Davidski do you have any idea when the copper age Pontiac steppe stuff will come out?

MfA said...

I expect F or N..

vooruit said...

barakobama: "This will probably prove the theory's that the first person with blue eyes lived only 6,000 years ago wrong"

I never really believed in this date. To me an indirect proof of much more antiquity of this characteristic are the few European phenotypes of north African, including blond hair and blue eyes, that we can probably relate to the paleolithic flow of cro-magnoid (these were named mechtoids) that came from Iberia during paleolithic, ibero-maurusian culture aka oranian culture (also the "European"-like aDNA from ~12 kyo bones in Taforalt, in north-eastern Morocco (Kefi et al, 2005)).
This study seems to prove it.

Most of the modern north African European-like mtDNA is probably related (U5 and H1 for instance - there are mtDNA U5 down to Senegal (and Sahel, with few other west Eurasian haplogroups among them H - BTW Mechtoids remains about 10 kyo were found down to the north of Mali).

These light features don't seem to be related to the Vandal migration because apparently the population with the highest pourcentage of light hair and blue eyes are in a totally different area, that happens to be the area of the Taforalt (while the Vandals/Alans were roughly around Tunisia).
Besides the hgs related to north europe are extremely rare even in the area of Vandal "settlement" (they were not that numerous after all).

barakobama said...

vooruit It is possibly the light features in northwest Africa do come from Iberian hunter gatherer's related to La Brana-1. The Kabyle people I have heard from Americans who have visited Mooroco. Are known for pale skin, light eyes, and light hair and they saw some even with red hair. Light features in most of central Asia probably descend from Indo Iranian and Tocharian migrations.

There is a lot of pale skin and also light colored eyes and red hair in the Samaritans(former Jews but mixed it is complicated). Who in globe13 had 0% o the north European cluster. All the genes that cause Euro paleness have been found in other west Eurasians and probably have a more complicated origin. Than it was cold and dark in Europe 1,000's of years ago.

The first humans probably had black skin(I will explain if you want me too). All modern people have about 100% dark hair and eyes except Europeans. All people in the west Eurasian aka Caucasian family have brownish(lighter than most humans) skin and almost only dark hair and eyes.

I doubt that European paleness like in Finland goes back super far back like 30,000 years but the original age estimates were way to young. I think paleness became dominate like it is today(mainly in northern Europe) occurred in Palaeolithic European hunter gatherers over 10,000 years ago probably over 15,000 but that is just a guess. The so called north European cluster which probably originated in the Euro hunter gatherers. Is Specific to Europe I think it represents an early migration to Europe that occurred over 30,000 years ago connected with mtDNa U5, U4, U2e(and other U and mtDNA lineages), Y DNA I(and other Y DNA hg's). They had been separated genetically from other west Eurasians(until Neolithic) for so long they developed very pale pigmentation.

ZeGrammarNazi said...

People are expecting some form of Y-DNA R to turn up in hunter gatherer remains due to the aDNA results of the Mal'ta boy and because there are similarities in the material cultures of Paleolithic Europe and the Mal'ta site.

Colin Welling said...

Davidski do you have any idea when the copper age Pontiac steppe stuff will come out?

not for a long time. they enjoy laughing at us as we debate the issue over and over on the forums.

pyromatic said...

Where are the data that establish hg I in the European paleolithic? You make a lot of very detailed claims based on the prevailing opinion that is rooted in little data and a lot of conjecture.

Nirjhar007 said...

Ladies and Gentlemen According to Aryans having Blue Eye is an Clear sign of being of Barbarian blood so i'm not interested at all......
Good Day.

Fanty said...

"DNA I has been in Europe since the Palaeolithic age it may be the oldest paternal lineage in Europe."

Thats a theory but its UNPROVEN. Until liek 2006 or something scientists believed R to be the Palaeolithic haplogroup of Europe and "I" to be a 16K ybp arrival from eastern Anatolia.

Observations in STR diversity made this theory tumble and the theory of "I" beeing the oldest European Y-DNA showed up, but STR diversity was meanwhile dumbed as unreliable.

The oldest successfull Y-DNA tests on Europeans showed to be 100% G, wich apeared like an earthquake and seemed to doom "everything wrong we knew so far" bla bla. Of course all these G are from southwestern Europe and from neolithic time. The oldest succesfull northern European (Germany to be exact) Y-DNA tests are younger (Bronce Age) than those Gs and had been R1a, R1b and I2b already.

In other words, we MISS Y-DNA tests from neolithic/mesolithic and palaeolithic northern Europe and mesolithic and palaeolithic from southern Europe. (neolithic southern Europe apearing 100% G)

And that means, its totaly speculative what haplogroups may have existed or not in northern Europe in the stone (lithic) ages. We know in southern Europe, a real test proved all speculations way wrong. Will northern Europe cause an earthquake aswell?

For now we eagerly await the Y-DNA of the mesolithic hunter gatherer from Spain, with his Fin/Baltic/Russian alike (but even "more easternly" than them) autosomal DNA and light pigmentated eyes.

Onur said...

All modern people have about 100% dark hair and eyes except Europeans. All people in the west Eurasian aka Caucasian family have brownish(lighter than most humans) skin and almost only dark hair and eyes.

Barak, if you include dark brown hair in dark hair category, what you say about hair colors is close to be true, but not exactly true as there are exceptions such as the populations of northern West Asia.

Your claim about eye colors is even more problematic, even if you include brown eye in the dark eye category, especially when it comes to northern West Asians.

I assume you include brunet-white skin color in the brownish skin color category, otherwise what you say about skin colors would make no sense. But still you are ignoring the relatively high ratio of light skin in West Asians, especially those in the northern parts.

Overall, you seem to downplay the relatively high ratio of dark or relatively dark pigmentation in southern Europeans (I did not mention before, but you seem to significantly downplay the relatively high ratio of dark or relatively dark pigmentation in southern Europeans, especially in skin color) and the relatively high ratio of light or relatively light pigmentation in West Asians, especially that of the northern ones, to fit in your rigid but nevertheless artiificial "European-West Asian dichotomy".

ZeGrammarNazi said...

Start listening at 16:00. She starts explaining the methodology and results of a nuclear DNA comparison of hunter-gatherers ranging from Iberia to Scandinavia and 4 neolithic farmers with modern populations. All the hunter-gatherers are close to Lithuanians whereas the farmers are closest to Basque and Sardinians.

Davidski said...

It seems she's talking about this...

Matt said...

Interesting that the Gok farmers are closer to neutral on Sardinian-Lithuanian affinities, with a minor Sardinian shift, compared to the Mesolithic Europeans who are decidedly Lithuanian shift.

Yet the farmers are *supposed* to have contributed more as a % of ancestry to Sardinians than the Mesolithic populations are expected to the Lithuanians. Explaining this away with drift in Sardinians sounds unconvincing to me, and the same by explaining this with more Mesolithic ancestry in the Gok farmers than Sardinians.

Re: "Barak" and Onur's discussion on historical pigmentation, this result does seem to push us a bit in the direction that pigmentation might have more to do with ancient selection than neolithic selection.

In the Dodecad K7, the ratio of Southern vs (Atlantic-Baltic+West Asian) seems to my impression to predict pigmentation, where it is not predicted by extra European affinities, but I am can't see much effect in the of ratio Atlantic-Baltic vs West Asian, which seems of much smaller effect if any.

E.g. The pairs Armenians and Sicilians, Lezgins and Hungarians, Georgians and Spanish, where each pair have similar levels of Southern seem to have similar levels of protective / darkening pigment, despite different levels of Atlantic-Baltic and West Asian.

There might be other variance on top of this. But the pigment of the average dodecad K7 "West Asian" zombie might be pretty like the pigment of an "Atlantic Baltic" zombie. And an Atlantic Baltic zombie would be pretty close to a Lithuanian, judging by overall genetics affinities. Whether or not these three approximate real historical populations at all (different clustering results at higher K might approximate better).

At this level of clustering, % Southern seems to have a stronger effect on pigmentation than % Siberian (seems like there's not much of a difference between Russians and Finns and their less Siberian neighbours like Poles and Lithuanians), but %Southern contributes less to difference than % African or % South Asian.

About Time said...

The complicating factor in this whole Mesolithic/farmer equation for Gok4 is the Megalithic peoples. Were they just intermediate, or were they a third ancestral population that hasn't yet been genotyped from ancient remains?

Davidski said...

Gok4 is just Oetzi with more Mesolithic European admixture. In other words, very Basque-like. That makes sense, because the Megalithic people were based in pre-Indo-European Western Europe.

It's near the Caucasus, and possibly in the Balkans, where we'll see a third component in the ancient DNA. Corded Ware and Unetice DNA will show it.

barakobama said...

I know I am a little off on what certain people's pigmentation is. But it doesn't matter if what the Spanish article said is true. That La Brana-1 had all the same blue eye mutations as modern blue eyed people. That means it is likely that a lot of hunter gatherer ancestry survived in modern Europeans. Sure there are some Near eastern and north African people with blue eyes and maybe as a whole can get up to 1-10%(correct me if I am wrong). But the typical one has brown eyes(I am not sure if there is a such thing as black eyes). While most of Europe(central, northern, eastern) has blue eyes.

barakobama said...

"Thats a theory but its UNPROVEN. Until liek 2006 or something scientists believed R to be the Palaeolithic haplogroup of Europe and "I" to be a 16K ybp arrival from eastern Anatolia."

I am no expert. But I do know that all I1 and I2 subclads are exclusive to Europe. Y DNA I exists almost no where but Europe and has the most variety's in Europe. The reason there has only been four out of 31 I's(I2a1's) found in Neolithic Europe is it descends from the hunter gatherers NOT FARMERS. I get so sick of people ignoring the only actually European y DNA haplogroup. There is no evidence of any R lineage in Europe besides possibly R1a that has been there since before the Neolithic. Pre Neolithic European hunter gatherers were west Eurasian aka Caucasian. Doesn't it make sense that I is the brother clade to J which dominates west Asia? F 96 and C V20 are the two other likely possibilities if La Brana-1 had a hunter gatherer paternal lineage. Why is everyone so in love with y DNA R. We all know it spread recent in Europe mainly in the copper and bronze age with Indo Europeans. So why does everyone assume it is so European when it isn't? Why the heck would anyone think he could have Q or some other strange and foreign Y DNA haplogropup that has probably just about nothing to do with Europe. I shouldn't even be arguing with you La Brana-1s' results will speak for me.

barakobama said...

French Basque N=23: Med=59.5, North Euro=39, South Asian=1.1, West Asian=0.2, Amerindian=0.1

Gok4: Med=64.2, North Euro=28.1, Southwest Asian=7.6

Oetzi: Med=59.5, Southwest Asian=15.9, North Euro=13.6, West Asian=6, East African=2.4, Australasian=1.3, East Asian=1.3

French Basque N=21: Atlantic Med=73.1, North Euro=17.1, Gedorsia=9.8

Gok4: Atlantic Med=81, North Euro=5.5, Southwest Asian=8.6, Caucasus=4.2, East African=0.7

Oetzi: Atlantic Med=57.7, Caucasus=22.3, Southwest Asian=7.6, northwest African=5.7, East African=2.4, Southeast Asian=2, South Asian=1.5, east Asian=0.7

Davidski said...

Maybe the reason R hasn't shown up in any pre-Neolithic remains from Europe is because no one's tested any pre-Neolithic remains from Europe. Have you thought of that?

Why would you expect a hunter-gatherer Y-DNA in farmer remains? If R was found among the farmers tested to date wouldn't that show that it's a farmer lineage? By the way, hg I2* is found in the East Mediterranean and West Asia. That's probably where the ancient I2 from Treilles came from.

Matt said...

Good points. Also La Brana seems come out with high levels of Atlantic Med components at dodecad's K12, while having Lithuanian like levels of Atlantic Baltic at K7, which is outside the pattern of modern day populations (where the highest in Atlantic Baltic at K7 have high North European and not an even balance of Atlantic Med and North European, at K12).

Davidski, out of interest have you run any of these samples through calculators based on your Eurogenes project clusters? These seem to offer plausibly better separation of the Atlantic elements into more Mesolithic (Eurogenes North Atlantic) and drifted Neolithic (Eurogenes West Med) subcomponents, although still no doubt imperfect for this purpose as West Med would seem to still contain substantial Mesolithic and North Atlantic Neolithic shift.

Davidski said...

I haven't done anything with the partial sequences, but I'm planning on testing the full genomes when they come out next year.

barakobama said...

I am open to saying Y DNA I came in the Neolithic but so far i don't see strong enough evidence. It is estimated to be about 30,000 years old and almost all its lineages are exclusive to Europe. It just doesn't make sense to say it came with farmers. The I2* in west Asia and east Mediterranean is surprising. I think it is possibly I and I2 originated in west Asia. But all fo the different subclades of I2 many with ages going back over 10,000 years i originated in Europe.

Davidski since your an expert with autosomal DNA you know a huge amount of hunter gatherer ancestry remains in Europe today. The blue eyes of La Brana-1 is even more evidence because of continuity of phenotype in Europe today. Why would almost all of their paternal lineages become extinct? Wouldn't it make sense all the Y DNA I in Europe descends from them?

I think it is very possibly farmers and metal age people with some hunter gather paternal lineages respreads it. I don't think all the hg I in certain areas descends from hunter gatherers that lived there 10,000ybp. R1b in Europe probably all descended from Near easterns who came in Neolithic or later. R1a I think is probably from hunter gatherers somehow connected with that 11,000-17,000 year old west Eurasian like Siberian with R1a1a1 M417.

N1c1 maybe from hunter gatherers of Kunda and Comb Ceramic culture. But I doubt had anything to do with La Brana's people in Iberia. If European hunter gatherers had R lineages why isn't there any of their lineages still around today. Almost all in Europe today spread recently.

barakobama said...

Thank you Davidski for doing all this wor, staying updated, and responding to people who ask questions or show their opinion on your blogs. By just reading off modern people and Gok4s' results which is easy work. I agree with you that Basque are pretty similar. I don't understand though why Basque have no obvious Near eastern ancestry less than even Finnish. Except with Gedorsian in K12b which is similar to distribution of R1b M269 in Europe.

The about 8,600 year old Mesolithic hunter gatherer from a island very close to Gotland. Was the closet on that graph to modern Lithuanians. Would that mean he had the lowest amount of farmer ancestry? I don't understand because modern Lithuanians have farmer ancestry then he wouldn't be the closest.

In K12b, globe13, and K7b all the hunter gatherers obviously had some farmer ancestry. I wonder if the Mesolithic Baltic hunter gatherer would come out 100% north European in globe13, 100% north European in K12b, and 100% Atlantic Baltic in K7b .

That would mean he is would be the only DNA sample of someone with 100% European ancestry. It doesn't make sense to me that all the hunter gatherers in Europe were so related and unmixed. I doubt it is true and I wouldn't be surprised if there were very different people in different regions.

I wonder if the 32,000 year old Russian was connected with the later Mesolithic hunter gatherers of Europe. I think there is a good chance he had very mixed ancestry like Mal'ta.

