Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans(Lazaridis 2013)

[Artek]

ABSTRACT
Analysis of ancient DNA can reveal historical events that are difficult to discern through study of present-day individuals. To investigate European population history around the time of the agricultural transition, we sequenced complete genomes from a ~7,500 year old early farmer from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture from Stuttgart in Germany and an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from the Loschbour rock shelter in Luxembourg. We also generated data from seven ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Motala in Sweden. We compared these genomes and published ancient DNA to new data from 2,196 samples from 185 diverse populations to show that at least three ancestral groups contributed to present-day Europeans. The first are Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who are more closely related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians than to any present-day population. The second are West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), related to the Loschbour individual, who contributed to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners. The third are Early European Farmers (EEF), related to the Stuttgart individual, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fc2W-6tR-HA/Urigqts3hwI/AAAAAAAAJbg/hqZiV1TOGgc/s1600/europe.png

Y-chromosomes and mtDNA's were also extracted, it turned to be:
I2a1b* to a Loschbour individual(Luxembourg) mtdna: U5b1a
I2, I2a1b*, I*, I* and probably Q to the individuals from Motala(Sweden) mtdna: U5a2d, 2xU2e1, 2xU5a1, U5a2

They tried to test for I1 but it came negative.

Supplementary data and tables:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-1.pdf
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-2.pdf
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-3.pdf

[safinator]

Great study, is the I2a1b variant the same of the one found in the Balkans or it's the Northwestern clade?

[Gospodine]

Doesn't this perfectly align with the expansion of Hg I and it's derivatives from the Balkan Ice Age refuge after the LGM? Makes sense that I2 would actually be the older branch since it's actually closer to the likely region of Hg I's origin and the spread of I2 corresponds well to the Gravettians.

In other words... Occam's fucking Razor.

[Artek]

Great study, is the I2a1b variant the same of the one found in the Balkans or it's the Northwestern clade?
M423 and L178 :). So the ancestral to the Dinaric clade :D

[Anglojew]

"Upper Paleolithic Siberians" haplogroup Q.

Very interesting.

[safinator]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s_8ZwA5jQlU/UrjjaLImDFI/AAAAAAAAJc0/pzDKnvT3zFY/s320/pigmentation.png

Pigmentation predictions aren't particularly accurate but interesting nevertheless.


An interesting finding is that the Luxembourg hunter-gatherer probably had blue eyes but darker skin than the LBK farmer who had brown eyes but lighter skin.

[Prince Carlo]

European hunters were of course similar to Basque bu without the Sardinian-like Med ancestry.

[Artek]

European hunters were of course similar to Basque bu without the Sardinian-like Med ancestry.
Some lean towards the Basques, some lean towards the Lithuanians and other North Europeans. Basques seem to be inbetween the farmers and hunters-gatherers.

[Prince Carlo]

Some lean towards the Basques, some lean towards the Lithuanians and other North Europeans. Basques seem to be inbetween the farmers and hunters-gatherers.

Western Europeans hunters were basically Basque people without the med ancestry. The Scandinavians hunters were intermediate between North Asian people and western European hunters, but much closer to the former. In another study, the preistoric dane was really east asian shifted.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.it/2013/10/ancient-dna-from-prehistoric-bulgaria.html

[Prince Carlo]

Ah end of course the med ancestry was spread by the early european farmers.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fc2W-6tR-HA/Urigqts3hwI/AAAAAAAAJbg/hqZiV1TOGgc/s1600/europe.png

[safinator]

The top greatest and least 5 modern population hits for each of the ancestral components.

European Early Farmer (EEF)



Maltese 0.932
Ashkenazi_Jew 0.931
Sicilian 0.903
Sardinian 0.817
Spanish 0.809
-----
Norwegian 0.411
Icelandic 0.394
Scottish 0.39
Lithuanian 0.364
Estonian 0.322

Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG)



Estonian 0.495
Lithuanian 0.464
Icelandic 0.456
Belorussian 0.431
Norwegian 0.428
-----
Spanish 0.068
Greek 0.058
Maltese 0
Ashkenazi_Jew 0
Sicilian 0

Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)



Estonian 0.183
Scottish 0.182
Hungarian 0.179
Lithuanian 0.172
Czech 0.167
-----
Bergamo 0.108
Sicilian 0.097
Ashkenazi_Jew 0.069
Maltese 0.068
Sardinian 0.008

[Argang]

Western Europeans hunters were basically Basque people without the med ancestry. The Scandinavians hunters were intermediate between North Asian people and western European hunters, but much closer to the former. In another study, the preistoric dane was really east asian shifted.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.it/2013/10/ancient-dna-from-prehistoric-bulgaria.html

Northern and Eastern Euros have more Western Hunter Gatherer admix than Basques, it seems that the latter have some extra med.


