Joł, joł, joł!!! I co a nie mówiłem, czyli pisałem?!! Piję tu do tego, co napisałem Robertowi, o tym, że nad tymi danymi zapadnie dumna i błogosławiona cisza… Łatwowiernym ludkom wydaje się, że jak odbezpieczony granat wpadł w szambo, to nie wybuchnie, bo go gówno zakręconych pomówień zalepi, jak zalepia usta, uszy i mózgi, tym, którzy w tym szambie pływają, jak ryby w mętnej wodzie… To se ne wrati pane Majdanek… Granat, albo raczej ich wiązka nieubłaganie wybuchnie jeden po drugim, a to co do tej pory usłyszeliście, to był TYLKO JEGO PLUSK… 🙂
Z dobrego serca radzę… czytać źródła… myśleć samodzielnie i błagać o zmiłowanie… Z tym zmiłowaniem to żartowałem…
Jeśli kogoś coś ochlapało, no to pomyślcie co upowszechnię pod koniec tygodnia… Na razie też dumnie będę siedział cicho… aczkolwiek… powrzucam trochę kamyków, popuszczam sobie trochę bączków… jak ten poniżej…
Zakładam, że i z tych danych też wolne umysły niewiele zrozumio, no ale znajcie pańską łaskę, bo co nieco podpowiem… Spójrzcie jakie R1a jest odkryte i gdzie, itd,.. Ma to związek z powstaniem języków bałtyjskich…
Czy ktoś rozumie już, CZEGO TAM NIE MA?!! 🙂
Kurcze!!! Ludzie to jest kolejny materiał na obrazobórczy wpis!!! Upowszechniam tu nie tylko to, co dotyczy północy i Bałtów, bo także to, co dotyczy Scytów, jak i dwóch różnych zestawów mtDNA odnajdywanych w Europie!!!
https://yhrd.org/tools/branch/R1a-Z645
Łapacze ruskich trolli, czy innych szpionów Putina, wiecie już, że macie przechlapane? Myślę, że Świadomość Nieskończona „trochę” sobie z was i waszych mondrości zażartowała… 🙂 LOL 🙂
Ludzie… to KONIEC bredzeń o „starożytności” języka litewskiego i innych bałtyjskich… Tak, tak Sławomirze… Za prawdę powiadam Ci, poszukuj podkładu językowego w j. polskim… 🙂
Po ….. zamieszczam resztę ciekawostek o Scytach, Afanasiewo, Andronowo i Sintashta… hehehe
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/the-genetic-history-of-northern-europe.html
Friday, March 3, 2017
The genetic history of Northern Europe (or rather the South Baltic)
SKRiBH 
Uwielbiam moją nową szeroką skórkę!!! :-0 …i to dlatego tam zaznaczyłem jak chciałem to co wynika z tego REWOLUCYJNEGO wg mnie. badania…
Rozumiecie już, że te dane są BARDZO GRUBE?!!
Patrzcie:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiderian_culture
Zasięg kultury świderskiej
Swiderian culture, also published in English literature as Sviderian and Swederian, is the name of Final Palaeolithic cultural complexes in Poland and the surrounding areas. The type-site is Świdry Wielkie, in Otwock near the Swider River, a tributary to the Vistula River, in Masovia,. The Swiderian is recognized as a distinctive culture that developed on the sand dunes left behind by the retreating glaciers. Rimantiene (1996) considered the relationship between Swiderian and Solutrean „outstanding, though also indirect”, in contrast with the Bromme-Ahrensburg complex (Lyngby culture), for which she introduced the term „Baltic Magdalenian” for generalizing all other North European Late Paleolithic culture groups that have a common origin in Aurignacian.[1](…)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunda_culture
Kunda Culture, with its roots in Swiderian culture,[1] is a mesolithic hunter-gatherer communities of the Baltic forest zone extending eastwards through Latvia into northern Russia dating to the period 8000–5000 BC by calibrated radiocarbon dating. It is named after the Estonian town of Kunda, about 110 kilometres (70 mi) east of Tallinn along the Gulf of Finland, near where the first extensively studied settlement was discovered on Lammasmäe Hill and in the surrounding peat bog.[2] The oldest known Kunda culture settlement in Estonia is Pulli settlement. The Kunda Culture is succeeded by the Narva culture who use pottery and show some traces of food production.(…)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva_culture
Narva culture or eastern Baltic (c. 5300 to 1750 BC)[1] was a European Neolithic archaeological culture found in present-day Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kaliningrad Oblast (former East Prussia), and adjacent portions of Poland, Belarus and Russia. A successor of the Mesolithic Kunda culture, Narva culture continued up to the start of the Bronze Age. The technology was that of hunter-gatherers. The culture was named after the Narva River in Estonia.(…)
PolubieniePolubienie
O kurcze!!! Patrzcie:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva_culture
(…)
Technology and artifacts
The people of the Narva culture had little access to flint; therefore, they were forced to trade and conserve their flint resources.[2] For example, there were very few flint arrowheads and flint was often reused. The Narva culture relied on local materials (bone, horn, schist). As evidence of trade, researchers found pieces of pink flint from Valdai Hills and plenty of typical Narva pottery in the territory of the Neman culture while no objects from the Neman culture were found in Narva.[2] Heavy use of bones and horns is one of the main characteristics of the Narva culture. The bone tools, continued from the predecessor Kunda culture, provide the best evidence of continuity of the Narva culture throughout the Neolithic period. The people were buried on their backs with few grave goods.[2] The Narva culture also used and traded amber; a few hundred items were found in Juodkrantė. One of the most famous artifacts is a ceremonial cane carved of horn as a head of female elk found in Šventoji.[3]
The people were primarily fishers, hunters, and gatherers. They slowly began adopting husbandry in middle Neolithic. They were not nomadic and lived in same settlements for long periods as evidenced by abundant pottery, middens, and structures built in lakes and rivers to help fishing.[2] The pottery shared similarities with Comb Ceramic culture, but had specific characteristics. (…)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic_culture
Neolithic period
The Pit–Comb Ware culture or Comb Ceramic culture was a northeast European culture of Pit–Comb Ware-making hunter-gatherers. It existed from around 4200 BCE to around 2000 BCE. The name is derived from the most common type of decoration on its ceramics, which looks like the imprints of a comb.
The distribution of the artifacts found includes Finnmark (Norway) in the north, the Kalix River (Sweden) and the Gulf of Bothnia (Finland) in the west and the Vistula River (Poland) in the south. In the east the Comb Ceramic pottery of northern Eurasia extends beyond the Ural mountains to the Baraba steppe adjacent to the Altai-Sayan mountain range, merging with a continuum of similar ceramic styles.[1] It would include the Narva culture of Estonia and the Sperrings culture in Finland, among others. They are thought to have been essentially hunter-gatherers, though e.g. the Narva culture in Estonia shows some evidence of agriculture. Some of this region was absorbed by the later Corded Ware horizon.
Ceramics
The Pit–Comb Ware culture is one of the few exceptions to the rule that pottery and farming coexist in Europe. In the Near East farming appeared before pottery, then when farming spread into Europe from the Near East, pottery-making came with it. However, in Asia, where the oldest pottery has been found, pottery was made long before farming. It appears that the Comb Ceramic Culture reflects influences from Siberia and distant China.[2]
The ceramics consist of large pots that are rounded or pointed below, with a capacity from 40 to 60 litres. The forms of the vessels remained unchanged but the decoration varied.
By dating according to the elevation of land, the ceramics have traditionally (Äyräpää 1930) been divided into the following periods: early (Ka I, c. 4200 BC – 3300 BC), typical (Ka II, c. 3300 BC – 2700 BC) and late Comb Ceramic (Ka III, c. 2800 BC – 2000 BC).
However, calibrated radiocarbon dates for the comb-ware fragments found (e.g., in the Karelian isthmus), give a total interval of 5600 BC – 2300 BC (Geochronometria Vol. 23, pp 93–99, 2004).
