search this blog

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Paul Heggarty: desperate or clueless?

Over at Diversity Linguistics Comment, Paul Heggarty of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig) puts his foot in his mouth with a long-winded and rather whiny comment piece about two recent ancient genomics papers, Haak et al. and Allentoft et al., and the PIE question.

I don't have the time or energy right now to pick apart in detail Heggarty's ramblings, so I'll only focus on a couple of points. Firstly, here's a modified figure from Haak et al. that Heggarty put up with his post, and below that a couple of quotes with his explanation.

These data imply that Uralic-speakers too would have been part of the Yamnaya > Corded Ware movement, which was thus not exclusively Indo-European in any case. And as well as the genetics, the geography, chronology and language contact evidence also all fit with a Yamnaya > Corded Ware movement including Uralic as well as Balto-Slavic.

Both papers fail to address properly the question of the Uralic languages. And this despite — or because? — the only Uralic speakers they report rank so high among modern populations with Yamnaya ancestry. Their linguistic ancestors also have a good claim to have been involved in the Corded Ware and Yamnaya cultures, and of course the other members of the Uralic family are scattered across European Russia up to the Urals.

These are exceedingly naive and stupid comments from someone representing the Max Planck Institute. Perhaps as an ardent supporter of the Anatolian hypothesis he's feeling more than a little desperate at this point and clutching at straws? That's because anyone with even a basic grasp of European linguistics and genetics should know that:

- present-day Hungarians and Estonians speak Uralic languages, but they are of course overwhelmingly of Indo-European origin, which is easily seen in their genome-wide and uniparental DNA

- other Uralic speakers, further to the north and east, in the forest zone away from Indo-European influence, are clearly distinct from the vast majority of Indo-European speaking Europeans, because they show significant levels of recent Siberian ancestry, which was missing among the Yamnaya and Corded Ware people, and appears to be an Uralic-specific genetic signature

- therefore, it's highly unlikely that Uralic-speakers were also part of the Yamnaya > Corded Ware movement; rather, early Uralics in all likelihood began to move west across the forest zone well after the Yamnaya and related expansions from the steppe.

Heggarty also can't get over the fact that not all Indo-European speaking Europeans harbor as much Yamnaya-related ancestry as Northern and Eastern Europeans.

Above all, the Yamnaya > Corded Ware impact is much less widespread in Europe than Indo-European languages are. Much of southern Europe has spoken Indo-European languages from our earliest records (Latin and its ‘Italic’ relatives, Greek, Albanian and various other Indo-European languages of the Balkans, now extinct).

Some (low) proportions of apparent ‘Yamnaya’, ‘Corded Ware’ and north European ancestry do appear in present-day populations of southern Europe (Haak et al. 2015 Figure 3b). But such north to south population admixture is in any case expected from the historical period. The collapse of the Roman Empire and the migrations of the early medieval period were defined by major invasions and settlements of Slavic and Germanic-speaking populations into southern Europe.

The levels of Yamnaya-related admixture among present-day Southern Europeans are significant and plenty enough to explain why most of them speak Indo-European languages. All of this Yamnaya-related admixture cannot be explained by Germanic and Slavic incursions into Southern Europe during the early medieval period, because:

- most Southern European populations show very little admixture from Northern and Eastern Europe dating to this time frame (see Ralph and Coop 2013)

- R1b-M269 is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup across much of Southern Europe, and its subclade structure among Southern Europeans, as well as the ancient DNA data from Haak et al. and Allentoft et al., suggest that the vast majority of it arrived there from somewhere in the east before the historical period but after the Neolithic.

About the only worthwhile point that Heggarty makes is that we need more ancient DNA, especially from more southerly regions, to help solve the PIE riddle once and for all.

He probably thinks that the new data will back up the Anatolian hypothesis. It won't. If Heggarty could actually understand the data from Haak et al. and Allentoft et al., he'd already know that the jig was up for his pet theory.

See also...

The ancient DNA case against the Anatolian hypothesis

Population genomics of Early Bronze Age Europe in three simple graphs

Ancient genomes from NE Europe suggest the tandem spread of Siberian admixture and Uralic languages into the region >3,500 ya


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 244 of 244
Gioiello said...

@ Nirjhar007
"And so not ancestor of the Yamnaya M269".
Ask smal why he doesn't publish a tree for R-V88 as I am asking from so long and, even though eng.molgen is out now, I have written tons of letters about that and the origin and diffusion of R-V88 is clear now. Also about R1b1-L389* I have a few doubts.

