Yamna and Corded Ware

I hear some interesting things from the recent ASHG conference, mostly from Razib Khan. It seems that the dead have spoken again: it turns out that the genetic transition in northern Europe  coincides with the advent of the Corded Ware/Battleaxe culture – and the Corded Ware folks were invaders from the Yamna culture. If I got this straight, Germans today are about 70% Yamna. And if that’s so, I’ll bet that they were even more Yamna in, say, 2800 BC.  I think the previous EEF inhabitants fared poorly. It may be that  the people of Old Europe left scarcely a trace of their blood in the veins of their conquerors – in the north. Corded_Ware_culture

The Yamna, were themselves a fusion of peoples – part eastern hunter-gatherers (with a large fraction of ancient Siberian) and part a more Middle Eastern-ish farming population, similar to Armenians.

1174px-Yamna-en.svg

Which fits those old notions about the Indo-Europeans starting out as a group of warriors and magician/priests who conquered and assimilated a race of farmers… the Aesir-Vanir war, the sobbin’ women,  etc.  J. P Mallory says “the three estates of of Proto-Indo-European society were fused only after a war between the first two against the third.”  This implies that the Sibermen were on top: which also fits the big expansion of R1B and R1A, both of which turn out to be about 5,000 years old.

Like I said in Silver Blaze, they’re working out the origin and scope of the Indo-European expansion.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in European Prehistory, Genetics, Genghis -Khan effect, Indo-European. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Yamna and Corded Ware

  1. pyrrhus99 says:

    So R1b1 traces back to the Sibermen, fascinating!

  2. eurogenes says:

    Corded Ware folk from late Neolithic Germany are estimated by Lazaridis et al. to be 73% Yamnaya, not modern Germans.

    The most Yamnaya-like are Eastern Europeans, which makes sense. Although no estimates have been given yet, as far as I know.

  3. Fenris says:

    Its amazing to me that Carleton Coon had this nailed in 1939 and the subsequent post war years of anthropology seemed to only regress our understanding of the world until genomics blew the lid off the “pots not people” paradigm, I remember reading about the battle axe invasion as naive 14 year old interested in anthropology and then being told when I went to university that coon was utterly debunked a racist know nothing.

    Realizing we are the product of repeated population replacements seems antithetical to the unique white guilt philosophy that saturates modern liberalism, how long can the edifice of that belief sustain the shocks of genomic truth.

    • JayMan says:

      @Fenris:

      “Realizing we are the product of repeated population replacements seems antithetical to the unique white guilt philosophy that saturates modern liberalism, how long can the edifice of that belief sustain the shocks of genomic truth.”

      It is “problematic” isn’t it? Especially when they start invoking Native Americans…

  4. Samuel Ohanian says:

    So they were half Armenian? Attack of the steppe Kardashians?

  5. jamesd127 says:

    So, the Aesir would be hunter herders related to the American Indian – in other words, would look somewhat east asian, and the Vanir descended from middle easterners,. After long and inconclusive war, exchange of hostages and members of the elite, leading to fusion.

    Which raises the interesting question. Just how white did whites look five thousand years ago? Neither group sounds very white looking.

    Both lines were evolving lighter coloration by different genes, in an environment that favored lighter skins (cold weather and clothing, no seafood) So, after mingling, both sets of light color genes would run to near fixation – after a few generations, their descendents would all have the skin lightening genes of the Aesir, and all the skin lightening genes of the Vanir, hence would be substantially lighter in color than either parent group.

    Now having the advantage of lighter skins and the ability to digest milk, proceed to genocidally conquer much of the world.

    • Matt says:

      the Aesir would be hunter herders related to the American Indian – in other words, would look somewhat east asian

      They probably wouldn’t have looked very East Asian if at all.

      Under this theory, where ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) is involved, and the early Yamnaya people were hybrids of herds and Armenian like farmers, the herders’ ancestry would’ve involved ANE, but Native Americans are only arond 50% ANE. And the majority would’ve the same as a substantial chunk of ancestry among Early European Farmers, WHG (West Eurasian Hunter Gatherer). And EEF ancestry and WHG are closer together than WHG-ANE (as EEF is a fusion of mainly WHG like ancestry with something more different).

