Earlier this year, the study by Haak et al. showed that steppe invaders after 5kya brought into Europe a 50/50 mix of "Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer" (EHG) ancestry/An unknown population from the Near East/Caucasus. The "unknown population" was most similar to Caucasians/Near Easterners like Armenians but did not correspond to any ancient sample.
A new paper in Nature Communications by Jones et al. finds this "missing link" in the flesh in Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Georgia which they call "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers" (CHG). From the paper:
The separation between CHG and both EF and WHG ended during the Early Bronze Age when a major ancestral component linked to CHG was carried west by migrating herders from the Eurasian Steppe. The foundation group for this seismic change was the Yamnaya, who we estimate to owe half of their ancestry to CHG-linked sources.The authors also make the connection to South Asia:
In modern populations, the impact of CHG also stretches beyond Europe to the east. Central and South Asian populations received genetic influx from CHG (or a population close to them), as shown by a prominent CHG component in ADMIXTURE (Supplementary Fig. 5; Supplementary Note 9) and admixture f3-statistics, which show many samples as a mix of CHG and another South Asian population (Fig. 4b; Supplementary Table 9).Also of interest:
Both Georgian hunter-gatherer samples were assigned to haplogroup J with Kotias belonging to the subhaplogroup J2a (see methods).The paper is open access, so go ahead and read it for other details.
Nature Communications 6, Article number: 8912 doi:10.1038/ncomms9912
Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians
Eppie R. Jones et al.
We extend the scope of European palaeogenomics by sequencing the genomes of Late Upper Palaeolithic (13,300 years old, 1.4-fold coverage) and Mesolithic (9,700 years old, 15.4-fold) males from western Georgia in the Caucasus and a Late Upper Palaeolithic (13,700 years old, 9.5-fold) male from Switzerland. While we detect Late Palaeolithic–Mesolithic genomic continuity in both regions, we find that Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) belong to a distinct ancient clade that split from western hunter-gatherers ~45 kya, shortly after the expansion of anatomically modern humans into Europe and from the ancestors of Neolithic farmers ~25 kya, around the Last Glacial Maximum. CHG genomes significantly contributed to the Yamnaya steppe herders who migrated into Europe ~3,000 BC, supporting a formative Caucasus influence on this important Early Bronze age culture. CHG left their imprint on modern populations from the Caucasus and also central and south Asia possibly marking the arrival of Indo-Aryan languages.
Link
You fail.
ReplyDeleteCHG moved onto the steppe with women (no Y-HG J in Corded Ware/Yamnaya).
So the Indo-Europeans came from the steppe and carried R1 (including R1a-Z93 to South Asia).
They didn't come from West Asia, nor did they carry any J2.
You don't have genome data from Bronze Age from Central Asia of BMAC peoples, so you cannot make assumptions.
ReplyDeleteAlso the article insinuates ANI arrived in South Asia with Indo Iranians, this is WRONG, when its clearly arrived there since the Paleolithic. There seems to be 2 types of CHG, one which is archaic and more localized (because its so old) to S/SC Asia and one which was brought to South Asia with Indo Aryans in the Bronze age. Though it gets more complicated as the Indo Aryans who arrived in South Asia had very likely mixed with BMAC populations already.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteIsn't it simpler to suggest that the I/J was already native to much of Eastern Europe/Steppe and was rather settled by ANE ceramic hunters from the East?
Let's be realistic, we're talking a 50/50 mixture in some cases. That's a lot of mail-order brides!
@ Dienekes
Now that we can now more concretely locate IJ in the ancient world, I believe a suggestion by Samuel Kramer many years ago may be materializing, that a reflux of modernized barbarians descended on the civilized Middle East from the Caucasus, transforming the Levant (previously G) and Mespotamia (IJK, G & R)
I'll be interested to see what Mesolithic Eastern Arabia looks like, before and after.
You fail
ReplyDeletehttp://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-teal-people-did-they-actually-exist.html
"So did the teal people actually exist, and if so, who were they?
My view at the moment is that a population very similar to the teal samples formed in Central Asia or the North Caucasus during the Neolithic as result of admixture between MA1-like and Near Eastern groups. This population, I believe, then expanded into the Russo-Kazakh steppe by the onset of the Eneolithic."
@Davidski,
ReplyDelete"They didn't come from West Asia, nor did they carry any J2."
