search this blog

Saturday, May 20, 2017

A plausible model for the formation of the Yamnaya genotype


Strictly speaking, not just the Yamnaya genotype, but also Afanasievo, early Corded Ware and Poltavka. In other words, what has been referred to in recent scientific literature as Steppe_EMBA:

- From the Eneolthic onwards, human populations on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe became increasingly mobile (as evidenced by the downsizing of cemeteries, the appearance of Kurgan burial mounds all over this part of the Eurasian steppe, and the presence of increasingly sophisticated wagons and eventually also chariots as grave goods in burials).

- Greater mobility led to new contacts and more intense contacts between populations once separated by distance, but now practically neighbors, and thus also to a homogenization of culture across vast areas, and the appearance of the Yamnaya horizon across the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Early Bronze Age.

- When humans are mobile and they share culture and lifestyle, they usually mix in a big way, so the Pontic-Caspian steppe was probably one big melting pot from the Eneolithic onwards, and especially during the Yamnaya period.

- It's likely that low population densities in Eastern Europe during the Eneolithic ensured the rapid spread and rise of admixture from the Caucasus across much of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which then plateaued at around 50% during the Yamnaya period, when population densities on the steppe may have become high enough so that continued gene flow from the Caucasus no longer had much of an impact.

- The process that led to the Yamnaya genotype eventually led to its extinction by the Late Bronze Age, due to the large scale spread of Middle Neolithic European farmer ancestry across the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe, probably from its western half, resulting in the formation of the Steppe_MLBA genotype, exemplified by the Sintashta and Srubnaya people.

- Ancient DNA suggests that Bronze Age steppe groups were highly patrilocal, and if so, it's likely that most of the mixture on the steppe at this time was facilitated via female exogamy (i.e. foreign brides), which would explain the lack of typically Caucasian Y-haplogroups, such as J2, in Bronze Age steppe and derived ancient groups sampled to date, such as the Corded Ware people and eastern Bell Beakers.

My theory that most of the mixture on the Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe was facilitated via female exogamy has proved to be a somewhat controversial one in the comments section here. It's usually vehemently opposed by people who prefer to see the Indo-European homeland in the Caucasus or Iran rather than Eastern Europe, because they realize that a female mediated spread of southern admixture into the steppe lessens the chance that it was accompanied by the introduction of the patriarchal language and culture of the early Indo-Europeans.

But there's nothing in the data currently available to suggest that I'm talking nonsense. In fact, the recent Mathieson et al. 2017 preprint on the population history of Southeastern Europe and surrounds includes several ancient female samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe that appear to back up my theory:

- Yamnaya_Ukraine_outlier I1917: by far the most West Asian-shifted Yamnaya individual to date, sitting about half way between the Yamnaya cluster and present-day Caucasians in a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of West Eurasian populations, and belonging to the typically Near Eastern mtDNA haplogroup R0a1. What this strongly suggests is that her father was from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and mother probably from the Near East, perhaps from the Caucasus, or at least of fully Near Eastern origin; an obvious smoking gun for what I've been arguing.

- Ukraine_Neolithic_outlier I4110: by far the most West Asian-shifted Ukraine Neolithic/Eneolithic individual to date, sitting about 1/3 of the way from the Ukraine Mesolithic/Neolithic cluster to present-day Caucasians in a PCA of West Eurasian populations, and belonging to the typically Near Eastern mtDNA haplogroup J2b1. What this strongly suggests is that her mother was largely of Near Eastern origin, possibly from the southern periphery of the Pontic-Caspian steppe; another smoking gun for what I've been arguing.

- Yamnaya_Ukraine I2105 & I3141: both from just north of the Sea of Azov, and yet both practically indistinguishable from Yamnaya samples from sites several hundred kilometers to the east in Kalmykia and Samara. These individuals are potential evidence of female exogamy amongst far flung Yamnaya groups.

Below is a PCA from Mathieson et al. 2017 showing where these samples cluster in respect to other ancients, slightly edited by me to highlight the two outliers.


Let me just reiterate that I'm not using these four genomes to claim that I'm right. All I'm saying is that they appear to support my arguments. The fact that they're all in one paper is either a pretty amazing coincidence or a sign of things to come. Let's wait and see.

Reference...

Mathieson et al., The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe, bioRxiv, Posted May 9, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/135616

See also...

The pigtailed figures

Women on the move

55 comments:

Aram said...

Kozyntsev was speaking about farmers moving to North West Caucasus and forming Meshoko type sites prior of Maykop. I would like to see those Meshoko farmers aDNA.

Here a summary about Meshoko. And off course Maykop also.

http://генофонд.рф/?page_id=9760

A rectangular icon represent Meshoko tradition in that map.

Gioiello said...