      We can’t know how they looked, but probably no East Asian similarity.

      Also, the main European 3 target skin depigmentation genes are already present in Copper Age farmers in Hungary. The Yamnaya could’ve brought in something, but not SLC24A5, SLC45A2, TYRP1, which are pretty much the four major locii involved in skin pigment changes between Europeans and Africans (the other SNPs are of smaller effect), or OCA2 variants associated with lighter skin and eyes, which are at least already present in the farmers from mixture with WHG.

      Re: the Yamnaya originating in a conquering event by herder-hunters of farmers – could be. I wonder how many members of a warrior class would be honest about their ancestors’ farming background though. Wouldn’t they prefer them to have always been warriors of a sort, with a glorious warrior origin story? Of course, either way, steppe male lineages eventually came to predominate among these people.

  6. Paul Conroy says:

    When I compare my DNA on GedMatch against the ancient LBK individual, I find that I share many small segments with him, and even one larger one – 11cM, 858 SNP’s, Chr #1- enough to classify him as a potential 4th-10th cousin…

    Maybe the LBK folk weren’t completely wiped out, but made it by boat to Ireland?!

    • dearieme says:

      They probably sailed on stones, Paul.

    • Helgenes says:

      These segments, shared with Stuttgart, are shared by a lot of us. These segments maybe are of HG origin. Stuttgart was mixed.

      • Paul Conroy says:

        Helgenes,

        It’s possible that I share only the Hunter-Gatherer segments with LBK/Stuttgart, but here’s the thing. A Dutch guy on another blog stated that at 1cM and 100 SNP’s, he shared about 50 segments with this ancient sample, whereas I share about 500, or 10 times as much.

        Here is a list of Ancient samples to compare against:
        http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html

        I compared myself to all Ancients as follows:
        Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 100 SNPs
        Mismatch-bunching Limit = 50 SNPs
        Minimum segment cM to be included in total = 1.0 cM

        Here are my results:
        1. Comparing Kit M011125 (Paul Conroy) and F999902 (Altai Neanderthal)
        Largest segment = 1.4 cM
        Total of segments > 1 cM = 2.4 cM

        1. Comparing Kit M011125 (Paul Conroy) and F999903 (Denisova)
          Largest segment = 0.0 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 0.0 cM
          (1813) No shared DNA segments found
        2. Comparing Kit M011125 (Paul Conroy) and F999906 (Palaeo-Eskimo 2000 BC)
          Largest segment = 2.3 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 64.5 cM

        3. Comparing Kit M011125 (Paul Conroy) and F999919 (Clovis Anzick-1)
          Largest segment = 3.7 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 555.0 cM

        4. Comparing Kit M011125 (Paul Conroy) and F999914 (Malta MA-1)
          Largest segment = 2.6 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 80.6 cM

        5. Comparing Kit M011125 (Paul Conroy) and F999915 (La Brana-Arintero)
          Largest segment = 4.4 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 135.0 cM

        6. Comparing Kit M011125 (Paul Conroy) and F999917 (Motala-12)
          Largest segment = 3.7 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 216.8 cM

        7. Comparing Kit M011125 (Paul Conroy) and F999916 (Linearbandkeramik)
          Largest segment = 11.0 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 1099.4 cM

        8. Comparing Kit M011125 (Paul Conroy) and F999918 (Loschbour)
          Largest segment = 4.4 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 924.6 cM

        9. Comparing Kit M011125 (Paul Conroy) and F999924 (Ajvide58)
          Largest segment = 1.9 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 27.9 cM

        So I’m Irish and share the most DNA with the following:
        1. Linearbandkeramik – 1099.4 cM
        2. Loschbour – 924.6 cM
        3. Clovis Anzick-1 – 555.0 cM
        4. Motala-12 – 216.8 cM
        5. La Brana-Arintero – 135.0 cM
        6. Malta MA-1 – 80.6 cM
        7. Ajvide58 – 27.9 cM
        8. Altai Neanderthal – 2.4 cM
        9. Denisova – 0 cM

        • Paul Conroy says:

          Oops, a mistake there:
          7. Palaeo-Eskimo 2000 BC – 64.5 cM
          8. Ajvide58 – 27.9 cM
          9. Altai Neanderthal – 2.4 cM
          10. Denisova – 0 cM