The dark blue from the K=9 for Mal'ta and modern people. Seems very connected with North European in globe13 and all those other most likely hunter gatherer groups. This may mean the Mesolithic hunter gatherers of Europe descended from Upper Palaeolithic hunter gatherers of Europe. The 32,000 year old Russian may have also been like a proto Mesolithic European.

Davidski said...

Basques do have Near Eastern ancestry. It comes out "Mediterranean" in many tests. But you can see it clearly here...

barakobama said...

Does K=3(5 for K=5 and son) mean you try to find 3 clusters based on SNPs and STR's? Those graphs you showed are constant with other tests results I have seen. Iberians obviously have some north African ancestry especially western and southern Iberians.

Do you know what Qat stands for? Maybe the yellow is very southwest Asian. "Southwest Asian" in globe13 was higher than west Asian for Oetzi and west Asian was 0% for Gok4 while southwest Asian was 7.6%. where it doesn't seem like there is a Mediterranean in those K's. The Mediterranean groups are usually most related to southwest Asian but not much more than other west Eurasian groups though.

In K12b north European and Atlantic Med are very close to each other. In the Fst they were at 0.41. North European was also as 0.41 with Caucasus and Atlantic Med was 0.33 with Caucasus. This makes me think Atlantic Med is European hunter gatherer and Near eastern farmer descended. Which is probably why like North European it is very exclusive to Europe. But still exists as high as 15% in some areas of west Asia and north Africa because it is partly non European hunter gatherer.

In eastern Europe(especially Baltic) and Scandinavia Atlantic Med is much more rare than in the rest of Europe. North European is also much higher This probably means they have higher unmixed European hunter gather ancestry. Which is constant with other tests' results I have seen.

In central Europe, non Scandinavian Germans, and British-Irish Celts. North European and Atlantic Med are pretty equal around the same rate as in La Brana. It could be because those Europeans have very mixed ancestry of eastern European Indo European speakers and native Neolithic farmers of west and central Europe. The Neolithic LBK, Cardiel, Megalithic, Bell Beaker, etc, would have been more similar to Sardinia and Basque.

In all the tests Fsts' I have looked at the most likely European hunter gatherer descended groups are very related to groups usually called west Asian. They are highest in the Caucasus mountains and the most popular group from Turkey -Pakistan but decrease very much the more south you go in west Asia.

Davidski how would you explain the very high amount of Near eastern ancestry in Italy and the Balkans? In all the different tests I have looked at they have nearly as high Near eastern ancestry as European Jews. In globe13 the west Asian vs southwest Asian percentages in Italy and Balkans were the same unlike the rest of Europe. Which makes me think it is possibly it came from the same source. It is highest in southern Italy(especially Sicily) and Greece. I think because of Otzi and that modern Sardinia never spoke an Italian language till Rome just like French and Spanish. The the high amount of near eastern ancestry it is probably not from the Neolithic people of Italy.

I don't know about the Balkans though. Their main Y DNA haplogroups E1b1b(mainly V13), J(mainly J2 then J2b), R1b L23 and Z2103, I2a1b have probably been there sine the Neolithic so possibly same with the Near eastern ancestry. Maybe why it is higher in Greece than the rest of the Balkans is because Slavic invasions decreased the near eastern ancestry.

barakobama said...

"The complicating factor in this whole Mesolithic/farmer equation for Gok4 is the Megalithic peoples. Were they just intermediate, or were they a third ancestral population that hasn't yet been genotyped from ancient remains? "

Two y DNA samples from Megalithic France both had Y DNA I2a1. I think I2a1a-M26 is descended from La Brana-1's people. There is also a pretty high amount of U5 in Iberian Neolithic and Trellis France. All this could mean they had pretty significant hunter gatherer ancestry more than Otzi.

Modern Sardinia who are very close to Otzi. Have the highest I2a1a M26 in Europe at around 37%(who knows how it got that high) Basque who are very close to Gok4 have the next highest at about 9%. G2a, I2a1a M26, and E1b1b V13 where probably the main y DNA haplogroups of Neolithic west Europe. It seems likely to me that Y DNA I2(maybe also I1) in central and western Europe descend from Mesolithic hunter gatherers. G2a(not all) E1b1b( not all and mainly V13), J1( not all and mainly J1a), J2, and T descend from the Neolithic farmers. R1b1a2a1a L11 and probably all other R descends from Indo Europeans(Germans, Celts, Italians).

Davidski said...

Qat is Qatar. The full blog entry is here...

The Mediterranean cluster, the one that peaks in Sardinians, is just a more western variant of the Southwest Asian cluster. It had to have come with the maritime Neolithic groups via the Mediterranean, probably from the southern Levant. I think the best modern proxies for these maritime Neolithic groups are some Bedouins and Saudis, but nowadays they have quite a bit of Sub-Saharan admixture. You can see that on the ADMIXTURE bar graph from the Mal'ta study...

sblog said...

I1 is defined by many SNPs: CTS11022/S66, L64, L75, L80, L81, L118, L121/S62, L123, L124/S64, L125/S65, L157.1, L186, L187, L840, M253, M307.2/P203.2, M450/S109, P30, P40, S63, S107, S108, S110, S111. I guess that the La Brana skeletons belong to this I1 line with only a part of these SNPs. It makes sense since mesolithic people are close to modern north europeans.

barakobama said...

How do know La Brana skeletons had Y DNA I1? The reason La Brana's are closer to modern northern Europeans. Is because northern Europeans have more pre Neolithic European hunter gatherer ancestry.

Davidski said...

The level of hunter-gatherer ancestry among Scandinavians is overrated. Lithuanians and even Poles are more hunter-gatherer than Scandinavians, and they don't carry much I1. So there's certainly no guarantee that La Brana 1 belonged to I1, which might well have arrived in Europe as F* or IJ with Neolithic peoples, such as the LBK groups.

barakobama said...

I think it is definitely debatable Poles have more hunter gatherer ancestry than Germanic Scandinavians. They are high up there in rankings for hunter gatherer ancestry. If F* or IJ that came to Europe in Neolithic became I1. How do you explain age estimates of hg I around 30,000 years old and the variety of hg I in Europe.

In Scandinavia I1a2 L22 is definitely pre Germanic pre bronze age. The reason Ii think this. Is that Finnish and Sami have about 25-30% I1. 80% of it is under their own unique I1a2 L22 subclades. The next highest percentage of I1 that is I1a2 L22 is in Germanic Scandinavians at about 60%. According to Eupedia's I1 page like with R1b(almost all R1b S21) and I2a2 other I1a2 L22 subclades in Finland are found mainly in the far west. Where there has been Swedish immigration and there are still Swedish speakers there today.

So I1 in Finland is mainly not from Germanic people who arrived into Scandinavia probably with Bell Beaker or Nordic bronze age culture. There are big differences between all modern Scandinavians(including Sami) and mtDNA from Pitted ware culture and Karlie hunter gatherers. This probably means at least their mtDNA was brought later by farmers. I am not sure if the mystery with very farmer mtDNA in Europe but also very hunter gatherer autosomal DNA will ever be solved. But N1c1 and I1a2 L22 might be from Scandinavians and northeast European Mesolithic hunter gatherers.

Pre Germanic Swedish and Norwegian probably belonged mainly to I1a2 L22 and R1a1a1b1a1 Z284. The migration of Germanic people from mainland Europe is probably why Germanic Scandinavians have less hunter gatherer ancestry than Finnish and Sami.

Davidski said...

These days I don't treat seriously any haplogroup age or expansion estimates unless they can be corroborated with ancient DNA. I think that's the sensible way to go about things.

barakobama said...

So it is just age estimates you don't take seriously? All those studies of modern mtDNA and Y DNA are not extremely reliable?

Like this one

What about estimates of R1b arriving in west Europe 5,000ybp that seems to be very backed up by Ancient DNA. I kind of agree because so many of those studies that estimate the age of mtDNA in Europe. Say that haplogroups like J, T, K, H, I, W, V, X have been in Europe since before the Neolithic which is not backed up by ancient DNA at all. At least at the same amount they are today. Even H1 and H3 probably didn't exist in pre Neolithic Europe which is surprising. Maybe H1 and H3 in north Africa comes from the same near eastern source.

Davidski said...

That's right, none of these studies can be considered beyond reproach. The equations they use might work in some cases, maybe, but usually there's no good reason to believe that the outcome is reliable.

Nothing can settle these issues except ancient DNA. In fact, I'd say that so far most attempts to unravel the population history of Europe using modern DNA have done more harm than good, and it's basically just been a joke all round.

barakobama said...

I think there have been some accurate predictions. In that link with the U5 study I showed you. They predicted U5 originated in Europe which has nothing to do with age estimates and probably accurate. Their age estimate of U5 was about 30,000 years old. That may be accurate because there are two 31,155 year old "pre U5's" in Czech Republic. They had two of the five defining mutations. So not exactly the same as modern "U5a'b". Maybe "U5a'b" was just developing at that time.

I was told by a guy from FTDNA that the over 30,000 year old U2 in Russia. Did not have the defining mutations of U2e and had mutations U2e doesn't have. So it was apart of a separate lineage. I think it is still possibly there was other U2 in Europe or Asia at that time that was U2e or ancestral.

I don't know what to say about the 31,55ybp U8 in Czech republic. Also the U*'s, RO or HV's, N's, and possibly H's from Palaeolithic Europe. Probably means pre Neolithic European mtDNA was more complicated than U5, U4, and U2e.

I don't understand why they tried to make estimates of migrations with modern U5. Because there have been so many migrations spreading different U5 lineages across Europe. Unetice, Corded ware, and Bell Beaker had almost all U5a but Neolithic central Europe had almost all U5b. I doubt all U5 in Poland, Spain, Germany, etc. is the same as the U5 that was there in the Mesolithic age.

pyromatic said...

The only evidence you've ever offered for a paleolithic European I is its present-day distribution that is limited to Europe and its divergence from IJ some 25-30 kybp while conveniently ignoring the coalescence times within I1 and I2 that are consistent with expansions of the other modern European HGs and rather inconsistent with a "big squeeze." If HG I were widespread in Europe before being marginalized by incoming peoples, then one might expect the remaining clades to be locally old and geographically diffuse. We instead find young clades with relative geographic restriction coming out of explosive growth.

None of these "theories" is more than conjecture. There is simply a dearth of ancient DNA. Whatever comes out of these studies that are in process or soon to be publish, I think there'll be something to surprise everyone.

pyromatic said...

I don't know how you can claim L22 is preBA or that M253 was in Scandinavia at all before 1000AD, as there are just no data.

I assume you mean the CTS2208+ line when referring to "their own unique subclade" when discussing the Saami and Finnish. Firstly, CTS2208 is not unique to western Fins and is found on both sides of the gulf of Bothnia; hence the clade nickname. Additionally, I am unaware of any study that resolved 80% of Saami I1 to be CTS2208+. AFAIK, Saami HGs are dominated by N1, consistent with some other Uralic-speaking peoples, and then I1 and R1a, the frequencies of which depend on which Saami population you study who their neighbors are, as the frequency of these two HGs tends to mirrors that of their neighbors, suggesting admixture. Since there's not much N1 to be found among Scandinavians and other populations in whom you find a lot of I1 and that the I1 in Finns and Saami, both dominated by N1, mirrors their neighbors, I'd argue for migration by I1- (and R1a-) bearing peoples into these regions where a Uralic-speaking culture was already established who then admixed with the locals. This is rather the opposite of what you've postulated before, in which N1-bearing, Uralic-speaking peoples were invasive in a region dominated by a paleolithic, strongly I1 culture.

Onur said...

R1a I think is probably from hunter gatherers somehow connected with that 11,000-17,000 year old west Eurasian like Siberian with R1a1a1 M417.

Barak, according to the latest ancient DNA analysis results, that 17,000-year-old individual from Afontova Gora, Siberia, has Y-DNA haplogroup Q1a1, and the former Y-DNA haplogroup R1a1 result was due to contamination. So the YFull website (an official and very reliable source) reports his Y-DNA haplogroup as Q1a1: (search for AF2)

In addition, apparently his mtDNA haplogroup is a branch (unfortunately unresolved) of the mtDNA macro haplogroup R (also reported at the YFull website).

barakobama said...

When did I ever say N1 was invasive? My point was that there is no way I1 in Finnish and Sami comes from Germanic Swedish-Norwegian so pre bronze age. Like Davidski said age estimates for spread of haplogroups is usually not very accurate. It is definitely possible I1a2 L22 was in Finland before N1c1. The I1 in Swedish-Norwegian are apart of separate lineages to Finnish-Sami that have been separated since before the bronze age.

The R1a in Scandinavia without a doubt is descended from Indo European Corded ware culture. Almost all Swedish-Norwegian R1a is under a brother clade to Balto Slavic R1a's it is R1a1a1b1a1 Z284. Corded ware culture probably had a stronger presence in Sweden and Norway than in Finland.

All R1b and I2a2 in Scandinavia descends from Germanic migrations probably with Bell beaker and Nordic bronze age culture. It is most likely in my opinion that all Scandinavians descend from people who came in the metal ages. There is almost no continuity at all with Mesolithic mtDNA from Gotland and Karlie with modern Scandinavians. Even Sami have about 50% a most likely farmer lineage which is mtDNA V. All Scandinavians have mtDNA very similar to the rest of Europe and is mainly farmer descended.

It is true though that Scandinavians overall have mainly European hunter gatherer ancestry but that doesn't mean Scandinavian hunter gatherers. Modern Swedish and Norwegian are traditionally farmers. But they have much more hunter gatherer ancestry than autosomal DNA from the earliest farmers in Sweden. I think it is definitely possibly Y DNA I1 came sometime in the copper or bronze age. I really doubt it is connected with Funnel beaker people who's descendants were probably replaced(not entirely) by metal age people. Maybe N1c1 descends from Uralic Mesolithic hunter gatherers. Originally though it came from east asia. So don't be making it seem like a west Eurasian or European haplogroup because it isn't.

mikej2 said...

The CTS2208 mutation is not unique even to Fennoscandinavia, it has been found from Germany and England without Finnish downstrean mutations (L287 etc). In Sweden it is found from Southern Sweden (Götaland), as we could estimate considering the distribution of I1.

Davidski said...

Rumour has it that La Brana 1 belonged to C-V20.

But it might just be some idiot playing a joke.

Davidski said...

OK, the poster at Eupedia who revealed the C-V20 result seems legit. According to him, we should see confirmation when the paper comes out in a week or so.

Onur said...

I replied to one of the comments of Kurti at the "Another look at the Lazaridis et al. ancient genomes preprint" thread. But as new comments no longer show up at that thread, I am reposting my reply at this thread. Here is Kurti's relevant comment:

Davidski good observation He is obsessed in proving more ASI genes in Kurds and Iranians than there really is. Though Palisto pretty much proved that ASI in Kurds is on average 1% and weaker than in allot of other Near Eastern groups (Lebanese, Syrians, Turks etc) he doesn't seem to accept that. I am getting more and more sure that this guy is actually the Onur who is mostly of Bulgarian Turkish descend and wandering through allot of Anthro-Forums trying to spread his obsession.

ASI is related to Caucasus-Gedrosia and North European anyways so I quite don't get his obsession.