That mt hgs R0 and J2 are from Middle East is another mensonge of the same Levantinist liers as Mr Reich and his compatriots:
Italy Su Carroppu, Sardinia [CAR-H7] 8227–7596 BCE 16527 mtDNA J2b1 195C, 3654T, 6053T, 9071T, 10957G Modi 2017
Portugal Toledo, Lourinha [K-13]
7200-6800 BC R? 16223T Fernández 2005
PPNB Jordan 'Ain Ghazal [I1707 / AG 83_5]
M 7722-7541 calBCE (8590±50 BP) 152234 T (xT1a1, T1a2a) PF7466+, CTS7263+, CTS10416+ (FGC3945.2- P322-) R0a Lazaridis 2016
PPNC Jordan 'Ain Ghazal [I1699 / AG 84_5]
F 6800-6700 BCE
303496 R0a2 Lazaridis 2016 PPNB Syria Tell Halula [H3]
6800-6000 BC

R0 7028T, 10550G, 10873T, 12308A, 12705C, 14766T, 16293Cb Fernández 2008; corrected by Fernández 2014
I brought many proofs that mt R0a'b was in Palaeolitic Europe.
1. JX153281(Italy) Raule R0a 10-JAN-2014
C64T A93G A263G 309.1C 315.1C G366A A451G G513A C522- A523- A750G A1438G T2442C A2706G A3213G C3275A T3847C A4136G A4769G C7028T C7247T G7521A C7650T T7705C A8860G T8939C T9096C C9620T C13188T C14766T A15326G T16093C T16126C T16189C T16362C
1. JF717361(Italy) Achilli R0b 14-SEP-2011
T58C C64T A93G T152C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G G1719A T2442C A2706G A4769G G4924A T5205C C7028T T8772C A8860G G9055A T10101C G10775A A11764G C14766T A15326G A15613G A15628G C16301T T16362C 2.
KT272406(Azerbaijan) Gandini R0b 14-JUL-2016
T58C C64T T152C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A636G A750G A1438G G1719A T2442C A2706G A4769G G5147A T5205C C7028T T8772C A8860G T10101C A11764G C14766T A15326G A15613G C16301T T16362C A16525C 3.
KT272407(Italy) Gandini R0b 14-JUL-2016
C64T T152C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G G1719A T2442C A2706G A4203G A4769G G5147A T5205C C7028T A8520G T8772C A8860G A9604G T10101C G11440C A11764G C14766T A15326G A15613G C16264T C16301T T16362C

Davidski said...

R0 and J2 are from the Near East and those individuals clearly have recent Near Eastern admixture. Get over it.

Gioiello said...

This sample
Italy Su Carroppu, Sardinia [CAR-H7] 8227–7596 BCE 16527 mtDNA J2b1 195C, 3654T, 6053T, 9071T, 10957G Modi 2017
has been found in Sardinia of more than 10000 years ago and with 7 private mutations which ridiculize the tree of Behar&Co which gave to J2a1 an age of 10000 years.
We'll see next who is the lier: if me or they.

Gioiello said...

J2b1 9281.8 +/-3107.5 [Behar 2012b]

The sample found in Sardinia (of course an extinct line so far, if no direct descendant will be found) has 7 private mutations and could be its J2b1* ancestress also 20000 years old or more.

Matt said...

Davidski: which would explain the lack of typically Caucasian Y-haplogroups, such as J2, in Bronze Age steppe and derived ancient groups sampled to date, such as the Corded Ware people and eastern Bell Beakers.

It could be, but again I want to say again about founder effects. if you have a fusion of say 60% EHG, and 40% CHG, which is roughly what Yamnaya seem like, then you have a massive founder effect from one set of male lineages, how improbable is it that the founder effects come from the 60% side? Even without male biased admixture.

I do think male biased admixture is quite likely as well though. But there's the question of how it happened.

Back when Joachim Burger talked about the Blatterhohle Cave samples (http://www.echo.net.au/2013/10/stone-age-hunters-and-farmers-co-existed/) in 2013, he said: "‘ ‘Hunter-gatherer women sometimes married into the farming communities, while no genetic lines of farmer women have been found in hunter-gatherers,’ he said.

‘Farmer women regarded marrying into hunter-gatherer groups as social demotion.’". That's probably true in the world today and across history.
But that doesn't mean that men marrying into farmer groups were rarer than women. We apparently now see this in the European Neolithic. Understanding the labour distribution between women and men in MN Cultures, it seems likely to me that part of the reason is that it is easier for HG males to marry into farming cultures and adopting herding and continued hunting (IRC male roles in MN cultures) than for females to marry in and adopt gathering and farming.

(The Secondary Products Revolution seems possibly to have changed the dynamics here a little by making animals and herding more valuable to Neolithic cultures?).

This was to the point that we have much of the cultural horizon of the MN dominated by what are likely WHG y-dna clades, despite the fact there's not a lot of evidence for female exogamy whereby farmer women married into HG societies.

It could be that the Yamnaya were formed by *lots* of EHG males marrying into a society transplanted from the Northern Caucasus... Or equally, the EHG groups could've formed herding groups and had women marry into them, as you say.

We know about the very likely expansions of at least late PIE by steppe EMBA-MLBA, and we know that, after significant founder effects, they tend to uniformly have R1b1a or R1a1a1. How much can we really about the early social structure and who was marrying into which group, and how much it was even sex biased and why, with any confidence from that? The archaeology here might be more decisive (if it exists!).

With the Yamnaya outliers, and D stats, Mathieson's supplement went with

Mbuti.DG Anatolia_Neolithic Yamnaya_Samara Yamnaya_Ukraine_outlier 0.0107 3.42 589034
Mbuti.DG Anatolia_Neolithic Yamnaya_Samara Yamnaya_Bulgaria 0.0233 6.942 358543
Outlier Yamnaya individuals have Farmer ancestry


So I wonder why they went with that and not a CHG based stat (whether the Anatolian stat is stronger?).