EEF WHG ANE
0.781 0.092 0.127 -- Albanian
0.931 0 0.069 -- Ashkenazi_Jew
0.593 0.293 0.114 -- Basque
0.418 0.431 0.151 -- Belorussian
0.715 0.177 0.108 -- Bergamo
0.712 0.147 0.141 -- Bulgarian
0.561 0.293 0.145 -- Croatian
0.495 0.338 0.167 -- Czech
0.495 0.364 0.141 -- English
0.322 0.495 0.183 -- Estonian
0.554 0.311 0.135 -- French
0.675 0.195 0.13 -- French_South
0.792 0.058 0.151 -- Greek
0.558 0.264 0.179 -- Hungarian
0.394 0.456 0.15 -- Icelandic
0.364 0.464 0.172 -- Lithuanian
0.932 0 0.068 -- Maltese
0.411 0.428 0.161 -- Norwegian
0.457 0.385 0.158 -- Orcadian
0.713 0.125 0.163 -- Pais_Vasco
0.817 0.175 0.008 -- Sardinian
0.39 0.428 0.182 -- Scottish
0.903 0 0.097 -- Sicilian
0.809 0.068 0.123 -- Spanish
0.746 0.136 0.118 -- Tuscan
0.462 0.387 0.151 -- Ukrainian


The eastern shift in the ancient dane is possibly a result of another ancient admixture event. The study suggests those have happened, as they tested for the date of NE european admixture events which showed Russian and Mordovian siberian-related admixture is significantly more recent than that in Finns, which implies different sources.

[Styrian Mujo]

European hunters were of course similar to Basque bu without the Sardinian-like Med ancestry.
Nope Basques are most similar to neolithic farmers, but I can see why Italians wouldn't like that:rolleyes:

[Jackson]

Apparently the EEF component also includes some of the WHG, although i don't know how much.

[Styrian Mujo]

Its interesting how Italians cluster away from the neolithic farmers :rolleyes:

[Prince Carlo]

Its interesting how Italians cluster away from the neolithic farmers :rolleyes:

We are cloeser to them than most other Europeans. xD

Well at least we don't cluster with asiatic hunters. xD

[Styrian Mujo]

We are cloeser to them than most other Europeans. xD

Well at least we don't cluster with asiatic hunters. xD
You are closer to MENA people while Iberians and Sardianians are closer to the european farmers.

[Harkonnen]

We are cloeser to them than most other Europeans. xD

Well at least we don't cluster with asiatic hunters. xD

They were more like a dimension of their own.

Anyway, I wonder whether proto-Uralics were R (r1a1?) sounds plausible to me.

[Prince Carlo]

You are closer to MENA people while Iberians and Sardianians are closer to the european farmers.

Iberians are also closer to the Asiatic hunters and have plenty of african admixture on the spreadsheet.

[Jackson]

So we have robust, dark haired and probably olive skinned and light eyed (also many had medium and dark eyes too i guess) Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and lighter-skinned, more gracile dark haired and dark eyed farmers so far, from a physical perspective.

[Artek]

So we have robust, dark haired and probably olive skinned and light eyed (also many had medium and dark eyes too i guess) Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and lighter-skinned, more gracile dark haired and dark eyed farmers so far, from a physical perspective.
That's quite the opposite to the previous imaginations of Mesolithic hunters-gatherers as a very light-pigmented individuals(only a robustness is undeniable). So how the light pigmentation spread? That's the question.

[Anglojew]

The top greatest and least 5 modern population hits for each of the ancestral components.

European Early Farmer (EEF)



Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG)



Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)

Jews are pretty well represented on all the ancient European types.

[Jackson]

That's quite the opposite to the previous imaginations of Mesolithic hunters-gatherers as a very light-pigmented individuals(only a robustness is undeniable). So how the light pigmentation spread? That's the question.

