Post by Admin on Sept 14, 2022 3:14:41 GMT
minus Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry difference
in the Yamnaya is ~0% (Fig. 4B), and
this allows us to both test whether steppe migrants
into mainland Europe may have originated
from a different steppe population (with
a nonequal balance of Caucasus and Eastern
hunter-gatherer components) and whether additional
migrations (with either more Eastern
or Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry, thus
shifting the difference away from zero) occurred.
We find that the Corded Ware and
Bell Beaker complex individuals from Europe
are all consistent with a balanced presence of
the two components (consistent with having
been transmitted through a Yamnaya-like population).
Even in the early Corded Ware from
Bohemia, where a third “northern” source has
been suggested to have been substantially involved
(22), the difference is one of a small
3.1 ± 2.1% excess of Eastern hunter-gatherer
ancestry, which is entirely consistent with
being transmitted entirely by the Yamnaya to
the limits of the resolution of our statistical
analysis. This is not the case for Southeastern
Europe, where Bronze Age individuals had
an excess of Caucasus over Eastern huntergatherer
ancestry not only in the Aegean (~17%
in both Minoans and Mycenaeans) (16), but
throughout the Balkan peninsula (Fig. 3B),
where the overall Bronze Age excess is 7.4 ±
1.7% (with by-country estimates of ~4 to 13%).
A possible explanation for this excess is the
existence of a small 5.2 ± 0.6% Caucasus
hunter-gatherer component in the Neolithic
substratum of Southeastern Europe (Fig. 4A);
we estimated that this proportion is ~0 to 1% in
four separate Early Neolithic populations from
Hungary (Starčevo-Körös cultural complex),
France, Spain, and the Linearbandkeramik
of Austria, Germany, and Hungary (3, 23–30).
Thus, the Bronze Age Caucasus hunter-gatherer
ancestry in Southeastern Europe compared
with Central/Northern/Western Europemay replicate
this contrast from the Neolithic. However,
the even higher levels observed in the Aegean
[Fig. 3B and (6)] suggest additional gene flow
after the Neolithic by the time of the Early
Bronze Age (31).
in the Yamnaya is ~0% (Fig. 4B), and
this allows us to both test whether steppe migrants
into mainland Europe may have originated
from a different steppe population (with
a nonequal balance of Caucasus and Eastern
hunter-gatherer components) and whether additional
migrations (with either more Eastern
or Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry, thus
shifting the difference away from zero) occurred.
We find that the Corded Ware and
Bell Beaker complex individuals from Europe
are all consistent with a balanced presence of
the two components (consistent with having
been transmitted through a Yamnaya-like population).
Even in the early Corded Ware from
Bohemia, where a third “northern” source has
been suggested to have been substantially involved
(22), the difference is one of a small
3.1 ± 2.1% excess of Eastern hunter-gatherer
ancestry, which is entirely consistent with
being transmitted entirely by the Yamnaya to
the limits of the resolution of our statistical
analysis. This is not the case for Southeastern
Europe, where Bronze Age individuals had
an excess of Caucasus over Eastern huntergatherer
ancestry not only in the Aegean (~17%
in both Minoans and Mycenaeans) (16), but
throughout the Balkan peninsula (Fig. 3B),
where the overall Bronze Age excess is 7.4 ±
1.7% (with by-country estimates of ~4 to 13%).
A possible explanation for this excess is the
existence of a small 5.2 ± 0.6% Caucasus
hunter-gatherer component in the Neolithic
substratum of Southeastern Europe (Fig. 4A);
we estimated that this proportion is ~0 to 1% in
four separate Early Neolithic populations from
Hungary (Starčevo-Körös cultural complex),
France, Spain, and the Linearbandkeramik
of Austria, Germany, and Hungary (3, 23–30).
Thus, the Bronze Age Caucasus hunter-gatherer
ancestry in Southeastern Europe compared
with Central/Northern/Western Europemay replicate
this contrast from the Neolithic. However,
the even higher levels observed in the Aegean
[Fig. 3B and (6)] suggest additional gene flow
after the Neolithic by the time of the Early
Bronze Age (31).