Again with I1917, what you propose is not a crazy idea, but when we are speculating from essentially one mtdna locus, we should not have too high expectations that future sampling will confirm a pattern.

Davidski said...

@Matt

It could be, but again I want to say again about founder effects. if you have a fusion of say 60% EHG, and 40% CHG, which is roughly what Yamnaya seem like, then you have a massive founder effect from one set of male lineages, how improbable is it that the founder effects come from the 60% side? Even without male biased admixture.

No idea.

My line of thinking is that if the gene flow from the Caucasus was not just an unusual episode and not sex biased, or indeed biased towards Caucasian males, then we'd see some evidence of that on the Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe from Khvalynsk to Srubnaya, and perhaps also in steppe-derived Northern European groups, in at least some Y-chromosomes via the presence of, say, J1, J2 or G.

But we don't, so I reckon this fits with the idea of male patrilocality and female exogamy on the steppe.

Again with I1917, what you propose is not a crazy idea, but when we are speculating from essentially one mtdna locus, we should not have too high expectations that future sampling will confirm a pattern.

Well no, from genome-wide data too.

I didn't say this individual didn't have Anatolian farmer admixture or that she was mostly CHG. I said that her mother may have come from the Near East or at least been of fully Near Eastern origin.

The PCA and mtDNA data are both in line with that.

mickeydodds1 said...

Many, many moons ago I remember reading a theory from a prominent philologist, I can't remember who, who speculated that PIE was a hybrid language formed by 'forcing' a Uralic-like language into a Caucasus-language grammatical structure.

Such a theory would support David's speculation, as a common contention is that children learn language from their mothers, in this case mothers who have been 'adopted' into different language families.

Azarov Dmitry said...

Your mail order wives from Caucasus theory is funny but has nothing to do reality. When we get results of aDNA from Myakop (R1a-M417>Z654 folks with huge CHG + Iran Neo admixture) all your ridiculous theories about steppe folks taking chicks from Caucasus will be finished once and for good. It would be more correctly to talk about migrants from the Iranian plateau (R1) with huge CHG + Iran Neo admixture taking local East European girls with huge WHG and EHG admixture.

Davidski said...

R1a-M417>Z654 folks with huge CHG + Iran Neo admixture.

There's no chance of this.

When the Maykop samples are published and there's no R1a in them you're probably going to come back here and claim that not enough individuals were sampled, but if you try that I'll start deleting all of your posts.

Ric Hern said...

Maybe something that connects to this discussion:

http://www.academia.edu/1538133/Kotova_N._First_cattle-breeders_of_the_steppe_Ukraine_The_Mesolithic-Early_Eneolithic_._Nomadism_and_pastoralism_between_Vistula_and_Dnieper_Neolithic_Eneolithic_Bronze_Age_._Poznan._2004

Azarov Dmitry said...

We have evidence of transfer of agricultural and metal working technologies from Near East in steppe as well as evidence of linguistic and cultural affiliation of PIE folks with ancient Near Eastern civilizations. And you still keep promoting your stupid theory of trafficking girls from Caucasus. It’s ridiculous.

P.S.
I made a screenshot of your previous post.

Davidski said...

I made a screenshot of your previous post.

Good. You should print it out and stick it on your forehead.

Grey said...

Matt

"‘Hunter-gatherer women sometimes married into the farming communities, while no genetic lines of farmer women have been found in hunter-gatherers,’ he said."

i wonder how a farmer-HG interface could create pastoralists

one way might be recruiting HG males to be stockmen as happened in Australia and America (iirc the plains Indians initially learned about horses while working on Spanish ranches).

aboriginal stockmen:

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/8bcb569f571c35488ff58eb5d4663cdf

this might create a dynamic where a small number of *founders* of the new pastoralist culture were male EHG and female CHG.

Arch Hades said...

I don't think Corded Ware is referred to as "Steppe_EMBA".

epoch2013 said...

There seems to be some sort of population structure in Yamnaya if you look at the f4 stats in the BB supp info (Table S2). Not sure if this is due to differences in the quality of the samples but it looks like Samara Yamnaya is more affiliated to most BB's with steppe admixture, but not the two Spanish samples. Kalmykia Yamnaya pulls to that but Samara Yamnaya doesn't. Could this point to different pulses?

Also, German CWC seems related to a lot of BB's but Polish or Estonian CWC doesn't.

I would like to have seen more stats done. For instance to check if TRB of GAC has preferences for one BB group over the others.

Unknown said...

What mixture are Balkans Iron Age? They're pulled downwards from Iron Gate's HG? So CHG?

Davidski said...

I don't think Corded Ware is referred to as "Steppe_EMBA".

Early Baltic Corded Ware is in that cluster. Have look where Latvia_LN is sitting in the PCA above.

Alberto said...

I think this is an important topic, but there are many more questions than answers at this point.