Mike Thomas said...


"So it seems that Samara Yamnaya and Afanasievo had a similar amount of "Armenian", but the new samples from a later and more southwestern area of Yamnaya have less "Armenian". "

Certainly some patterning. It seems the (sub-Caucasian) influences travelled east along the steppe. Different processes were occuring in the westernmost steppe, as well as further north in the forest-steppe/ southern forest zone.

Aram Palyan said...

In Rozenfag's link Lev Clein is not content with the way Allentoft et al. present their genetic admixtures data he means the colored columns ). There is no any explanation what color means what. I think he is right, this kind of genetic papers should be presented in a such a way that an archaeologue and linguist be able to understand. If not the full details, but at last the basics.

Gioiello said...

@ Nirjhar007
Say smal that it isn't true that "Yes, PF6376 is a V88 equivalent and it is positive in I0410".
The SNPs he indicated on Anthrogenica have been found in Francalacci 2015 on T2 and T3 (i.e. the same Francalacci and Tofanelli) and not in the V88 line. Thus it is possible that Els Troc is even and R1b1* downstream ...

Davidski said...


I haven't had a chance to look at this yet, but I suspect that the ANE in the Near East/Caucasus came from a population that was more similar to Afanasievo than to Yamnaya.

Aram Palyan said...


Where is the origin of R1b-V88 in Your opinion? Isn't it in Levant.

Gioiello said...

The SNP which demonstrates that Els Troc is R-V88 is PF6376 (Y21491184).

@ Aram Palyam
That the origin is in Middle East is the common opinion, that of the map that Vincent Vizachero did for the "R1b1 FTDNA Project". I have written a lot, and I think having demonstrated, that the origin is in Sardinia/Italy or Iberia. But the sample found at Els Troc of 7100 years ago may have come from the Cardials from Italy. Of course someone says that it came from Middle East, for that I am asking that smal publishes the map of R1b1 (he has all the data)...

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The Yamnaya samples near the Caucasus and Afanasievo do seem less Near Eastern. When using the Haak samples, the Allentoft ones carry the Yamnaya component. One of the Beakers looks odd too. It might be poor quality, but it comes out about 25% Yamnaya and 75% WHG, like the Pitted Ware samples. I'm not infront of my computer to post it, but I will later.

Thanks for the stats. Is there anyway to remove the ENA from Okunevo to see if the West Eurasian part is more extreme than EHG?

Srkz said...

Petter Johansson
"I think it is hard to make a model of all Uralic people spreading a Siberian component, since Mordovian people at the very Urheimat have so little Siberian and Mari have gotten it mainly from Turkic people."

In fact, Maris are the most Siberian people in the Middle Volga region. Mari influence rises Siberian component at Chuvashes and Volga Tatars.

PS there is no doubt in Russian sciense society that Uralic Urheimat was somewhere in Siberia

Nirjhar007 said...

You are right but there is no need to have a friction with him ok? he will get it eventually;).
Mongolia or North China?.

Srkz said...

Napolskih speaks about Central,Southern and Western Siberia

Nirjhar007 said...

Someone tells me that Proto-Uralics were specialists in Taiga....

Krefter said...

Close R1b-relative of Yamnaya found in Bashkirs.

rozenfag said...

Shaikorth said...

"A major problem is also that Arctic Uralic people in Europe have more Siberian admixture than Mordovians at the Urheimat, and Mordovians are hardly assimilated Slavs (on the contrary, Slavs assimilated Uralics)."

It isn't a problem if the pre-Saami people of the Arctic Coast were more Siberian than Saamis. MtDNA-wise we know that was the case (aBOO remains, Der Sarkissian et al 2013) but only autosomal DNA will tell for sure.

As for proto-Uralics, ancient DNA from the Volga-Kama region and Northern Russia is needed. Modern Saamis can't proxy for a common source of easterness for Mordovians and Baltic Finns assuming there is one, and Maris, being more Near Eastern can't either (or maybe they can for Mordovians and North Russians?).

Krefter said...

Samara_HG had pre-R1b1a1-M73!!! He is positive for P297 and M73 muts, and also negative for some M73s.

Krefter said...

The R1b1 from Neolithic Spain is R1b1c-V88. So, that haplogroup mostly being in West Asia and Africa today makes sense. It must have been a minor lineage in Early European farmers.

a said...