It could be something to do with that ANE component, or maybe a later development that just happened to coincide with areas that were already high in blue eyes? From what i remember in most places light hair correlates very well with light eyes, and not so well with dark eyes, and vice-versa - at least in central-northern Europe (the ratio is probably a bit different in the British Isles, where there's more/the same light eyes but also more dark hair):
http://www.haar-und-psychologie.de/haarfarben/hair-colors-eye-colors-germany-austria-switzerland.html

Either that or we just haven't found any hunter-gatherers yet that had light hair - the Hunter-Gatherer does have slightly more chance for light hair than the farmer, but it's negligible in both. So i'd guess it was something later.

So i'm envisioning lots of Sebastian Chebals kicking around in old Europe.

In terms of genetics, it's surprising that the Scots have almost as much ANE as the Estonians, although the Estonians being overall lowest in EEF contribution is not surprising i guess. Things emanating from the south and south-east always seem to get to north-east Europe last, like Christianity as well as farming, and of course the Roman Empire never got there either.

[Jackson]

Jews are pretty well represented on all the ancient European types.

They seem to be good examples of old Neolithic Farmers, along with Maltese and Sicilians, which is interesting.

[Anglojew]

They seem to be good examples of old Neolithic Farmers, along with Maltese and Sicilians, which is interesting.

Yes. Unexpected in some ways.

[Insuperable]

I don't know if anyone missed that, but for those who have, on the last page of the following supplement there are results for each population, results based on this three ancestreal groups.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-1.pdf

Edit: I see Argang posted results already

[Insuperable]

They seem to be good examples of old Neolithic Farmers, along with Maltese and Sicilians, which is interesting.

How can they and other "~99% EEF populations" be by percentage wise the most similar to early farmers if they don't cluster with them!? It is probably due to program who has three options and doesn't know where to put where properly so gives the nearest results. I could be wrong though.

Regarding your last post on the second page about coloring, is that mentioned in the third supplmentary data Artek posted?
Can you point me to the page if so?

[Argang]

Sicilians, Maltese etc are apparently poor fits in the three-way model and thus give misleading results. Ignoring them, Sardinians are most "farmer" as previous studies, genome bloggers etc. have suggested for a long time.

http://oi41.tinypic.com/s5gvpk.jpg

[Gospodine]

That's quite the opposite to the previous imaginations of Mesolithic hunters-gatherers as a very light-pigmented individuals(only a robustness is undeniable).

If by previous, you mean roughly a century ago...

Let's be honest, those representations exist primarily on anthroforums and in the books of early 20th century, moustache-twirling armchair anthropologists who wanted their pasty-faced likeness to be the pinnacle of human ascendency.

Past 5,000 years ago, swarthoids were predominate in the European population and the world.

[Jackson]

How can they and other "~99% EEF populations" be by percentage wise the most similar to early farmers if they don't cluster with them!? It is probably due to program who has three options and doesn't know where to put where properly so gives the nearest results. I could be wrong though.

Regarding your last post on the second page about coloring, is that mentioned in the third supplmentary data Artek posted?
Can you point me to the page if so?

Read Argang's post, he corrected me there.

Yeah it's in the supplementary data afaik. Both had dark brown hair, the farmer had brown eyes, hunter had blue or light eyes, and the farmer had lighter skin than the hunter-gatherer.

[Artek]

If by previous, you mean roughly a century ago...

Let's be honest, those representations exist primarily on anthroforums and in the books of early 20th century, moustache-twirling armchair anthropologists who wanted their pasty-faced likeness to be the pinnacle of human ascendency.

Past 5,000 years ago, swarthoids were predominate in the European population and the world.

I've never said that was in another way as you write :). People just looked on anthrophoras on those depigmented, modern Dalofaelids and they imagined - "wow, that must be a representation of pre-neolithic European Race. It's so awesome". Of course that's a nonsense, especially after recent discoveries. We'll learn more than that, in the next year many aDNA results from Northern Europe are coming!

[Artek]

It could be something to do with that ANE component, or maybe a later development that just happened to coincide with areas that were already high in blue eyes? From what i remember in most places light hair correlates very well with light eyes, and not so well with dark eyes, and vice-versa - at least in central-northern Europe (the ratio is probably a bit different in the British Isles, where there's more/the same light eyes but also more dark hair):
http://www.haar-und-psychologie.de/haarfarben/hair-colors-eye-colors-germany-austria-switzerland.html
That's undeniable. I think some miscorelations may be caused by slightly different character of recessiveness in light hair and light eyes allele(aren't light hair more recessive than light eyes?)