And here is my reply to it:

Davidski good observation He is obsessed in proving more ASI genes in Kurds and Iranians than there really is.

I have no such obsession.

Though Palisto pretty much proved that ASI in Kurds is on average 1% and weaker than in allot of other Near Eastern groups (Lebanese, Syrians, Turks etc) he doesn't seem to accept that.

Palisto proved no such thing.

I am getting more and more sure that this guy is actually the Onur who is mostly of Bulgarian Turkish descend and wandering through allot of Anthro-Forums trying to spread his obsession.

As I told you before, I am not that guy. My known ancestry is only 1/4 from Bulgaria (1/2 from Anatolia and 1/4 from Greece). I do not write in any forum, I only write in blogs. And I have always been on good terms with Kurds.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Anyway, what I was saying before is that ajv70, showed 3.5% Australasian on globe13 and ajv52 showed 6.6% South Asian. They also show West and Paleo-African. This could be a timeframe for the first split, as it's brother C-m8, goes east to make up the Jomon people. If it relates to haplogroup C's people forming an early chunk of Europeans, it makes sense. It would be a bit ethnocentric of us to assume that for 60k years no one enters Europe until West Eurasians show up. Whether ENA existed at this time or not, it still could coincide with the movement of people to the Pacific Islands. Some may have just liked turning left as they walked. It's not a far stretch of the mind.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Back to R1b-M269. I believe the diversity in Anatolia can be explained by isolation. I believe that Dienekes had something on this recently, when dealing with age. The Indo European language family agrees with an early split with Anatolian, as these people went to the Near East with no words for wheeled vehicles, wheel, axle, and such. They only had shared words for bit. So they had to have split from other Indo Europeans on the steppes pre-wagon, pre-chariot. From India to Spain we shared roots for these words. An Anatolian home for Indo-European m-269 is a huge stretch. The language could not have spread from there as Anatolian has no shared words for the mode of transport that allowed for the rapid movement of these people.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Indo Europeans being very high ANE and maybe WHG, is another clue. There is no ANE related ancestry among the EEF. How can farmers not possess any ANE if they must pass an R1b ANE people. It doesn't make sense. Language is the dagger in this though.

Grey said...

A comment relating to some things from the previous thread

"R1b migrated to the Near East. It isn't from there. R is ANE not EEF. If R1b was in the Near East, then the EEF's would have ANE, which they do not."

"R1b is definitely Near Eastern But who says it has to be from the Western parts of the Near East where EEF dominated? R1b is most diverse in the Eastern parts of the Near East, Eastern Anatolia, Iranian plateau, Mesopotamia, the South Caucasus and parts of Central Asia."

I'm not sure either way but the thing is, if Basques are made up of just two components: WHG and Farmers, then the R1b must come from one of those two. If it's not the HG component - which would be very neat but the data currently says no - then it must be the farmer component.

However if the Basque R1b comes from the farmer component and the Basques only have two components then the Basque R1b must have come from somewhere which didn't have any other admixture but which developed farming anyway and then traveled to the Basque region. This must limit the options of where it could have come from?

(Also, possibly optional as i don't know if this is certain or not, if R was originally in the far north and the ice age pushed it back and split it into R1a and R1b in separate refugiums then the possible location for unadmixed R1b is limited further.)

What candidate regions are there for the source of unadmixed R1b farmers?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Basque are 29.3% WHG and 11.4%ANE. Why would their R1b be farmer? They are not only two components. Maltese show just two components. But that second component is ANE and not WHG.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Look at this and tell me how ANE could be spread so uniform across Western Europe post Neolithic, if not by R1b. I don't think it's possible. R1b in Europe is from cattle grazers on the steppes.

Grey said...

"I don't think it's possible. R1b in Europe is from cattle grazers on the steppes."

I don't think it is either I'm just wondering how it got to Western Europe.

I'd prefer it to be the WHG component as that would be a lot neater but if there's no early samples of WHG R1b and if it's not Indo-European then it must be farmer but unless I've misunderstood something R1b is only a minority of LBK.

Which I think just leaves a coastal route to Iberia and expansion along the coast from there.

But that still leaves the origin.

(Some or all of the logic in that may be based on misunderstandings.)

Matt said...

Still interested in Stuttgart and the "Ancient Near East" as it is modeled in this paper.

What stands out as a remaining big question here, regarding West Eurasia is

- Is all the European hunter-gatherer like ancestry in Stuttgart of European Hunter Gatherer origin?

At first blush, it may seem simple to say

"Right, now Stuttgart is modelled as a mixture of basal Eurasian and a Loschbaur (hunter gatherer) like population, so QED, the "pure Neolithic" farming people must be basal Eurasians with all other mixture happening elsewhere."

At least, that was my assumption. But... a few facts from the paper seem like they lead me to doubt this.

Firstly, the admixture proportions in Stuttgart seems *very* high. Estimated at around 55% Loschbaur like. Although not inexplicable, this seems improbable with mtdna seeming to segregate pretty strongly between early farmers and European hunter gatherers.

Secondly, the drift lengths from the "Loschbaur" like proportion of Stuttgart's ancestry to Western European Hunter Gatherer are pretty high. The Loschbaur like population that contributed to Stuttgart was quite different from Loschbaur and the WHG who contributed to modern Europeans.

This could reflect an imperfect modelling of Stuttgart harboring of a mix of "real" WHG ancestry (possibly quite a bit less than 55%) and other West Eurasian ancestry which was neither Ancient North Eurasian nor Western European Hunter Gatherer.

Thirdly, when the authors actually model the Ancient Near East directly, as part of a model to look at Ancient North Eurasian mixture in modern Near Eastern people, they *don't* model the Ancient Near East component as either pure basal Eurasian or a Loschbaur+BE mix, but are forced to model it as a mixture of BE and a "sister" to Loschbaur, which may be a distant sibling, which might be almost no closer to WHG than ANE.

So I think, although this paper seems to present a bipartite division of ancient West Eurasians, plus basal Eurasian, as we gather more ancient DNA from the Near East, there's a possibility we will move more towards a tripartite division of ancient West Eurasians, plus some mixture with very old populations in the Near East.

Davidski said...

Here's a comment I left at bioRxiv...

Actually, one of the most confusing things for me is the makeup of EEF.

The paper states that EEF might be around 44% Basal Eurasian, and possibly part European courtesy of an WHG-like population. But it's also estimated to be mostly Near Eastern.

This suggests to me that there's a third component involved, native to the Near East, and judging by Fig. 2A, perhaps it's a Near Eastern version of WHG, or in fact a Near Eastern component ancestral to WHG.

But as far as I can see, the paper doesn't say that anywhere, so my first impression was that EEF was a mixture of Basal Eurasian and an WHG-like population from southern Europe.

Davidski said...

It's still not clear how and when R1b spread across Europe. It's impossible to ignore the link between ANE and R overall (since R* was MA1's paternal lineage), R1b's close relationship with the more eastern and very Kurgan R1a, and the phylogeography of R1b, which strongly suggests it had to move east to west before it could move west to east.

But the fact that it reaches a high frequency among the Basques, who are non-IE and can be fit as simply EEF/WHG, and was found among Bell Beakers, who apparently expanded across Europe from the Atlantic facade, does complicate things.

However, as far as I can see, even though Basques can be fit as EEF/WHG, they do appear to have some minor ANE, because they can also be fit as EEF/Motala12, and indeed they do show traces of the Kalash-centered component in the ADMIXTURE run at K=16, and this component seems to have a close relationship to ANE, even though it's far from a direct substitute. So basically, if we must assume that the late expansion of ANE deep into Europe is linked to the Copper Age spread of R across the continent, and I think that's a very reasonable thing to do, then Basques do seem to have enough ANE to explain their R1b, because it could be the result of a very small migration followed by founder effect.

It is possible that R1b arrived deep in Europe via different routes and with different groups, but generally from the same area in the east. In the south it might have arrived with the Minoans, proto-Etruscans, and proto-Bell Beakers, who might be related to non-IE groups like the Hurrians and Kura-Araxes people from the Northeast Caucasus. On the other hand, in the north it might have moved with the early IE groups from the steppe into the Carpathian Basin, and then onto Central and Western Europe.

Grey said...

I may be imagining it but the whole EEF thing feels to me like a subconscious attempt to cling on to the last scraps of the near eastern replacement model.

Grey said...

"It's impossible to ignore the link between ANE and R overall"

Yes, that's why I was trying to think of possible ice age refugia that were close to R1a but separated and with easy access to the sea route to western europe.

Currently I'm wondering the west side of the black sea but i'm not sure if there's been any y dna from there yet.

About Time said...

R1b shows up some odd places, like Chadic Africans, North Sudan, and Bashkir. Assyrians (modern) have some.

Climate changes, and today's "inhospitable desert" (like Chad and Sudan) sometimes was yesterday's primo game hunting territory. King Thutmose III went elephant hunting in Syria/Mitanni once upon a time.

Northern areas varied in how cold they were. South Scandinavia was wine country at one point.

Would be good to see a Halstatt time series from different periods. Those funny cupola helmets Halstatt wore were really a type of Assyrian helmet btw. Salt is valuable, the kind of things empires like to have access to.

Grey said...

"R1b shows up some odd places"

Yes, quite. The other thought I have is if those odd places are all connected with metal-working (e.g. Chad and the West African gold mines)

Davidski said...

The Neolithic package originated in the Near East, and EEF is Near Eastern-like, which can't be a coincidence, especially since there was a Northern European-like population of hunter-gatherers living in Southern Europe during the Mesolithic.

If EEF was entirely native to Europe, then that means there were two very distinct populations living in Southern Europe during the Mesolithic, and they only first started to mix during the Neolithic.

In fact, I've seen quite a few comments online from people claiming that Mediterranean-like ancestry (ie. the bulk of EEF) was native to Europe, and that hunter-gatherers like La Brana were migrants from the north, but this really is very unlikely. The only place in Europe where there might have been some Mediterranean-like ancestry during the Mesolithic is the southernmost Balkan Peninsula. But even then, I can't imagine that the first Near Eastern farmers simply stopped here and passed on the baton to the locals, who then headed deeper into Europe.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

A little something tying linguistics with archaeology

Onur said...

By the way, Onur is a common name in Turkey.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

"But the fact that it reaches a high frequency among the Basques, who are non-IE and can be fit as simply EEF/WHG, and was found among Bell Beakers, who apparently expanded across Europe from the Atlantic facade, does complicate things."

How do the Basque fit as just EEF/WHG? They have about the same ANE as Spaniards and Tuscans.

Grey said...

"How do the Basque fit as just EEF/WHG? They have about the same ANE as Spaniards and Tuscans."

I'm thinking of Dionekes' three main components I guess and wondering if *some* of the ANE goes back to before the ice split and some returned with the Indo-Europeans.

Davidski said...

Unfortunately, those results, like in Extended Data Table 3, vary quite a bit depending on the modeling used, and they can't be taken literally. I'm not sure why, maybe it has something to do with the close relationship between ANE and WHG? In any case, the paper clearly says that Basques are one of a handful of European populations that can be fit as EEF/WHG, as well as EEF/Motala12. So in theory they might not have any ANE at all, although looking at all the available data, I'd say they do. But if so, the question still remains when they acquired this ancestry. If it was at a different time than the main wave of ANE deep into Europe, which obviously affected all the Indo-European and Eastern Europeans, then perhaps this is why they're Vasconic speakers today? It's really hard to say without more aDNA, but multiple waves of ANE and R1b into Western Europe from the middle or late Neolithic onwards, with migrants from the east belonging to different language groups, could explain a few things.

Grey said...

"Basques do seem to have enough ANE to explain their R1b, because it could be the result of a very small migration followed by founder effect."

Yes, assuming R* was pushed back and separated into separate refugia by the ice so R1a and R1b are both connected to ANE, then from wherever their refugia was, if R1b at least partly took the coastal route around the med coast in a series of hops then they could input the ANE to populations like the Basques.

(And if it was a series of hops admixing with local WHG each time then the ANE signal could dilute along the way.)

Grey said...

(A lot of this is me thinking aloud so apologies)

Another thing I wonder about is the Indo-European caste split between warriors, priests and artisans (possibly like the African blacksmith castes?)

Grey said...

Yes, I just mean the model of *near complete* replacement. As you say it seems pretty certain there must have been a large infusion from the near east.

"But even then, I can't imagine that the first Near Eastern farmers simply stopped here and passed on the baton to the locals, who then headed deeper into Europe."

Agree but I can imagine
->neolithic farmers found a colony
->slight admixture with the local population (say 1%)
->population growth leads to a second colony further up the Danube from the now slightly admixed first colony
->second colony has additional slight local admixture (say now 2%)
->population growth spawns third colony further up the Danube
->third colony has additional slight local admixture (say now 3%)

About Time said...

It's worth studying some of the first empire systems to get some practical working models of how Bronze Age states functioned. Take a look at someone like the Assyrians, how they would at times conquer an area and relocate populations to outskirts to become guards, etc. The result is little pockets of language/culture in odd places.

Other cultures were at times forcibly mixed, or differentially treated based on gender (women became slaves/concubines, but men went to live short lives in the mines). For those populations, descendant mtDNA might have fared better than Y-DNA.

It's worth considering these kinds of factors (especially once complex societies are in play), because sometimes these "little urban pockets" or "mining towns" were actually part of larger economic systems with their own logic that was not restricted to local conditions.

Grey said...

"sometimes these "little urban pockets" or "mining towns" were actually part of larger economic systems with their own logic that was not restricted to local conditions."

Yes like today with Chinese mining companies in Africa or American fur trappers in the 1700s. Resource extraction sites can be planted beyond the frontiers of a more advanced zone.

Grey said...

Another thought, not necessarily related to R1b but this is interesting

There was a sedentary, pottery-using forager population in Thessaly and maybe it was due to all the light-blue in that Black Sea map being high-calorie wetlands?

If so that might have blocked the spread of farmers from Anatolia leaving it to farmers coming by sea from the Levant.

Perhaps that is where and how the EEF were formed - a mixture of Levant farmers and Thessalian HGs?

About Time said...

Grey, thanks for sharing the link and thoughts. Food for consideration and definitely makes sense. People definitely like to get "first dibs" on coastal real estate and move inland only by necessity / population pressure.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Here’s a few things that have been on my mind. Sorry if it runs on, but many things should be considered here.

Imagine the R1b Indo Europeans are heavy ANE if not completely when entering the steppe region. They would encounter probably a heavy EEF population in the North Caucasus region, and maybe some Eastern WHG, though probably not as it does not exist in the Near East. So this makes me wonder if they bred with locals at all on the steppes as Ukraine has 38% WHG. These Indo Europeans could possibly be 90+% ANE entering the Balkans, with the Anatolian and Armenian branch pushing into Anatolia. We see 15% ANE in Greeks, with 5% WHG.

Pushing on into the Hungarian plains, they would probably encounter a population that is a majority EEF, if we consider regional numbers today. We see similar ANE numbers in this region today as we do in the Balkans, so maybe those that move on from the Balkans to Central Europe are still relatively pure, only those staying behind mix in. Another clue as to not staying behind much, is that Proto Italo-Celto-Germanic breaks off after the Anatolian bunch in the west. This of course depends on later migrations of Indo-Iranic, Uralic and Turkic like people not introduction many genes, if any at all. Though others are likely involved, it should be safe to say that a lot of the ANE in the Balkans and Central Europe is Indo European.