2 r1b branches spain and russia

Branch One
Els Trocs Spain V-88? lowest red sea & east med scores in K15 amongst 5000,B.C+/- highest combined Atlantic&West score 85%
Branch Two
Samara Hunter Gatherer M73?
Highest eastern euro score and highest combined east euro&baltic&northsea 80%+/-

Gioiello said...

@ Krefter
Of course I don't agree on what you said. It seems to me that the autosome of these samples (R-V88 from Iberia and R-M73 from Russia) demonstrate the other way around, i.e. an origin of R-V88 in Western Europe (Sardinia/Italy or Iberia I have always said) and the R-M73 in Central North Europe. Let's wait and very likely you'll look at the poker: R1a-M420* in Northern Europe and R1b1-L389* in Southern Europe, very likely in Italy. Bring the news to all the Anthrogenicians. Say that I send you.

Krefter said...


We don't have Y DNA from Ancient Asia. The R1b in Samara and Spain could very well be from West and Central Asia. You can make an account at Anthrogencia.

Gioiello said...

@ Krefter

I had. They banned me. I wrote about 10000 letters on these arguments.
Gioiello, Maliclavelli, Rathna, Claire...

Mike Thomas said...

I find your arguementation bizarre. You think V88 came out of italy because of its Atlantic conponent; which we'll find im sure all the way from near East to Northern Africa even, and a handful of supposedly modal haplotypes (a questionable approach these days)?

Unknown said...

Before you delete this post, consider answering it, would you? Out of a sense of fairness?
Davidski wrote:
"5) The high frequencies of R1b in much of Europe are due to massive found[or} effects well after the Yamnaya migrations, and thus need not be accompanied by high levels of Yamnaya genome-wide ancestry, and usually aren't."

What am i missing here? Can't this explanation be used for any lack of "high-levels of ancestry?" Can it also mean that they simply weren't direct ancestors of Yamnaya?

Why is it that R1b in Yamanaya and R1b in western Europe couldn't both come from another third source? Are the steppes the only way to get to western Europe? Particularly Iberia?

It's not the archaeology that is a problem. Late Neolithic Bell Beaker and Copper Age Iberian archaeology is quite different from Corded Ware and Yamnaya. What exactly is wrong with Rib coming by way of the southern sea?

Why would R1b migrate from the steppes and go west and not go south? Why do they have stumble through rugged European winters when they could take a soft scenic southern route via the Mediterranean and get where were going a lot quicker? After all founder's effect says there doesn't have to be many of them. Most early Bell Beakers seem to be buried in communal graves, not kurgans. We don't really have much aDNA from Iberian or North African British Beakers We don't have much from let's say the Middle Neolithic Zagros or Iran or Levant either. There is a paper on modern DNA in Sicily that puts R1b arriving there almost 1000 years before R1a shows up.

As far as the archaeology, you might want to look at Lemercier's frank presentation on Bell Beaker in France to the Riech group at Harvard. He was well aware of their steppes favoritism and almost apologized for what he had to tell them.

Mike Thomas said...

@ unknown

I think few would disagree that the prehistory of R1b is complex. I think the overall origin lays in Western Asia . As for M269 specifically, I had always entertained a possible entry into Europe via SEE. But the lack of r1b in several samples Hungarian neolithic and Bronze Age genomes speaks against this. There is of course the possibility of Cardial expansion to which you allude, but again, unlikely given the time period people are dating R1b in Europe.

And a North african route is least parasiminous of all

Simon_W said...

I think RISE479 from the Vatya culture is a better proxy for the Hungarian Yamnaya than BR1. See:

RISE479, GEDmatch ID F999944, Vatya culture, early Bronze Age Hungary

19 North_Sea
10 East_Euro
32 Baltic
26 Atlantic
13 West_Med

60 North_European
40 Atlantic_Med

BR1, Mako culture, early Bronze Age Hungary

24 North_Sea
3 East_Euro
25 Baltic
28 Atlantic
20 West_Med

55 North_European
44 Atlantic_Med
1.5 Caucasus

RISE479 (Vatya) has more East_Euro, more Baltic, less Atlantic and less West_Med. In K12b also more North_European, less Atlantic_Med, and no Caucasus. So it's a clear-cut case. Both have a rather strong Baltic component, suggestive of quite a strong WHG element.

Simon_W said...