If looking for a plausible place and time the best option becomes the North Caucasus, from the fifth to the early fourth mill, then that would be as Aram pointed above: Meshoko, Svobodnoe and related sites. But I doubt any of those are considered ancestral to Yamnaya. They probably had interactions with Sredny Stog, but no idea if any with the Volga-Ural region (which is far away and at that time probably not very mobile).

In any case, the data we got from Ukraine is interesting. I'd point out that what you called the Ukraine_Neolithic_outlier is not really an outlier. It's simply the only sample we have from Eneolithic Ukraine (late Sredny Stog?). It could be an outlier, but the chances are obviously much lower than it represents an average type. And we have many Neolithic samples that are similar to Motala, so it makes sense.

So I don't know what are people's thoughts now about Ukraine. For a couple of years we've been hearing that Ukraine was the key to understand the Yamnaya expansion (and to find R1a-M417 and R1b-L51), but now the data suggests that Ukraine didn't have a Yamnaya-like population until Yamnaya itself came from the east around 3000 BC (from Samara or Kalmykia, and therefor in all likelihood carrying R1b-Z2103).

I guess we'll have to wait for the next paper to get some answers. Hopefully it won't take too long this time.

Rob said...

Some points:

1) "Yamnaya_Ukraine_outlier I1917: by far the most West Asian-shifted Yamnaya individual to date, sitting about half way between the Yamnaya cluster and present-day Caucasians in a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of West Eurasian populations, and belonging to the typically Near Eastern mtDNA haplogroup R0a1. What this strongly suggests is that her father was from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and mother probably from the Near East, perhaps from the Caucasus, or at least of fully Near Eastern origin; an obvious smoking gun for what I've been arguing."

It very well could have been, but by 3000 BC (from when I1917 dates to; and Yamnaya being fully formed) we can't make straightforward inferences as to where an individual came from simply from haplogroup lineages, as their relation to GW diversity become is no longer linked.


2) " Ukraine_Neolithic_outlier I1763: by far the most West Asian-shifted Ukraine Neolithic/Eneolithic individual to date"

But this is a Mesolithic male with mtDNA haplogroup U5b.



3) *"Ancient DNA suggests that Bronze Age steppe groups were highly patrilocal, and if so, it's likely that most of the mixture on the steppe at this time was facilitated via female exogamy (i.e. foreign brides), which would explain the lack of typically Caucasian Y-haplogroups, such as J2,"

I don't think we can say there is a lack of "Caucasian Y haplogroups" yet. For start, we don't know what haplogroups we'll find in the Caucasus, especially from north. Europe has given us a lot of surprises, so the Caucasus won't be different. On the one hand, some R1 groups could have already existed in north Caucasus, & expanded with Majkop. On the other hand, even if it was mostly J +/- G, the part of the steppe onto which they expanded hasn't been tested. We've only got samples from the Yamnaya part of the Caspian, which is likely to be the more homogenous end. We already know that there were I2a2, esp. in 'Balkan Yamnaya'. And even know, we don;t have any Y haplogroups from Ukraine Yamnaya. Definitely far too early to tell given the multiplicity of subregions and burial groups in Yamnaya.

But overall, given what we've seen further west in Europe, by 4- 3000 BC, Europe was 80% 'farmer' but almost wholly 'forager' male lineages. A similar but milder (40%) and more regionally limited 'eastern agro-pastoralist' admixture even could have occurred for the steppe & EE in general. But the mtDNA haplogroups don't quite support such a theory, as most of the lineages are Us, as well as some 'Neolithic' ones already seen in Romania & Ukraine, for example. So i think there are a couple of possibilities.

Davidski said...

I'd point out that what you called the Ukraine_Neolithic_outlier is not really an outlier. It's simply the only sample we have from Eneolithic Ukraine (late Sredny Stog?). It could be an outlier, but the chances are obviously much lower than it represents an average type.

Yes, when more Eneolithic samples from Ukraine are published most will probably be outliers compared to their Neolithic ascendants.

But the point is that this singleton Eneolithic sample is a female with Near Eastern admixture and a Near Eastern mtDNA haplogroup, while the earlier samples from the Mesolithic/Neolithic are R1a/R1b rich with no signs of any Near Eastern admixture.

So the plausible conclusion is that Near Eastern admixture mostly or entirely arrived in the area during the Eneolithic with females.

So I don't know what are people's thoughts now about Ukraine. For a couple of years we've been hearing that Ukraine was the key to understand the Yamnaya expansion (and to find R1a-M417 and R1b-L51), but now the data suggests that Ukraine didn't have a Yamnaya-like population until Yamnaya itself came from the east around 3000 BC (from Samara or Kalmykia, and therefor in all likelihood carrying R1b-Z2103).

Some of the early Corded Ware are no different from Samara and Kalmykia Yamnaya, and they carry R1a-M417.

But there's no guarantee that anyone will find their ancestors on the steppe anytime soon. In fact, they might be from an area where there are no longer any burials to sample, and if so, we'll just have to extrapolate their history based on patterns from other samples.

Davidski said...

But this is a Mesolithic male with mtDNA haplogroup U5b.

That was a typo. I made the correction now.

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Daviski I am an amateur learning as I go here so this is not an expert opinion, but I think you are onto something. I do wonder if Genesis chapter six is an account of what you are talking about...