Now moving onto Western Europe (France, Spain, and Britain) it gets more interesting. France, Spain, and Britain are not too far apart in ANE. 18% in Scotland, 15% in England, 13% in France and 12% in Spain. There could be 11% in the Basque. These Indo Europeans entering this region should still be a majority ANE, maybe down to 75% or so. Just a rough guess, as staying pure may be hard to do over those 3000 years. Most of their minority lineage is likely still be EEF. We again see high EEF with little WHG in the Alps, Northern Italy, and Southern France. So again it still remains logical to guess that the Indo Europeans are heavy ANE, with even higher EEF now and just minor WHG. This helps explain the numbers in this region all of the way to Spain, and possibly the Basque.

Onto the language of the Basque we may have some Indo Europeans who moved into the region, settled down or fathered kids, with local women while trading. Possibly just like we see high R1b in Southeastern US Native American Tribes. Traders can certainly spread the haplogroups. Add a few settling down and we can possibly see the 90% R1b with no language shift. Keep in mind the Indo Europeans moved in waves. Each successive wave is probably less and less ANE and more EEF, and maybe WHG.
I would like to imagine the movements of R1b/Indo Europeans like the "old west" American settlers ranging out into foreign lands and staking down a claim on some grazing land, trying to fight off the locals. It was probably clans or tribes moving more than single families, as we see haplogroups covering good spreads of land.

Finally (yes it’s almost over), we have Northern Europe. France probably had close to a 50-50 mix at the arrival of Indo Europeans, so they weren’t budged far from that with the new arrivals. More WHG in France picked up by Indo Europeans would be carried to Britain and Ireland. ANE in Scotland is a tricky thing to some, being it’s higher than all except Estonians(same story likely here as well). The reason for this is that Motala people were some of the settlers in Britain. We know this archeologically as well. So we know that some of the ANE in Britain was already native. I think that this helps to explain why we see ANE with low WHG in some of these places as Indo Europeans travelled high EEF places, not WHG on their way to Spain.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

When I say France in the last paragraph, I'm talking Northern France/Gaul. Probably somewhere between 60-40 for EEF or 50-50.

When referring the explaining the numbers in Spain and other places, I am talking about the very high EEF, with 10-15% ANE and 0-10% WHG. This is logical considering the high EEF route of Indo Europeans(ANE).

Okay, I'm off of my soapbox now. Sorry for being rude, and posting a novel.

Davidski said...

Yes, almost all of the ANE in Europe today can probably be attributed to the Proto-Indo-European expansion and, in the areas around the Baltic and North seas, ANE admixed Mesolithic survivors like Motala12, as well as contacts between Europe and Anatolia during the early historic period, which also brought some extra EEF to the southeast of the continent. I think it's possible to catch all of that on this pyramid.

Post-PIE migrations from the east - like those of the Uralics, Turks and Mongolians - can be discounted, because these people surely had high levels of ENA as well, which is basically missing from most of Europe.

Chad Rohlfsen said...


Yes Uralic and Turkic influence is small. I was referring specifically to Magyar, Bulgar, and the like. They probably added a smidge to the ANE as they were probably much more ANE than ENA.

Grey said...

EEF are a mixture of Basal Eurasian (near eastern farmers) and Western Eurasian (HG). Seems to me the most likely place for that to happen would be Thessaly/Thrace followed by an expansion from there both up the Danube and along the coast.

If the local HG population included non Indo-European ANE along the west edge of the Black Sea then all three components could be transported together.

Chad Rohlfsen said...


The EEF didn't show any ANE in the paper. Everything in SW Europe is probably Indo-European.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

In their respective regions of heavy settling of course. Not region-wide.

I forgot to include that it is likely that Indo Europeans had no WHG until they were in the Balkans, post- break up with Anatolian and Armenian, as there is no European WHG in the Near East.

Grey said...

"The EEF didn't show any ANE in the paper."

Fair point.

Still, separate from that EEF are a mixture of near east farmers and HGs. I think the labeling confuses that.


"Everything in SW Europe is probably Indo-European."

Maybe you're right. I'm still not sure that makes sense personally. Although the odd similarity in ANE percentage doesn't fit two routes: a northern IE one and a coastal non-IE one either as I'd imagine that would make the percentage more random plus if it was west to east you'd think there would be more of a cline.

Pre-existing survival percentage + variable IE percentage?

About Time said...

Basques are at the extreme of the modern Euro cline, but aren't so extreme next to Loschbour and La Brana.

I wonder how "aboriginal" they really are. Could they be a Pyrenean offshoot from a group that came in with some Med trading group, like the Tyrians/Etruscans?

Btw, the Basque don't claim they built the old megaliths. They say the "Mauri" built them.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Are you saying that you believe there is a coastal ANE, non-IE population?

There was a split of Germanic and Celtic. Germanic went north (Nordic Bronze age, likely) and the Celtic stayed more southern, and then splitting to North France-NW Germany and another branch along the south coast towards Spain. The Urnfield Culture which was likely proto-celtic.

The R1b specific ANE could follow a cline of sorts. Some of the ANE in the East is going to be from R1a. I am just talking about R1b or Italo-Celto-Germanic specifically, and how it relates to ANE and WHG in western populations. If we involve R1a, Indo-Iranic and Balto-Slavic, it's going to get messy in the east and Balkans.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Plus, only a culture with wagons and chariots is going to move fast enough across Europe to make a uniform component, plus not diluting their original component to a minor component. Only Indo-Europeans fit this model of ANE spreading like this.

Davidski said...

I'm actually a bit sceptical about the claim that there's no WHG in the Near East. Extended Data Figure 6 suggests that there might be some non-trivial WHG in the North Caucasus. Also, perhaps the WHG in the Near East is being lumped into the Near Eastern component? A more detailed study of West Asia is needed, along with ancient genomes from different periods.

About Time said...

Sorry to double dip, but wanted to add the Basques could also be linguistic "tag alongs" from mostly IE groups.

They did the same thing when Spanish, French, British etcetera were settling Canada, California, and S America.

Basques could have originated anywhere in Europe if there was a big push west from ANEs. Who knows, maybe they started out in the Carpathians or Harz or Alps etc.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

R1b-L11 fits this migration of proto-celtic pretty well

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Isn't there a WHG like component there, but not specifically like the European kind?

Grey said...

"I wonder how "aboriginal" they really are. Could they be a Pyrenean offshoot from a group that came in with some Med trading group, like the Tyrians/Etruscans?"

I think that's the general view, that the populations along the Med. and Atlantic coasts are a mixture of coastal EEF and the local HGs with the proportions changing as you traveled from Greece to Scandinavia.

I think the Basques are only supposed to be aboriginal relative to the Indo-Europeans.

I may be wrong on that.

I still wonder though looking at the WHG/EEF/ANE diagram, especially Scotland, if there's a survival ANE percentage in this somehow which was later topped up by the IE.

Davidski said...

It appears that way. But if the current tests have a hard time differentiating between WHG and ANE, then what are the chances they can accurately split WHG from WHG-like?

Davidski said...

That Scottish sample is made up of just four people from Argyll. I'd say that a Scottish sample from a less remote and isolated region would be very similar to the English and Orcadians, or maybe somewhere in the middle.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

maybe that's J, or the I that stayed in the Near East? Isn't I found at pretty high frequencies in some places. Even up to 10% down the Nile

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There should be as Motalla people settled in Britain. I would imagine it to be higher in Scotland as EEF influence decreases to the north. This seems to be the cline in Northern Europe. Lower EEF=higher WHG and ANE. ANE snuck in early the same way the Turbino (sp?) people came in over tope of the Indo-Europeans. However, as Davidski says, with England at just under 15 and Norway at 16, it could be lower than the 18

Chad Rohlfsen said...

on top of the indo Europeans. Excuse the errors tonight. I need to start proof-reading.

Grey said...

"Are you saying that you believe there is a coastal ANE, non-IE population?"

I was for a second but it probably doesn't make any sense.

I was thinking the population along the west shore of the Black Sea which was displaced when the IE expanded into the Balkans might have been ANE but non-IE - although why that should end up in Scotland is a bit far-fetched.


The thing is if you look at the distribution of R1a it has a definite east-west cline but ANE is much more evenly spread with a partial north-south cline so I find the high ANE percentage in Scotland weird.

So I was wondering if it could have come by the coastal route.

However after thinking about it if Scotland's ANE wasn't Indo-European then maybe there was a pre-existing north-south cline in surviving post-LGM ANE (which the IE expansion later top up).


Which I think would mean WHG was actually the SHG (southern forest HG) layer and ANE was the mammoth steppe HG layer from the LGM

Shown here although it's hard to see

layer of forest in the south from Iberia to Anatolia and layer of mammoth steppe above to the north

and they both re-expanded north after the LGM in a say 4:1 WHG:ANE ratio in the west and close to 100% ANE in the east. Then first farmers coming in from the south-east largely swamped the SHG in south-east europe making the remaining SHG layer *look* like it was just WHG - if that makes sense. Then finally the IE ANE come in from the north-east.)

I should probably stop thinking about it :)

Grey said...

"That Scottish sample is made up of just four people from Argyll"

Good point.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

That's what I explained, if you read my paragraph on Britain and Scotland. Motala, are the Mesolithic European Samples in Sweden. These people look like a mix of WHG and ANE. I believe one or the average is 81% WHG and 19% ANE. They took part in the settling of Britain. This stuff in the North is the only verifiable pre-IE, ANE in Europe.

About Time said...

Some Irish get Amerind percentages in various mixture tests.

Also, there is that odd Gedrosia that seems to top off in remote parts of Great Britain.

Nobody has adequately explained either of those.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Doesn't Gedrosia contain a 'Siberian' or ANE component to it? Maybe it's all IE related.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Off topic, but the North is the only place is where ANE occurs twice, with the farmer. I wonder if that has something to do with the higher occurance of light skin and blonde hair in this region. If you notice, the lower the farmer between the two ANE, the higher the blondism. Whether the two are related is debatable, since the Mesolithic Europeans were darker than Near Easterners.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Of course that could be remnant of Hyksos/Hurrian/IE people. What's the ANE% in Egypt??

Davidski said...

All we can do is speculate until we see more ancient genomes, especially from Eastern Europe. But it seems that the steppe groups closer to the Balkans had dark eyes and light skin, just like Stuttgart. So they probably were significantly EEF, which would actually agree with geography and archeology.

On the other hand, Andronovo and Scythian nomads from south Siberia had fair skin and frequencies of light hair and eyes at around 60%, which is higher than among most modern Europeans.

Some of those Kurgan remains were from the middle Bronze Age, so they're not much more recent than the Yamnaya samples. This doesn't leave too much time for selective sweeps, which suggests that the steppe groups north and east of Yamnaya might have been very fair indeed, and probably largely ANE.

barakobama said...

I have some questions and statements about Laz 2013 but are kind of off subject. I don't really care if no one reads it so don't feel guilty. I do want some help and response. My first one is about Y DNA. I am probably repeating myself, it is because I learn slowly.

Here is a quote from a Pyromatic made at this thread on Eurogenes about the Y DNA of Loschbour and Motola12.

"You may all be very interested to know that Ken Nordtvedt contacted one of the study's authors and had him check the various SNPs thought to be phyloequivalent to M423 in the Loschbour and Motala12 remains. He states that approximately half of these SNPs are derived and the other half ancestral in these remains, breaking the phyloequivalence and suggesting that these individuals are from the population ancestral to the modern I2-M423 crowd or on a separate, now extinct line. He's updated his I2-M423 tree to reflect the positions of Loschbour and Motala12 on the tree"

I thought the derived alleles in M423 and L178 were what defined I2a1b, and it seems Pyromatic doesn't think M423 is a SNP. Maybe Pyro meant to say I2a1b instead of M423. Loschbour had the derived alleles for both M423 and L178 so he had I2a1b and Motola12 had the derived allele for L178 so probably also had I2a1b, right? Are there other SNP's for I2a1b that are not listed at ISOOG and Laz 2013?

ISOOG now has a I2a1b* listed under I2a1b but no SNP's listed next to it, is Ken the one who makes the ISOOG Y DNA trees? Ancestral Journeys which is made by Jean Manco has updated Loschbour and Motola as I2 not I2a1b*. If they only had half of the derived alleles in the SNP's though to be phyloequivalent to I2a1b(?) shouldn't they be labeled as pre-I2a1b?

C-V20 found in Mesolithic Spain dated to 7,000ybp(probably legit) and pre-I2a1b in Mesolithic Luxemburg and Sweden dating to about 8,000ybp probably means Mesolithic west-central-north Europeans paternal lineages haven't survived well to the present day. Of course most of the I lineages like I2a1a1 M26, I2a2 P214, I1 M253, etc. though in west Europe today are probably somehow descended of Mesolithic west Europeans. I2a1b may have expanded during the Neolithic since there was still plenty of pre-I2a1b's right before the arrival of farming in central-north Europe. How do we connect Mesolithic pre-I2a1b's to the distribution of the three modern I2a1b subclades are they remains of the Mesolithic or from later migrations?

Today there is about 1-5% I2a1 in Sweden-Norway and according to Eupedia I2a1a1 M26 is restricted to certain areas of Europe and did not include Scandinavia but including Luxemburg I2a1b3 L61.1 exists in Sweden and Luxemburg today but maybe pre-I2a1b descended of Mesolithic Luxemburg and Sweden still exist. There are some I2a1 P37.2+'s from the Sweden project at FTDNA and both that were tested for M26 were negative, maybe Mesolithic descended.

Q according to Eupedia, in Europe is highest in Sweden and Gotland, that statement is constant with results in FTDNA. Motola6 was L55+ so in haplogroup Q1a2a but he was also L232- taking him out of Q1. So his Y DNA haplogroup is a mystery. I wonder if he was tested for Y DNA I's SNP's. Maciamo at Eupedia says Q in Sweden is almost entirely under Q2a1b1 L257 may be descended from Huns. I think it is a possibility it is Mesolithic descended. Maybe the possible Q is connected with ANE ancestry in Motola12 maybe not.

The last thing I want to say about the Y DNA is I think if tested all the samples from Sweden would have the same results as Motola12 and Loschbour. Also that I think Y DNA I has been in Europe for over 20,000 years at least and its lineage may have arrived as far back as 40,000 years ago. C-V20 and F-96 I think are as ancient in Europe or more so, therefore all three are connected with mtDNA U5, possibly also U4, U2e other U, and other west Eurasian lineages like RO.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Yeah, I believe we will find our first red hair sample in the Kurgan area. So many times in old legends as far as China and the Near East these steppe people are described as yellow and red haired, with pale and ruddy skin. Perhaps Red was a dominant dark phenotype amongst some groups.

barakobama said...