        • Paul Conroy says:

          BTW, you could argue that my LBK matching comes from Loschbour, but when I compare Loschbour to LBK and some other top matches, I get the following:

          1. Comparing Kit F999918 (Loschbour) and F999916 (Linearbandkeramik)
            Largest segment = 5.3 cM
            Total of segments > 1 cM = 770.6 cM
          2. Comparing Kit F999918 (Loschbour) and F999919 (Clovis Anzick-1)
            Largest segment = 4.4 cM
            Total of segments > 1 cM = 441.9 cM

          3. Comparing Kit F999918 (Loschbour) and F999917 (Motala-12)
            Largest segment = 3.3 cM
            Total of segments > 1 cM = 398.4 cM

          4. Comparing Kit F999918 (Loschbour) and F999915 (La Brana-Arintero)
            Largest segment = 3.8 cM
            Total of segments > 1 cM = 496.4 cM

          5. Comparing Kit F999918 (Loschbour) and F999914 (Malta MA-1)
            Largest segment = 2.9 cM
            Total of segments > 1 cM = 94.5 cM

          6. Comparing Kit F999918 (Loschbour) and F999906 (Palaeo-Eskimo 2000 BC)
            Largest segment = 3.0 cM
            Total of segments > 1 cM = 70.8 cM

          7. Comparing Kit F999918 (Loschbour) and F999924 (Ajvide58)
            Largest segment = 2.7 cM
            Total of segments > 1 cM = 78.8 cM

          8. Comparing Kit F999918 (Loschbour) and F999902 (Altai Neanderthal)
            Largest segment = 1.7 cM
            Total of segments > 1 cM = 12.0 cM

          9. Comparing Kit F999918 (Loschbour) and F999903 (Denisova)
            Largest segment = 1.2 cM
            Total of segments > 1 cM = 2.3 cM

          So the results for Loschbour are almost in direct concordance with my result order, but I share MORE ancestry with the following, in order:
          1. Linearbandkeramik
          2. Clovis Anzick-1

          While he shares MORE ancestry with the following, in order:
          1. La Brana-Arintero
          2. Ajvide58
          3. Motala-12

          And we share similar amounts of ancestry with the following:
          1. Palaeo-Eskimo 2000 BC
          2. Malta MA-1

        • Helgenes says:

          Paul,

          I give you my results to compare
          My 4 gp are French Normand ( lower Normandy )

          1. Linearbandkeramik – 1068.4 cM largest segment 5.8 cM
          2. Loschbour – 979.8 cM 7.4 cM
          3. Clovis Anzick-1 – 513 cM 3.6 cM
          4. Motala-12 – 230.4 cM 3.0 cM
          5. La Brana-Arintero – 227.6 cM 3.2 cM
          6. Malta MA-1 – 124.5 cM 3.2 cM
          7. Ajvide58 – 51.7 cM 3.3 cM
          8. Altai Neanderthal – 6.3 cM 1.8 cM
          9. Denisova – 2.2 cM 1.2 cM

          Yes indeed, your percentage of DNA shared with Stuttgart is high

          • Helgenes says:
            • Palaeo-Eskimo 2000 BC – 84.1 cM largest segment = 2.5 cM
          • Paul Conroy says:

            @Helgenes,

            Very interesting, our results are very similar, except you have almost double the amount of:
            1. La Brana-Arintero
            2. Ajvide58

            And about 50% more of:
            1. Malta MA-1

            All other results are roughly comparable.

            • Helgenes says:

              What is difficult to understand, why we share so much with Clovis Anzick, even much more than with some of the ancient European genomes.

          • Paul Conroy says:

            Helgenes,

            Yes, that’s the big question!

            It could be either that Anzick – despite having East Asian uniparental markers – was:
            1. Derived in part from a Siberian population that was also ancestral to Yamna or Eastern HG
            2. An Ancient Siberian – more like Eastern Hunter-Gatherers migration made it to the Americas BEFORE Anzick, via boat along the coast, and was assimilated by Anzick in the Americas.