Now let's consider how Vatya deviates from the German Corded Ware:

German Corded Ware from Haak et al.

26 – 30 North_Sea
14 – 23 East_Euro
8 – 13 West_Asian
12 – 20 Baltic
3 – 4 South_Asian
1.5 – 3.4 Amerindian
9 – 28 Atlantic

54 – 55 North_European
18 – 21 Atlantic_Med
20 – 21 Gedrosia
3 – 7 Caucasus

Thus, Vatya has:
less North_Sea
less East_Euro
no West_Asian at all
more Baltic
the trace elements of South_Asian and Amerindian fall away
instead there is some West_Med

Also it has (in K12b) no Caucasus and no Gedrosia.

Now let's check how the Czech Bell Beakers deviate from the German Corded Ware:

RISE569, GEDmatch ID F999954, Czech Bell Beakers

28 North_Sea
23 Atlantic
27 Baltic
10 East_Euro
11 West_Med
0.7 West_Asian

56 North_European
31 Atlantic_Med
8 Caucasus
4 Gedrosia

Thus, the Czech Bell Beakers deviate from the German Corded Ware in that they have
less East_Euro
almost no West_Asian
more Baltic
no trace elements of South_Asia and Amerindian
some West_Med instead

Also (in K12b) more Atlantic_Med, more Caucasus, and much less Gedrosia.

The amazing thing is therefore: The Czech Bell Beakers deviate from the German Corded Ware in much the same way as the Vatya culture from Hungary!

Simon_W said...

But let's also see how the Czech Bell Beakers deviate from the German Bell Beakers:

German Bell Beaker I0112, GEDmatch ID M117132

34 North_Sea
27 Atlantic
11 Baltic
14 East_Euro
10 West_Med
1.8 West_Asian
1 Amerindian
1 Oceanian

47 North_European
38 Atlantic_Med
10 Gedrosia
4 Caucasus

This was one of the more West_Med and Atlantic ones of the German Bell Beakers, here's one of the more Yamnaya-like, German Bell Beaker I0058, who isn't on GEDmatch:

31 North_Sea
23 Atlantic
12 Baltic
13 East_Euro
5 West_Med
10 West_Asian
3 South_Asian
3 Amerindian

Thus, the Czech Bell Beakers deviate from the German ones in that they have:
less North_Sea
much more Baltic
less East_Euro
almost no West_Asian
no Amerindian
no South_Asian

Also, (in K12b) less Gedrosia and more Caucasus.

Obviously, the Czech Bell Beakers deviate from the German ones in the same way as Vatya deviates from the German Corded Ware!

Simon_W said...

Therefore I would conclude that there really was some notable genetic influence from post-Yamnaya Hungary upon the Bell Beakers, and that this influence was stronger in the Czech Bell Beakers than in those from central Germany. I would presume that it was also stronger in Bell Beakers from Southern Germany. So the archeologists who saw an influence of Vucedol or Vucedol-Yamnaya upon the eastern Bell Beakers were right!

However, it has to be made clear that this Vatya-like influence is quite unlike the Samara Yamnaya and the Corded Ware. It is intermediate on a WHG-EHG scale and completely lacks the West_Asian element, also the Teal/Gedrosia element. Even if someone might object that we have no sample from the Hungarian Yamnaya, this is irrelevant, because what influenced the Czech Bell Beakers was really Vatya-like. And anyway, Vatya is so distinct from the EN/MN people and obviously EHG admixed that it has to be from the local Yamnaya.

But now there is an interesting twist: We've got three y-chromosomes from Vatya, and all three were I2! At this point I'm convinced that this I2 arrived with the local Yamnaya and isn't a founder effect from admixed local farmers. After all, there was also I2 in one of the South Russian Yamnaya males, so it wasn't foreign to them. And we know that I2 was common in European HGs, also in ANE-admixed ones, see the SHG! So what speaks against the still unsampled western steppe HGs having lots of I2? Nothing!

And it would make sense that R1b was associated with stronger EHG, stronger West_Asian, stronger Teal/Gedrosia than the stuff we've seen in Vatya. Vatya simply doesn't look like an R1b-admixed population, more like an I2-dominated one.