Your not saying ANE is connected with light hair and eyes, right? Because WHG not ANE shows a very strong connection. Will we ever get results from autosomal DNA of these bronze age iron age Indo Iranians?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Is there any SSA found in any EEF samples? Anything above what is found in the Mesolithic people, preferably. If not, I believe that this Basal should be NE African. It makes sense that NE Africa would have to be Eurasian only, to keep EEF without SSA 90kya OoA. This is the only thing that makes sense, and could lead to a ~44% Basal score, mixing with this WHG like native Near Eastern lineage. At least that makes sense. Not that any of this stuff does. It just gets more complicated as we go.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

We're in agreement that the second wave of ANE is the blonde, fair skinned one. IE that stayed behind in the steppes and Balkans surely mixed soon after. It does seem that they stayed relatively pure throughout Europe, until reaching final destinations in the proto--wave. Thracians appear to have mixed with locals and remained red haired, and blue eyed 500 years later according to the Greeks.

Davidski said...

I'm just speculating, but think about it, if the mainly ANE Kurgan groups were light eyed and light haired, and also fair skinned, then if they mixed with EEF/WHG Europeans to the west that would produce a light skinned, significantly light eyed and brown haired population. Also, these mixed groups would be much lighter eyed in the north, where there's more WHG and less EEF.

But whatever, we just have to wait for more ancient genomes.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Of course blue eyes is just WHG at the moment. However I think it will be ANE as well, because we see it in the Indo Iranians. Who may have been the last pure ANE people.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Yes Davidski. That is what I was saying in regards to the blondism and skin tone in the North. The second ANE wave is the key. Then the less the EEF, the higher the rates. It matches perfectly.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'm going to throw out something else that seems more logical. People may argue, but follow along. Greeks probably have more Indo-European ancestry than Brits and Scandinavians.

a) they have the same amount of ANE
b) Brits and Scandinavians have ANE native to their land. They only reach Greek levels with addition of the Indo European to their ancestry. I would bet that half or more of the Northern ANE is native to the north. It is fairly uniform across Northwest Europe.

Now let's see the butt-hurt start!

barakobama said...

Chad you are one of the first people in a while to mention red hair, the hair color that is superior to all others. Usually less than 1% of a population will become famous or powerful lust like usually less than 1% of a population will have red hair. Like Onur responds to anyone who mentions anything about ASI ancestry in the near east I always respond when someone mentions anything about red hair.

This is a very inspirational video

The information I am about to give I have said multiple times.

Red hair only reaches 1% in western Europe(but not southern Iberia and Italy), Scandinavia(including most of Finland), Baltic coast, and the Urals. It peaks in Insular Celts and Udmurts at 10-15%, even if it was that high in these Indo Iranians you need at least 10-20 hair color samples to find a redhead.

There are examples of red haired people in Uygur's, Kurds, Kalash, and other Indo Iranians or areas there were once Indo Iranians or Tocharian's. I have seen paintings of Tocharian's with red hair, Herodotus described Scythians in Ukraine as red haired. The Charchen man a 3,000 year old very well preserved European looking mummy in western China had a red beard and brown head hair. Constant with many modern people who grow red facial hair but have dark or light head hair. We know it existed in Indo Iranians and Tocharian's.

Maciamo from Eupedia I think is the person who created the hypothesis that red hair was spread or mainly spread by Indo Europeans. Its distribution is fairly close to that of R1b L11 which probably spread in west Europe around 5,000-3,000ybp maybe with Indo Europeans. We know it existed in ancient Indo Iranians, Tocharians, Germans, Celts, Italics, Thracians, and Dacians. It also peaks in Udmurts and is popular in a small isolated part of the Urals which is around where most believe Indo European languages dispersed from. That's really all the evidence there is of an Indo European connection.

A small amount of Mesolithic ancestry has probably remained from the original Mesolithic people in most regions of Europe It is possibly most WHG ancestry is from Mesolithic eastern Europe. Who knows our first ancient red hair sample might come from La Brana-1 it might come from Mesolithic Greece, Karelia, Sweden, Ireland, etc. because we don't really know what the people looked like. I think red hair was absent from most of Mesolithic Europe though. Most probably had dark hair like Loschbour but it may have been popular in some areas.

Davidski said...

I'd say that some of the ANE in Greece arrived from Anatolia or even the Caucasus, along with EEF.

What's the bet Minoan genomes will show ANE and R1b?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Are you talking post ie expansion? This would be the Anatolian//Luwian/Hittite back flow, I'd bet. Maybe some indo-Iranian. I hope you're not right about Minoans.

Davidski said...

There are some intriguing links between the Minoans, Western Europe, the Northeast Caucasus, and from memory also Tuscany in Italy (Etruscans?). I speculated about some of these here...

This might well be one of the ways R1b got to Western Europe, and then expanded from there towards the east again with the Bell Beakers.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I've heard that before. But the first r1b is in the German site. The eastern bell beaker looked like corded ware. I think it did for good reason. It may be the first transition to indo European culture in Western Europe.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

If it is r1b-m269 in Crete, I bet it is dated between 4200bce and 3500bce. Post ie Balkan migration and pre wagon/chariot. Matching it with Anatolian/Armenian ht23.

Davidski said...

Long winded but very interesting...

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'll read it tomorrow, for sure. I have to be up for work in 5 hours. It's been fun and I look forward to continuing the conversation! Thanks!

Onur said...

Like Onur responds to anyone who mentions anything about ASI ancestry in the near east I always respond when someone mentions anything about red hair.

Currently I have very little spare time to write comments. My spare time is barely enough to read all blog articles and comments in my Feedly queue. So for now I am writing comments only on specific issues, issues I am most familiar with, issues I already covered in the past. When I have more spare time I will of course write on more up-to-date issues and on much more varied issues.

About Time said...

@Chad, I have a different theory. I think blond hair is related to the northern EEF.

It's not true that blondism tracks WHG+ANE. Irish and British falsify that theory, and Germans and Austrians have more EEF and more blondism.

Red heads might be a different story (that might be some WHG or ANE).

Lighter haired Scythians came much later and were more short headed than old brown/black haired Kurgans. Catacomb maybe kept some of the old dark haired type (royal tombs?).

In Europe, true blondism is associated with shorter heads if anything. Lots of Dinaric blonds. Makes me wonder if the two features (blondism and flattened occiput) come from the same population (some northern branches of EEF is my guess).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

@about time

If you look at blonde maps of Europe, it's much higher in the Baltic and North Sea. Blonde must be indo European as it follows their routes. High EEf places have darker hair and eyes. If blonde was EEF, how is it in the Tarim basin, and sandy blonde hair among Mongolian and Turkic tribes.

About Time said...

All Europeans have lots of EEF. Uzbeks have EEF and ANE. Gujaratis (some of them) have EEF but maybe no ANE. Still consistent with EEF origin of blondism.

My theory is that only some EEF developed blondism, maybe near the North Sea. Funnelbeaker would be one possible guess.

High EEF Ashkenazi Jewish populations have lots of blondism (comparable to other Central Europeans and far in excess of their small amount of ANE/WHG). Moderate EEF Irish populations have almost zero blondism (not counting red heads and brownish blond).

Davidski said...

The Bronze Age Andronovo mummies were supposed to be ancestral to the Scythian ones, but they're not Scythians themselves. The seven, mostly R1a, Andronovo individuals classified as European based on their nuclear markers got the following pigmentation results:

- Blue or brown eye, blond or light brown hair, fair or medium skin
- Blue or brown eye, brown hair
- Blue eye
- Blue or brown eye, blond or light brown hair, fair or medium skin
- Blue or brown eye, brown hair, fair or medium skin
- Blue eye
- Blue or brown eye, blond or light brown hair, fair or medium skin

The interesting thing about these Andronovo nomads is that, unlike the Yamnaya and even Catacomb samples from Ukraine, which apparently had fair skin but somewhat darker eyes than modern Europeans, they were far away from the Balkans, which means they probably had much lower EEF. This is actually backed up by their mtDNA. See BAS on this plot...

I think it's pretty obvious they were much more ANE/WHG than EEF, and perhaps overwhelmingly ANE. So it's difficult to say where they got their blondism from, but wherever that was, these guys might well have been genetically more faithful descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans of Khvalynsk and Sredni-Stog than the aforementioned Yamnaya and Catacomb groups.

They did mix to some extent with the natives in Siberia, and the Kurgan mummies classified as mostly East Asian did show darker hair and eye pigmentation traits. But this isn't important in this context.

Also, until the Bronze Age, most Europeans, especially the Neolithic farmers, were extremely dolichocephalic. Then things started to change, but even so, during the Iron Age, all the main Indo-European groups (like Celts, Germanics and Slavs) were still dolichocephalic and mesocephalic, and they were also usually described as fair haired. Brachycephaly only became standard across most of Europe during the Middle Ages. But since WW2, there's been a shift back to dolichocephaly, especially in large urban centers. So it really doesn't look like head shape is linked in any explicit way to hair color.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

That doesn't explain blondism in Siberia and Mongolia. ANE must be a requirement. They have red hair there as well. Not to mention blue and green eyes.

Davidski said...

Another thing is that blond hair shows a closer correlation with blue eyes than with fair skin.

So who had the blue eyes in Europe? The hunters or the farmers?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Blondism seems to be higher in places with multiple Abe waves, lower EEF and ENA

About Time said...

Uzbeks have ANE and EEF, so their blondism and light eyes could be from either or both.

It could be WHG and ANE had a range of varied hair/eye colors. I tried to give wolves as a comparison species: these were small hunter groups, they would have known people by name and skills and would not have needed a "special hair/eye/skin color" to recognize personal kin.

EEF were a mix of Basal+WHG so maybe already had *some* blondism in the mix from WHG. EEF could have just selected for blond/blue alleles as a visual kinship marker.

EEF individuals who didn't know each other (like EEF traveling/trading/marrying between different settlements) would benefit from a kin recognition mechanism. I think blondism might have been that mechanism.

So WHG maybe were more varied in color, with some light hair and eyes. Northern EEF (like Funnelbeaker) then selected to become "super blonds" by maxing out those alleles.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Didn't the hunter show a 25% chance of brow hair? Higher than the EEF. Maybe some blondism was present already as whg and ane are brothers. Both had mtdna u. Maybe u is the key as it is in all blonde areas. Imagine dark skinned, blonde and blue hunters. Seems crazy. Maybe like the coloring of Australian aborigines.

Grey said...

@About Time
"Some Irish get Amerind percentages in various mixture tests. Also, there is that odd Gedrosia that seems to top off in remote parts of Great Britain. Nobody has adequately explained either of those."

Yes, i'm wondering if the WHG / ANE division is the southern forest / mammoth steppe division from earlier times. If you look here

eastern europe might have been mostly descended from the mammoth steppe foragers while western europe might have been a combination of both (not necessarily a mixture of both but both separately). If so a minority ANE component might have re-expanded north with the WHG when the ice retreated creating the base north-south ANE cline which was latter shifted westward by the IE.

The alternatives to that are it came by the coast route or it's part of the IE expansion. However on balance I find it harder to imagine how it could be part of the IE expansion especially if it's in remote Pictish regions. Which points at one of the other two.


"Greeks probably have more Indo-European ancestry than Brits and Scandinavians."

I'd agree with that but isn't that a standard view? The youtube lectures you posted yesterday included a section on the Indo-European conquest of the Balkans and their displacement of the original populations i.e. there were two advances: one north of the Carpathians and one down the west side of the Black Sea into the Balkans.

c. 36 minutes in


"This might well be one of the ways R1b got to Western Europe, and then expanded from there towards the east again with the Bell Beakers."

That's what I'm wondering. An originally possibly quite small founder population like that. Also as there are apparently two Bell Beaker concentrations, one central european and one maritime, perhaps the missing link is a population who originally lived near the mouth of the Danube but who were later displaced by the southern IE expansion.

About Time said...

Hmm. Well, we know Mal'ta was ANE and probably had dark hair/eyes/skin, but that was way early (pre Agriculture). I wish we could look directly at Andronovo/Pazyryk/etc to get an idea what was involved later on.

Once blondism was fixed in a few populations, it might have become popular and others started selecting for it and imitating it. Some of the Celts used to bleach their hair in Roman times. No idea about ancient Continental Celts, but the Irish/Scottish/Welsh are not at all known for blondism relative to other Europeans.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Maybe the key is what we overlooked. Mtdna U. Starting there as females needed to stand out for breeding. With 22 females to one male in Central Asia, and 6 to 1 in Europe in the Bronze Age, it may not be that different 4000 years prior. It may be more likely to have started somewhere between the 2

About Time said...

Stuttgart was LBK (circa 5500–4500 BC). My offhand guess for blondism is subsequent Funnelbeaker (circa 4300 BC–2800 BC and further north).

Although maybe the Northern EEF got alleles for blondism from some local pre-EEF pocket (like Ertebølle). Just a theory.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mal'ta was not IE though. It's this ie ane wave that appears to bring light hair to the high percentage it is now.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Sorry for the mess there. Those numbers were the ancient ones, and not the bronze age. So it makes sense that blonde hair would likely rise in a heavily ANE area with a high amount of females to males. This would make the likely place Central Asian/SW Siberia. Possibly the PIE homeland abt 10kya possibly. Likely occurring in mtDNA U.

pyromatic said...

There are several SNPs (including L178) that are phyloequivalent to M423, which is the one SNP people generally use to label that branch. While the samples are M423+ L178+, they are not positive for all the phyloequivalent SNPs. I'd suggest not bothering much with ISOGG. It's woefully outdated. So the sample break phyloequivalence and are either pre-I2-M423, as you suggest, or on a line parallel to it (if additional mutations were identified in these remains that are not present in the modern I2-M423 samples).

I don't think you can connect the modern I2 in Scandinavia to these mesolithic samples necessarily and suggest 8k+ years of continuity. I'd rather look at how their STRs cluster with other I2s - perhaps their paternal lines arrived more recently from the continent.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It would make no sense for there to be R1b in Spain before France or Germany. L11 is the parent of Df27. L11 spread to Southern France and Northern France and Germany in two separate expansions. This is the proto-
celtic Urnfield culture. This spread about the same time we first find R1b in Germany in a Bell Beaker site. These Bell Beakers were different than the Atlantic ones. They were more like the Corded ware pottery. There cannot be any L11 in Spain before the Hungarian Plain or at the same time. We would see a change in Bell Beaker pottery in the West. Wherever IE people went, the pottery went very simplistic like the Steppes. And the fact that the proto Celtic R1b does not show up much at all in the Atlantic coast is another blow to this hypothesis. There is no R1b in Portugal or West Spain starting the Bell Beaker. R1b-Df27 is probably the first to reach this area with the later Italo-Celtic Migrations.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Also, to go from simple pottery, and then to fancy pottery with no horses, wagons and chariots??? It doesn't compute with anything we see from Indo Europeans in Europe or Asia. This is going backwards from their own culture of onto horses and simple pots.

Grey said...

I'm not talking about steppe Indo-Europeans. I'm wondering about related but distinct non-steppe people from the west coast of the Black Sea displaced by the expansion of the steppe IE. The directions they could go would be Anatolia / Armenia, Danube-LBK, Danube-Italy-Iberia or maritime sailing south into and along the med etc.

About Time said...

I guess we have to wait until testing of ancient material gets us a little farther for some more data points. But so far the Paleos are all dark hair/skin.