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Much later on it was assumed that the "sons of God" were fallen angels or something ridiculous but I see support in the text for the idea that this was one tribe, the sons and daughters of Adamah, mixing with out-groups. IOW, local rulers from nearby tribes (and the Caucus Mountains are nearby to Ararat where the account concludes) took wives from this tribe. That is the female exogamy you describe. The Hunter-Gather tribes took daughters from the tribe that had agriculture, metallurgy, and animal husbandry. The word used for "fair" there means "fit", "good" or "suitable". That knowledge was part of what made them such a good catch for the chieftains of the hill people.

epoch2013 said...

No, my remark on pop differences among Yamnaya isn't real. For instance the difference is +3.179 vs +2.830. The latter is borderline significant.

The differences in CWC affinity are very clear though.

epoch2013 said...

@Mark Moore

Read Napoleon Chagnon on the Yanomamo raiding other tribes for women to get an idea.

Matt said...

Davidski: then we'd see some evidence of that on the Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe from Khvalynsk to Srubnaya, and perhaps also in steppe-derived Northern European groups, in at least some Y-chromosomes via the presence of, say, J1, J2 or G.

See, I don't know if we would, or if it isn't easy for major founder effects to take 60% male R1 lineages to around 100%, esp. with patrilocality and samples from a particular area, and we've only got the few Eneolithic individuals so far.

I didn't say this individual didn't have Anatolian farmer admixture or that she was mostly CHG. I said that her mother may have come from the Near East or at least been of fully Near Eastern origin.

The PCA and mtDNA data are both in line with that.


Sure, but then I don't know, if she has a lot of Anatolian Neolithic ancestry, might not be that representative of any ancestry of process leading to Yamnaya, and we can't really know if she is a first generation mixture of any different groups or was more typical for her population (it's not like we have a high quality diploid genome).

Grey: Sure it could have happened like that. I don't know if we have any evidence for that either way really. Any female founders of the culture can't all have been CHG though.

Tesmos said...

''both from just north of the Sea of Azov, and yet both practically indistinguishable from Yamnaya samples from sites several hundred kilometers to the east in Kalmykia and Samara. These individuals are potential evidence of female exogamy amongst far flung Yamnaya groups.''

Hmm... It seems the western region of Yamnaya was not that different from eastern Yamnaya after all based on these 2 new samples.

Ric Hern said...

Well when looking at archaeological evidence about the domestication of animals in the Steppe N Katova mentions that domesticated cattle remains was already found there at 6800 bC. and goats were introduced later from the Dagestan area. But this all predates Maykop by +-2000 years.

It seems now more likely that cattle were introduced via the East Coast of the Black Sea (West of the Caucasus). At least that is what I can see from the paper. So maybe there were both Anatolian and CHG related peoples in the Northern Caucasus from at least 7000 bC. There seems to be a clear connection to later Sredny Stog.

a said...

Once in a while it is nice to reflect upon some of the colorful cosmopolitan posts from the past. Thank you for not deleting these older posts : )

Roy King said...

What do you make of the large West Asian component among Yamnaya? Is this the same West Asian component that is absent among most of the Neolithic/Chalcolithic samples of Europe?


Roy King said...

@Davidski,
Or it could be that Neolithic Europe originates from the Levant, not Armenia/not Eastern Anatolia and that the West Asian component in, say contemporary Lebanon, descends later from the South/NE Caucasus, perhaps with Kura-Araxes or with Hurrians.


Shaikorth said...

The West Asian is prevalent in the Volga region so increased similarity to Tatars, Chuvash, Erzya and even Kargopol Russians compared to Estonia, Finland and Lithuania (and based on what I've seen so far, Karelians and Vepsians) in Oracles is not surprising and I expect K13 will show even more. It's noteworthy that Yamnaya's Fst-distances published in the paper back this result with Erzya topping that list, unfortunately there was no Chuvash or Tatar comparison. Eastern Baltic OTOH had smallest Fst's to WHG.

The idea of West Asian component as an IE signal to some degree might get a boost from this.



Nirjhar007 said...

David You are a Genius!

Karl_K said...

@Nirjhar007

"David You are a Genius!"

Finally you are making sense!

Nirjhar007 said...

You Too Karl!
Alberto said...

Thanks David!

An interesting detail being noted by others is how much WHG ancestry was left in Europe in the Late Neolithic once you moved away from typically neolithic cultures. Even the resurgence of WHG ancestry among the middle Neolithic cultures doesn't show how much WHG ancestry was moving around outside these settlements.

The Bell Beaker I0112 is a testament to this. Probably very low ANE, but also pretty low ENF. Nothing like a Sardinian or a Yamnaya sample.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2015/03/first-look-at-bell-beaker-corded-ware.html



In light of additional samples WHG+EHG-added to R1b 14k+/-Villabruna R1b-Iron Gates, R1b-Ukraine, R1b Latvia. It will be interesting comparing the North Sea and ANE components for one of the older Yamnaya samples R1b-KMS 67 Yamnaya I0429 Sok River, Samara, Russia 3339-2917 calBCE

htpps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x8pm8sVcHqceiNFJMO082kxaBF5ePr4__bAK05VQRFw/edit#gid=1681484272

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QPTmyarOBBEZfXnLI5L64ueJNG34jgy4QgQ_1nSYtnM/edit#gid=917906623

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y20993/

Jaap said...