Among the many styles of comb ware there is one which makes use of the characteristics of asbestos: Asbestos ware. Other styles are Pyheensilta, Jäkärlä, Kierikki, Pöljä and Säräisniemi pottery with their respective subdivisions. Sperrings ceramics is the original name given for the younger early Comb ware (Ka I:2) found in Finland. (…)
Language
Previously, the dominant view was that the spread of the Comb Ware people was correlated with the diffusion of the Uralic languages, and thus an early Uralic language must have been spoken throughout this culture. However, another more recent view is that the Comb Ware people may have spoken a Paleo-European (pre-Uralic) language, as some toponyms and hydronyms also indicate a non-Uralic, non-Indo-European language at work in some areas.[4] Even then, linguists and archaeologists both have also been skeptical of assigning languages based on the borders of cultural complexes, and it’s possible that the Pit-Comb Ware Culture was made up of several languages, one of them being Proto-Uralic.[citation needed](…)
…..
Jak dla mnie POZAMIATANE!!! 🙂
PolubieniePolubienie
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/neolithic-transition-in-baltic-paper-1.html
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Neolithic transition in the Baltic
Open access at Current Biology:
Jones at al., The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early European Farmers, Current Biology, Published Online: February 02, 2017, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.12.060
See also…
First look at Latvian and Ukrainian ancient genomes
Posted by Davidski
Samuel Andrews said…
The Baltic Hunter Gatherers had R1b1 but were much closer to WHG than to WHG. Maybe R1b1 is a WHG lineage.
February 2, 2017 at 1:18 PM
Rob said…
Matt
The MN Latvians are U4. IIRC, they’ve been found in Mesolithic Motala and Germany, as well as Siberians
February 2, 2017 at 1:18 PM
Rob said…
Sam
The maximal „diversity” of R1b is in Southern/SEE Europe . This has been known for long time
February 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob, „The maximal „diversity” of R1b is in Southern/SEE Europe . This has been known for long time”
We still don’t know where WHG is orignally from or even exactly what it is. They could be very mixed, a hyprid who remained isolated for 1,000s of years, acquired drift, then expanded. They could be from Spain, Italy, SE Europe, pretty much any plot of land that wasn’t covered in Ice 20,000+ years ago.
ElMiron died in Spain 20,000 years ago, had mtDNA U5b, and had lots of affinity to WHG. Therefore we shouldn’t be confident WHG originated in SouthEast Europe.
February 2, 2017 at 1:25 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
Baltic HG mtDNA…. U5a1=2(U5a1c=1), U4=2(U4a1=1), U2e1=1
Those are lineages which have been considered EHG. pre-U2e has found Paleolithic Belgium, early forms of U2’3’4’7’8’9 have been found all over Paleolithic Western Europe. So the reason Baltic HGs and EHG had similar mtDNA could be because EHG’s mtDNA is mostly WHG(ultimaty Paleo Western European).
February 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM
EastPole said…
“The presence of a Steppe-related component in Latvia_LN1 in the absence of an Anatolian farmer-related genetic input supports a Steppe rather than an Anatolian origin for the Balto-Slavic branch of the IndoEuropean language family.”
This is interesting and indeed may be the clue to the origin of Corded Ware, and Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages. Such a hypothesis comes to my head:
PIE most likely originated somewhere on the step. Split into two main dialects associated with R1a and R1b before the admixture with EEF. So for example Early Corded Ware could come from Late Sredny Stog Dereivka culture. When it migrated North and West it spoke an early Balto-Slavic. Then mixed with EEF in Poland and evolved into early Slavic: after that it migrated north-east and mixed with some Balto-Slavic groups and HGs and became Balts; the CWC which migrated east later mixed with some steppe groups and became Indo-Iranians.
February 2, 2017 at 1:26 PM
Davidski said…
Lack of any sort of ancient R1b in Balts means there was a population turnover from the MN to LN in the East Baltic, and it came from the steppe with people who carried R1a-M417. R1b-M269 also comes from the steppe. I don’t see the results in this paper changing that perception. It’s a pity the Ukrainian foragers were females.
February 2, 2017 at 1:31 PM
Shaikorth said…
Ukrainian HG indeed does look like EHG sans ANE, closer to Karelia but not to MA-1 compared to Bichon and Loschbour.
Mbuti MA1 Bichon Ukraine_HG1 0.0062 0.520
Mbuti Karelia Loschbour Ukraine_HG1 0.0269 2.451
Mbuti Karelia Bichon Ukraine_HG1 0.0348 3.069
Ukrainian Neolithic and Mesolithic are quite equally lacking in CHG:
Mbuti Kotias Bichon Ukraine_HG1 0.0054 0.494
Mbuti Kotias Bichon Ukraine_N1 0.0057 0.551
February 2, 2017 at 2:28 PM
Nirjhar007 said…
But still oldest R1b is from Italy and there is someone, who will laugh and say its coming from there !.
Eastpole, The dates can even be contemporary of Yamnaya and they most likely predate, anything like ‚Balto-Slavic’ . We also don’t have the Y-dna .
And certainly R1b-R1a split predates PIE and its pre forms by thousands and thousands of years. If you say the emergence of R1a-M417 and M-269 , that is another issue .
February 2, 2017 at 8:26 PM
EastPole said…
@Nirjhar007 Read the paper. They write about Neolithic Corded Ware sample Latvia_LN1:
“this individual lived around the time of later date estimates (4,500–7,000 cal BP) proposed for the split of Proto-Balto-Slavic from other Indo-European languages”
I think there were two different early PIE dialects, one associated with R1a and the other with R1b. Otherwise why didn’t they mix if they spoke the same langugee.
February 2, 2017 at 10:53 PM
Davidski said…
I hope these BAM files come online soon. I reckon there’s a chance that the Latvian MN sample, the Comb Ceramic one, is N1c. The Latvian Corded Ware LN is probably R1a-Z280. The Ukrainian foragers might be R1b and/or R1a.
February 3, 2017 at 12:05 AM
…..
Tylko Davidski wspomniał o jednym przypadku N1 podobno znalezionym w Comb Ceramic!!! N1 przyszło nad Bałtyk bardzo późno i NIE MOGŁO BYĆ OBECNE W EUROPIE WCZEŚNIEJ NIŻ R1a!!! 🙂
Bałtowie i ich języki powstały jako późna nakładka języka/ów jakichś N1a, nałożonych na… starożytny podkład językowy EGH, jak tego Karelczyka z R1a M417!!! TADA!! 🙂
PolubieniePolubienie
Zobaczcie to:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/ancient-dna-points-to-eurasian-steppe.html
Monday, January 19, 2015
Ancient DNA points to the Eurasian steppe as a proximate source for Indo-European migrations into Europe
This is yet another teaser for the upcoming Corded Ware/Yamnaya paper from the Reich lab. Sadly, it doesn’t mention Y-chromosome haplogroups, so perhaps the authors are going to tackle this issue later. However, check out what they say about the German and Spanish farmers being of the same stock, and the resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry in Western Europe after the early Neolithic. Fascinating stuff.
Source: INA Kolloquium Ws 2014/15
Update 11/02/2015: Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (Haak et al. 2015 preprint) .
Posted by Davidski 2015-01-19
Wcześniej w Wschodniej Europie byli czyści EHG, którzy w prostej linii wywodzili się od Chłopca z Mal’ta R1 z nad Bajkału, i… około TYLKO 5000 lat temu ZASTĄPILI ich potomkowie TYCH SAMYCH EGH, ALE ZMIESZANI JUŻ z DNA kobiet ze Skałkazu!!!
Człowiek z Karelii BYŁ R1a M417 i EGH!!! Yamnaya było TYLKO jego zmieszanym potomkiem!!! Skoro Yamnaya ma być PPIE… to KIM BYŁ CZYSTY POTOMEK R1 Z KARELII?!!
PZDRWM
SKRiBHA
PolubieniePolubienie
Ale przecież to jest to pieprzenie głupot jak to yamowcy rozprzestrzenili się na k.ceramiki sznurowej, co w tamtej pracy pokazywała odpowiednia mapka ze strzałkami.
Tyle, że yamowcy to głównie R1b i to kłady kaukaskie, zaś ceramika sznurowa to wybitna dominacja R1a. Tak właśnie napierali i napierali, że potracili swoje YDna.
Tyle lat zajmują się tym tematem, mają tyle próbek w kolekcji a nadal posiadają w obiegu wewnętrznie sprzeczne teorie, ciagle są zaskakiwani, znaczy to tylko, że posługują się fałszywymi definicjami. Ostatnio Davidski był zdumiony ilością R1a z Pribałtyki, tak samo jak niewiele wczesniej był zdumiony R1b z Vilabruna. Teraz są najwyraźniej tak zdumieni brakiem R1a z Wegier w czasie 7000-5000 lat temu, że nawet tego nie komentują.
