The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early Europea

[Brennos]

Actually, South and West Baltic saw the presence of EEF, but not the East side where Latvia is.

You are right... but the most shocking thing, for me, is that M269 of those two Latvian foragers. Are we really sure about that?

 

[LeBrok]

You are right... but the most shocking thing, for me, is that M269 of those two Latvian foragers. Are we really sure about that?

Before arrival of M269 we had R1a h-gs there, more of WHG type. It seems that R1b M269 EHG moved from East pushing R1a out. It was just before CW herders showed up. So perhaps M269 was pushed into Latvia by wave of farmers from Yamnaya. The pressure of population expansion pushed M269 EHGs into Latvia, which in turn pushed R1a farther North (a guess).
We need samples from West Yamnaya and North Yamnaya to understand their mix of population much better. It is a big cultural area, we can expect dramatic genetic differences within.

 

[arvistro]

Before arrival of M269 we had R1a h-gs there, more of WHG type. It seems that R1b M269 EHG moved from East pushing R1a out. It was just before CW herders showed up. So perhaps M269 was pushed into Latvia by wave of farmers from Yamnaya. The pressure of population expansion pushed M269 EHGs into Latvia, which in turn pushed R1a farther North (a guess).
We need samples from West Yamnaya and North Yamnaya to understand their mix of population much better. It is a big cultural area, we can expect dramatic genetic differences within.

R1a in Latvia? Only came with CW.

 

[Brennos]

Before arrival of M269 we had R1a h-gs there, more of WHG type. It seems that R1b M269 EHG moved from East pushing R1a out. It was just before CW herders showed up. So perhaps M269 was pushed into Latvia by wave of farmers from Yamnaya. The pressure of population expansion pushed M269 EHGs into Latvia, which in turn pushed R1a farther North (a guess).
We need samples from West Yamnaya and North Yamnaya to understand their mix of population much better. It is a big cultural area, we can expect dramatic genetic differences within.

I see that there was R1a in Baltic area before Corded Ware as per the last paper about ancient Estonian results (and the authors, if I remember correctly, stated that R1 subclades were already present together in the area before Corded Ware expansion). But now, I'm not that sure that R-M269 was an EHG lineage. Probably, it was WHG in the direction of EHG. I remember to have read by Chad Rohlfsen months ago that another paper about Ukrainian neolithic is yet to come... and it will contain - as Chad said - many R-M269 and R-L23 samples. Still waiting for that paper....

 

[LeBrok]

I see that there was R1a in Baltic area before Corded Ware as per the last paper about ancient Estonian results (and the authors, if I remember correctly, stated that R1 subclades were already present together in the area before Corded Ware expansion). But now, I'm not that sure that R-M269 was an EHG lineage. Probably, it was WHG in the direction of EHG. I remember to have read by Chad Rohlfsen months ago that another paper about Ukrainian neolithic is yet to come... and it will contain - as Chad said - many R-M269 and R-L23 samples. Still waiting for that paper....

So far all the clades seems to be mixed up around big territory of Yamnaya. Surely we need more samples to figure out who came from what place in Yamnaya. Maybe there was a strong bottleneck effect during CW period or even later giving a springboard to just few lucky clades?

 

[bicicleur 2]

I see that there was R1a in Baltic area before Corded Ware as per the last paper about ancient Estonian results (and the authors, if I remember correctly, stated that R1 subclades were already present together in the area before Corded Ware expansion). But now, I'm not that sure that R-M269 was an EHG lineage. Probably, it was WHG in the direction of EHG. I remember to have read by Chad Rohlfsen months ago that another paper about Ukrainian neolithic is yet to come... and it will contain - as Chad said - many R-M269 and R-L23 samples. Still waiting for that paper....

In western Europe haplo I was replaced by the Villabrunan I2 clade around 14 ka.
Something similar happened between 6.7 and 5 ka in eastern Europe, where R1b-P297 and R1a1 were replaced by R1b-M473, R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 + maybe some I2a2 clades in western Ukraine.

 

[MOESAN]

In western Europe haplo I was replaced by the Villabrunan I2 clade around 14 ka.
Something similar happened between 6.7 and 5 ka in eastern Europe, where R1b-P297 and R1a1 were replaced by R1b-M473, R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 + maybe some I2a2 clades in western Ukraine.

Can we everytime say that an upstream SNP is "replaced" by a downstream one of same haplo? with the meaning of a completely new pop? only a big sample for every period can tell us who are the descendants stayed around and who are the ones came from far so having developped different story and auDNA, I think - Just to split hairs.

 

[Apsurdistan]

Wait so if same R1b is found in Europe from mesolithic period found in west europe today that means what I've been reading so far from a lot of posters on here was pretty much crap. The romanticized R1s arrived in Europe in the bronze age and conquered and killed half the male population and raped half of the female population?

 

[Alan]

Something appears to be amiss in Genetiker's analysis here. The tell-tale sign is that the Caucasus 'pine green' component is completely absent in modern Europeans like Lithuanians. Not sure what he did to have them turn out like this.

His 'mid blue' component seems to be a synthesis of Caucasus & Eurohunter. I've never seen this happen.

I have tried to tell him this several times on this board already. But it kinda appears like he is ignoring it and keeps posting Genetikers admixture analysis which are allot of times bogus. With all due respect to bicicleur and his opinion (Most of his theories make allot of sense) but in this case I simply don't understand why he keeps staying on a obviously flawed admixture algorythm of Genetiker. In Genetikers admixture runs "Near Eastern/West Asian" components always come short, because he doeasn't use ancient samples and in case of a doubt (shared ancestry) He always favors European over West Asian which makes historically little sense in most cases.

 

[Alan]

by pine green,do you mean teal or something else?
this is K = 13 from Genetiker
before I studied K = 14 which he published last summer
in K = 14 the distinction between WHG and EHG is clearer

Genetikers "teal" component is based on modern populations of the Caucasus. It does compose of CHG/Iran_Neo as well Anatolian_Neo and Levant_Neo. It lacks some of the CHG ancestry that is nowadays typical for East Europeans and therefore gets eaten up in the "East European" components in his admixture runs. This is why Latvians show very little to non CHG despite actually having at least around 20% CHG.
This is because his admixture runs always prefer European over West Asian when it comes to shared ancestry while at least in CHG point of case the opposite makes archeologically and historically more sense. And also the peer reviewed papers see it that way. This is why I am saying Genetikers admixture runs are extremely flawed.