Pivotal! Which is what matters. You've stuck your neck out, and even if they come and hack it off, it will still be an essential step in the process. I don't like your vainglory much, but I must still commend you at this point: there's no way you're gonna lose this position. I'm a chess-player, I know ... My opinion isn't worth much in your book, I'm just a kibitzer, and you are the patzer. You've made a half-baked narrative that may never mature, but there's no denying that an important step has been taken, and it can't be taken back. More importantly it can't be ignored! Nirjar's praise is fully deserved. Congrats!
PS: no more need now to look for a PIE-homeland. PIE never existed in the first place. There's a gordian knot there for the linguists to sort out. And it seems to me they never will, bless them! Their efforts will still produce insights ...

Olympus Mons said...

@Aram,
Like I always said: Shulaveri became Kubans (mesokho) by 4800bc and later up samara river...

Olympus Mons said...

@Jaap,
PIE can't be Steppe... ergo PIE never existed! .... brutal, just brutal! LOL.

Olympus Mons said...

@Aram,
Remember what I wrote long a go...


The Svobodnoe settlement is the most Shulaveri place moving from the Kura river into north Caucasus. The biggest settlement in the all Kuban river basin is precisely Svobodnoe. Check Svobodnoe and Mesokho. It all was the Zakubanye culture. And to me Zakubanye is Shulaveri.... Later it all was Maykop. But before, it were clear them, alongside with places like Nalchik or even Crimeia and North of sea of Azov ...the people that brought the package of agriculture, pastoral and general way of living that did not exist in north Caucasus but they have implemented there. Hell , at least they gave Spelt to them all. Spelt. Follow the spelt.

a said...

When the data is released; compare the following specific samples for Yamnaya admixture.Samples #2-#3-#4 are located in Bell Beaker burials with a distance of 24k /100year+/-date range variance : )

Ydna-R1b-1078
1) Yamnaya I0429,[KMS-67/75]Russia 3339-2917 calBCE2 [100% K8]
2) Bell Beaker I2787 BB Hungary_Sz32500-2200 BCE [74%percentile]
Ydna-R1b-L51
3)I2365 Bell Beaker_HUN,2500-2100 BCE [44.9%percentile]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ydna-H2
4)I2364 Bell Beaker_Bud1,2500-2100 BCE[15.7%percentile]

Davidski said...

@Matt

Sure, but then I don't know, if she has a lot of Anatolian Neolithic ancestry, might not be that representative of any ancestry of process leading to Yamnaya, and we can't really know if she is a first generation mixture of any different groups or was more typical for her population (it's not like we have a high quality diploid genome).

There are lots of options until we see more samples from the steppe and also the North Caucasus.

Yamnaya_Ukraine_outlier I1917 might be a 50/50 mixture of a male from Ukraine and a female from the Northwest Caucasus, where like today, CHG and Anatolian ancestry may have been present at high levels.

The typical Yamnaya that we know of from Samara, Kalmykia and the two females from Ukraine might have southern ancestry from the Northeast Caucasus, where excess Anatolian admixture may have been missing until very recently.

Really hard to say, but there's no denying that I1917 clusters about half way between the Yamnaya (Steppe_EMBA) cluster and present-day North Caucasians. When I saw that I was immediately reminded of this quote...

It appears that two young women of 14-17 and 20 years old were born somewhere near the coastlines of the Caspian or Black Seas (North Caucasus region) and later married and moved to the steppe. As newcomers they lived in a new steppe environment for a short period and died. At least the isotope data confirm this hypothesis, i.e. the isotope values of the young females differ from the isotope values of other local steppe people, whose diet system is typical for Model 2 (Shishlina et al. 2009; Shishlina et al. 2012).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272027328_The_Steppe_and_the_Caucasus_during_the_Bronze_Age_Mutual_Relationships_and_Mutual_Enrichments

Rob said...

Ok. #I4110 is Eneolithic (c. 3450 BC) at Dereivka, and probably at similar date but couple hundred years after the hvalynsk R1b man. It doesn't seem like an outlier to me, it's what is expected at a pre-Yamnaya stage going by the gradual admixture scenario.
J2b doesn;t seem Caucasia, it seems Mediterreanean / south European/ Anatolian (i.e. from EEF). So again, the mtDNA isn;t too enlightening IMO.

Davidski said...

This is what I said above...

Yes, when more Eneolithic samples from Ukraine are published most will probably be outliers compared to their Neolithic ascendants.

But the point is that this singleton Eneolithic sample is a female with Near Eastern admixture and a Near Eastern mtDNA haplogroup, while the earlier samples from the Mesolithic/Neolithic are R1a/R1b rich with no signs of any Near Eastern admixture.

So the plausible conclusion is that Near Eastern admixture mostly or entirely arrived in the area during the Eneolithic with females.

Aram said...

J2b1 was present in Malak Preslavet.

Kristiina said...

The oldest J2b1 has been found in Mesolithic Sardinia:
Mesolithic Sardinia 8000 BCE CARH7 J2b1 (069 126), Ukraine Neolithic outlier Dereivka I4110 J2b1, Balkans Neolithic Serbia I4665 J2b1, Balkans Neolithic Malak Preslavets Bulgaria I1109 J2b1.