Jeszcze inni sa zdumieni na brunatnych historykach, gdy wzięli na tapetę I1 i poczęli rozwazać jak ta 100% giermańska haplogrupa ma się w europie wschodniej i okazuje się, że ma się całkiem dobrze tam, gdzie nigdy jakichkolwiek giermańców nie było, nawet wczasie 2.w.ś. Taka niekończąca się historia.
PolubieniePolubienie
Karelczyk to czyste EHG R1a M417, pochodzące w prostej linii z R1 Chłopca z Mal’ta z nad Bajkału,.. a tzw. Yamnaja to z okolic stepu WSZYSTKO ZMIESZANE ZE SOBĄ, ale… TAM NIE MA JUŻ R1a M417, tylko Z93, patrz Afanasiewo, jako wschodnia Yamnaya!!! Kliosow walnął kolejnego babola, i ja to temu „łowcy ruskich trolli” i bystremu inaczej schizofrenikowi od „goja” wygarnę w twarz pod koniec tygodnia… Tym razem ostatecznie urwę mu jego pusty łeb i znów wtłukę go nim w glebę, jak młotkiem, aż będzie huczało i dudniło… 🙂
Przejrzyj to w całości, bo tam masz jak na dłoni wszystko wyjaśnione na podstawie źródeł! 🙂
PolubieniePolubienie
Piszesz EHG. Kto robi za populacje referencyjną? Za WHG robią jacyś ludzie z Wysp Owczych. Wszystko to jest ustalane według widzimisię.
PolubieniePolubienie
Karelczyk 🙂
PolubieniePolubienie
http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=124442&view=findpost&p=1423500
lukaszrzepinski 12/02/2015
QUOTE(Robert01 @ 12/02/2015, 12:57)
Wnioski z tego płynące są zgodne z najbardziej spodziewanym scenariuszem, jaki wynikał z badania obecnej populacji, a mianowicie widac jak na dłoni, chociaż nie to było celem pracy, że R1a wyewoluował w Europie środkowej. W tej pracy widzimy to na przykładzie Z280, ale nie inaczej będzie z M458, a także Z284.*
szybko zarobisz ostrzezenie i/lub bana jeśli jeszcze nie zarobiłeś, po pierwsze za brak kultury, po drugie za kompletnie nieuprawnione wnioski… gdybasz sobie i to bardzo grubo…
1. kto się spodziewał tego scenariusza ze był taki najbardziej spodziewany?
2. co to wnosi do dyskusji? Ze nie inaczej będzie z M458? Nie inaczej tzn gdzie w Europie środkowej ta grupa wyewoluowała? W Rumunii, w Polsce czy na Ukrainie? Bo z owego „nie inaczej” nie wyciągam zadnych wniosków
I jak doszedłeś do wniosków ze w Europie środkowej? Wypadałoby podać szersze uzasadnienie
3. dlaczego uwazasz ze „skrzętnie” (czyli ze szczególną starannością) pominięto skoro próbki pochodzą z całych 7 krajów? Wobec tego większość Europy moze czuć się skrzętnie pominięta
A teraz co do samej pracy… faktycznie przełomowa
– a zatem proto-Indoeuropejczycy mieli R1B… Ale mamy R1B w Hiszpanii 5000 pne! Wnioski? To nie ekspansja indoeuropejska spowodowała rozniesienie się R1B – musiało to stać się wcześniej… zakładając oczywiście teorię przyjścia z czarnomorskich stepów, tak czy siak kultura Jamna jest „pełna” R1b a nie R1a
– paleolityczna Szwecja jest „pełna” I2 – zatem utozsamianie I1 ze Skandynawią jest chyba niesłuszne
– praca chyba obala pretensje Słowian co do najblizszego pokrewieństwa z protoIndoeuropejczykami skoro stepowcy mieli az tyle R1B; w zasadzie mamy tabelkę która pokazuje najblizszą korelację Jamna z…. Norwegami, choć zaraz obok Litwini co chyba podwaza jej zasadność; chyba ze R1A później narosło wśród sznurowców…
– zarówno R1A i R1B znaleziono w dawnych kulturach zbieraczych w dalekiej Rosji
– 69 nowych próbek antycznych z czego tylko 4 R1A i 9 R1B, z czego z kultury Yamna wszystkie są R1B a większość: R1b1a2a2, próbki kultury Yamna pochodzą z róznych stanowisk aby odrzucić bliskie pokrewieństwo
– mamy sporo G2 w Niemczech… haplogrupa paleolitycznych rolników – przedindoeuropejska migracja
– zupełny brak I1
– Eulau jest omówione krótko…
Robert01: 12/02/2015
QUOTE
– praca chyba obala pretensje Słowian co do najblizszego pokrewieństwa z protoIndoeuropejczykami skoro stepowcy mieli az tyle R1B;
Tak, potwierdza indoeuropejskość R1b, którego w Indiach nie ma wcale. Ten absurd potęguje niezaprzeczalny fakt naukowy, że R1b ze stepów było już indoeuropejskie(jak jest w tej pracy opisane), zanim … Ariowie (R1a Z93) weszli do Indii.
W tej pracy widać ten nonsens ubrany w szaty naukowości.
Podtrzymuję to co napisałem wczesniej, R1b nie jest żadną miarą indoeuropejskie.
lukaszrzepinski 12/02/2015
QUOTE
– praca chyba obala pretensje Słowian co do najblizszego pokrewieństwa z protoIndoeuropejczykami skoro stepowcy mieli az tyle R1B;
Tak, potwierdza indoeuropejskość R1b, którego w Indiach nie ma wcale.
Celny strzał… Cóz, sama praca zauwaza ze ekspansja indoeuropejska ze stepów nie jest aksjomatem… A historycy hinduscy uwazają ze R1A do Europy przyszło z Indii północnych właśnie
Robert01 12/02/2015
Pobyt R1b w k.jamowej nie dowodzi, że ona ma tam swoje centralne żródło, skłaniam sie do tych, którzy twierdzą, że tym źródłem był jednak Bliski Wschód, dawny Lewant. Implikuje to gałąż afrykańska. Zaskoczeniem jest taka duza ilośc R1b, ale nie za duzym -wystarczy popatrzec na mapę współczesnego rozkładu R1b w zachodniej Azji, także w Rosji, połowa R1b z k.Yamna, to właśnie ich przodkowie.
Największym zaskoczeniem jest „genetyczny dziadek M417”, sprzed 7000-7500 lat, znaleziony hen w Kareli. To stawia kolejne argumenty w temacie balto-słowiańskim, czyli mieszanki N oraz R1a, czyli, kto był pierwszy, że jednak R1a było pierwsze?
Domen 12/02/2015
QUOTE
Trzecia najstarsza, aż z północnej Rosji, z Kareli, reliktowa R1a1, potocznie dziadek M417, datowana na 7000-7500 lat. Wszystkie dotąd pozyskane próbki kopalnego R1a z Europy znaleziono na peryferiach obecnego zasięgu R1a. Ilustruje to poniższa mapa (czerwone kropki to miejsca znalezienia starożytnego R1a):
Późny Mezolit:
kultura (czas), stanowisko(a):
Łowca-Zbieracz (5500 p.n.e.), wyspa na jeziorze Onega (Karelia)
Epoki miedzi-brązu:
kultura (czas), stanowisko(a):
Kultura Ceramiki Sznurowej (2600 p.n.e.), Eulau (Saksonia-Anhalt)
Kultura Ceramiki Sznurowej (2400 p.n.e.), Esperstedt (Turyngia)
Tocharowie, Jedwabny Szlak (2020 – 1940 p.n.e.), Xiaohe (Kotlina Tarymska – Xinjiang, zachodnie Chiny)
Kultura Andronowska (1800 – 1400 p.n.e.), Solenoozernaïa (rejon Krasnojarska) i Oust-Abakansty (Chakasja)
Scytowie (1370 p.n.e.), Tsagaan Asga (Ałtaj Mongolski)
Kultura Łużycka (1050 p.n.e.), Halberstadt (Saksonia-Anhalt)
Scytowie (1010 p.n.e.), Takhilgat Uzuur (Ałtaj Mongolski)
Krąg Kultur Pól Popielnicowych (1000 p.n.e.), jaskinia Lichtenstein (Dolna Saksonia)
Epoka żelaza:
kultura (czas), stanowisko(a):
Kultura Tagar (800 p.n.e. – 100 n.e.), Czernogorsk, Oust-Abakansty, rejon Bijska (Kraj Ałtajski), rejon Bogradu
Kultura Pazyryk (450 p.n.e.) – Dolina Sebystei (nieopodal Kosz-Agacz, Ałtaj)
Xiongnu (300 – 100 p.n.e.), Duurlig Nars (wschodnia Mongolia)
Kultura Tachtyk (100 – 400 AD), rejon Bogradu (Chakasja)
Na terenie wschodnich Niemiec mamy 7 mężczyzn z R1a odkopanych w 4 miejscach:
– Eulau (x 3) ———————————– Kultura Ceramiki Sznurowej
– Esperstedt (x 1) —————————— Kultura Ceramiki Sznurowej
– Halberstadt (x 1) —————————– Kultura Łużycka
– Jaskinia Lichtenstein k. Dorste (x 2) ——— Kultura Pól Popielnicowych
Cztery miejsca w Niemczech, gdzie znaleziono starożytne R1a, są położone bardzo blisko siebie:
Nadal wielka „czarna dziura” między Rosją a Niemcami…
Domen 13/02/2015
QUOTE („AlexanderMalinowski2”)
Jeśli wziąć to literalnie, to nie pochodzimy od azjatyckich barbarzyńców ze stepów Ukrainy, tylko od środkowo Europejczyków.