Either that or we just haven't found any hunter-gatherers yet that had light hair - the Hunter-Gatherer does have slightly more chance for light hair than the farmer, but it's negligible in both. So i'd guess it was something later.
So for now - we have a pigmentation data for an UP example, mesolithic examples and neolithic farmers. Then we have a gap till the Iron Age R1a Andronovo samples, which were predominantly light. We also have some other steppe examples, that were considered to be rather light haired but darker-eyed on average.(abstract of this germany study was published some time ago("neue Blick auf Die Eurasischen Steppe or something) but detailed information will come later. This aforementioned gap is relevant.



In terms of genetics, it's surprising that the Scots have almost as much ANE as the Estonians, although the Estonians being overall lowest in EEF contribution is not surprising i guess. Things emanating from the south and south-east always seem to get to north-east Europe last, like Christianity as well as farming, and of course the Roman Empire never got there either.
I haven't read all the data, but it can be an issue with sampling.

[Gospodine]

Yeah it's in the supplementary data afaik. Both had dark brown hair, the farmer had brown eyes, hunter had blue or light eyes, and the farmer had lighter skin than the hunter-gatherer.

That shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
The Neolithic farmer lived in rudimentary dwellings, wore more clothing, and exposed himself less to the elements in general while the hunter-gatherer might have found solace in a cave or shady area from time to time, but that was in between incredibly long intervals of continually hunting, rain or shine. The necessity of hunting invariably meant the hunter would be exposed to the sun far more of the time, while the farmer could grow grain, harvest and store it and then live off it until planting season came around again.

To me it seems logical that there would have been a stage in the history of Europe where the WHG's were darker than Near Easterners and Asians, due to our very, very late adoption of farming and the incredibly fast-warming climate post-LGM, 20,000 years ago.


That's quite the opposite to the previous imaginations of Mesolithic hunters-gatherers as a very light-pigmented individuals(only a robustness is undeniable). So how the light pigmentation spread? That's the question.

The mutation for lighter-pigmented skin arose in Europe and Asia independently between 20,000 to 6,000 years ago (earliest estimates are 20,000 years BP). Where the two populations overlapped along the Urals/west of the Pontic Steppes and in Near East (Anatolia) is where the genes likely recombined to produce our first N0rd1ds!11!11! who then moved Westward and Northward after the LGM.

Remember the Near East at the time was extremely desertified (the Sahara was much bigger than it is now); a combination of sub-tropical desert and Savannah while Central Asia and Siberia were composed of ice sheets and polar deserts. Neither of which are ideal for hunter-gatherers.

Europe and its immediate surroundings were basically two extremes until ~20,000 years BP; frozen solid above the Alps and boiling hot south of the Caucasus with a very narrow "Goldilocks zone" somewhere to the West of the Black Sea where the Neolithic farmers first set up shop.

The evolutionary need for it is obvious; darker-skinned people require about six times as much UVB than lightly pigmented people to synthesize Vitamin D. Prolonged Vitamin D deficiency basically leads to everything from cancers to a softening of the bones (due to the inability to absorb calcium without Vitamin D) and subsequent problems with childbirth, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and everything you don't want when you're trying not to freeze to death.

There are only so many places in Europe and Asia where there is such a lack of UVB radiation that it would have thinned out the ranks of darker-skinned individuals to the point of enforcing the selection of lighter traits. Europeans reached the Arctic Circle as early as 40,000 years ago but that was in incredibly small number, before the ice melted; so realistically you're looking at somewhere around the Komi Republic or Karelia in Russia and far eastern Siberia circa 10,000 years BP for the first noticeably lighter humans to emerge.

There is evidenced of lighter-pigmentation even earlier than 20,000 years BP; e.g. the Shanidar cave in the Zagros Mountains of Iran where two Neanderthal individuals from 70,000 years ago carried an allele which reduced hair and skin pigmentation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17962522

But imo, that's the exception, not the rule until you get to 5,000 years BP.

[Jackson]

That's undeniable. I think some miscorelations may be caused by slightly different character of recessiveness in light hair and light eyes allele(aren't light hair more recessive than light eyes?)


So for now - we have a pigmentation data for an UP example, mesolithic examples and neolithic farmers. Then we have a gap till the Iron Age R1a Andronovo samples, which were predominantly light. We also have some other steppe examples, that were considered to be rather light haired but darker-eyed on average.(abstract of this germany study was published some time ago("neue Blick auf Die Eurasischen Steppe or something) but detailed information will come later. This aforementioned gap is relevant.