            I favor #2

          • Paul Conroy says:

            Helgenes,

            I just ran Clovis Anzick-1 against the other populations, and this is what it matches:

            1. Loschbour (Western HG) – 441.9 cM – 4.4 cM
            2. Linearbandkeramik (Stuttgart, Neolithic farmer) – 438.6 cM – 3.3 cM
            3. Palaeo-Eskimo (Saqqaq) – 152.6 cM – 4.3 cM
            4. Malta MA-1 – 145.0 cM – 2.9 cM
            5. Motala-12 (Scandinavian HG) – 104.6 cM – 3.0 cM
            6. La Brana-Arintero (Iberian HG) – 98.8 cM – 1.9 cM
            7. Ajvide58 (Pitted Ware Culture) – 20.5 cM – 1.9 cM
            8. Altai Neanderthal – 5.7 cM – 1.4 cM
            9. Denisova – 2.1 cM – 1.1 cM

            That seems very odd that he would match a LBK Neolithic farmer so highly?!

            • Helgenes says:

              Motala or Malta makes sense, not Stuttgart, she would be the last one to share with him.
              If the Solutrean hypothesis were true, it could be meaningful, who knows !!!! A WHG ancestry shared between us, Stuttgart and Anzick

        • Paul Conroy says:

          @Helgenes,

          Yes, that dawned on me too – but I didn’t want to be the first to mention it, as it’s frowned on in these parts?! 😉

          I now lean more to what I call the “Reverse Solutrean” hypothesis, that the earliest Native American people, who probably got there by boat, also used those boats to cross the North Atlantic to Western Europe. As I pointed out previously, the Irish used a animal-skin boat called a “Curragh”(pronounced KURR-ok) till the 1970’s, while the Inuit use an animal-skin boat called a Kayak. The words are obviously cognates, but why?

          Of course a simpler hypothesis, would be that there was a vast Mammoth Steppe Zone, stretching from France to East Siberia, and that men roamed widely across it in ancient times, and were somewhat homogeneous across a span of thousands of miles?! The La Brana sample belongs to a Y-DNA haplogroup, C-V183, whose sister haplogroup is found among the Ainu of Japan, whose Jomon ancestors came from Central Asia. Recently some ancient samples have been recovered from Hungary, and 2 men also carry haplogroup C, but different haplogroups, C-F3393 and C6.

          • Helgenes says:

            I didn’t know the “Reverse Solutrean” hypothesis, why not !!!
            Maybe that the solution will be in the “future ancient “genomes to come, I hope so !!!

            What is sure, a lot of Amerindians are physically closer to Europeans than to Eastern Asians ( I don’t speak of those are mixed, of course !!! )

            • jamesd127 says:

              What is sure, a lot of Amerindians are physically closer to Europeans than to Eastern Asians

              Suggesting that the WHG group, or those Siberian WHG who merged into the proto indo europeans, looked, and conducted themselves, rather like Red Indians.

    • Greying Wanderer says:

      LBK didn’t extend to the far north so
      northern = IE + paleo (Germanic and Belgae-like Celtic)
      central = IE + LBK (other Celtic)
      imo

      (with both IE and LBK being part paleo also)

  7. Candide III says:

    Could you give a reference for the J. P. Mallory quote, please? It looks interesting.

  8. Somehow I keep expecting, in these articles, to read that the Corded Ware people were then replaced by the more modern Cordless Ware ones.

  9. Ponto says:

    Yes, it seems that everyone is saying that the Europeans of today are essentially the result of blow-ins and unwanted immigrants from the East. A bunch of Wogs with little ancestry from Older Europeans who preceded them by thousands of years.

    Also everyone is forgetting about the Basal Eurasians who seem to had a greater affinity to Africans than other non Africans.

    • gcochran9 says:

      I must have missed the result that showed that Basal Eurasians were closer to Sub-Saharan Africans. Let’s see it.

      • Michael says:

        Basal Eurasians did not have greater affinity to Sub-Saharan Africans. They just branch off closer to the common origin of all non Sub-Saharan Africans, but after this group separated.

        So, Sub-Saharan Africans are equally related to all Eurasians, including Basal Eurasians. Basal Eurasians were equally related to all other Eurasians, but closer to them than to Africans. The Ust Ishim guy was equally related to other Eurasians, but closer to them than to the Basal Eurasians.