I keep bringing in evolutionary concepts here like environmental selection (Vitamin D deficiency would be plausible for farmers) or sexual selection (blondism as a kin recognition mechanism). Both of those make much more sense for farmers, IMO.

The light eyes in Loschbour don't stand out to me as much. I keep thinking of nature analogies (like wolves). It could just be in the range of physical variation for Paleos, just like other mammals (that's all we humans are, plus our minds and capacity for tools and higher social organization). Although the old idea that light eyes have some kind of sight advantage in some conditions could maybe be another theory.

It's important to be grounded in scientific models based on Darwinian processes due to the emotional importance we humans assign to pigmentation (it makes humans less objective in looking at our own evolutionary history!).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There's no record of R1b into central and western Europe before IE people. There really wasn't anyone on the coast of the Black Sea except for the Indo Europeans. It's not good land for agriculture. The Cucuteni-Trypillian were more inland according to the archaeology. Kurgans first appeared between them and the coast. Then eventually the Indo Europeans over run them. Something like 600 villages are evacuated for almost 500 years I believe it was. This, interestingly is the place that Indo Europeans go to a heavy livestock diet, from fish and wild game diet. It appears that they used their sheep and cattle as more ritualistic or celebratory animal/feast.

Grey said...

"There's no record of R1b into central and western Europe before IE people."

I'm working this backwards...

If you look at the Funnelbeaker expansion (west to east) and compare it to the Corded Ware expansion (east to west) that came after it you can see the Corded Ware covered over most of the Funnelbeaker territory.

Corded Ware is an almost complete overlap of Funnelbeaker plus Unetice further east. And yet if you look at R1b and R1a distribution they're almost mirrored halfway along the Corded Ware expanse with R1b mostly to the west and R1a mostly to the east.

Now no doubt some R1b was with the R1a but I think the mirrored distribution proves R1b expanded from the west with the Funnelbeakers before being over-run later from the east by Corded Ware R1a.

Unless this distribution happened later I don't this is disputable.

So R1b (at least partly) expanded from the Atlantic Coast.

Question how did it get there?


I'd also add the modern lactose tolerance distribution

correlates so strongly with the Funnelbeaker expansion

that it points at something to do with cattle - improved cattle breeds? - as a possible explanation for the Funnelbeaker expansion.


So if it's accept that Funnelbeakers were partly R1b (and partly I) and they expanded from the Atlantic coast then how did they get there?


"There really wasn't anyone on the coast of the Black Sea except for the Indo Europeans."

Well that's what I'm wondering. If people speaking Indo-European languages were around the Black Sea but only the ones along the north edge developed into steppe Indo-Europeans.


"It's not good land for agriculture."

No but apparently the coasts of the Black Sea were abundant enough to allow sedentary foragers (and nb according to that lecture the staple diet of the Yamnaya people was originally fish.)


"Then eventually the Indo Europeans over run them. Something like 600 villages are evacuated for almost 500 years I believe it was."

Exactly. The steppe Indo-Europeans moved both north around the Carpathians and south into the Balkans. So I'm wondering what happened to the people they displaced.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Funnelbeakers are not R1b. There is no R1b on record here until Funnelbeaker had already ended. Corded ware went over the top of that old region, it was more R1a than R1b. Funnel Beaker was a megalith building, Neolithic culture. R1b didn't leave the steps until after Funnelbeaker had began.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

This move north you speak of is going to be after 3500bce and before 2800bce. still too late to be related to Funnelbeaker. It probably had something to do with its collapse, or at least the collapse of anything soon after.

Grey said...

"Funnelbeakers are not R1b."

Well unless that oddly mirrored R1a/R1b distribution in the Corded Ware territory happened later (which is possible) I think they must have been partly R1b and partly I. If the R1b had been *with* the Corded Ware then the R1a/R1b distribution wouldn't be mirrored like that, the distributions would go together.

"Funnel Beaker was a megalith building, Neolithic culture."

It grew out of a pre-existing megalith building culture, yes. What I'm I'm wondering is if some Bell Beaker traders settled among the locals like they did elsewhere along the Atlantic coast bringing the R1b element with them.

About Time said...

Maybe Funnelbeakers were mostly Hg I and got pushed west or south by Corded. Then later made a comeback as Bell Beakers.

In that case, BB R1b was maybe local tribes that Funnelbeakers brought as allies against R1a Cordeds.

barakobama said...

M423 is one of many SNP's that tell if someone has I2a1b or not. When you say M423 has phloequivalent SNP's you mean there are other SNP's that define I2a1b not that M423 is the name of a haplogroup. A brother lineage to modern I2a1b may not exist today. C-V20 is extremely rare and according to a rumor that seems correct La Brana-1 had C-V20. It doesn't seem that paternal lines of Mesolithic west Europeans survived well at all into the modern day. I don't understand why Davidski says a lot of the WHG in modern west Europeans comes from Mesolithic ones. I think most WHG in west Europe today is from Indo Europeans so east European WHG.

It is definitely possibly a brotherclade to I2a1b or unknown subclades of I2a1b exist in Scandinavia that are Mesolithic descended. What are the I2a1's in Scandinavia if they are not M26? There are many subclades of I2a1 not just M26 and M423 all of them may have been in certain regions their found today since the Mesolithic. It is still confusing how I2a2 and I1 fit into this, we know they are originally from Mesolithic Europe but when did they become the dominate I subclades in central-west-north Europe.

Can't STR's be miss leading? I say just look for modern pre-I2a1b's or brotherclades to I2a1b in SNP's. What happened to the Pitted ware hunter gatherers who lived in Gotland just 4,000-4,800 years ago? They clustered closely to the Motolas in a PCA and were put into a meta-population with the Motolas. I would bet they had some form of I2a1 and maybe some Q.

barakobama said...

I forgot to say thanks for ending the confusion.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The thing about trying to put R1b-m269 into the Atlantic for the start of funnelbeaker is that we are talking about 4200BCE. Before they had left the steppes. Which is impossible. Next remember that they would then have to change their whole way of life, leaving behind horses, wagons, chariots. Then the Spaniards should have more ANE than places to the east, by logic, which they do not. It follows a cline decreasing slightly in the west and north, as there was ANE native to Britain and Scandinavia, maybe the low Germanic plains as well. Why do people who (archeologically supported) eat like HG people, no grain diet, just fish and wild game isotopes found) all of the sudden become like farmers with advanced pottery and more sedentary? Plus Celtic is not accepted to have broken off until after 3500BCE as they have the same root for wheel as the other IE languages after Anatolian and Armenian split off. It breaks down with all of this. If an R1b is found in West Europe before 3500 BCE, I strongly doubt it will be m-269, maybe the native Anatolian or chaddic specific type, with no IE links.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Then we have the problem of the first certifiable Celtic culture beginning around 1200BCE in Central Europe. The Urnfield Culture.

barakobama said...

I didn't mean to offend you Onur and I shouldn't have said that. I know your not fanatically against south Asian ancestry in west Asia. I was trying to make a joke and know some people think that of you. I didn't you can see in a previous post I said so but it was for the sake of the joke.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Finally, this on the R1b in the BB site. It specifically states that the eastern branch in German could be the first. Also that the Iberian BB people are the same genetically as the pre-BB people. Probably another shot against R1b starting in the West. These are a new people appearing in Eastern Germany. The pottery resembles Corded ware, but it is not R1a. R1b should show similar pottery as they are both steppe IE people.

Based on the homogeneity of STR variance of the three major subclades of P312 (U152, L21 and DF27), and similar modal values for U106 (65 of 67),[6] both P312 and U106 seem to have had a great period of geographic expansion in a relatively short period of time. A second, albeit less frequent, brother clade to L11 is defined by Y chromosome position 3263086 G>A (GRCh37/hg19 Assembly) (unpublished data). The distribution of this group is primarily restricted to Northern Italy and France[6] and is easily spotted in academic studies by way of its off-modal value of DYS426=13. While BB migrations seem to have impacted some areas such as Bavaria very heavily[7], other areas such as Northern Iberia and Bohemia show very little variability from the preceding non-BB populations [8].

barakobama said...

What form of R1b do these Cretans have. I would guess R1b1a2a L23 or anything that is M269 but not under L51. Y DNA of Russia and Ukraine 6,000 years ago was much different than it is today so there could have been a lot of L23 or L51 there back then that later went to west Europe and became L11.

Davidski do you think R1b L11 took a migration from Iberia? If so how do you explain almost all R1b in Iberia being under P312 and under that Df27 the distribution of U106, non Df27 P312 clades, and L51? It seems to me it probably took a migration by land not water and from the east not the west. Is there any evidence of Indo Europeans along the Meditreaen sea 5,000-6,000 years ago? I am sure Y DNA from the Nordic bronze age culture(proto Germans) and Unetice(early Italo-Celts) will be full of R1b L11. Probably will have much higher WHG and ANE than Stuttgart, Otzi, and Gok4 and will also be paler overall some samples will probably have red hair. I except I1 and R1a Z282 in Rise project samples from Scandinavia along with more WHG and ANE and more paleness than the Funnel beaker farmers like Gok4.

Davidski I consider the Minoan mtDNA but not very much. I think R1b L11 made an extremely massive expansion in west Europe 5,000-3,000ybp and that it came from the east probably originally the near east, that's about all I somewhat believe about the origin of R1b in west Europe. It seems to be connected with Germans and Italo Celts, to red hair, and raised WHG and ANE ancestry but who knows if it really is.

I kind of doubt the idea Anatolians languages came from the Balkans like Thracian-Dacians, Iyrllians, Greeks, and possibly Germans and Italo Celts. Doesn't it make more sense to say R1b L23 originated in the near east where R1b is very diverse.

barakobama said...

Chad and Davidski why do you think Indo Iranians were nearly pure ANE or more ANE than WHG? Look at their mtDNA look at their hair and eye color and the distribution of WHG today, they obviously had a lot of WHG. What mtDNA do they have that could possible be of ANE origin? What modern mtDNA is their that could be of ANE origin? Chad you should do comparison of WHG, EEF, and ANE distribution to hair and eye color distribution. WHG is connected with blonde hair and light eyes not ANE. The ANE is less related to WHG than WHG is to EEF so how could they also have high amounts of blonde hair and light eyes? Why don't you see blonde hair in native Americans, Greeks(I know a tiny bit), and near easterns with ANE?

barakobama said...

Wait what? Funnelbeaker left a very small amount of ancestry in modern Scandinavians same is true for Mesolithic Scandinavians. Metal age migrations are the main source for ancestry in all Scandinavians either Germanic or Uralic. I know back in the 1900's people may have imagined the Funnelbeaker farmers as looking like modern Scandinavians but they were like Basque or Sardinians living up north.

About Time said...

Hmm. I noticed that three things happened in 2800 BC:

1. Corded ware begins
2. Funnelbeaker ends
3. Bell Beaker begins

I wonder if Funnelbeakers were rich in hg I and they got split in two (some pushed into Scandinavia, some pushed into Balkans) by Corded invasions. R1b could have come in from somewhere in the south later on.

BB is weird in that it's polycentric, with Northern Iberia and Bohemia both as early centers it looks like. Almost like these were pockets of pre-Corded people that reconnected through BB.

But where did the West European R1b actually originate? Did some R1b clades move up from somewhere (like Italy or Balkans) as BB-driven reflux against Corded?

Different topic, we really don't know what Urnfield was wrt languages. Could have been Etruscan language, for all we know.

barakobama said...

L51 is distributed in a similar way to that L11 brotherclade.

Eurogenes has a great thread about R1b.

That map of R1b subclade percentage from Hammer gives an updated distribution of R1b M269 subclades in Europe. Z195 is decently popular in Insular Celts all their P312 is not L21. My paternal lineage is from Britain(not sure exactly where, probably England) I am L11+ but L21-, U106-, U152-, and Df19-. I probably have Z195 which has recently been found to be the second most popular form of R1b in Insular Celts. Z195 looks like it is about 15-20% in Welsh and English while in Irish and Scottish it looks like it is barely over 5%. Maybe it was very popular in ancient Britons but not in Gaelic's and maybe also not (Britonnic?) Picts. I don't understand why its percentages were not decreased in England like L21 percentages were, and why it would be so much more popular in Britons than other Insular Celts.

It is also important to note that Z195 not U152 is the most popular form of R1b in France(not sure which part). It looks to be about 25% of total Y DNA, while U152 is about 10%, L21 3-5%, U106 1-3%, and htL23 1%.

Maybe U152 was spread by Urnfield's descendants: Italics and Hallstat Celts. That is why it is so centered in central Europe and northern Italy. Z195 before Hallstat culture may have dominated France and Iberia but there was some L21, while L21 dominated Insular Celts in Britain and Ireland while there was some Z195. U106 was probably mainly spread in Iron age Germanic migrations, except for in northern central Europe and southern Scandinavia where the German language family may have originated. U106 exists in the British isles, central Europe, eastern Europe, France, Iberia, and Italy. All those areas were invaded by Germans at some point during the iron age or post-Roman iron age.

L21 is completely exclusive to far western Europe. I think L21 in Scandinavia(including Iceland) is from the Viking age. But Z195, U106, and U152 are everywhere in west Europe and even into east Europe. I think all those migrations by Germans explains why U106 is like that. Could also be the same for all U152 since Urnfield culture was so spread out and same with later Hallstat culture, La Tene Celts settled all over the Balkans and as far east central Anatolia. The Romans would have had as much or more U152 as modern people in central Italy. They could be responsible for U152 almost anywhere in Europe, north Africa, and west Asia. I think they are a likely the source of U152 in Greece, because everyone always connects ancient Rome and Greece.

I don't know how to explain why Z195(the Greatest of all of them) is spread out all over the place even into Italy(including Sicily). My best guess on its origin is in central Europe and that it spread during the bronze age deep into western Europe along with its brother L21. Maybe Germans who mixed with Celts they conquered picked up some Z195 and U152 and spread it to many areas. Italics have the same Urnfield origin as Hallstat Celts so they also probably would have brought Z195 to Italy.

I think it is most important to remember Hammer also shows that htL23 in west Europe is centered around northern Italy and France.

Grey said...


All good points but...

If you look at the Funnelbeaker distribution (west to east) and overlay it with the later Corded Ware distribution coming out of Unetice (east to west) then the two mostly overlap (leaving Scandinavia as Funnelbeaker).

But if you look at the distribution of R1a and R1b in that area of overlap you see a strange thing with R1b piled up on one side and R1a piled up on the other.

Making it look to me like Corded ware was elite replacement.

Now unless that odd distribution happened later - which it might have done - i think that shows that particular branch of R1b spread west to east from the Atlantic coast.

How it got there I don't know - as you say all the potential routes are odd or stranger. I assume R1b must be connected to IE somehow but maybe not *steppe* IE - that is a population adjacent to those that became the steppe IE and maybe displaced by them?

So you're right any potential route is problematic but unless that distribution happened later I think that branch of R1b was clearly connected to Funnelbeaker.


Separately if you compare Funnelbeaker with lactose tolerance then regardless of R1b or not I'd say the expansion had something to do with cattle.

Grey said...

"Also that the Iberian BB people are the same genetically as the pre-BB people. Probably another shot against R1b starting in the West."