I haven't read all the data, but it can be an issue with sampling.

So i guess know we can say what it looks like happened, but that gap you mention needs to be filled in to confirm it. It would make sense though, the combination of a people with high levels of light hair and some light eyes with another of dark hair and largely light eyes, you'd expect a population with reasonably high levels of both, and that correlates fairly well with areas that have retained the most of these combined ancestries.

The increased recessiveness of hair compared to eyes would certainly make sense, given that in any area in northern Europe (as far as i'm aware), if light hair is common - light eyes are more common still. Either that or the incoming light haired populations had proportionally less light hair compared to dark hair than the other population had light eyes to dark eyes, or what we see today is the result of various changes after these two groups met.

[Argang]

They checked IBD sharing, and the results are as expected. The Loschbour hunter-gatherer from Luxembourg shares the most with Northwest Europeans (the results might be a bit different for Scandinavian HG's) and the Stuttgart farmer sample shares the most with Sardinians, not with Sicilians or Ashkenazi.

http://oi42.tinypic.com/2iw99ib.jpg

[Prince Carlo]

So for now - we have a pigmentation data for an UP example, mesolithic examples and neolithic farmers. Then we have a gap till the Iron Age R1a Andronovo samples, which were predominantly light. We also have some other steppe examples, that were considered to be rather light haired but darker-eyed on average.(abstract of this germany study was published some time ago("neue Blick auf Die Eurasischen Steppe or something) but detailed information will come later. This aforementioned gap is relevant.

La Brana 1 had blue eyes.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.it/2013/12/brana-1-had-blue-eyes.html


They checked IBD sharing, and the results are as expected. The Loschbour hunter-gatherer from Luxembourg shares the most with Northwest Europeans (the results might be a bit different for Scandinavian HG's) and the Stuttgart farmer sample shares the most with Sardinians, not with Sicilians or Ashkenazi.

http://oi42.tinypic.com/2iw99ib.jpg

That is an IBD sharing analysis, not a genome-wide analysis.

[Accountant]

Interesting stuff!

http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag32/pohjola1/eefwhgane_zps6ce84f11.png

Are Finns, Mordvins and Russians too stronk for this research? :laugh:

[MfA_]

http://abload.de/img/malboy_k19qyzbt.png

[sevruk]

It's interesting as Mordvinians and Russian close to Afontova Gora sample (Upper Paleolithic people in Siberia)

[Jackson]

http://abload.de/img/malboy_k19qyzbt.png

Interesting!

[MfA_]

Supplementry info 9.

We wish to avoid over-interpretation of the admixture proportions, but nonetheless highlight some
patterns each of which is validated by f-statistic analyses reported in this study and previous studies:

1. The absence of a Near Eastern relatedness in all European hunter-gatherer groups but its
presence in Stuttgart.

2. The clear affinity of MA1 to Native American populations but not to East Asian or presentday
Siberian populations.

3. The occurrence of low levels of additional gene flows in west Eurasia from Africa (in parts of
the Near East or southern Europe) or recent Siberia (in parts of Northeastern Europe or the
Near East and Caucasus).

4. Evidence tying MA1 to Europe, the northern Near East and Caucasus, and south/central Asia.

[Argang]

The clear affinity of MA1 to Native American populations but not to East Asian or presentday
Siberian populations.

That part may be a bit inaccurate, for this study did not compare Mal'ta to Ket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ket_people) unlike the sample's introductionary study. Ket are West Siberians and apparently the closest non-eskimo/amerindian-type population to MA1.

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/4151/zubo.png

[Harkonnen]

It is sort of strange how randomly that graph seems to pickup the similarity. For example Selkups should be genetically rather identical to Kets. They are sometimes seen almost as Uralified Ket People. They were neighbours and allies for centuries and intermarriage was common. Both are predominantly Q-M242 (Selkups 70%, Kets 95%). Autosomally both are Siberian, Selkups slightly more north Euro like. So it's rather difficult to phantom, what is it exactly that makes Ket's so much more Mal'ta like.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8639/faz7.png

[d3cimat3d]

What I would like to know is how Herzegovina survived the Slavic migrations and avoided having their I2 replaced, or could it be I2 did come with Slavs from Mesolithic remnants in the Carpathian refugium (Since Croats and Bosniaks came from Slovakia and thereabouts)? Also I'd like to know to what extent are Herzegovinans actually descended from Mesolithic people autosomally. I mean their I2 could be just founder effect like that of maritime R1b from the Levant to western Europe with minimal autosomal input.