        • gcochran9 says:

          Nearly so. Melanesians are farther from Basal Eurasians (or from the Bushmen, for that matter) than other Eurasians, because of the 5% Denisovan admixture. I was hoping for an answer from Ponto…

          • Michael says:

            Oh, some kind of Socratic method? I thought you had believed what he said and were waiting to see those results. My bad.

          • Matt says:

            IIRC (and I may not RC), if you do not scale for difference vs Africans, then difference from Africans, at the level of population differentiation as described by FST, is Oceanian>Native American>East Eurasian>European>Middle East.

            This seems to be true even when the Middle East populations have recent African associated segments removed in ADMIXTURE clustering, implying Basal Eurasian has slightly less drift from Africans than European hunter gatherers.

            It certainly would not seem to be enough or in the form to imply that Basal Eurasian form a clade or cluster with Africans. And of course, this is not how the formal modelling of Basal Eurasian has proceeded.

            If you scale for relatedness to Africans, then quite obviously all Out of Africa groups will have the same relatedness to Africans. Whether or not their differentiation came through Denisovan ancestry or not.

    • Greying Wanderer says:

      “Yes, it seems that everyone is saying that the Europeans of today are essentially the result of blow-ins and unwanted immigrants from the East. A bunch of Wogs with little ancestry from Older Europeans who preceded them by thousands of years.”

      Yes it’s suddenly switched from Europeans being completely replaced by Near Eastern farmers to completely replaced by Siberian riders. Weird huh.

    • Paul Conroy says:

      On some more recent admix analyses, I show 1-2% percentage North East African or Ari Blacksmith.
      Since I’m Irish and have no known African ancestry, this must be an ancient component, and indeed I think could be a hint of where the Basal Eurasian is?!

      Ari Blacksmiths are a caste in Ethiopia who are exclusively metal workers, for thousands of years. They may have originally been Near Eastern, maybe from Yemen or somewhere nearly, who migrated to Ethiopia, along with their metal working skills.

      • Greying Wanderer says:

        A lot of the early (Atlantic megalith) settlement in Britain and Ireland seems to me to be centered in a southwestern circle where a lot of gold, silver and copper mines used to be and if maritime Bell Beaker followed the same settlement pattern that’s two potential sources plus if there were mining settlements and even if they weren’t the source themselves maybe they incorporated some local HGs who had come up the Atlantic coast from north Africa?

        Either way I think there’s a trace element of what you describe along the Atlantic coast and wherever it came from it could be useful in a Barium meal way.

  10. Greying Wanderer says:

    “So R1b1 traces back to the Sibermen, fascinating!”

    The mammoth steppe extended as far west as parts of northern France so if the ANE descended from those HGs who broke away from the coastal fringe to chase mammoth then although the center of gravity of the ANE eventually became far to the east there were populations already in the interior parts of Europe with one possible example of their descendants perhaps being the R1a clade split in Scandinavia.

    .

    “Which fits those old notions about the Indo-Europeans starting out as a group of warriors and magician/priests who conquered and assimilated a race of farmers”

    Cucuteni is the dog that isn’t barking.

    .

    “The Yamna, were themselves a fusion of peoples – part eastern hunter-gatherers (with a large fraction of ancient Siberian) and part a more Middle Eastern-ish farming population, similar to Armenians.”

    Or Armenians are a Cucuteni-like farming population that was displaced from their original home.

    .

    “which also fits the big expansion of R1B and R1A, both of which turn out to be about 5,000 years old.”

    The distribution of R1a and R1b isn’t even with R1b heavily weighted to the west so unless the R1a component reduced greatly over time this fits better with either R1a as an aristocratic layer over R1b or R1b as a first wave with R1a as a second wave (or a bit of both).

    .

    ” I think the previous EEF inhabitants fared poorly. It may be that the people of Old Europe left scarcely a trace of their blood in the veins of their conquerors – in the north.”

    “the Aesir-Vanir war”

    I think there are two parts to “the north”: the central LBK part and the northern forest part and two old europes: the paleo part and the LBK part. The Germanic tradition would relate to the northern forest part imo and the Celtic tradition would relate to the central LBK part.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s