Gioiello said...

@ Kristiina

"The oldest J2b1 has been found in Mesolithic Sardinia:
Mesolithic Sardinia 8000 BCE CARH7 J2b1 (069 126), Ukraine Neolithic outlier Dereivka I4110 J2b1, Balkans Neolithic Serbia I4665 J2b1, Balkans Neolithic Malak Preslavets Bulgaria I1109 J2b1".

I posted that at the beginning of this thread:
"Italy Su Carroppu, Sardinia [CAR-H7] 8227–7596 BCE 16527 mtDNA J2b1 195C, 3654T, 6053T, 9071T, 10957G Modi 2017"
and also
"This sample
Italy Su Carroppu, Sardinia [CAR-H7] 8227–7596 BCE 16527 mtDNA J2b1 195C, 3654T, 6053T, 9071T, 10957G Modi 2017
has been found in Sardinia of more than 10000 years ago and with 7 private mutations which ridiculize the tree of Behar&Co which gave to J2a1 an age of 10000 years.
We'll see next who is the lier: if me or they".
Modi 2017 talks of 5 extra-mutations, but perhaps I counted two back mutations, anyway I may check that sample again...
and I am waiting that also peer reviewed researchers begin to say that the lier am not I but others.

Kristiina said...

Yes, J2b1 is a European haplogroup, only some specific aubclades are Caucasian, such as J2b1f and the unnamed Ossete-Kabardin branch.

http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/j2b_genbank_sequences.htm

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1851/20161976.figures-only

Moreover, we have plenty of J2b1 from European Neolithic contexts.

Gioiello said...

@ Kristiina

If I look at the Ian Logan spreadsheet, I'd say that more than European just above all Italian, and it could be one of the infinite proofs I carried of an "Italian Refugium", of R1b1, but also of much other. The presence of the extinct line of J2b1 in Mesolithic Sardinia may bring us just to the Palaeolithic Villabrunas...We know that only one line survived from many others, like the R-P297* from all the Villabruna's tribe.

Folker said...

I'm mostly agree with you on female exogamy, and so on. But I don't think it excludes completely male exogamy, with possibility of some founder effect (like Y HG I2 in the Balkans). So, we could find some EMBA Steppe with Y HG J in North Caucasus. Moreover, if female exogamy was the norm, it doesn't mean that all female came from a specific group, quite the contrary, it was probably widespread, from all groups in contact with the Proto-Yamna and later. It means that at least some Anatolian_N could have entered the gene pool through the Balkans. We can see the Pontic Steppe as a crossroad between different stream of genes from the South. So it is likely that "Near Eastern" admixture have different origins,

Gioiello said...

The age of J2b1 from Pereira et al. 2017


J2b1 16100 [12000-20400] 11600 [8300-15000] 12800 [9600-16100]

is more reliable that the Behar 2012b one.

Olympus Mons said...

If steppe chalcolithic had incomming CHGg/Anatolian and it was females.... iran neolithic had no CHG/Anatolian but had it has plenty during Chalcolithic everybody must be positing it was all females... So what happen to males?

Btw, why not starting to address that conponent by the right name? Shulaveri shomu. The ones coming from Anatolia (but from black sea shores, so a bit diferent anatolian) and that lived 2000 years in the land of CHG.

Does anyone has another culprit for it? Which other culture?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Kristiina, Gioiello

J2b1 existed in Mesolithic Sardinia but it probably originated in the Near East. In the rest of Europe there's no instance of mtDNA J in hunter gatherers. In the rest of Europe mtDNA J first appeared alongside a huge amount of admixture from the Near East(EEF or CHG).

Furthermore J2b1 was relatively common in EEF populations and that Eneolithic Ukrainian female had a lot of EEF ancestry. 100% of the earlier Ukraine hunter gatherers belonged to mHG U, so there's an extremely good chance her J2b1 derives from EEF farmers.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Gioiello,

The fact of the matter is something like 90% of European mtDNA was in the Near East before 10,000 years ago. Haplogroups other than U never had a big presence in Europe till EEF groups from Anatolia and CHG groups from the Caucasus moved into Europe starting 9,000 years ago.

Gioiello said...

@ Samuel Andrews

1) If you look at the recent paper of Pereira et al (whose Kristiina gave the link, but unfortunately nor for free, but you may upload the supplements), the authors say which derives from which, and they point above all from ME to Europe, but:
a) the presence of J2b1 in Sardinia, more than 10000 years ago, disproves all what also Mr Reich said in his last conference, that Sardinians derive from Middle East as EEF. That haplotype, so far extinct, had 7 mutations (5 new and 2 back mutation) and per se disproves the tree of Behar 2012b, in fact Pereira et al give an age of 16000 years, which may be also more. An old paper demonstrated that hgs J and T mutated more slowly than thought so far.
b) Middle East cannot comprehend all what isn't Europe. Northern Anatolia was very close to Europe (above all Southern Eastern where also Italy is), and what came from there, if it actually came, cannot be considered as an introgression into Europe of something different. From aDNA we know that Middle East and Iran were very different.
2) Now we are seeing that the same Levantinists backdate the introgression into Europe to 13000 years ago, and not with the infamous agriculturalists supported so far, but the idea that "Ex Oriente Lux" remains. Many people, comprised Maciamo Hay, continues to sing again that R-V88 came from Middle East, after that I have demonstrated from at least ten years that that isn't true. And where has gone that mt H32 found in Natufian and Iranian aDNA after that I demonstrated that it couldn't be anything if not European, lacking those places all the upstream haplogroups present in Europe, above all in Italy?
3) Ask your compatriots why they tested so few Italy, and don't you wonder that practically the same gang owns aDNA and do all what its agenda foresee, even though many signs of other researchers are published more and more which seem going in another perspective.

jv said...