To nie do końca tak. Przez stepy Ukrainy chyba też się przewinęliśmy, tylko nie wiadomo skąd tam przyszliśmy. Na pewno haplogrupa R1a licznie partycypowała w stepowych populacjach indoeuropejskich (patrz chociażby kultura andronowska – na 10 mężczyzn aż 9 to R1a, w dodatku z kilku stanowisk – obecny rezultat dla kultury jamowej to 7 mężczyzn ale wszyscy z tego samego stanowiska – koło Samary).
Natomiast teraz wiemy, że zarówno R1b jak też R1a były obecne w Europie Wschodniej jeszcze zanim pojawili się kurhanowcy (mamy bowiem łowcę-zbieracza R1b z rejonu Samary, który żył ok. 5640 – 5555 lat p.n.e. i łowcę-zbieracza R1a z Karelii, który żył ok. 5500 – 5000 p.n.e.).
Ci dwaj łowcy R1b i R1a (mapa niżej) mogli żyć nawet prawie równocześnie (przyjmując skrajne daty 5555 p.n.e. i 5500 p.n.e.)!
Ten gość R1a z Karelii to jak dotąd najstarsze odkryte kopalne R1a. Z kolei R1b prawie tak samo stare – bo z ok. 5178 – 5066 p.n.e. – z wczesnego neolitu, odkryto w północno-zachodniej Hiszpanii, w Els Trocs – ale nie jest to R1b+M269+L23+, a więc większość współczesnego R1b w Europie NIE pochodzi od kladu tego konkretnego wczesnego rolnika z Hiszpanii!
Mamy więc potwierdzone R1b w Europie Zachodniej w neolicie, ale taki klad, którego potomkowie są dzisiaj nieliczni!
Natomiast R1b u łowcy-zbieracza spod Samary – który żył tam na całe 2000 lat przed pojawieniem się kultury grobów jamowych – to R1b-P297+, czyli „ojcowski” klad zarówno dla europejskiego M269 jak też dla azjatyckiego M73+ (!).
Czyli chyba większość współczesnego R1b w Europie Zachodniej, to przybysze z Europy Wschodniej po roku 3000 p.n.e. (!)
Tutaj mamy tych wschodnioeuropejskich łowców-zbieraczy z R1a (Karelia) i z R1b (Samara), obaj z VI tysiąclecia p.n.e.:
Żyli mniej więcej w tym samym czasie, ok. 1250 km od siebie, ale genetycznie byli bardzo podobni (w DNA autosomalnym):
Co ciekawe – mimo różnych haplogrup – pod względem autosomalnym obaj ci łowcy byli do siebie bardzo podobni! Stanowili komponent EHG (Wschodni Łowcy-Zbieracze) – który wygląd tak jakby składał się w ok. 60% z WHG i 40% z ANE, wg. definicji tychże WHG i ANE z publikacji z 2004 „Ancient human genomes suggest 3 ancestral populations for present-day Europeans”. EHG to Wschodni Łowcy-Zbieracze, WHG to Zachodni Łowcy-Zbieracze a ANE to Dawni Północni Eurazjaci. EHG wyglądało tak jakby byli mieszanką 60% WHG z 40% ANE.
Co ciekawe – nie było wśród nich (tych łowców-zbieraczy R1a i R1b) praktycznie wcale komponentu EEF (Pierwsi Europejscy Rolnicy).
Oczywiście EEF pochodzili z okolic Bliskiego Wschodu – Kaukazu – Anatolii (do Europy weszli przez Bałkany). Jak widać ominęli wschód.
Koljena sprawa – R1b z kultury grobów jamowych wyglądają już autosomalnie inaczej niż ten łowca-zbieracz (mimo, że też R1b i nawet każdy z nich mógł być potomkiem tego łowcy). Doszedł bowiem autosomalny komponent, który przypomina współczesnych Ormian. W rezultacie „Jamowcy” z Samary to genetycznie mieszanka ok. 50% EHG (Wschodnich Łowców Zbieraczy) i ok. 50% „jakby Ormian” (!). Ale jakie haplogrupy przynieśli ze sobą ci „Ormianie”? Bo już o 2000 lat wcześniejsi EHG zawierali w sobie zarówno R1b jak też R1a. Więc R1b, które wykryto u 7 mężczyzn z kurhanów mogło być miejscowe (potomkowie łowców-zbieraczy), albo i nie. Natomiast z „Ormianami” mogło przybyć albo więcej R1b, albo raczej jakaś inna haplogrupa (której akurat nie wykryto u tych 7 zbadanych mężczyzn z jednego cmentarzyska kultury grobów jamowych).
Czyżby „jakby Ormianie” też mieli R1a lub R1b, tylko inne (lub nawet te same) klady ??? Czy coś innego niż R1?
Rekonstrukcja twarzy (autor: M.M. Gerasimow) tego łowcy-zbieracza z Karelii, o którym teraz wiadomo, że był R1a:
Więcej pod tym linkiem:
http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/temporary_exh…l/gerasimov/10/
QUOTE
Znaleziono tam też czaszki o cechach laponoidalnych (mówiący w jęz. uralskich, z Y-DNA hg N1c1 ?), ale były w zdecydowanej mniejszości.
Swoją drogą to według (jeszcze nieopublikowanych) wyników badań Chińczyków, R1a Tocharów z Kotliny Tarymskiej pochodziło z Europy (nie było to Z93, tylko Z282). Z komentarzy do tego artykuł (artykuł z 2010, komentarz z 2014 – napisany przez współautora artykułu):
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15
QUOTE Hui Zhou (2014-07-18 16:14) Jilin University
Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which is mainly found in Asians. mtDNA Hgs H, K, C4 primarily distributed in northern Eurasians. Though H, K, C4 also presence in modern south Asian, they immigrated into South Asian recently from nearby populations, such as Near East , East Asia and Central Asia, and the frequency is obviously lower than that of northern Eurasian. Furthermore, all of the shared sequences of the Xiaohe haplotypes H and C4 were distributed in northern Eurasians. Haplotype 223-304 in Xiaohe people was shared by Indian. However, these sequences were attributed to HgM25 in India, and in our study it was not HgM25 by scanning the mtDNA code region. Therefore, our DNA results didn’t supported Clyde Winters’s opinion but supported the “steppe hypothesis”. Moreover, the culture of Xiaohe is similar with the Afanasievo culture. Afanasievo culture was mainly distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions, and didn’t spread into India. This further maintains the “steppe hypothesis”.
In addition, our data was misunderstand by Clyde Winters. Firstly, the human remains of the Xiaohe site have no relation with the Loulan mummy. The Xiaohe site and Loulan site are two different archaeological sites with 175km distances. Xiaohe site, radiocarbon dated ranging from 4000 to 3500 years before present, was a Bronze Age site, and Loulan site, dated to about 2000 years before present. Secondly, Hgs H and K are the mtDNA haplogroups not the Y chromosome haplogroups in our study. Thirdly, the origin of Xiaohe people in here means tracing the most recently common ancestor, and Africans were remote ancestor of modern people.
