search this blog

Loading...

Friday, November 25, 2016

First news of Hunnic and Botai aDNA


According to this Kazakh press report, remains from an elite Hunnic burial in what is now Hungary belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup L and mitochondrial (mtDNA) haplogroup D4j12.

КАЗАХСТАНСКИЙ ДНК-ПРОЕКТ

These markers are extremely rare in modern-day Europeans, including Hungarians. Indeed, mtDNA D is fairly common in Central Asian groups with high levels of East Eurasian admixture, while Y-hg L peaks in frequency in South Central Asia. However, the latter was found in three Chalcolithic individuals from the Areni-1 cave complex in Armenia (see here), so it may have been more common in and around Europe in ancient times.

The article also mentions that a sample from an Botai culture burial in present-day Kazakhstan belonged to mtDNA K1b2. This marker is today found at low but appreciable frequencies throughout Northern and Eastern Europe. One of the Samara Srubnaya samples from Mathieson et al. 2015 belonged to K1b2a.

Unfortunately, as per the article, the Y-hg of the Botai individual remains a mystery, due to a lack of supplies and funding. Perhaps the Reich Lab or GeoGenetics can help out?

14 comments:

Rob said...

Very interesting
IMO "the Huns" came from Bactria way, so Y DNA L isn't too shocking

Nirjhar007 said...

Finally something to look at :) .

Samuel Andrews said...

I had to google "Botai" to learn they were a culture that lived in Kazakhstan in 3700-3100 BC. So, just incase nobody knows that's where and when they lived. I wouldn't have expected mtDNA K1b or any (originally)Middle Easternish mtDNA. Central Asia may have been largely non-East Asian up until the the last 3,000 years. People of largely East Asian-like decent may have only been in Northern Asia. It'll be very interesting to learn more about Botai. They may have been very CHG/Iran Neo-ish. I know of instances of K1b in Georgia, Azeri, Iran, Druze, and Denmark. It's probably all over the place.

Rob said...

Sam
You can read David Anthony's book, it talks about Botai.

Nirjhar007 said...

But have to say that the strategy . Botai we all know for years that its a big fish . So you expect a study with WGS , this is rather disappointing .

Davidski said...

Botai is not the big fish. It's just maybe where the first horses were domesticated. But Khvalynsk also had domesticated horses.

Nirjhar007 said...

Well horse domestication is rather a debatable issue . Different scholars seem to posses different explanations regarding the aspects which define true domestication . Botai is certainly up there as the candidate for the earliest . But we should also keep in mind the Neolithic site in Uzbekistan Ayakagytma . A genetic testing from Ayakagytma is pretty much expected as it may turn out to be the source of Horse Domestication ! in Eurasia . There is also a site in Arabia of Neolithic .

Botai is certainly a big fish its geographic position, its chronology is very important , will be fascinating to see how it relates with Yamnaya,Afana. etc .

Apóstolos Papaðimitríu said...

Haplogroup L's frequency is significant (10-20%) in some areas of Northern Italy while T also exists there,

One L1a individual in Areni-1 Cave, Chalcolithic Armenia was likely red haired and blue eyed, while Yamnayans weren't.

Davidski said...

So what? Andronovo was mostly light haired and blue eyed, and closely related to Yamnaya.

Nirjhar007 said...

Who gives a sh#t on hair and skin color :P ............

Gökhan said...

Subsclade of L sample is very important. L have two major subsclades which split 24k years ago;L1 (Mostly central and West Asian) and L2 (mostly European). Even L1a,L1b and L1c split into 18k years ago. Middle eastern and European L1b1 (M349) and L1b2 (PH8) split 13k years ago. But i am agree on that this Hun sample most probably L1a or L1c which is mostly Central-South Asian. If it is L2 then most probably this sample was local European although he was part of nomadic Hunnic elite.

Kurti said...

As I wrote in the past, the Huns were originally an East Iranic tribe known as far back as in the Avesta as Xiiaona, they lived in the region later known as Bactria and Transoxania.

With time passing other tribes joined the Huns. And the Huns known during the Roman times where a large confederation of the original Huns (Xionites) with Mongol and Turkic tribes. So no wonder that we find West_South_Central Asian yDNA and East Eurasian mtDNA among their ranks. Which is actually typical of the trend we see in Central Asia even today. What is kinda weird if we go by the assumption thrown around that the language was brought by the paternal ancestors. In this special case however it seems females had much bigger influence on it as we think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xionites

capra internetensis said...

@Kurti

I don't know that this idea that patrilineal societies would not adopt the language of influential neighbouring people whose women they married is actually supported by any evidence.

ur coron said...

Could it be that the Huns are the descendants of the root of the Kura Araxes culture(linked with Ubaid and Sumerian cultures), which is associated with the Areni-1 findings?
Could it be that the origin of Y-haplogroup L and T are in the oldest Kura Araxes culture people, and that the Huns are descendants of these oldest Kura Araxes culture people? These Kura Araxes culture people spoke a Proto Turk language, and tribes associated with them are described in the Sumerian tablets like "Turukku"(Turukkaeans) and "Subar", their basis was in the Urmia River region.

Please have a look at the paper of study "Areni-1 Cave, Armenia: A Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age settlement and ritual site in the southern Caucasus", "Keith Wilkinson":

"The 14C date on the charcoal from the clay ball associated with Burial 1 suggests that the ritual during which the skulls were plastered into the vessels took place around 3970–3800 CAL B.C. (TABLE 1)."

"The results of excavations undertaken at Areni-1 Cave extend the date for the first appearance of Kura-Araxes-type artifact assemblages to 4100–3800 CAL B.C., several hundred years before the previously accepted earliest date (Kushnareva 1997: 49; Kiguradze and Sagona 2003: 38–94; Kohl 2007: 86–104). "
"