I believe my MtDNA haplogroup would fit into the " brides from the Caucusas" on EB Steppe. MtDNA H6a was involved in a Late Upper Paleolithic expansion from Southern Caucasus or the Near East. Earliest H6 find is in Israel about 4000 BCE then next is about 2800 BCE H6a1b on the Kutuluk River Samara. Both were males.

jv said...

.......maybe those Mesolithic women from the caves & rock shelters Caucasus got tired of their Brown Bear cuisine & decided to join those Steppe cowboys. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4270519/BarYosef_BearHunting.pdf?sequence=2

Grey said...

Matt

"Grey: Sure it could have happened like that. I don't know if we have any evidence for that either way really. Any female founders of the culture can't all have been CHG though."

True but the way i see it is there are only a limited set of logical possibilities, either
1) the mtdna was initially mixed and some kind of filter applied over time so maybe
- selection
- founder effect
- bit of both

or

2) the mtdna was very one-sided from the beginning

or

3) we're missing something

so to me the primary options boil down to
1) mtdna initally mixed + selection
2) mtdna initally mixed + founder effect
3) mtdna initally mixed + bit of both of above
4) mtdna initially very one-sided
5) missing something

then if you take option 4: mtdna initially very one-sided, how many plausible models are there? the only big historical era examples i can think of are South America and Iceland i.e. conquest or raiding.

another partial example might be the American plains Indians - imagining what might have happened if North America had been settled by Sumerians with spears rather than Europeans with guns? personally i think that could have easily have ended up the same way with Comanche-Goth cavalry burning Ur-Washington.

i can dream up non-violent models for how the mtdna could have been so disproportionate from the beginning - steppe stockmen adopted into farmer community or steppe mercenaries returning home with their kultepe brides - but how likely they are who knows.

#

option 5: missing something, might be we currently have a distorted picture due to the best preserved remains coming from a particular class/caste

andrew said...

"It's likely that low population densities in Eastern Europe during the Eneolithic ensured the rapid spread and rise of admixture from the Caucasus across much of the Pontic-Caspian steppe"

Is that early enough for this exchange to be a cause of Indo-European ethnogenesis?

Matt said...

@ Grey, true re: mtdna pools, though not totally sure how many n and how specific we need to be on mtdna to be sure we have an accurate estimate of mtdna pools between populations and calculate population admixture.
Pie charts of simplified mtdna groupings: http://imgur.com/a/Qh9uq based on Mathieson 2017 supplement.

To go simple and assume that all mtdna from U in Steppe EMBA is from EHG females while all other groups are from Near East, then 39% mtdna to 60% autosome *does* seem like an imbalance. (Proportion of U in other populations: Steppe MLBA: 42%, Corded Ware: 28%, Globular Amphora: 20%, IberiaMNChl: 13%).

That is probably simple though as Near East groups did have some frequency of U (presence of anything other than U groups among EHG is currently unknown), and perhaps someone else can do a better job (Krefter?).

Grey said...

Matt

yeah - more samples may sort it out

Matt said...

@ Grey, I hope so. They should be able to say more from mtdna if they can get a higher

Say, you have 39% of mtdna is clearly EHG (using my simplistic estimate of U = EHG mtdna, for example). Then take the ancestry proportions from Lazaridis 2016 and overall ancestry is 52.7% EHG. Mtdna tells you the proportion of female ancestors who are EHG, 39%. Then the proportion of male ancestors has to be 66% EHG, to average get to 52.7%. So then you know that you have to have had male 33:66 CHG:EHG, and female 61:39 CHG:EHG.

For another estimate on Yamnaya, Mathieson 2017 gives 51.2% Euro HG in Yamnaya, so with 39% HG mtdna, you get 64% male HG required, therefore male 36:64 CHG:EHG and female 61:39 CHG:EHG.

Take another example from Mathieson 2017 - they estimate Iberia combined as 20% WHG on autosomes, 10% on mtdna; therefore 30% WHG on the male side. That's probably an underestimate for Iberia Chalcolithic though, which probably hits more like 30% WHG on autosomes, and 15% mtdna U, so 45% WHG in the male side (in theory perhaps almost half the MN Iberians' male ancestors could have been WHGs...).

The difficulty is having the high enough n of all the groups to say. Getting high n of EHG seems more difficult; I'd be less surprised if they could get a good high n of steppe cultures.

(In theory, you could use y dna to estimate the other way.... but that would be waaaay worse since there are much heavier expansions and founder effects on the y in the Neolithic through to Metal Ages. Females have much more egalitarian reproduction rates.).