Czyli indoeuropejscy Tocharowie z Xiaohe to haplogrupa R1a. Ale nie gałąź azjatycka (Z93) tylko raczej R1a, które przybyło do Chin bezpośrednio z Europy (!). Bliżej się dowiemy o co dokładnie chodzi, gdy już to opublikują.
Domen: 18/02/2015
W świetle nowych odkryć, ta mapa wydaje się dobrze przedstawiać kolebkę PIE (między Bałtykiem, Uralem i stepem pontyjsko-kaspijskim):
http://steppeasia.pagesperso-orange.fr/images/andronovo3.jpg
Szacunkowy wiek powstania i czasu życia najbliższego wspólnego przodka:
1) Dla całego Y-DNA:
http://www.yfull.com/tree/A0-T/
2) Dla kladów R1a:
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/
3) Dla kladów R1b:
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/
Robert01: 26/02/2015
<img src="http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w443/priwas/a19103cc4d67.png
https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Archaeology_of_lake_settlement_IV-II_mill._BC_Mazurkevich_A._Polkovnikova_M._Dolbunova_E._ed
Okolice Smoleńska i Pskowa, nad gorna Dźwiną całkiem niedaleko Polski, podobniez jak probki archeologicznego R1a ze środkowych Niemiec, jeszcze tysiąc lat temu ziem Słowian Połabskich. Jedna probka ma pomiędzy 6000 a 5000 lat, dwie kolejne około 4500 lat oraz jedna próbka 2600 lat. Na wschodzie dodaję probkę z pracy Haak i inni, z Kareli, datowaną na 7500 lat, a co najwazniejsze, ta linia żyje do dzisiaj na Bialorusi jest oznaczona u pana Szpakowskiego jako R1a YP1272, podobno druga osoba jest w drodze do publikacji.
Na wschodzie, mamy zatem R1a sprzed 7500 lat, 5500 lat, 4500 lat i 2600lat. Dla porównania z pracy "Haak i inni" plus Eulau z 2008 roku, środkowe Niemcy, tereny dawnych Słowian, są to: 4600 lat, 4400lat i 3100 lat.
Podsumowując.
W pseudosporcie zwanym boksem, istnieje pojęcie 'egzekucja', gdy jeden z zawodników jest bezsilny nie mogąc dosiegnąć rywala, natomiast rywal nie kończy walki trzema uderzeniami, tylko powoli i notorycznie obija twarz przeciwnikowi doprowadzając do dużego uszczerbku na zdrowiu. Patrząc na to w jaki sposób genetycy publikują dane o R1a, stwierdzam, że przeprowadzają ww.'egzekucję' na allochtonistach, zamiast szybko zakończyć ten spektakl publikacją trzech probek R1a z terenu Polski, mamy to co w zestawieniu powyżej.
PolubieniePolubienie
Czyli Pra-Słowianin, łowca z Karelii, w dzisiejszej Rosji, pogrzebany na wyspie Olenij Ostrow na jeziorze Onega… nie był R1a M420, a był R1a1 (M459)…
Masz na te dane jakieś źródła? Zamieść je tu proszę, bo to jest ogromnie ważne!
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=1722
Question about R1a1/M459*
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47575-R1a1-M459-(with-U4)-and-I2a2a-M223-(with-U5b2)-in-prehistoric-Ukraine
R1a1 M459 (with U4) and I2a2a M223 (with U5b2) in prehistoric Ukraine
Litvin 2017-02-04, 11:37 #1
Default R1a1 M459 (with U4) and I2a2a M223 (with U5b2) in prehistoric Ukraine
SNP calls:
Ukraine_HG1 (Vasilyevka, age 11143-10591 ybp) = I2a2a-M223, mtDNA U5b2
Ukraine_N1 (Vovnigi, age 6469-6293 years ago) = R1a1-M459*, mtDNA U4
Ukraine_N1 with R1a1 was part of the Dnieper-Donets culture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper%E2%80%93Donets_culture
Another I2a2a was also found much later in Catacomb culture.
Litvin 2017-02-04, 18:58 #2
Default
This is where 9 out of 13 of the oldest samples of R1a and R1b have been found:
The „core” territory of R1a and R1b people >6000 years ago:
List of nine samples from the map:
1) Karelia, ca. 8850-8000 (avg. 8425) years ago – R1a
2) Latvia, ca. 7800-7600 (avg. 7700) years ago – R1b
3) Samara, ca. 7650-7560 (avg. 7605) years ago – R1b
4) Latvia, ca. 7250-6800 (avg. 7025) years ago – R1b
5) Khvalynsk, ca. 7200-6000 (avg. 6600) years ago – R1b
6) Khvalynsk, ca. 7200-6000 (avg. 6600) years ago – R1a
7) Ukraine, ca. 6470-6290 (avg. 6380) years ago – R1a
8) Latvia, ca. 6200-5930 (avg. 6065) years ago – R1b
9) Smolensk, around 6000 (avg. 6000) years ago – R1a
Y-SNP calls from Mesolithic and Neolithic Latvia and Ukraine
Posted on February 4, 2017 by Genetiker
In the table below are links to Y-SNP calls for samples from Mesolithic and Neolithic Latvia and Ukraine.
Sample Culture Date BC Haplogroup
Latvia_HG2 Narva 5841–5636 pre-R1b1a1a1-M73
Latvia_HG3 Early Neolithic 5302–4852 pre-R1b1a1a1-M73
Latvia_MN1 Middle Neolithic 4251–3976 R1b1a1a-P297
Ukraine_HG1 Mesolithic 9193–8641 I2a2a-M223
Ukraine_N1 Dnieper-Donets 4519–4343 R1a1-M459*
PolubieniePolubienie
Tu podaje namiary na dane o Karelczyku R1a1 M459:
http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/a-story-of-69-ancient-europeans.html
A new study on the bioRxiv includes data on 69 ancient Europeans (remember when we got excited in anticipation for the single genome of the Iceman? that was only three years ago) and adds plenty of new info to chew on for those of us interested in prehistory.
Two Near Eastern migrations into Europe
In 2011, I observed that West Eurasian populations were too close (measured by Fst) to allow for long periods of differentiation between them. By implication, there must have been a „common source” of ancestry uniting them, which I placed in a „womb of nations” of the Neolithic Near East. I proposed that migrations out of this core area homogenized West Eurasians, writing:
The new paper confirms the last two of these migrations. The remainder involve parts of the world from which no ancient DNA has been studied.
The first migration (early Neolithic) is already uncontroversial, but the paper includes data from Spanish early farmers that are also Sardinian- and LBK-like. The „Sardinian” Iceman was no fluke. It is now proven that not only the LBK but also the Spanish Neolithic came from the same expansion of Mediterranean populations which survives in Sardinia. The authors write:
The second migration went into eastern Europe:
The EHG (Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers) are likely Proto-Europeoid foragers and the Yamnaya (a Bronze Age Kurgan culture) were a mixture of the EHG and something akin to Armenians.The „attraction” of later groups to the Near East is clear in the PCA: hunter-gatherers on the left side, the Near East (as grey dots) on the right side, and Neolithic/Bronze Age/modern Europeans in the middle. The second migration may very well be related to the Uruk expansion and the presence of gracile Mediterranoids and robust Proto-Europeoids in the Yamna:
The authors present a table of Fst values which confirms the homogenizing influence of migrations from the Near East. The WHG group has an Fst=0.086 with Armenians, but the LBK farmers have only 0.023. The EHG group has an Fst=0.067 with Armenians, but the Yamnaya steppe people have only 0.030. Someone might argue that it is the Armenians that are receiving genes from Europe, but the same pattern holds even for the Bedouins, for which admixture with Europeans seems far-fetched: 0.106 to 0.043 and 0.093 to 0.060. It is now clear that the „glue” that did not allow West Eurasian populations to drift very far apart were migrations from the Near East.
The (partial) demise of the farmers
It seems that the legacy of the early farmers suffered two hits, which is why only in Sardinia and (to a lesser degree) in southern Europe that they have persisted as the major component of ancestry. The first blow came during the Neolithic:
And the coup de grâce after the 5kya mark:
Confirmation of the Bronze Age Indo-European invasion of Europe
In 2012 I had used the paltry data on a handful ancient DNA samples to observe that in ADMIXTURE modern Europeans had a West Asian genetic component (peaking in „Caucasus” and „Gedrosia”) that pre-5kya Europeans didn’t. I proposed that the Bronze Age migration of the Indo-Europeans spread this component:
This prediction is now confirmed:
I was a little puzzled with the „Ancient North Eurasians” recently proposed as a „third ancestral population” for Europeans: it seemed to be a tertium quid that spread after 5kya, but very different geographically than the „West Asian” component. But:
So, it seems that there is no contradiction after all and both EHG (which is related to „Ancient North Eurasians”) and another type of Near Eastern ancestry (=West_Asian) arrived after 5kya.