[Artek]

What I would like to know is how Herzegovina survived the Slavic migrations and avoided having their I2 replaced, or could it be I2 did come with Slavs from Mesolithic remnants in the Carpathian refugium (Since Croats and Bosniaks came from Slovakia and thereabouts)? Also I'd like to know to what extent are Herzegovinans actually descended from Mesolithic people autosomally. I mean their I2 could be just founder effect like that of maritime R1b from the Levant to western Europe with minimal autosomal input.
I think that sequencing of I2a1b should show more SNP's(regarding it's age, many SNP's were just not discovered) and help us to better understand the relation - whether most of I2 in the Balkans was introduced by Slavs and it had a founder effect just there or that some I2 were just added by Slavs to the existing pool. aDNA Y-DNA would be a huge help and a final confirmation too.

I've never thought that this is a credible enough indicator of Slavic presence, because in Poland I2 is in about 5% of men, whereas I1 is in 8-9% of men. Slavic marker, huh? Maybe only in the southern theatre.

I had a quarell with an Albanian once on this subject, he was citing Ken Nordtvedt every damn time but new discoveries confirmed my previous statements :). I must admit that later for some time I started to think that I2 was neolithic, because of many doubts concerning it. Anymore!.

[Hevo]

I've never thought that this is a credible enough indicator of Slavic presence, because in Poland I2 is in about 5% of men, whereas I1 is in 8-9% of men. Slavic marker, huh? Maybe only in the southern theatre.


Dont forget that I2a1b is one of the main haplogroups in Belarus, Ukraine and South Russia.

[Argang]

It is sort of strange how randomly that graph seems to pickup the similarity. For example Selkups should be genetically rather identical to Kets. They are sometimes seen almost as Uralified Ket People. They were neighbours and allies for centuries and intermarriage was common. Both are predominantly Q-M242 (Selkups 70%, Kets 95%). Autosomally both are Siberian, Selkups slightly more north Euro like. So it's rather difficult to phantom, what is it exactly that makes Ket's so much more Mal'ta like.



The difference between the two when it comes to being Mal'ta-like isn't in fact that big. Selkups are significantly more Mal'ta-like than, say, Nganassans and Yakuts.

[Gospodine]

What I would like to know is how Herzegovina survived the Slavic migrations and avoided having their I2 replaced, or could it be I2 did come with Slavs from Mesolithic remnants in the Carpathian refugium (Since Croats and Bosniaks came from Slovakia and thereabouts)? Also I'd like to know to what extent are Herzegovinans actually descended from Mesolithic people autosomally. I mean their I2 could be just founder effect like that of maritime R1b from the Levant to western Europe with minimal autosomal input.

The over reliance on the traditional point of view of ancient human migrations is kind of stifling.

We could be looking at something that more closely resembles Mario Alinei's Upper-Paleolithic Continuity Theory which postulates the Slavic languages originating in the Western Balkans and diffusing North and Eastward.

In any case, I don't see why it's surprising to people the abundance of I2 in the Western Balkans when most scholars are in agreement that Hg I diffused from South-to-North after the LGM from the mountainous Ice Age refuges in the Balkans.

[Artek]

Dont forget that I2a1b is one of the main haplogroups in Belarus, Ukraine and South Russia.
I know, even in Polish project many of I2's have Ukrainian and Belarussian/easterly surnames :).

Only credible slavic marker is an R1a-M458 and some certain subclades under R1a-Z280(the rest of Z280's are Baltic/Prussian, some rare lineages are just a "Corded survivors" like Z280+CTS1211-).

For me, it's only the proof that Slavs haven't settled a Poland from the Ukraine but a Przeworsk culture, by many considered as a Germanic(the debate about it's character lasts for a century), was possibly proto-Slavic and ancestral(at least to some extent) to West Slavic tribes. I hope I'm not wrong and aDNA will prove it as well. Physical anthropology already proved it.

[Insuperable]

What I would like to know is how Herzegovina survived the Slavic migrations and avoided having their I2 replaced, or could it be I2 did come with Slavs from Mesolithic remnants in the Carpathian refugium (Since Croats and Bosniaks came from Slovakia and thereabouts)? Also I'd like to know to what extent are Herzegovinans actually descended from Mesolithic people autosomally. I mean their I2 could be just founder effect like that of maritime R1b from the Levant to western Europe with minimal autosomal input.

