search this blog

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

R1a-M417 from Eneolithic Ukraine!!!11


A new version of Mathieson et al. 2017 has just been posted at BioRxiv [LINK]. It includes more samples. One of these new samples is a male from an Eneolithic Sredny Stog culture site on the Pontic (Ukrainian) steppe who belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a-M417 (ID I6561 from Alexandria in the ADMIXTURE bar graph below). This is huge, obviously with major implications for the peopling of large parts of Eurasia. Why? Because of this. Here's the new abstract:

Abstract: Farming was first introduced to southeastern Europe in the mid-7th millennium BCE - brought by migrants from Anatolia who settled in the region before spreading throughout Europe. To clarify the dynamics of the interaction between the first farmers and indigenous hunter-gatherers where they first met, we analyze genome-wide ancient DNA data from 223 individuals who lived in southeastern Europe and surrounding regions between 12,000 and 500 BCE. We document previously uncharacterized genetic structure, showing a West-East cline of ancestry in hunter-gatherers, and show that some Aegean farmers had ancestry from a different lineage than the northwestern Anatolian lineage that formed the overwhelming ancestry of other European farmers. We show that the first farmers of northern and western Europe passed through southeastern Europe with limited admixture with local hunter-gatherers, but that some groups mixed extensively, with relatively sex-balanced admixture compared to the male-biased hunter-gatherer admixture that prevailed later in the North and West. Southeastern Europe continued to be a nexus between East and West after farming arrived, with intermittent genetic contact from the Steppe up to 2000 years before the migration that replaced much of northern Europe's population.



Mathieson et al., The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe, bioRxiv, Posted September 19, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/135616

By the way, I don't want to toot my own horn too much, but looking back, some of my comments in the discussion about the first version of Mathieson et al. 2017 were awesome. See here and here.

Three new Yamnaya, all from Ukraine, but sadly all females.

Expected the Mesolithic/Neolithic R1a/R1b in Ukraine, and it would've been good to see some Yamnaya males from there, because some are likely to be R1a-M417.

But it's nice to see that Bulgarian MLBA R1a/U5a sample. Interesting date for R1a to be in the Balkans: 1750-1625 calBCE (3400±30 BP).

...

It can't be a coincide that all of their Yamnaya samples from Ukraine are females.

I reckon they're holding the males back for their South Asian paper.

I'm surprised they let the Bulgarian MLBA R1a out of the bag, because that's a big clue about what we'll see in BA Ukraine.

Update 20/09/2017: I put together a spreadsheet with the key details for the samples in this paper (click on the image below to open it). I'm not sure which of the individuals are new, because many of the IDs have been changed. A spreadsheet with the original set of samples is located here.


See also...

The beast among Y-haplogroups

Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts

223 comments:

1 – 200 of 223   Newer›   Newest»
Arza said...

Sample ID:
I6561

Average of 95.4% date range in calBP (defined as 1950 CE):
6200

Date: (Format 2) Archaeological context date, e.g. 2500-1700 BCE
5000-3500 BCE

Y chrom.
R1a1a1:M417

Autosomally like Corded Ware and almost identical to Z-93 Balkan_BA.

Davidski said...

Yep, and check out my map from early last year showing where I thought Poltavka_outlier's R1a-M417 ancestor came from.

The Poltavka outlier

I was off by a whisker.

Arza said...

I was off by a whisker.

Only due to the projection bias. Of the map of course.


Ukraine_Neolithic_outlier

Unexpectedly, one Neolithic individual from Dereivka (I3719), which we directly date to
4949-4799 BCE, has entirely NW Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry.


mtDNA Y chrom.
H1 I2a2a

?!?

Davidski said...

Yeah, he looks like a migrant from the Balkans, because he clusters right next to an unadmixed Balkan Chalcolithic sample on the PCA.

Arza said...

Diff of SampleID, Culture, Avg Date, mtDNA, Y DNA:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzuotSparaF-bFIwM3I4VUNtbDQ/view

Arza said...

The question is how he got his I2a2a Y-haplogroup without even a sign of admixture. Maybe there is an error in the table?

Now we have two Ukraine_Neolithic samples with I2a2a:
I3714 - fully Ukrainian Mesolithic
I3719 - fully Anatolian

Davidski said...

He's not fully Anatolian judging by the PCA. The ADMIXTURE result is probably off, because he should be showing a fair bit of forager ancestry.

Samuel Andrews said...