1939 strikes back
It is amazing how well this was anticipated by Carleton Coon in 1939. Back then much of West Eurasia was an archaeological/anthropological terra incognita, there was no radiocarbon dating, no DNA, no computers, not even serious multivariate statistics. And yet:
And in 2015:
In 1939:
In 2015:
The EHG is still flimsy as it’s only two individuals from Karelia and Samara who are very similar to each other. It’s hard not to imagine that the hunter-gatherer from Russian Karelia (outside any proposed PIE homeland) would be speaking a similar language as his Samara counterpart. Did they both speak „element A” and was PIE formed when the „southern” steppe hunter-gatherers came into contact with „element B” people from the Caucasus? Short of a time machine, we can never say for sure. This might very well be an answer to the conundrum of Uralic/Proto-Kartvelian borrowings. There is simply no geographical locale in which these two language families neighbor each other: Northwest, Northeast Caucasian speakers and the pesky Greater Caucasus intervene. But, maybe there was no such locale, and these borrowings aren’t due to some „PIE people” living adjacent to Uralic and Proto-Karvelian speakers but the „PIE people” being a mix of an element A (EHG) that was (or interacted with) Uralic and another element B (Armenian-like) that was (or interacted with) Proto-Kartvelian.
Urheimat (or not?)
The authors of the current paper are agnostic about the PIE homeland:
Whatever the ultimate answer will be, it seems that Coon was right that „The unity of the original ” Indo- Europeans,” could not have been of long duration, if it was ever complete.” If PIE=EHG (as Anthony and Ringe suggest), then „from the crib”, PIE got half its ancestry from a non-IE, Near Eastern source. Conversely, if PIE=Near East (as I suggested) then „from the crib”, PIE got half of its ancestry from a non-IE, Eastern European source. The „Yamnaya” seems to max out in Norwegians at around half, which means that they are about a quarter Proto-Indo-European genetically, regardless of which theory is right.
These two possibilities (as well as the third one of PIE being neither-nor, but rather a linguistic mixture of the languages of the EHG and Near East) are testable. The Anthony/Ringe version of the steppe hypothesis predicts pre-Yamnaya expansions from the steppe. Whether these happened and what was their makeup can be tested: if they did occur and they did lack „Near Eastern” ancestry, then the steppe hypothesis will be proven. PIE in the Near East, on the other hand, predicts that some PIE languages (certainly the Anatolian ones) will be a „within the Near East” expansion. If such migrations did occur and they lacked „EHG” ancestry, then some variant of the Gamkrelidze/Ivanov model will be proven. Or, the truth might be that everywhere where Indo-Europeans arrive they carry a blend of „West Asian” and „EHG”, supporting the third possibility. Time will tell.
In the interim, I am curious about how much Yamnaya ancestry existed in different parts of Europe (all of the post-5kya samples in this study come from Germany, with a couple from Hungary). In northern Europe, all populations seem to have less Yamnaya ancestry than the Corded Ware: there it must have declined. But, modern Hungarians have more than Bronze Age Hungarians: there it must have increased.
Germany and a slice of Hungary is a very narrow window through which to see the whole of Europe and these results must be tested by looking at samples from beyond the „heartland”. I do hope that some kind of Moore’s law operates in the world of ancient DNA, and in three more years we’ll be reading studies about thousands of ancient individuals.
bioRxiv doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/013433
Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
Wolfgang Haak , Iosif Lazaridis , Nick Patterson , Nadin Rohland , Swapan Mallick , Bastien Llamas , GuidoBrandt , Susanne Nordenfelt , Eadaoin Harney , Kristin Stewardson , Qiaomei Fu , Alissa Mittnik , Eszter Banffy ,Christos Economou , Michael Francken , Susanne Friederich , Rafael Garrido Pena , Fredrik Hallgren , ValeryKhartanovich , Aleksandr Khokhlov , Michael Kunst , Pavel Kuznetsov , Harald Meller , Oleg Mochalov ,Vayacheslav Moiseyev , Nicole Nicklisch , Sandra L. Pichler , Roberto Risch , Manuel A. Rojo Guerra , ChristinaRoth , Anna Szecsenyi-Nagy , Joachim Wahl , Matthias Meyer , Johannes Krause , Dorcas Brown , DavidAnthony , Alan Cooper , Kurt Werner Alt , David Reich
We generated genome-wide data from 69 Europeans who lived between 8,000-3,000 years ago by enriching ancient DNA libraries for a target set of almost four hundred thousand polymorphisms. Enrichment of these positions decreases the sequencing required for genome-wide ancient DNA analysis by a median of around 250-fold, allowing us to study an order of magnitude more individuals than previous studies and to obtain new insights about the past. We show that the populations of western and far eastern Europe followed opposite trajectories between 8,000-5,000 years ago. At the beginning of the Neolithic period in Europe, ~8,000-7,000 years ago, closely related groups of early farmers appeared in Germany, Hungary, and Spain, different from indigenous hunter-gatherers, whereas Russia was inhabited by a distinctive population of hunter-gatherers with high affinity to a ~24,000 year old Siberian6. By ~6,000-5,000 years ago, a resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry had occurred throughout much of Europe, but in Russia, the Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding eastern European hunter-gatherers, but from a population of Near Eastern ancestry. Western and Eastern Europe came into contact ~4,500 years ago, as the Late Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced ~3/4 of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery. This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least ~3,000 years ago, and is ubiquitous in present-day Europeans. These results provide support for the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe.
Link
PolubieniePolubienie
Oryginał:
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433
Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
Wolfgang Haak, Iosif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Bastien Llamas, Guido Brandt, Susanne Nordenfelt, Eadaoin Harney, Kristin Stewardson, Qiaomei Fu, Alissa Mittnik, Eszter Bánffy, Christos Economou, Michael Francken, Susanne Friederich, Rafael Garrido Pena, Fredrik Hallgren, Valery Khartanovich, Aleksandr Khokhlov, Michael Kunst, Pavel Kuznetsov, Harald Meller, Oleg Mochalov, Vayacheslav Moiseyev, Nicole Nicklisch, Sandra L. Pichler, Roberto Risch, Manuel A. Rojo Guerra, Christina Roth, Anna Szécsényi-Nagy, Joachim Wahl, Matthias Meyer, Johannes Krause, Dorcas Brown, David Anthony, Alan Cooper, Kurt Werner Alt, David Reich
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/013433
Now published in Nature doi: 10.1038/nature14317
Abstract
We generated genome-wide data from 69 Europeans who lived between 8,000-3,000 years ago by enriching ancient DNA libraries for a target set of almost four hundred thousand polymorphisms. Enrichment of these positions decreases the sequencing required for genome-wide ancient DNA analysis by a median of around 250-fold, allowing us to study an order of magnitude more individuals than previous studies and to obtain new insights about the past. We show that the populations of western and far eastern Europe followed opposite trajectories between 8,000-5,000 years ago. At the beginning of the Neolithic period in Europe, ~8,000-7,000 years ago, closely related groups of early farmers appeared in Germany, Hungary, and Spain, different from indigenous hunter-gatherers, whereas Russia was inhabited by a distinctive population of hunter-gatherers with high affinity to a ~24,000 year old Siberian6. By ~6,000-5,000 years ago, a resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry had occurred throughout much of Europe, but in Russia, the Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding eastern European hunter-gatherers, but from a population of Near Eastern ancestry. Western and Eastern Europe came into contact ~4,500 years ago, as the Late Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced ~3/4 of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery. This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least ~3,000 years ago, and is ubiquitous in present-day Europeans. These results provide support for the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe.
…..
UWAGA!!!
Uważam, że Haak KŁAMIE, bo Karelczyk był Przodkiem dla rzekomo „pra-indo-europejskiego” Yamnaya… więc był PPIE!!!