It might not be whole tribes of people. One possibility might be a caste similar to the African blacksmith castes who in some low populated areas in the north and northwest had a large founder effect.

barakobama said...


Autosomal DNA(put in admixtures, PCA's, etc.) from Swedish Funnel Beaker farmers is very similar to Stuttgart(~7,000BP LBK farmer from Germany) and Otzi(~5,300Bp early copper age farmer from the alps). Laz 2013 said the similarities between Stuttgart, Otzi, and Funnel beaker farmers suggest a early European farmer meta population aka EEF.

There are three Y DNA samples from LBK culture G2a1c L30=1, F*(XG,H,I,J,K)=1, F=1. Otzi had Y DNA G2a1b2 L91. There are six Y DNA samples dating to 5,000BC from Cardiel culture(early farmers) in Spain G2a=5, E1b1b V13=1. There are 22 Y DNA samples dating to 3,000BC in Treilles France G2a=20, I2a1=2. There are two Y DNA samples from northwestern France dating a few hundred years before 3,000BC both had I2a1 I have heard based on their STR's they were probably I2a1a1 M26.

I am sure the Funnel Beaker farmers also had mainly Y DNA G2a not R1b. The Funnel beaker farmers in admixtures I have seen look most like modern Basque and Sardinia and next Spainish and Portuguese. They are not the main ancestors of modern Swedes or central Europeans there is no doubt about that.

R1a1a1b1 Z282 takes up the vast majority of R1a in Europe. In Scandinavia you have brand Z284 in Slavs there is a lot of M458 and in Balts and Slavs there is a lot of Z280. Obviously Z284 is so popular in Swedish and Norwegians(20-30%) is because Corded ware culture which spread R1a1a1b1 Z282 also settled in Scandinavia. R1b1a2a1a L11 I think came later from the east but also with Indo Europeans.

barakobama said...


All farmers in central-north-west Europe in the Neolithic where probably just like Stuttgart, Otzi, and Swedish Funnel beaker farmers. The only modern Europeans who can really fit in that group are Sardinia who live on an island that was never invaded by Indo Europeans(except by Romans and Germans but it made a little genetic impact).

There are plenty of Y DNA samples from Neolithic France and Spain and not one has R1b. There were probably huge genetic changes in central-west-north Europe during the metal ages. This is when Y DNA R1a Z282 and R1b L11 arrived and probably Indo European languages. There is evidence in ancient mtDNA that a new people arrived who had some maternal lineages from eastern Europe. I think the statement that pre-BB and BB people of Iberia where basically the same is true. R1b L11 came probably with also a lot of ANE and WHG ancestry and probably some type of near eastern ancestry since R1b comes from the near east.

barakobama said...

The "Blue eye mutation" was found in La Brana-1 and Loschbour that's 2/2 for Mesolithic Europe. Blue eyes are correlated with blonde/light hair this means blonde hair probably existed in Mesolithic Europe. One hair color sample being most likely black and definitely dark is not that big of surprise it doesn't mean Mesolithic Europeans had dark hair.

I have said this like 25 gazillion times but no one listens: the three white skin mutations all are about as popular in west Asia as in Europe, but are very rare in Arabia where the skin pigmentation really isn't that different than from Syrians. I doubt those mutations make a huge effect on skin color and I think there are many other factors to white skin in Europe that have not been discovered. We don't know what skin color Loschbour had if blue eyes were very established in Mesolithic west Europe there is a good chance light skin was too.

Maybe the most important point is that today WHG ancestry correlates very well with light eyes and blonde/light hair. Also EEF ancestry correlates with dark hair, dark eyes, and olive skin.

Of course it depends which hunter gatherers left a lot of ancestry and which did not. So some may have had very different pigmentation from each other.

ANE being connected to blonde hair and light eyes makes no sense to me honestly the connection is WHG. WHG and ANE are not brothers!!! They are loosely related, WHG is more related to EEF(not counting WHG ancestry in EEF) that it is to ANE. There is no doubt the first west Eurasians or common ancestors of ANE and west Eurasians had dark skin, dark hair, and dark eyes. Why would ANE and WHG both have high amounts of light hair and eyes?

Grey said...

"All farmers in central-north-west Europe in the Neolithic where probably just like Stuttgart, Otzi, and Swedish Funnel beaker farmers."

I wouldn't be surprised if *some* of the people in Scandinavia at the time were like EEF farmers because of the Amber trade but Funnelbeakers have a different genesis as they derive from a coastal fishing / foraging HG population beyond the range of the LBK who took up animal husbandry.


"Obviously Z284 is so popular in Swedish and Norwegians(20-30%) is because Corded ware culture which spread R1a1a1b1 Z282 also settled in Scandinavia. R1b1a2a1a L11 I think came later from the east but also with Indo Europeans."

If R1b came with R1a then the distribution should be the same but the distribution is almost a mirror image.

The only logical options i can see are
1) R1b was there already.
2) R1b arrived along the Atlantic coast by sea and expanded from the west
or a new one I just thought of
3) R1b was pushed west by R1a, hence the east/west distribution

3) would be simpler than the maritime route now i think of it

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Okay, a few things here for Grey and Barakobama. ANE and WHG are way more closely related than WHG is to EEF. Look at the plots. The ANE comes out of the old WHG component. EEF had no ANE ancestry in Europe. So how can they be related?
Now to blondism. If blondism is related to WHG, then how come there is blondism in Siberian and Mongolian populations? How about in the old Indo-Iranian lands? Old Bactria? There is no European WHG there, to my knowledge. Now, there is blondism in some people that is not related to European blondism. However with IE people settling in these areas, it is likely from them.
How do we know IE people are close to pure ANE? If you look at the graph showing ANE compared to WHG and EEF, the ANE stays stable across Europe. EEF and WHG fluctuate. That means that there had to have been a consistent late addition that was rather uniform across Europe. It being so even, would point to it being the last major admix event. No matter what the EEF or WHG percent of the parents, the ANE stays pretty much the same. To be so even would require a large population that is very fast moving. The only people with wagons and chariots at this time in Europe were the IE people. If IE people were European WHG, it would be found in Asia and the Near East. It is far more likely that R1b-m269 was heavily ANE as well, picking up way more EEF than WHG as it went along, as we see 5% WHG in Greece, with 15% ANE. If IE people were WHG, Greece would have a much larger WHG component as they were crossed or invaded at least 4 times by IE people. This 15% only decreases to 12% in Spain. IE had to have this ANE as their component. Probably the only one they had prior to Central Europe. If the ANE didn't come from IE then where? Are you suggesting some other people came out of the Steppes or Siberia after the Neolithic and replaced 10-20% of the DNA in Europe without changing the language? It has to be IE, logically. This also proves that R1b-m269 is not Near Eastern, as Near Eastern people have less ANE than Europeans and there was no ANE in the EEF people. Plus no R1b is there before IE is present in Europe. So it cant be in the Near East to spread with farmers. The R1b-m269 in the Near East is from the breakoff of Anatolia and Armenian speakers in the Balkans, pre 3500BCE, as they do not have the same root words for wheel, wagon, axle. The Anatolia theory for IE is dead as well. It always was for the Linguistic experts. First this Anatolia/Armenian break. Next is Tocharian. Then we have Celitic breaking off third. Later we have R1a moving down into R1b's old home and branching out Indo-Iranian, Balto Slavic, Thracian and such. The 5-10% ANE in the Near East can be readily explained by early R1b IE invasion, as well as the R1a heavy Indo-Iranians. Maybe the Anatolian (M-73) and Chaddic (V-88) took some to the region as well. R1b breaking up in Anatolia or South Caucasus just doesn't work genetically or linguistically.

Davidski said...

You obviously don't want to accept that ANE and WHG are very closely related, but the paper doesn't leave any doubts that they are. The minor difference between them is that ANE shows more affinity to Amerindians, but that's only because there was ANE gene flow into the Americas. From the paper:

"We have conveniently labeled MA1-related ancestry “Ancient North Eurasian” because of the provenance of MA1 in Siberia, but at present we cannot be sure whether this type of ancestry originated there or was a recent migrant from some western region."

And what's your explanation for the high frequency of light eyes and hair among the Andronovo and Scythians? Are you saying they weren't mostly ANE? If so, how would that fit with all the genetic data and archeology?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

As for Native Americans. They have various shades of brown. Light brown is very rare in a full-blood, but is seen. Crazy Horse for one was said to have light hair. I have full-blood friends who's hair is the same brown as mine. Rather medium. Besides, this is pre-blondism with those Mal'ta. It is not really relevant to the conversation. I am saying it was ANE IE people that spread it into Europe, Asia and the Near East. Probably red hair as well. Blue eyes may pop up at the same time all over on the mammoth steppe. You never know. Maybe blonde did as well. Nothing pre-IE blonde has been found though. That's a problem for the WHG hypothesis.

barakobama said...

The ANE thing is very confusing to me, I don't know if I can trust the percentages they give or if ANE represents a pure people like WHG probably does. The blue eye mutation has been found in 2/2 Mesolithic Europeans one who represents WHG so that probably means blonde hair and light skin also existed in Mesolithic Europe, possibly also red hair.

The fact ANE stays in similar percentages across Europe unlike WHG is evidence it is not the source of light eyes and hair. WHG shows a very strong correlation to those features. If ANE(Indo Europeans????) are the source then why do Indo European Greeks have almost entirely dark hair and eyes. MA1 didn't have one of the "light skin" mutations(doubt they make a big effect) and had dark brown hair and brown eyes. I know he was very old(24,000BP) but still I doubt his people's descendants are the source of paleness in modern Europe.

From what Wikipedia says brown hair only exists in west Eurasians, Oceania, and sometimes in native Americans. I know that Hispanics(mainly mixture of native American and Spainish) oftenly have a strange shade of brown especially the more native American looking ones with high check bones and reddish skin. The brown hair could be from their west Eurasian like ANE ancestors.

The rare occurrence of light eyes, light hair, and red hair in Mongolians, Siberians, and central Asians can definitely be explained by admixture with Indo Iranians and Tocharian's. Who had a lot of typical Mesolithic European mtDNA U5, U4, and U2e. Plus they had a lot of blue eyes which has been found in a full blooded Mesolithic European(Loschbour) and also one with some EEF admixture(La Brana-1).

It is very confusing ANE was almost completely absent from much of Europe in the Mesolithic and Neolithic but today is popular in almost all of Europe. The mixtures are complicated and ANE in Europe probably comes from multiple sources. Motola12(8,000 year old hunter gatherer in Sweden) had ANE admixture probably many northern and eastern Mesolithic Europeans did. I doubt that is where most ANE in modern northern-eastern Europeans is from though. How popular is Y DNA pre-I2a1b or a brotherclade to I2a1b, and C-V20 in Europe today? Obviously most of their blood was erased by EEF and new WHG ancestry from east Europe.

ANE exists in the near east and might be highest in the Caucasus. ANE in the Balkans and Italy may be from extra near eastern ancestry that probably came in the metal ages and Indo Europeans. ANE in Celts, Germans, Slavs, and Balts may be from Indo Europeans who came from Russia.

Your right that it wouldn't make sense that Indo Europeans were high in both WHG and ANE, since WHG and EEF "fluctuate" but ANE doesn't so much. I don't know how to explain that honestly, but who knows how accurate those percentages are anyways. Since Indo Europeans ancestors were not isolated from the rest of the world for around 20,000 years I highly doubt they were even close to pure ANE. All early Indo Europeans had significant WHG and EEF.

How do you explain much higher WHG in modern Europeans than Neolithic even though both are farmers? It makes sense to me that Indo Europeans are mainly responsible for that.

barakobama said...

The most basal R1b is found in the near east, R1b itself probably originated there.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

By Basal R1b are you speaking about m343? You realize this was found in Europe in the Bell Beaker site right? The other being m-269. Also, the old clades are found in Central Asia. A break up there or north of the Caucasus is more likely. You can deny this all you like, but if IE people were WHG in any decent amount, we would see it east of the Urals. There is too much EEF in Greece to get blondism. EEF has a higher percent of black hair compared to the Mesolithic sample. Blondism is higher in the higher ANE places. Look at Scotland, Scandinavia and the East Baltic. Highest rates of blondism and the highest ANE. Plus Greece has a later migration from the Near East, upping its basal percentage. R1b must be IE, and from the steppes as it is the source of ANE in western Europe. Not R1a. Obviously. You cannot deny the data. Anatolia theory died last month genetically. It never lived linguistically.

barakobama said...

Davidski can you help explain what f-statistics are? Can you explain what order everything is in? Ex: F3(Stuttgart; Loschbour, Onge) who are the results for? Also I need some help understanding how those tree's are made. Almost all of them show near east and WHG as brothers. Do F-statistics compare autosomal SNP alleles the more related?

The high amount of light hair and eyes in the Andronovo and Scythians can be explained by their WHG ancestry. WHG today correlates with light hair and eyes. These metal age Indo Iranians also had high amounts of mtDNA U5, U4, and U2e. ANE doesn't show any connection to light hair and eyes. Blue eye mutation has been found in 2/2 Mesolithic Europeans so far. Common ancestor of WHG and ANE would have been completely dark, why would both develop the exact same mutations?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Also, where is your Near East influence on Celtic and Germanic, or Tocharian? It's not there. They were and always were ANE. Not EEF, or near Eastern. If you want to use Motala to spread the ANE, then where does his 81% WHG go when his 19% ANE survives? He is not the source. IE R1b from the steppes is.

barakobama said...

About Time, Humans are creatures I don't get what the big deal is we have always known that. Without our emotions we wouldn't have the will to do anything so they help very much. If we think like a Darwinist Nazi we will get bored and not give effort into our research but if we are passionate about it, we will give a lot of effort and will be more successful.

barakobama said...

You cant ignore that R1b probably originated in the near east not Russia. There is near eastern ancestry in Celts and Germans. Gedorsia in dodecade K12b correlates very well with R1b in Europe.

I have been to lazy to actually read Laz 2013 in detail. Posting the same old thing about Indo Europeans, WHG, etc. isn't helping me learn. So this will probably be my last post in a while. I will only posts are going to be questions until I have researched enough and made some conclusions.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It correlates with EEF better. EEF is stronger in
NW Europe than NE Europe. Gedrosia makes no sense as R1b, as it is way higher in Kurds. Are Kurds now more IE than Europeans? Follow your logic here. Please re-read the explanation of the expansion into Europe that I posted.
There are also videos that I posted. Please go through this all again.

Davidski said...

The trees don't show WHG and EEF as brother clades. They show that WHG is from the same clade as a part of EEF. But another part of EEF comes from a very different clade. So in the end, WHG and ANE are brother clades classified together as "hunter", while EEF is the more distinct mixed clade called "farmer".

You don't need to understand all the complex technical details in the paper. Just make sure you grasp what the authors are saying, and also the basic structure of the trees.