He didn't say pre-pre-IE came from West Asia. He's saying "Teal" was brought to Europe with IE languages. That's true, they weren't pure Teal, but it is a signal of IE-expansion.
@bellbeakerblogger,
ReplyDelete"Let's be realistic, we're talking a 50/50 mixture in some cases. That's a lot of mail-order brides!"
Bronze age Steppe Y DNA is marked by patriarch lineages that represent ~100% of the male lineages. ~100% Eastern Yamnaya have R1b-Z2103, ~100% proto-Indo Iranians have R1a-Z94, ~100% Corded ware has R1a-M417, ~100% Eastern Bell Beaker has R1b-P312. I1-M253 is another example. It looks like a native WHG/EEF lineage picked up by IEs which became a patriarch lineage.
So, when EHG and CHG first mixed many hg J CHG males could have mixed with EHG females. However, in the end a few lucky EHG-male lines became the patriarch lineages. So ancestry from CHG males remained but their Y DNA was erased, along with the Y DNA of 99% of EHG males. It's important to understand all the Y DNA of EHG genomes died out, it was their close R1a/b relatives who became patriarch lineages.
However it's still very possible most admixture was EHG male-CHG female. What's the chances all the patriarch lineages were EHG lines, if many CHG males mixed with EHG females.
"Fail" You too dear Davidski. Just go read your own blog from start and change of tone.
ReplyDeleteWhat is defined as Steppe for these forums?
"You fail."
ReplyDeleteI guess it's becoming something like Nixon's "I'm not a crook" formula.
But, truth be told, Dienekes working with DNA samples, was wrong and now he's trying to pretend that he was right. Razib "Cat Lady" Khan is also now trying to salvage Dienekes' reputation. But what is there to salvage, one might ask? Dienekes was wrong because he's a dilettante. And so is Cat Lady. It's a glass ceiling.
I, on the contrary, was right even without the DNA samples. (http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2012/07/the-near-eastern-origin-of-indo-europeans-an-internet-hoax-observations-on-the-writings-of-a-confused-genome-blogger/).
The learning is: even if you have DNA samples on your computer, don't try to solve problems of origin of linguistic families. Stay with the genes. Indo-European speakers received gene flow from the Caucasus, then they spread it around. But Indo-European speakers did not originate in West Asia.
@Krefter
ReplyDeleteThat is an exceedingly difficult case to make when it comes to female lineages. It would be like if the Americas became dominated by all European mtdna with Indian male lineages. It's just a huge area with many different dynamics, different dice.
Again, I go back to ceramics, lithics and a boar's tusk tradition emanating from the Lake Baikal region (specifically), where the new people substantially impacted the natives of Epi-Paleolithic Ukraine and Russia.
This was followed by immigration into Southern Russia of pastoralists from the steppes and hill country of Mespotamia, which included certain stylistic traditions, the Circumpontic metallurgical tradition and the whole enchilada.
I'll bet that the early Yarmin Tepe/Hassunan 1a folk were essentially a hybrid of this CHG and ANE. Perhaps this combo happened further east in the Southern Caspian or whatever, but it's clear that the impulses of what everyone calls steppe this and steppe that, is really nothing more than these two double cousin groups fusing in the region 5k B.C.
@Fire Haired
ReplyDeleteThe thing is Yamna were heavily EHG on their maternal side. I think over 50% of mtDna was Samara/EHG specific U5 lineages. (The other 50% is near eastern as discussed)
The problem is also that Yamna is WHG + CHG. Yamna had no WHG...
Polygamy could easily account for massive influx of near eastern mtDna. 1 Yamna male for several Caucaus women.
ReplyDeleteBut the problem is 50% mtDna of Yamna is EHG. Only 50% is near eastern. Also Yamna, is not 50% WHG, so the WHG + CHG model doesn't work.
If anything, deinekes' theory is strengthened by the CHG findings, though still not proven %100
ReplyDelete@ Rami
ReplyDelete"Also the article insinuates ANI arrived in South Asia with Indo Iranians, this is WRONG, when its clearly arrived there since the Paleolithic."
I don't think the authors are suggesting that ANI was exclusively brought with Indo-Iranian speakers, though I can understand why some would infer that.
Ancestral North Indian (ANI) would have indeed been present in substantial propotions long before the Indo-Iranians colonized the SubContinent. ANI in my opinion is not limited to 1 ethno-linguistic group but is made up of 2 or more ethno-linguistic groups who entered the SubContient thousands of years apart from each other.