Uważam, że on, jak i „łowcy ruskich trolli” zwyczajnie próbują UKRYĆ PRAWDĘ O PRA-SŁOWIANACH I ICH JĘZYKU I DZIEDZICTWIE!!! 😦
PolubieniePolubienie
A przy okazji to wspiera mój pomysł, że tzw. skałkazki podkład językowy, rzekomo odnajdywany w tzw. języku PIE, czyli Pra-Słowiańskim (PS), patrz Bomhard, to jest w rzeczywistości skutek jedynie zapożyczeń Od-Pra-Słowiańskich, patrz KoL”o, Ko”L”+Ko -> K/GiL+K/GaL… Skałkaz i na jego południe…
Rzekomy podkład ugro-fiński właśnie utłukłem, a z nim i Jaskę i Kroonena, i resztę za nimi, bo mało było tego N1 np. 8000-3000 lat temu w Europie, nieprawdaż… 🙂
Pomyślcie:
Łowcy EHG R1a M459, np. za zwierzyną ze wschodu i północy dotarli na granicy laso-stpepu nad Jezioro Czarne, gdzie zmieszali się z (R1b, I1/2..?) Na stepie zmutowali np. w M420 i udomowili konia, wynaleźli koło, wóz, itd.. Dalej już zmieszani i zmutowani dotarli nawet dalej na Skałkaz (R1b, G, H, J, I..?)…zabrali sobie stamtąd „armeńskie” żony ANE?, z nimi zmajstrowali R1a Z93, które poszło na wschód z R1b nad Załtaj Afanasiewo,.. a na zachodzie i północy powrócili do swoich Dziadów Łowców LICZNIE I Z LICZNYMI nowymi wynalazkami…
Pytanie o zaczęcie hodowli, osiadły tryb życia, i sery… z Kujaw pozostawiam otwarte… 🙂
PolubieniePolubienie
Wiem, że to dla wielu wolnych umysłów straszne i straszliwie niezrozumiałe, ale lepiej zapoznać się z tymi danymi, jak i z komentarzami napisanymi tam, zwłaszcza te od Goga, który twierdzi, podobnie do mnie, że BYŁY DWIE FALE OSIEDLEŃCZE ZE „STEPU” (wg mnie z laso-stepu!).
Pierwsza „Karelczycy” z ich starym R1a (tym, czy tamtym), a potem druga, czyli już potomkowie ich ale zmieszani z „armeńskimi kobietami”, którzy przynieśli ze sobą hodowlę np. koni, i uprawę ziemi!!!
Zmieszali się na stepie nadczarnomorskim, rozmnożyli, bo mieli „nadwyżkę żywności”, bo nie musieli TYLKO POLOWAĆ… i „zalali” ziemie swoich „karelskich” Przodków… To wyjaśnia też BRAK PODKŁADU JĘZYKOWEGO W JĘZYKU SŁOWIAŃSKIM I ZAPOŻYCZENIA OD PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKIE (GiL+GaL / Ko”L”+Ko) W J. KARTWELSKICH I SEMICKICH!!!
„Karelczycy” wędrowali przez pustkę, pozostali w pustce, a potem tylko zalała ich ludność pochodna od R1a M417, ale nie R1b, bo ci „wyszli” ze stepu „tzw. droga południową R1b”, przez Skałkaz, Anatolię, Egipt, itd. Kamerun jest chyba znacznie starszy, więc byłaby to wcześniejsza fala R1b, patrz także Villbruna!!!
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-32990.html
New map of Yamna admixture (Eurogenes Steppe K10)
Maciamo 18-10-16, 15:58
I finally found some time to make the map of Yamna admixture using the data from Eurogenes Steppe K10. There was no data for some countries, so I had to guess based on neighbouring countries or isolated samples reported on forums. That is the case for Portugal, Ireland, Wales, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia and Azerbaijan.
I would especially need regional samples from all over Iberia. There are huge variations from nearly 0% of Yamna among some Basques to 16% in some Spaniards (but their region of origin is unknown). The Eurogenes data just shows a lower percentage in northern Spain, but that is not very helpful as Galicia, Cantabria and Catalonia probably have very different levels.
Regional data from Britain, France and Germany are also welcome.
Even though Yamna chieftains from kurgan belonged almost exclusively to R1b, among modern Europeans it is the Uralic, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic and North Caucasian people who inherited the highest share of Yamna ancestry, not Western Europeans, who now have the highest percentage of haplogroup R1b. One of the reasons for this is that R1b arrived in Western Europe after over a thousand years of genetic dilution through intermarriages with Balkanic and Central European people. In contrast, in the eastern half of Europe, R1b lost its position of dominance and was replaced by R1a and N1c lineages, starting from the Catacomb culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and continuing until the Middle Ages. Nevertheless Yamna ancestry was passed maternally in the Steppe and in neighbouring populations, which explains the high Yamna admixture from the Baltic to the North Caucasus.
Maciamo19-10-16, 08:55
I disagree, imo it makes more sense that Basques got their ~80+ of R1b from 25% of their ancestry than just 0-5% of it. So much founder effect is just ridiculous. Not even in India is the aDNA of the R1a bearers so low.
No it doesn’t make sense because the Basque R1b-M153 is only 2800 years old and has a TMRCA of 2500 years. Most Basques belong to the subclade just under that, with a TMRCA of 2100 years. This means that the Basque R1b is a very recent phenomenon starting in Roman times. But who knows, R1b might have continued to expand little by little each generations among the Basques for over 1000 years before reaching today’s frequencies. I now believe that the Basque only got their R1b very gradually over the last 2500 years and that it has nothing to do with Bronze Age PIE invasions. That has the benefit to explain why they kept speaking Basque. I don’t know why R1b increased gradually. Maybe increased fertility compared to the native male lineages (I2-M26 + G2a ?), or a noble lineage of some sort. It was probably a combination of factors. Anywau, if R1b entered the Basque gene pool from, say, neighbouring Aquitaine or Castille c. 500 BCE or even 100 BCE, it could have been autosomally low in Yamna ancestry (say 15-20%). After diluting it slowly over 1000 to 2000 more years with relatively pure Basque women, there would be very little Yamna left, surely under 5%. If Haak et al. are right and the Basque have 27% of Yamna, then it becomes much harder to explain with such a young TMRCA for their R1b, especially that Haak found 5% less Yamna among other Spaniards (22%). Spanish branches of DF27 are between 3500 and 4400 years old, so Late Bronze Age, and match the arrival of foreign Bronze Age cultures like El Argar. So there is no doubt that R1b was in many parts of Spain long before it spread among the Basques.
It’s good that you mention India. Indian Brahmins have at most 15-20% of Steppe DNA. In fact, since they descend from Sintashta rather than Yamna, their Steppe DNA should be higher in EHG than CHG. Using Dodecad K12, they have about 18% of East European + West European + Mediterranean, but the latter also includes non-IE Neolithic ancestry. Using K12b, they have only 5% of Atlantic_Med + North European, but that doesn’t include the Gedrosian that came with the IE. So depending on the calculator, we get somewhere between 7 and 18% of Steppe admixture. Unfortunately neither the Haak paper nor the Steppe K10 data have any Indian sample. But the Indo-Aryans invaded India from 1800 BCE, almost exactly at the same time as IE invaded Iberia with El Argar. And we get a similar percentage of Steppe admixture (10-20%) both in Spaniards and upper-caste Indians. But it took another 1500 years before R1b-M153 started spreading among the Basques, so a considerably lower Steppe admixture is to be expected.
MarkoZ 19-10-16, 10:42
People with Baltic Hunter Gatherer genomes said they’re WHG. Before that I thought they’d be EHG admixed as well. The error lies in assuming that the Baltic populations are the result of a simple coalescence of Neolithic Corded Ware and Mesolithic elements. We already know that North-Eastern Europe received substantial input from further east by way of Russia, since N1c is the dominant paternal marker in all North-Eastern populations barring Belarusians. The preponderance of this marker transcends linguistic and national affiliation.
Olympus Mons
19-10-16, 11:53
Finally! 🙂 I’ve been saying this since Haak et al came out, but so far no one has seen that possibility. I said then that maybe the title of the paper „Massive Migration from the steppe”, was incorrect.
If there was a large reservoir of SHG (which was an admixture, supposedly, of WHG and the EHG) in the north, or maybe other groups we haven’t yet sampled, or EHG further west elsewhere, wouldn’t that inflate the „Yamnaya” percentages beyond what actual Yamnaya people brought who moved there?