That's not yet all. Consider Unetice! We've got three Unetice y-chromosomes, and all three were I2! But where did Unetice originate? On the northern fringe of the Carpathian Basin, in Southeastern Moravia! So, is it a coincidence that they were dominated by I2? Of course not! At this point I think it's obvious that I2 was part of the steppe culture and that it participated in the early IE dispersals. This I2 in Vatya and in Unetice is IE, and most probably Italo-Celtic. Unetice probably influenced Germanic. And the large number of I2 in the late Bronze Age/Urnfield Lichtenstein cave was probably not a fluke. Heck, possibly even Italic arrived in Italy with I2. R1b-U152 is rather a late, Ligurian arrival, also partly Gaulish. Also I would seriously consider that Hittite/Anatolian was associated with the elevated I2 levels that are found in southeastern Anatolia today.

Simon_W said...

So the emerging picture looks like this: The eastern, more strongly EHG descended Yamnaya was dominated by R1b. This R1b had (still unresolved) ties with a Caucasus population who admixed with the EHG on the steppe. The Corded Ware was basically R1a from northern EHG, but had R1b admixture, which accounts for the similar strong Caucasus admixture. The Bell Beaker R1b derives via founder effects from the Corded Ware R1b. In the western steppe however, EHG/ANE ancestry was lower and the Caucasus influence nonexistent. There, I2 was common. But since they all were steppe people and shared the Yamnaya culture, they surely spoke closely related languages. The earliest steppe expansions westwards into the Balkans were dominated by I2, possibly even Anatolian comes from these, and not from R1b people. Since Italo-Celtic split off early and came from the Danubian area, it too started as an I2 dominated language. Meanwhile Yamnaya had the Corded Ware and Afanasievo offshoots in the north, to the east and west. So there we already had a huge expansion of IE languages. R1b in western-southwestern Europe was eventually assimilated by local farmers like the Basques. Since Italo-Celtic at this early stage was still an I2 language and centered in and around the Carpathian Basin, we cannot expect the early R1b wave to Britain to have been Celtic. But probably it was an unknown IE language, since the autosomal Yamnaya-like impact was strong. (Perhaps the oldest, unintelligible Ogham inscriptions are in this language?) Unetice was already an early Italo-Celtic offshoot, and later the Tumulus culture brought another wave from the Carpathian Basin. As a result, R1b-U152 expanded as a Celto-Ligurian haplogroup in the middle Bronze Age and afterwards. R1b-M269* and -L23* expanded in West Asia perhaps coming from the Caucasus, with the Kura-Araxes culture and the Hurrians. Both haplogroups probably reached southeastern Europe and southern Italy together with J2.

Tobus said...


Very interesting - looks like Oase in Romania was a pre-Ust'-Ishim branch that was completely replaced by the Kostenki sample's descendants.... perhaps massive migration into Europe from the steppe was the thing to do!

Alexandros said...

@ Simon_W
Interesting thoughts.. However you mentioned that "I would seriously consider that Hittite/Anatolian was associated with the elevated I2 levels that are found in southeastern Anatolia today".

Where did you find evidence that I2 is currently higher in SE Anatolia? The only Y-hg study among Anatolian Turks was conducted back in 2004 (Cinnioglu et al) and showed that I2 was higher in western Anatolia (closer to the ancient Greek world and the Balkans) rather then eastern (inclusing SE) Anatolia. In fact the frequency of I2 among Turks from SE Anatolia is just around 2%.

Gioiello said...

@ Simon W
A fine story. Unfortunately the I2a in Yamnaya and in Remedello/Sardinia belong to two completely different subclades. No Hittite I2a tested so far. My R-Z2110*, which you argue should have come to Tuscany with J2 (old in Tuscany perhaps 13000 years) finds its closest relatives in a Basque and an Englishman and is at least 6100 years old (as to YFull) and its nephew CTS7556 expanded from West to East (ancestor of R-CTS9219) 4500 years ago...

Grey said...


"It's not the archaeology that is a problem. Late Neolithic Bell Beaker and Copper Age Iberian archaeology is quite different from Corded Ware and Yamnaya. What exactly is wrong with Rib coming by way of the southern sea?"

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the argument you're having but if BB traveled by different routes they may have had different influences. For example one group of BB arrived among the Atlantic Megalith culture centered in Iberia might have been more influenced by it than another group of BB who traveled down the Rhine to Holland.

Gioiello said...