Dravidian languages likely came with an ANI group. Southern India, including the deep South state of Tamil Nadu, has considerable ANI present in non Brahmin Dravidian speakers. The only way this could be explained is if ANI was already present in the SubContinent well before Indo-Iranians intruded into the region , as the deep south has never been militarily colonized by the Northern Indo-Aryan speaking regions , so ANI can't be explained as a result of institutional rape/enslavement/concubinage/caste system by Indo-Iranian upper castes.
I would also opine that Ancestral South Indian is also a amalgam of different ethno-lingusitic groups just as ANI is.
@Bellbeakerbloger, not only that in some cases the CHG/Teal ancestry even exceeds the EHG admixture in Yamna by 0-105 that would even need more than a 100% of female replacement rate which is quite obviously not only very unlikely but impossible.
ReplyDeleteAlso people should take in mind we have EHG sample with yDNA J and EHG on average shows some CHG/Teal admixture.
How comes that there is J in Mesolithic samples of Georgia and EHG in Samara but no in Yamna while Yamna has even more of the CHG like admixture. Did yDNA J simply skipped Yamna and went straight to EHG while according to some supposedly all male lineages of Yamna are EHG derived? WHile even Yamna has 4 times more CHG than EHG does?
Something is fishy here and doesn't quite add. Two samples are also far too low to take big conclusions out of it.
Remember we had few Corded Ware samples which turned out as R1a1a and everyone concluded that Corded Ware is all R1a1a, than with further sampling R1b1 and J or G turnd out too and suddenly everything has changed.
We still need samples from South_Central Asia and especially the Iranian Plateau, I still think the region between the Zagros and Alborz mountains might be the missing link.
Time to think outside the box. Why are we making the assumption that CHG *has* to correlate with haplogroup J simply because of two samples? What if the CHG themselves were the victims of a founder effect? This is one possibility.
ReplyDeleteThe other (more likely IMO) is, like bellbeakerblogger wrote: that haplogroup I/J was abundant in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, before being stamped over by R. J2 is definitely not absent in the Volga-Ural region so I think he's onto something:
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2.jpg
& finally, there's the "drowning in women" theory. The assumption that Caucasus brunettes couldn't resist the lighter EHG guys. We're just gonna have to see a sequel where Caucasus guys take the EHG women ;-) You know, opposites attract thing ;)
It is not quite clear to me why folk are so surprised by the J result and the idea of women being involved in this movement.
ReplyDelete(1) Scythians, Amazons and some warrior queen I can never rememeber the name of. Come from.... Ohh wait, EXACTLY the area under consideration. An ongoing trradition perhaps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians#/media/File:Scythia-Parthia_100_BC.png
(2) The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Children learn language from the folk that raise them, usually mothers, not stereotypical absentee fathers off somewhere pillaging and neglecting their families. If IndoEuropean was transmitted in this way it is not illogical.
(3) Y haplogroups are very unstable in populations. J-haplogroup might actually have migrated with their women folk and then been outbred by hot, hunky dark haired, blue eyed R1b from deeper in the steppe. Exotic, tall and/or rich always do well. Rampaging packs of rapists do not have to be assumed.
Purdah and its variants has always been a very wasteful and inefficient way to manage human resources in a healthy society. It should not be assumed as the default. Even in very patriarchial societies the system breaks down in the lower classes, and highest echelons.
Hmm looking at the actual data it does not really look like:
ReplyDeleteEasternHG + CaucasoidHG = Yamnaya.
There is too much minor admixture in the EasternHG that does not pass to Yamnaya.
More like:
HG (from somewhere else) + CaucasoidHG = Yamnaya.
In fact it looks more like:
WesternHG + CaucasoidHG = Yamnaya.
But then I always suspected WHG had a wide range.
Also people should take in mind we have EHG sample with yDNA J and EHG on average shows some CHG/Teal admixture.
ReplyDeleteYes, but CHG have no EHG admixture as shown by the new Jones et al. paper, so presumably CHG might not have any R1 either.
How comes that there is J in Mesolithic samples of Georgia and EHG in Samara but no in Yamna while Yamna has even more of the CHG like admixture.
J was found in Karelia EHG, not in Samara EHG. But I agree that Samara EHG might well have had some J if even Karelia EHG had some J so far north.