Wow, there you guy, the common ancestor of Corded Ware and Andronovo. Next hopefully someone will find Bell Beaker and Yamnaya's common ancestor. Then the R1b M269/R1a M417 will finally be over.

Samuel Andrews said...

Naysayers can't say anymore "Well, Eastern Yamnaya didn't have any R1a M417, therefore, R1a M417 isn't from the Steppe it could be from the Moon or Tajikistan for all we know."

Naysayers, a dozen or so genomes from Eastern Yamnaya doesn't capture all the genetic diversity that existed in the Eneolithic-BA Steppe!! Eastern Yamnaya just represents one Steppe clan, there were obviously many.

Steppe clans were mobile, good at staying isolated from foreign admixture for many generations while migrating, and typically belonged to a single and young paternal lineage. This is why we find R1a M417 carrying people with identical genetic structures living in Sweden, Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria, and deep in Siberia.

Also, the time seris of Samara genomes doesn't capture the formation of "Steppe" ancestry. Remeber Steppe clans were mobile, Eastern Yamnaya may not be the descendants of Samara Eneolithic. Steppe may have originated somewhere else where "Steppe" ancestry (EHG+CHG) had existed since like 5000 BC. A distant common ancestor for Yamanya and Corded Ware can explain how "Steppe" includes many differnt Y DNA haplogroups.


Bob Floy said...

Glorious.

Lots of people(I will mention no names) gonna have to eat some crow now ;]

Nirjhar007 said...

Significant find this.

Twasztar said...

Fantastic news.

Ryan said...

The grey component in ADMIXTURE probably contains some baseline minimum amount of WHG (or something like WHG).

It looks like from ADMIXTURE that the Ukraine gets some sort of input from WHG or the Iron Gates or Romanian HG between the Mesolithic and Neolithic. Nothing you but something. What do you guys think?

And is it just me or does EHG (red) seem to start leaking out a small amount prior to Yamnaya arriving? That'd explain those early Bronze Age Hungarians, but what's the explanation? A patchy distribution of EHG in the Balkans and the surrounding area?

Salden said...

Hindu Nationalists will chimpout over it.

Nirjhar007 said...

Years before aDNA ,S Asia and the area around Ukraine was already known to be the hot spots for R1a . The results from Ukraine is not shocking or surprising, but of course is significant . Now we look forward to S Asia and surrounds, for the final verdict on R1a .



Arza said...

Krepost_Neolithic (Bulgaria, 5718-5626 calBCE) on Extended Data Figure 1. clusters with Minoans.

Trypillia_outlier disappeared from the paper.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Salden,
"Hindu Nationalists will chimpout over it."

Shut up, Salden. Seriously, the heck is wrong with you?

"Years before aDNA ,S Asia and the area around Ukraine was already known to be the hot spots for R1a . The results from Ukraine is not shocking or surprising, but of course is significant . Now we look forward to S Asia and surrounds, for the final verdict on R1a ."

Look at a map. Ukraine is super far away from SC Asia. Enough is enough, Nirihar007, just deal with it R1a arrived in India in the Bronze age alongside Indo European languages.

Bob Floy said...

It's known to be a hot spot for R1a *now*, but many folks wanted to argue that R1a wasn't present in Ukraine as early as Sredni Stog, since it's presence in the area that early strongly supports the idea that M417 was brought to Asia by steppe migrants. The sample in question basically looks like Yamnaya in terms of aDNA, this guy definitely didn't get his M417 from south or central Asia. So that's why it's significant.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

I'm a bit confused where and how the R1b in Iron Gates comes from ? Apparently intermediate between EHG and SHG with something additional from somewhere else ?

We know that the Majority WHG in Western Europe was Y-DNA I2a ? SHG probably I1 ? EHG probably R1a ? So did R1b came from Anatolia during the Early Mesolithic/Upper Palaeolithic ?

Is this the Something Else or is the Something Else mostly Maternal in nature ?

Davidski said...

R1b looks like an WHG and EHG lineage to me based on current sampling.

Simon_W said...

I remember well the arguments (not by me of course). The oldest clades are found in Western Europe. The biggest diversity is all in Asia.

Nirjhar007 said...