YES. What I don’t get it is why every time I raise those options I get immediately eviscerated by ten guys (especially at eurogenes!).
Maybe you Angela can enlighten me a little bit.
If Karelia was EHG (and already R1a). If there is SHG which is a mix of EHG and WHG, if apparently there is even EHG and SHG in the Balkans 7000bc… why in hell people insistently talk about a bunch of guys that show up near the freaking urals, as a uber event in Europes ancestry?
Also how do we know that CWC = massive Yamnya migration (sort of) if the region where they thrived might have been loaded up with EHG and even guys that were R1a?
Tomenable 19-10-16, 14:04
so how do we know that CWC = massive Yamnya migration (sort of) if the region where they thrived might have been loaded up with EHG and even guys that were R1a?
Kunda and Narva cultures = no any R1a and no any EHG, 100% WHG and their Y-DNA was haplogroup I. Today areas formerly occupied by Kunda and Narva cultures are dominated by R1a and N1c haplogroups.
Goga 19-10-16, 18:48
But the map I made was only for the ‚Steppe’ component, Then you should rename it into the ‚map of Steppe admixture’. Since it doesn’t correspondent well with the ‚Yamnaya admixture’. At this moment your map is MISLEADING and full of contradictions. Like now according to your map there is more Yamnaya admixture in Finno-Ugric/Saami people than European Indo-Europeans. Like you said Yamnaya Admixture is more than Steppe Admixture.
Steppe admixture in NorthEastern Europe existed even before the arrival of late second stage Yamnaya PIE. So, a lot Steppe ancestry in NorthEastern Europe has nothing to do with second stage Proto-Indo-European speakers from Yamnaya.
Yamnaya = Steppe + NorthWest Asia.
So, you should rename your map into ‚map of Steppe admixture’ or change your percentages about the Yamnaya ancestry.
Goga19-10-16, 19:04
I knew N1c couldn’t be a Baltic hunter gatherer. N1c, Siberian admixture, and Uralic languages in Northeast Europe all probably have the same post-CWC source. Then again its arrival might be different for different regions.I started to think that to, before I realized that this map is WRONG on many levels. After seeing his map I started to believe that Saami have more Corded Ware admixture than Norwegians, lol. But I was mislead by a wrong map. It was stupid of me, not to make additional examination of data.
So, hold on a minute. The map of Maciamo doesn’t hold any ground and is at least misleading. I don’t think Maciamo tried to mislead us on purpose. He is still making mistakes by using sources from people with hidden twisted agenda.
His map is not about Yamnaya but the Steppes. And there IS a correlation between the Steppes admixture AND Y-DNA hg. like N1c1 & Q.
Goga19-10-16, 19:14
Absolutely crazy, no way to deal with it, if I have understood well Gedrosia was the actual Chalco_Iran component… but it is near to absent in the steppe.
Very simple. Modern European Steppe folks (like Russians) have NOTHING to do with the ancient Iranic Central Asian Steppe folks. Only the ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks were full of Gedrosia. While modern Eastern Europeans don’t have that admixture, sicne Eastern Europeans have nothing in common with the ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks. The only common thing between ancient Indo-Iranized tribes and modern day Eastern Europeans is the Steppes admixture.
Those ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks are now Turkified and speak Turkic language as their native language and do consider themselves as Turks/Tatars.
With other words. Eastern Europeans (Balto-Slavs) are NOT directly related to Indo-Iranized cultures in the Steppes. And those ancient Indo-Iranized folks of the Steppes are now native Turkic/Tatar people of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan.
Those Shintashta/Androno Steppes folks who were once Indo-IRANIZED by people (Aryans) from the Iranian Plateau were later Turkified and those Indo-Iranized Steppe cultures became Tatars/Turks.
Kristiina20-10-16, 14:53
Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE Jaakko Häkkinen who has given the most recent dating for different protolanguage levels based on linguistic criteria does not propose that Proto-Uralic is dated 2000 BCE.
In his model pre-Proto-Uralic and Proto-Uralic is dated between 3500 and 2800. The late Proto-Uralic is dated 2300 BC. However, the early history is quite blurred and the time margins are wide, but, by 2000 BC, Proto-Uralic had probably already disintegrated.
PolubieniePolubienie
http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-8-15
Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age
Chunxiang Li, Hongjie Li, Yinqiu Cui, Chengzhi Xie, Dawei Cai, Wenying Li, Victor H Mair, Zhi Xu, Quanchao Zhang, Idelisi Abuduresule, Li Jin, Hong Zhu and Hui ZhouEmail author
BMC Biology20108:15
DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-8-15
© Li et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 21 September 2009
Accepted: 17 February 2010
Published: 17 February 2010
Abstract
Background
The Tarim Basin, located on the ancient Silk Road, played a very important role in the history of human migration and cultural communications between the West and the East. However, both the exact period at which the relevant events occurred and the origins of the people in the area remain very obscure. In this paper, we present data from the analyses of both Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) derived from human remains excavated from the Xiaohe cemetery, the oldest archeological site with human remains discovered in the Tarim Basin thus far.
Results
Mitochondrial DNA analysis showed that the Xiaohe people carried both the East Eurasian haplogroup (C) and the West Eurasian haplogroups (H and K), whereas Y chromosomal DNA analysis revealed only the West Eurasian haplogroup R1a1a in the male individuals.
Conclusion
Our results demonstrated that the Xiaohe people were an admixture from populations originating from both the West and the East, implying that the Tarim Basin had been occupied by an admixed population since the early Bronze Age. To our knowledge, this is the earliest genetic evidence of an admixed population settled in the Tarim Basin. (…)
Sample
MtDNA-HVRI
MtDNA
Y chromosome
Sexing
Independent
No.
haplotype
haplogroup
haplogroup
Morphological
Molecular
repetition
100
298-327
C4
Female
Female
√
102
298-327
C4
Female
–
106
298-327
C4
R1a1a
Male
Male
107
223-298-309-327
C4
Female
–
109
298-327
C4
Female
–
110
298-327
C4
Female
–
111
223-298-309-327
C4
R1a1a
Male
Male
115
298-327
C4
R1a1a
Male
Male
117
223-304
M*
Female
Female
119
93-134-224-311-390
K
Female
Female
√
120
189-192-311
R*
R1a1a
Male
Male
121
183-189-192-311
R*
R1a1a
Male
Male
127
223-298-309-327
C4
Female
Female
√
128
260
H
Female
Female
131
189-192-311-390
R*
Female
Female
132
298-327
C4
Female
Female
135
223-298-309-327
C4
Female
Female
136
298-327
C4
R1a1a
Male
Male
138
298-327
C4
–
Female
–
139
298-327
C4
R1a1a
Male
Male
PolubieniePolubienie
UWAGA!!! Być może R1b na terenie Polski może być powiązane z Sarmatami!!!
Domen 7/04/2017, 15:10
Co do R1b to np. mój subklad L617 jest stosunkowo częsty na Wyspach Brytyjskich i w Iberii, oraz w Polsce i na Litwie. Natomiast praktycznie wcale nie występuje on w Niemczech, we Francji, ani w Skandynawii. Zrobiłem mapę miejsc urodzenia najstarszych znanych przodków wszystkich nosicieli mojego subkladu jakich znalazłem.
Na temat specyficznie polskich subkladów R1b pisałem tutaj:
http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=144062&st=465&p=1600506&#entry1600506
Natomiast wschodnioeuropejski jest m.in. subklad R1b-Z2103>Y5587 „Eastern European Type”.
Jest też subklad łączony ostatnio z Sarmatami (ponieważ znaleziono go w kopalnym DNA Sarmatów).
Obecnie sarmacki subklad R1b występuje w Polsce (np. znam gościa z Górnego Śląska, rdzennego „lokalsa”, który jest nosicielem właśnie tego sarmackiego subkladu – niedawno opublikowano DNA Sarmatów z epoki żelaza w pracy Unterlander 2017 i jeden należał do tego subkladu R1b):
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml
R1b-Y21707 – http://i.imgur.com/0fc3h1L.png
Ten post był edytowany przez Domen: 7/04/2017, 16:03
PolubieniePolubienie
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33700-More-Neolithic-Y-DNA-and-mtDNA-from-Hungary-Germany-and-Spain-(Lipson-et-al-2017)/page3
Powtarzam, Pra-Słowianie to potomkowie łowców mamutów i są potomkami Karelczyka…
PolubieniePolubienie