Remember we had few Corded Ware samples which turned out as R1a1a and everyone concluded that Corded Ware is all R1a1a, than with further sampling R1b1 and J or G turnd out too and suddenly everything has changed.
You mean the Polish Corded Ware Y-DNA results of the Gworys et al. 2013 paper when talking about finding of J or G in Corded Ware? Does anyone know whether that paper's ancient Y-DNA results are valid? They are rarely mentioned anywhere.
Yes Kurti,
ReplyDeleteThe Iranian Mesolithic and Neolithic aDNA is coming soon,
all,
SC Asia and India should show some ANE say around 10-15 % even after the inclusion of CHG in ADMIXTURE, but if CHG eats all the ANE there, then it will become very interesting, concerning the high Concentrations of R1a,R2a and U2 Mtdna's there.
(1) Scythians, Amazons and some warrior queen I can never rememeber the name of. Come from.... Ohh wait, EXACTLY the area under consideration. An ongoing trradition perhaps.
ReplyDeleteThe Scythian queen you have in mind should be Tomyris:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomyris
ReplyDelete1. Ah, nothing like the Internet to bring out the trolls. Can we show a little respect here? Some nuance? Some gratefulness for the contributions of others?
Both Dienekes and those who disagree here have moved our topic much further, and it's precisely because they each posit different theories and try to back them up with logic and science. But let's be a little respectful, shall we? Let's keep the discussion to logic and science.
2. After reading German's post at his site, I feel compelled to remind both of you that your debates are nothing new. Cavalli Sforza, Renfrew, and several others -- 30 years ago -- were having these same debates, with no DNA to go on. Just archaeology, certain traits, gut instincts, and logic.
I feel the need to remind you that the theories are not necessarily in competition. There are plenty who believe that IEs, or PIEs -- whatever -- originated in the general vicinity of the Eurasian plains OR Anatolia, and then spread in multiple waves from said plains OR Anatolia.
Would someone years in the future try to discern whether the Portuguese or the Spaniards were the greater bad-asses in spreading Romance languages to the New World? They shouldn't. Both sailed at roughly the same time, and luck, quirks of fate, etc. took them to different paths.
A similar such boring theory may explain the spread of IE.
You both may be right.
3. Boring theories are so out of vogue, I know. But all of you who have gone waist deep into fantasyland (good God, some of these comments) should remember that demographic changes are often not the product of war or strife or famine or disease. We simply remember the gun, germs, or steel.
If Palestinians outnumber Israelis in a few decade, for example, it will not be because they won a war. No, it will be because culturally, they have 1.8 babies per woman, as opposed to 1.2. Whatever.
Most demographic changes in the US were not the result of war here, but wars and strife abroad.
The world is a big place, and it was bigger and much more scarcely populated back then.
Did you hear that: it's highly unlikely these tribes were competing for space. Or that looks had anything to do with the demographic changes.
War has always been present, sure. But don't forget the boring.
4. In that vein, another way of looking at your precious haplotype replacements is with this simple hypothetical:
Haplogroup N were the first on the scene. At one time, they were 100% of the people on the land. They were replaced by Haplogroup E. For a while, the mix was 50-50 N and E. Next came Haplogroup I. The mix becamse 50% I, and 25% N and E. Next came Haplogroup M, in two waves. The land became 25% M, 25% I, 12.5% N, and 12.5% E.
What I've described is the settlement of Manhattan by Europeans. Netherlands, English, Irish, Mediterraneans (Jews and Italians). They came there because of turmoil in their native lands. There were no wars. No replacements. No "hunky [fill in the blank] replacing prior males.
But 2000 years from now, someone analyzing DNA in cemetaries would see a clear replacement.
Let's hope their theories are not as outlandish as some of the ones here.
The way I see it, is it was still a 50/50 EHG + CHG people that initially spread the Indo-European languages. Mama genes count too, and the Yamnaya R1 carrying males were 50% 'West Asian'. Even if the CHG ancestry into the steppe was mostly female based.
ReplyDeleteWe need more samples of the CHGs than 2 or 3 though, about 20 will be better IMO.
It is unlikely though that Proto Indo-European formed South of the steppe in West Asia or that R1 was not the main paternal marker of the Proto Indo-Europeans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"ow seriously are you now going to say it was hunter/gatherer women who selectively mated with Neolithic farmers rather than their own men as I2 is not as common as R1b."