They are autosomally Mesolithic proportional to their geographical position by now or in other words I2 could be a founder effect. However, don't forget that people have mtdnas also and I bet their mtdnas would be what we think of typically modern Balkan types if Dinaric I2 is Slavic in origin (can't know for sure). For now it is thought that Dinaric I2 type (Dinaric I2a1b type that is. I think it is called Dinaric I south) is 2500 old and came to Balkans with Slavic invasion.

Can't remember anymore without checking, but I have two or three Herzegovinian Croats on my 23andme list who are more similar to Croats from Croatia (I asked where they are from exactly and they come from the same area) and two or tree who are similar to Bulgarians, Montenegrins, Romanians (who come from the same area, but different area). Ottomans settled in Bosnia many people from around Balkans to inhabit certain desolated areas so I attribute this difference to that or maybe this Herzegovinians who are closer to Croats are less Balkan native, who can know definitely for now anyway.


I think that sequencing of I2a1b should show more SNP's(regarding it's age, many SNP's were just not discovered) and help us to better understand the relation - whether most of I2 in the Balkans was introduced by Slavs and it had a founder effect just there or that some I2 were just added by Slavs to the existing pool. aDNA Y-DNA would be a huge help and a final confirmation too.

I've never thought that this is a credible enough indicator of Slavic presence, because in Poland I2 is in about 5% of men, whereas I1 is in 8-9% of men. Slavic marker, huh? Maybe only in the southern theatre.

I had a quarell with an Albanian once on this subject, he was citing Ken Nordtvedt every damn time but new discoveries confirmed my previous statements :). I must admit that later for some time I started to think that I2 was neolithic, because of many doubts concerning it. Anymore!.

Hopefully it will turn out to be native Balkan marker, but we still don't know is I2 clade found in Mesolithic remains of Dinaric I type found in western Balkans. What is new to all of this anyway, people thought for long time by now that I and its branches are Mesolithic in origin. Herzegovinians carry a lot of Mesolithic Y-DNA and yet are not much Mesolithic so I don't see why are you surprised if Poland has low levels of I2 and especially if some East Slavs have more. It could be the founder effect, but it could be explained on other basis or it could be that I2 does not have much connection with "Slavs".

[safinator]

I had a quarell with an Albanian once on this subject, he was citing Ken Nordtvedt every damn time but new discoveries confirmed my previous statements :). I must admit that later for some time I started to think that I2 was neolithic, because of many doubts concerning it. Anymore!.

How does the new discoveries confirm your statement in anyway?


Neither sample was I2a-Din. Loschbour was confirmed I2a1b* L621- L161-. The L621- means not I2a-Din, because I2a-Din is L621+. Nordtvedt places I2a1b as a whole at about 16k years old, so no contradiction. Similarly, Motala12 was I2a1b L621-, and hence not I2a-Din. It could have been I2a-Isles L161+ in theory, but could also have been I2a1b* like Loschbour. Again, no contradiction.

[Artek]

How does the new discoveries confirm your statement in anyway?
He said that (literally)I2a1b is about 2,5 kya or something. Certain Din-clade is another thing, although it needs more SNP's for proper timing.

[safinator]

He said that (literally)I2a1b is about 2,5 kya or something. Certain Din-clade is another thing, although it needs more SNP's for proper timing.

You're wrong, he said I2a1b found in Balkans is around this age not I2a1b in general as you can see in his tree here

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20and%20Map%20for%20Hg%20I.pdf

Nordtvedt dates the TMRCA of all known branches at ~12k and its overall clade age at ~16k, basically there's nothing against the theory for now.

[Artek]

You're wrong, he said I2a1b found in Balkans is around this age not I2a1b in general as you can see in his tree here

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20and%20Map%20for%20Hg%20I.pdf

Nordtvedt dates the TMRCA of all known branches at ~12k and its overall clade age at ~16k, basically there's nothing against the theory for now.

You've misunderstood me, because I wasn't precise enough. This user was wrong when interpreting Nordtvedt, not Nordtvedt about the clade age :).

I know that those tested branches are ancestral to the Dinaric clade(and Disles as well) and I wrote as my second post to this thread.

Anyway, I wonder what will come up as a work of "The Rise Project". Maybe there is a time for some early I1 branches, along with R1a and other haplos.