And if the Andronovo nomads had a lot of WHG, then where did most of the ANE in Europe come from? The Andronovo people were already in Siberia during the middle Bronze Age, or even earlier, and in all likelihood they came from Eastern Europe. They probably did have some WHG and EEF, but surely not a lot. Otherwise, the only thing I can think of is that as they moved east, some sort of ANE population moved west into Europe from Siberia at the same time, and they waved to each other as they passed by.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

When talking about EEF, WHG and ANE it would be better to use the maps with those components. We cant go k=12 vs these 3. It wont make sense. If there was no native ANE in Northern Europe, it would be much easier to see how it gets lighter as you stray from the straight line across Europe. Both west to east, and north and south from this line. It would be very faint, but visible.IE people cut a path into the middle and spread out

barakobama said...

Could you try to explain some of the complex details?

So EEF has some basal Eurasian but the rest is more related to WHG than ANE is to WHG. Everyone was a hunter gatherer 15,000 years ago even the ancestors of EEF.

I have given my reasoning why I think Indo Iranians and Tocharian's had a lot of WHG and also some EEF. It does seem that maybe ANE was mainly spread in Europe by a population that had vast majority ANE.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I still favor a pure ANE IE people on the steppes. Picking up EEF in the Balkans. Possibly very minor WHG. Doubtful though as we see the component stay pretty steady through out. We know that Mesolithic and Neolithic didn’t mix for a couple thousand years. Why not the same for IE people from 3500-2500BCE? Plenty of time to reach Central Europe as a unit. There being no recognizable EEF or WHG in Mongolia or Southern Siberia ASFAIK is another clue.
Pastoral nomads and farmers don’t mix well, as one always must move around to feed the herds and chase game. The isotopes in their pits are fish and wild game. Not grains. Agriculture was not their thing, and I don’t see any farmers rushing to give up their life for one on the back of a horse. Plus we don’t see these Caucasus cultures popping up near here until after R1b heavy, IE has moved on to Europe. I don’t know if R1a heavy, pre-Androvo would’ve mixed with them either. Nothing farmer about the Tarim Basin it appears.
No doubt they mixed into their surroundings. I just think to go from 15-12% requires a pretty pure people until they reach Spain. The only way around it is if Spain is much less densely populated and the IE have picked up some EEF on the way, which is not improbable considering their route through southern France and the Alps. I just don’t see a way for them to have admixture of this type in the Steppes.
Just as a side joke here, imagine blonde hair and blue eyes on the Mesolithic hunter. I can’t help but picturing blonde haired Aborigines running around Europe. It’s kind of hard to wrap my head around.

Davidski said...

EEF doesn't just have some Basal Eurasian (and/or East African?) admixture, it has around 44% of it, and this admixture is vastly different from WHG. The rest is WHG-like, but not exactly WHG.

On the other hand, ANE is 100% WHG-like, and that's despite the fact that it's 16,000 years older than WHG. A lot of drift can happen in that time, and this might be a big factor in the results we're seeing (ie. the pretty even spread of ANE across Europe), but I don't know enough to be able to speculate about that. In any case, an ancient genome from Mesolithic Eastern Europe will be an eye opener I'm sure.

And nah, I don't think the Indo-Iranians or Tocharians had a lot of WHG, because otherwise we'd see a clear WHG signal in Asia today, but it's either not there or very muffled.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There may be evidence that PIE people tried farming for a while as there is a word for plow. Now whether it's just from contact or use, who knows? We do know that they went to a heavy sheep and bovine diet during Balkan contact. This was not seen in their deposits before. With this, they see a lot of issues in their health. Much malnutrition. I would imagine so as domesticated animals are not the same lean meat.

Grey said...

My latest attempt at a theory based on LGM populations and the premise that populations divide along ecozones

according to the Lazaridis model we need: West Eurasian, ANE and Basal Eurasian

and looking at the simplified LGM map we have two main ecozones: the mammoth steppe and the southern forest zone

now taking as our premise that populations divide along ecozones perhaps we could say

1) ANE = mammoth steppe foragers

2) West Eurasian = southern forest zone foragers
- IJ?
- extending beyond Europe to North Africa, the Near East and Levant?

3) Basal Eurasian = first farmers?

1) The European branch of West Eurasian could develop into WHG (y hap I?)

2) The EEF - a mix of Basal Eurasian and West Eurasian - might then be either a mixture of first farmers with the near eastern branch of West Eurasian (y hap J?) or first farmers mixed with WHG (or a bit of both)

3) The Amerindian branch of ANE could split off leaving the non-Amerindian part on the mammoth steppe.

So looking at the map again you can see the forest zone doesn't extend as far east as the mammoth steppe so in the west of Europe you'd have both WHG and ANE in their respective ecozones but the further east you went the less forest zone there is so the proportion of WHG would go more the further east you went

So you might get something like
- WHG/ANE in the west
- ANE/WHG in the middle
- ANE/whg in the east
- 100% ANE at the edge
i.e. ANE isn't *originally* IE, it's *originally* mammoth steppe foragers

After the LGM the WHG/ANE foragers (west) and ANE foragers (east) move back north.

Then *some* of the ANE descended people around the Black Sea develop into the Indo-European culture.

The EEF land in Thessaly/Thrace and expand from the South-East up the Danube and along the coasts over the top of the WHG.

The mostly ANE Indo-Europeans expand from the North-East over the top of both the WHG and the EEF.

That model might explain autosomal ANE anomalies like Scotland imo - ANE but not IE ANE.


@Davidski FYI the link on the first page saying "continue the discussion here" doesn't point to this page.

Grey said...

"so the proportion of WHG would go more the further east you went"

so the proportion of WHG would go *down* the further east you went

Grey said...

"That model might explain autosomal ANE anomalies like Scotland imo - ANE but not IE ANE."

Picts maybe.

Also might tie in to widespread similarities in symbolism i.e.

Indo-European or both Indo-European and non Indo-European ANE?

Davidski said...

A lot of people say that Picts were IE.

barakobama said...

Davidski do you ignore that those trees always put near east and WHG as brothers? They put ANE as being a cousin to both. I haven't actually looked at exactly what Laz 2013 says but I really doubt the basal Eurasian thing. Where is the evidence of major basal Eurasian ancestry in west Eurasians today and Neolithic Europeans in mtDNA and phenotype? WHG is more related to what is in the near east than to ANE. Do you ignore mtDNA U5, U4, and U2e in Indo Iranians and that light hair and eyes today correlate with WHG? I remember an Assyrian posted his EEF, WHG, ANE results and he had around 4% WHG. Have Kalash and Iranians been put in that test? What mtDNA do you think descends from the original ANE population?

barakobama said...

The Picts where Celts their language was probably most related to what the Britons spoke. The Picts were known to tattoo themselves like the pre Roman Brits. I also remember reading that they were known for red hair which is highest(10-15%) in Insular Celts. If the Picts were none Celtic and non Indo European where is the genetic evidence? You would have to say they were exterminated by Gaelic's who migrated from Ireland which is very unlikely. Even though Scots are technically Gaelic I am sure there is still a lot of blood from the Picts in Scotland today. It seems that the Insular Celts almost completely exterminated the native farmers in the British isles at least paternally. I have heard of some possible Mesolithic Y DNA I2a1 lineages in the British isles. The Neolithic people I would bet were just like Stuttgart.

Davidski, you think the reason WHG ancestry is so much higher in modern north-west Europeans today than it was in the Neolithic because towards the end of the Neolithic farmers and hunter gatherers began to mix much more and because of Indo European invasions, right? Why do you think Insular Celts and west Germanics have such similar results in so many different admixtures and in EEF, WHG, and ANE? I think it is because their R1b L11 and maybe even language comes from the same source.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Pictish was probably Brythonic. The previous ane up north is pre everything. It is from motala like people.

Davidski said...

What you fail to understand is that EEF is mixed, and one part of it is very similar to WHG, but another part of it is vastly different. This is a fact, which can be seen on all the trees, and the only thing we don't know is what that other part is exactly. It might be Basal Eurasian or even East African, but it's definitely something very different from both WHG and ANE, and it makes EEF the odd component out.

And how do you know ANE populations didn't carry U2, U4 and U5?

Grey said...


"If the Picts were none Celtic and non Indo European where is the genetic evidence?"

Celtic and Indo-European are cultures. I'm suggesting the ANE genetic component originally comes from the mammoth steppe population which later divided into multiple cultural groups after the LGM and one of those ANE descended cultural groups became the Indo-Europeans. They didn't start off on horseback. They started off around the Black Sea living off fish.

I'm wondering if there were other ANE-descended but non-IE forager populations in regions where it's hard to imagine steppe chariot riders ever reaching e.g Picts.


"A lot of people say that Picts were IE."

Yes and maybe they were - Scotland seems a long way from the steppe to me but that doesn't prove anything.

I was wondering if the idea that they were IE was partly to do with the commonality of those symbols and then wondering if those symbols were older than IE with IE being one of the daughter cultures.

Davidski said...

EEF were less numerous in the north, because it was more difficult to farm up there, so the native WHG/ANE held on for longer, and then expanded when they learned to farm a bit themselves.

There were also later expansions of mostly WHG/ANE groups from the north and east during the migration period, further pushing down the EEF across much of Europe. For example, the Balkans were much less WHG/ANE before the Slavic expansion there.

Grey said...

"The previous ane up north is pre everything"

Yes, that's my point.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Insular Celts and Germanics are so similar because of similar ancient ancestry. Everything recent is not so important. Similar Motala like people, with similar EEF people and then similar IE people. There are migrations from Scandinavia to Britain in the Bronze and Iron Age, all pre-Saxon. The clines are virtually the same for them.
I'll echo something that Davidski says as well. The reason we see the ANE decrease from the North is because of the native ANE there. This would've spread with Goths, Slavs, Suebians, Franks, Normans, Bretons etc. etc. It would decrease to the North if not for the native part. IE genes would've been diluted a bit by the time Celts hit Britain.
The Assyrians that take the test get ANE, not WHG. My friend is 6% ANE. the test for Near Easterners is Near East / ANE. WHG is not part of it. The Basal in the Near East is too high to use the EEF as well. It becomes very skewed.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Jews are a good example of this. They get almost pure EEF, but that is absolutely false. They are a recent migrant with a very Basal heavy Near East component, so they don't show as nearly 1/2 European, which they probably are.

Chad Rohlfsen said...


Is it the SSA in the NE that puts Basal way higher, or is Basal just a holdover in NE Africa that blocked SSA from entering until Afro Asiatic languages entered? Or does SSA enter later? Is the SSA in all EEF farmers negligible or non-existent. Similar to the Mesolithic in a globe13?

Grey said...

"EEF were less numerous in the north, because it was more difficult to farm up there, so the native WHG/ANE held on for longer, and then expanded when they learned to farm a bit themselves."

Yes, basically just a fluke the LBK couldn't quite spread far enough.

pyromatic said...

I think we're just debating notation here. I dislike the longhand notation, as it changes rapidly and dramatically with any upstream discovery and instead prefer the shorthand notation of haplogroup followed by the terminal SNP. Admittedly this can also be murky when the phyloequivalence of a line of SNPs is broken. But really, how often is such an occurrence? I suppose what was once called I-M423 (referencing the modern population) will have be called I-L1224 or one of the other SNPs.

I2 is certainly present in mesolithic Europe. I1 may very well be present there as well, but that remains to be established. Where I1 spent its time until the past 4-6k years and how it expanded rapidly to become a major haplogroup in some areas are indeed questions I would like to be answered, but I'll just have to be patient as more data arrive from ancient samples and I1's phylogeny is further defined.

It is my understanding, that I-M423s (L1224s) fall into a handful of STR-based clusters:, including Isles, Dinaric North/South, DIsles, and "Dinaric Cousin" among others. These clusters, first identified by STRs, have subsequently been tagged by SNPs, lending the method some credence. Sure it's not perfect, but it works well, and there still remains the fact (to my knowledge) that no modern sample has been found to ancestral for CTS8486, CTS5375, CTS1802, CTS11030, or L1224, like these Motala and Loschbour samples are. I'll refer you to page 3 to see the placement of the Motala and Loschbour individuals on the I tree in comparison to known modern clades and associated downstream SNPs.

Davidski said...

Maybe East African admixture in the Near East is indeed skewing things there? I don't really know. EEF is a very complex and almost certainly mixed component. The concept of the Basal Eurasians is just one way to explain its makeup, and East African influence in EEF can't be ruled out as far as I can see.

The fact that there's North African admixture in Iberia might be skewing things in that part of the world too, and raising the level of EEF? But again, this is really complex stuff and not easy to comment on.

barakobama said...


The Assyrian I was talking about actually got 7.61% WHG.

What pre Saxon migrations from Scandinavia came to Britain? I wasn't talking about west Germans not north German. Scandinavians have even more WHG and less EEF than west Germanics(name of language family).

How popular is Y DNA pre-I2a1b or a separate but very related branch to I2a1b, and C-V20 in modern west-central-north Europe? There isn't much ancestry left from the original Mesolithic people of that part of Europe. I don't understand why Davidski thinks all of a sudden the hunter gatherers who were hiding in forests began to mix with farmers. It was probably indo Europeans who raised the WHG. I don't understand why no one here hasn't asked the question: Why do all modern Europeans have around 80% farmer mtDNA even though some have majority hunter gatherer ancestry? The Sami are not an exception because all of their U5 is U5b1b1 and because they have around 50% V which doesn't appear till the Neolithic like many other haplogroups,. I get sick of peoples deep love for Sami who they think are the last of the oppressed hunter gatherers or something.

Ifthere were almost entirely U5, U4, and U2e hunter gatherers hiding in forests for 2,000 years and began to mix with farmers in west-central-north Europe in the late Neolithic you should except to see a lot more of those haplogroups today. mtDNA U5a, U4, and U2e are very rare in modern Finnish and Sami but took up the vast majority of mtDNA of Mesolithic Scandinavians. Is there any pre-I2a1b or a close relative to i2a1b in Finnish and Sami? obviously not much has survived there since the Mesolithic and a new wave of WHG came with farmers in the metal ages.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Read that again. He scored NEGATIVE 7.61! That is my friend's score!!!! There is no European WHG in the Near East. You need to come to terms with this. It is ANE that is spread in Indo European domains. NOT WHG!! Please get off of it and move on. How do you know from just over a dozen samples that there weren't those other types all spread out and all that we see is a founder effect? There was no WHG component of any importance in Indo Europeans. Again, where is it in Asia or the Near East? Only ANE is there. Now let's move on to something else.

Grey said...

"Ifthere were almost entirely U5, U4, and U2e hunter gatherers hiding in forests for 2,000 years and began to mix with farmers in west-central-north Europe in the late Neolithic you should except to see a lot more of those haplogroups today."

If there was a layer of surviving HGs in between the megalith settlements on the Atlantic coast and the edge of the LBK and at some point the HGs adopted herding then their population would expand. So the mixing with the farmers might be conquest and male-mediated i.e. herder y and farmer mtdna.


"Why do all modern Europeans have around 80% farmer mtDNA even though some have majority hunter gatherer ancestry?"

In Argentina that situation was caused by male-dominated conquest and migration.

barakobama said...

I am getting very frustrated with you ANE=Indo European fanatics. Did MA1 speak proto proto proto proto proto proto proto Indo European? Did Indo Europeans learn how to make copper and refuse to mix with inferior EEF/WHG people?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 202   Newer› Newest»