ReplyDeleteYou mean "Indoeuropeans" not "Neolithic farmers".
The neolithic farmers apear to have had predominately G (and some E are known aswell)
Again, this is very simple. If the I2 people, who were also mostly mtDNA U had smaller population sizes (supported by hunting and gathering) AND if the I2 / mtDNA U people were in a land (Europe) first, then OF COURSE their frequencies will shrink in size.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't from "selective mating" for the love of God! This isn't from ridiculous sex fantasies posted here.
Model it in your head for the sake of all that is holy.
A group of 4 people live in a neighborhood. They are the first to live in that subdivision. Then a group of 6 move in. They are the second to live there. Then the neighborhood becomes totally settled, with 30 more people moving in.
If you looked at a census (or DNA) at the first point in time, you would say, "my gosh -- these 4 were all Haplogroup XYZPDQ!" And when you looked at the census after the 30 moved in, you would say that things changed.
This is demography. So many of these arguments are circular, with a huge dose of fantasy lumped in.
It is highly likely that the ANE or Native American component entered steppe populations in southern Siberia. I recently ran into an article in the Journal of Indo-European Studies (Volume 40, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2012) that attributes the ethnogenesis of the Arya to the people of the Okunev, or Okunevo, peoples, who have been confirmed as having an affinity with Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteLink: http://www.clarkriley.com/JIES4034web/07Sokolova(434-456).pdf
The Southern Migration of the Sayan Archaeological Complex
Lyudmila A. Sokolova
Institute for the History of Material Culture RAS, Saint-Petersburg
"The present article covers the problem of the origin of innovations in the material complex of Harappa in terms of Northern influences. The Sayan complex of archaeological cultures of the Early Bronze Age, composed mainly of descendants of the Afanasyevo and Okunevo tribes, formed a single archaeological entity which migrated southwards to the upper reaches of the Indus River and further westwards to eastern Anatolia. The spread of the influence of the Sayan complex over vast regions was based not only on the technologies new for that period but also on its powerful ideological impact on the local population. We can select a set of the most important evidence, which accompanied the “Sayan Archaeological Complex”: 1-images of horned deities; 2-ceramics with basal motifs; 3- chariots and methods of horse harnessing; 4- Okunevo petroglyphs found along the Karakorum high road not far from Harappa; 5- some common features in material culture such as types of knives, pottery, burials in stone cists. During the movement ethnic groups of different origin flowed into the migration stream. The Okunevo population dominated this complex of people, providing an ideological influence on others and uniting all into one super-ethnos, under a single ethnonym – Arya. "
Possibly relevant to the origins of the 'teal people' is the issue of the relationship of North Caucasian languages to the Salishan languages of North America. Indo-European scholars such as Robert Beekes and Aert Kuipers have noted striking similarities in the phonology of Proto Indo-European and the Salishan language Shuswap, including laryngeals and right-hand sonorant vocalization.
ReplyDeleteGary,
ReplyDeleteThrow me your mail ( In my blog) :) ....
Dienekes' admixture model does appear to be consistent with Bomhard's North Caucasian substrate thesis. However, many of the characteristics of Indo-European attributed to NC could also plausibly be derived from Salishan/Wakashan languages as well, as suggested by Beekes. A principle exponent of the link between North Caucasian and Salishan/Wakashan languages is Vitaly Shevoroshkin. Here is a link to a paper outlining his thesis:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ata.org.tn/fichier_PDF/Article3.pdf
From Bomhard's paper: "The precursor of Proto-Indo-European came from Central Asia. Proto-Indo-European proper is the result of the imposition of a Eurasiatic language on a population speaking one or more primordial Northwest Caucasian languages, as first hinted at by Uhlenbeck (1937)." It should be noted, however, that Uhlenbeck also proposed a link between Indo-European and Eskimo, suggesting that someone was thinking of a link between IE and North American languages. Pointedly, Uhlenbeck also used Siouan as a model for syntax in early Indo-European languages.
I also recently ran across a paper by paper titled "Material Cultural Correlates of the Athapaskan Expansion: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach" by Joseph Andrew Park Wilson of The University of Florida (2011). This paper includes a discussion the broader issue of linguistic relations across the Bering Sea, including genetics of Dene speakers. (One significant issue touched on is the possible pre-Columbian presence YHG R in North America populations.)