[d3cimat3d]

I've never thought that this is a credible enough indicator of Slavic presence, because in Poland I2 is in about 5% of men, whereas I1 is in 8-9% of men. Slavic marker, huh? Maybe only in the southern theatre.

I had a quarell with an Albanian once on this subject, he was citing Ken Nordtvedt every damn time but new discoveries confirmed my previous statements :). I must admit that later for some time I started to think that I2 was neolithic, because of many doubts concerning it. Anymore!.


Yah the theory goes that I2 was the Carpathian Slavic haplogroup and encompassed the north-east foothills of the Carpaths from Slovakia to Moldavia. However considering that Albanians seem to be relatively abundant in I2 given their small contribution from Slavs genetically, it doesn't really add up. Probably the I2 in the Balkans is indeed a founder effect from those Mesolithic lads, and it isn't a coincidence the most mountainous parts are also the highest concentration of I2. Mountainous terrain is an excellent preserver of haplogroups, we still got Oetzi-like haplogroups in the Alps and archaic haplogroups in the Caucasus.



In any case, I don't see why it's surprising to people the abundance of I2 in the Western Balkans when most scholars are in agreement that Hg I diffused from South-to-North after the LGM from the mountainous Ice Age refuges in the Balkans.

The I2 in the west Balkans isn't particularly surprising as that could easily be written off as founder effect. The issue I have is for example, this Albanian I share with on 23andme carries I2a2b and plots leaning towards southern Europeans:

http://i41.tinypic.com/2ir9nuo.png

Therefore I suspect founder effect is at play here otherwise you I2 folk would plot much more north. I've seen your results and compared to this Albanian you indeed do plot more towards the north, just a notch N-W of me, but strip away your Mesolithic-like ancestry in the form of mostly Slavic and small traces of Avar, Goth and Hallstatt ancestry, what you are left with is essentially this Albanian guy who could be used as an example of a basal, pre-Slavic Balkanite.... Actually, even more southern than him because Albanians especially Gheg highlanders even have a bit of Slavic themselves. Basically what I'm trying to say here is your Slavic ancestry makes it hard to tell how much I2-Mesolithic ancestry you actually have, if any at all.



We could be looking at something that more closely resembles Mario Alinei's Upper-Paleolithic Continuity Theory which postulates the Slavic languages originating in the Western Balkans and diffusing North and Eastward.

A bit off topic, but if anything east-Balkans would be more better candidate than west-Balkans, specifically the Danube Delta area. The general consensus is that the Slavic homeland was situated here, roughly at a time when there was more forest coverage which agriculture later destroyed:

http://i43.tinypic.com/e01o4n.png

Imagine such a hypothetical scenario of pre-proto-Slavs or whoever emerging from the west-Balkans.. Great, now meet some natural barriers like the Dinaric Alps, followed by the Carpathians and it makes it all seem unlikely. A much less complicated scenario would be Slavic languages arriving from what is now N-E Bulgaria when the ice melted.

Anyway, more questions, how did haplogroup I end up in Kurdistan? Only migration in that direction from Balkans was Cimmerians or Phrygians.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=42220&d=1388000518

[MfA_]

Northeast Caucasians has more ANE ancestry than Europeans

An interesting implication of this analysis is that ANE-related ancestry may be particularly high in the
Northeast Caucasus, as both fitted and lower bound values for Lezgins and Chechens exceed inferred
ANE values for Europeans (compare Table S12.8 and Table S12.12).
In light of our other results, it is not surprising that these populations would have high ANE-related ancestry. They are at the northern end
of the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 1B) and have the highest values of common drift with MA1 among
Near Eastern populations (Extended Data Fig. 4), as measured by f4(Test, Stuttgart; MA1, Chimp).
http://abload.de/img/desktop_2013_12_27_22nef0i.png

This is the model for Near Eastern populations
NE2+UHG=Early farmers
NE1+ANE=Caucasians
http://abload.de/img/desktop_2013_12_27_22e9i0k.png

[Pure ja]

We are cloeser to them than most other Europeans. xD

Well at least we don't cluster with asiatic hunters. xD

Not asiatic. Undifferentiated eurasiatic.

[Pure ja]

Interesting stuff!

http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag32/pohjola1/eefwhgane_zps6ce84f11.png

Are Finns, Mordvins and Russians too stronk for this research? :laugh:

They live in another dimension.
They are faster than light :D
Star Wreck!