@ Mike Thomas
Nothing of that. I published on eng.molgen (now out unfortunately) detailed data which demonstrate that Sardinia has the oldest haplotypes: one brings to M18 and the other to V35, and that African and Middle Eastern Y7771 and V69 descend from an haplotype which brings to V35 in Sardinia. The sample found in Iberia (7100 ya) is ancestral to the African and Middle Eastern haplotypes. I ask for that that smal (Sergey Malyshev) publishes an R-V88 tree on the "R1b1 FTDNA Project" but so far in vain. All the samples of aDNA found, also those in Middle East, are closer to Western Europeans than any others. About my theory on R-V88 I exchanged many years ago letters with the same Cruciani and Scozzari that I published on Worldfamilies. There is also their English translation. You may read them.

Mike Thomas said...

Simon W

Excellent analysis.

One critique Id imagine is that one can only tell so much from ADMIXTURE comparisons, but, you have raised the points also of Y haplogroups.

But you say "At this point I'm convinced that this I2 arrived with the local Yamnaya and isn't a founder effect from admixed local farmers". You mean to Hungary ? If so, you'd be wrong, becuase Neolithic hungary not only had I1, I2a1b-M423, but also likely I2a2a-M223 (which rumours are, is what vatya and the BA Russian are ) Whatever the case, M223 appears to be an eastern markers which drifted northwest, perhaps in Bronze Age.

And yes Id bet Remedello wasn't eastern I2, but rather closer to Sardinian M26.

Simon_W said...

@ Alexandros

I was just drawing upon the Eupedia map:
Don't know what sources he used...

@ Gioiello & Mike

I2 is rather diverse and has a TMRCA in the Upper Paleolithic. And we all know that I2 was already common in EN/MN European farmers, also in Hungary. So it would be foolish to ascribe all present-day I2a to western steppe people. Especially the Sardinian I2a, considering that Sardinia is the European population least affected by steppe people. And I don't know what clade these Remedello guys had, but it needn't be from Yamnaya. Given their Sardinian-like autosomal DNA a Sardinian-like yDNA wouldn't surprise me.

So, rumors have it that both the Vatya I2 and the Yamnaya I2 was I2a2a-M223? Would be in line with my theory. What does it mean that it's likely that Hungarian EEF had this too? Either there is evidence or there isn't? Regardless, according to the official yDNA list which David linked to, only one of the Vatya males is I2a, the others are listed as I2.

Simon_W said...

I can, to some extent, understand the difficulties some people have in imagining that the predominance of Bell Beaker R1b was from a founder effect among the R1b minority of the Corded Ware. IIRC there are 9 Corded males with R1a and only 2 with R1b. But I think we cannot assume that the proportion of 9:2 was everywhere the same in the vast Corded Ware horizon, i.e. they were not necessarily a homogenised mix. Perhaps there were large areas of R1a predominance with smaller R1b pockets scattered inbetween. And if the Maritime Bell Beaker impulse by chance met the Corded Ware area in an R1b pocket, perhaps at the Rhine estuary, the subsequent spread of the mixed Bell Beaker culture further into Corded Ware area would have been effectuated by R1b people. The peculiar cranial type of the German Bell Beaker people, which was so distinct from the predominant Corded Ware type, suggests a spread of a group from a relatively small area.

Of course, at the moment this is just a theory which needs further validation.

Mike Thomas said...


Im not sure where you're getting that I claimed that I2 came from western steppe ?!

Simon_W said...

Mike, I didn't intend to impute such a foolish idea to you. If it sounded like that, it was a misunderstanding.

Simon_W said...

Anyhow, according to the Vatya I2a is I2a2a2a-L1228 and the Yamnaya I2a is I2a2a1b1b2-S12195, so they're not at all closely related. According to the yfull site, the TMRCA is approximately 12200 years BP. Which of course doesn't make an origin in western Yamnaya impossible, since members of a population needn't all be close relatives in the yDNA.

Mike Thomas said...


NP : )

Where are you getting those specific sub-clades for vatya from ? Ive just had a look at the site, and it merely says "I2" with no additional SNP details provided.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

That would be correct. It's not just AMH, but one Neandertal paper stated that admixture appears to be spreading from the steppe region as well.

No sense in arguing with the ridiculousness of European R1b stories. Here are the Remedello Y results, via Genetiker.

RISE486 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327
RISE487 Italy Remedello I2a1a1-Y2189
RISE489 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327

Simon_W said...

@ Mike

It's just RISE247, the other two are indeed listed as I2.

Ariele Iacopo Maggi said...

David, what about Yamma having 17.42% West asian on k12

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 244 of 244   Newer› Newest»