Among the material items identified in this paper as linking North America and Siberian cultures is the resemblance between Athapaskan "split handle" daggers and the Siberia Scythian akinak. (Note: Indo-Iranian form akinak has possible correspondences with Iroquoian forms such as Seneca akheːnɛh 'I'm cutting it’ / Mingo u'ka'kat v. 'I stabbed it.’ and khénös v. 'I make cuts in it.’ as well as Ancient Greek kentéō v. 'I prick, sting, goad’, 'I stab, pierce, wound’.) The author does not mention it in his thesis, but the "split handle" daggers even more closely resemble the "antenna" swords of the Hallstatt/La Tene cultures of Bronze Age Europe.
In addition to proposed linguistic links, here are some shared genetics between populations of the Caucasus region and North America, including the Pacific Northwest where the Salishan and Wakashan languages are spoken. The frequency of mtDNA haplogroup X2 in Eurasia reaches some of its highest concentrations among populations of the Caucasus, while a variation of X2 is often common among populations of North America (but not South America) including the Wakashan-speaking Nuu-chah-nulth (aka 'Nootka'). Haplogroup X2 is also common among Algonquian-speaking populations. As noted by Adam Cooper in the book "Reconciling Indo-European Syllabification", the phonology of the Algonquian language Micmac also shares features with Proto-Indo-European. In other words, Allan Bomhard's North Caucasian substrate theory may not be incompatible with a deep connection between Indo-European and North America. The prevalence of Y haplogroups R1a and R1b among historic Indo-European speakers may be a red herring and a legacy of the 'federati' of the Native American-affiliated Okunev tribes. One way of putting it would be that the R1a and R1b steppe peoples had the same relationship with the Okunev as the Ostrogoths to the Huns, with the major distinction is the the 'Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans' adopted more of the vocabulary of the dominant group.
ReplyDeleteAgain, this is very simple. If the I2 people, who were also mostly mtDNA U had smaller population sizes (supported by hunting and gathering) AND if the I2 / mtDNA U people were in a land (Europe) first, then OF COURSE their frequencies will shrink in size.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't from "selective mating" for the love of God! This isn't from ridiculous sex fantasies posted here.
A group of 4 people live in a neighborhood. They are the first to live in that subdivision. Then a group of 6 move in. They are the second to live there. Then the neighborhood becomes totally settled, with 30 more people moving in.
If you looked at a census (or DNA) at the first point in time, you would say, "my gosh -- these 4 were all Haplogroup XYZPDQ!" And when you looked at the census after the 30 moved in, you would say that things changed.
You're not understanding the point.
Let's say the neighborhood of the indigenous 4 families and the males had Y chromosome haplogroup #1, while the females carried mitchochondrial lineage #A. Now lets say the new families who move in, the males all carried Y chromosome haplogroup #2, while the females all carried mitochondrial lineage #B. Simple enough right?
OK, now 500 years down the road, the two separate group of families [indigenous and new comers] have completely mated and mixed with one another. The typical person is 50/50 descended from one set of families, we can see this by their autosomal DNA. Now if 90% of boys is carrying Y chromosome haplogroup #1, and 90% of girls is carrying mitochondrial lineages #B. Then that means the selection and mating process initially favored the boys in the indigenous group of families and the girls in the newcoming group of families.
ReplyDeleteActually Arch Hades, you're the one who could use a brush up in demography.
The "sex selection" you articulate is not that simple, and doesn't explain any population in Europe of which I am aware.
My point is that every successive wave has been more populous. And the longer a haplogroup has been in an area, the more newcomers will have diluted it.
The following are approximate population stats from peer-reviewed papers, and which represent hypothetically defined populations in Western Europe in proper chronological order over time.
1. Neandertals. Total population size at any moment: 10,000. Y Haplogroup: unknown. Y HG that has survived into modern lineages: 0.
2. Cro-Magnons. Total pop. size at any given time: 20,000. Y Haplogroups: C1a. Y lineages surviving to modern time ~1%.
3. Gravettians. Total pop. size at any given time: 30,000. Y Haplogroups: I2. Y lineages surviving to modern time ~5%.
4. First wave of farmers. Total pop. size at any given time: 40,000. Y Haplogroups: G. Y lineages surviving to modern time ~7%.
And so on.
If you can't see what is happening here, then I can't help you.
Dilution happens, without sex selection.