Bob,

many folks wanted to argue that R1a wasn't present in Ukraine as early as Sredni Stog

I believe its the data what matters . Many people from the discovery of R1a and after knowing its high level presence in S Asia and E Europe, argued that the only explanation is from EE to SA and that S Asian R1a is only there from around 2 millennium BC . There was a huge bias regarding it and still is . All I am saying that , wait for the relevant results , If S Asian and Surrounding data suggest and agree with what you guys are saying , then there is no problem . Just don't jump the gun .... have the scientific attitude .

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

At some or other stage R1a and R1b must have been closer to each other that is why I can not understand the the majority WHG relatedness in populations with R1b since R1a and R1b split from a common ancestor while I and J seems to be closer ancestry wise ? So R1b became WHG shifted during the Mesolithic and could have been more EHG during the Upper Palaeolithic ?

Davidski said...

There's no R1a in any Upper Paleolithic European samples yet, but there is R1a in Neolithic Siberians from sites close to Lake Baikal, and R1b has already been found in a couple of Upper Paleolithic Western Europeans.

So R1a and R1b look like they're both from Siberia, but R1b probably entered Europe earlier.

Ric Hern said...

Thanks David.

Rob said...

What is that Yamnaya Ukraine outlier that's so 'Armenian' shifted ?
(Green dot with outlier black encirclement )

Rob said...

"The Neolithic population has a significant difference in ancestry compared to the Mesolithic
(Figures 1B, Figure 2), with a shift towards WHG shown by the statistic D(Mbuti, WHG,
Ukraine_Mesolithic, Ukraine_Neolithic); Z=8.9 (Supplementary Information Table 2).
Unexpectedly, one Neolithic individual from Dereivka (I3719), which we directly date to
4949-4799 BCE, has entirely NW Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry."

Yeah, confirms that simplistic Kurgan scenario is false. Seems like constant contact between northeast Balkans and steppe, with the former going east, and coming back a generation or two later, admixed.

Ric Hern said...

Interesting how they keep the tension going with regards to Language and CHG. Some Hittite DNA is drastically needed....

Rob said...

"Yeah, confirms that simplistic Kurgan scenario is false. Seems like constant contact between northeast Balkans and steppe, with the former going east, and coming back a generation or two later, admixed."

Not to mention, the massive swing toward CHG between 4000 & 3000 BC.
A lot of happenings on, at least at GW-perspective.
Seems like local groups were were becoming integrated into larger spheres, with some individuals (i2a2, R1b-M269, R1a-M417) profiting greatly from it, and expanding.

Davidski said...

What is that Yamnaya Ukraine outlier that's so 'Armenian' shifted ? (Green dot with outlier black encirclement )

Probably a female imported from the Caucasus.

Ric Hern said...

Northwestern Anatolian seems to be rather distinct from the rest of Anatolia....So does this exclude some CHG ancestry which is more prominent during later migrations... ?

mickeydodds1 said...

If you think that the quibbling will stop, then you are sorely mistaken.

Bob Floy said...

@nirjar
"I believe its the data what matters."

I agree. The data says that R1a-M417 was present in Sredni Stog, who are widely thought to have been the forerunners of the PIE folk. The data also says that this Sredni Stog guy with M417 was mostly Yamnaya-like, with a good chunk of EEF and a bit of WHG. In other words, he looks a lot like a corded ware guy, could almost be a modern central European.

"wait for the relevant results"

Modern India has a lot of M417, and huge swaths of India are Indo-European speaking, in fact India's main classical language is a very archaic indo-European language, which bears a strong resemblance to the Balto-Slavic languages. There's also a lot of bronze age steppe type ancestry in India, but little to no south Asian ancestry in modern Europeans, especially the ones who carry M417 today.

So, the results from the Mathieson et al. paper are very relevant to the issue of the peopling of south and central Asia, and to the history of Asian M417. Based on the data, the strongest scenario is that M417 came to Asia with the indo-European expansions. I'm not sure what you think will be found in the ancient south Asian genomes(whenever the hell they're finally published) which could contradict this? No matter how open minded one is, there aren't really many possibilities, given what the data now says.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"Seems like constant contact between northeast Balkans and steppe, with the former going east, and coming back a generation or two later, admixed."

Tell me how much EEF did Yamnaya have? At its heart Corded Ware is the same as Yamnaya, a EHG-CHG mix, no contribution from the Balkans. EEF admixture entered COrded Ware only after it left a home in the Steppe. So, no there wasn't constant interaction between EEF and EHG/CHG.

Ric Hern said...

So CHG ancestry North of the Caucasus was Female mediated and CHG South of the Caucasus and Anatolia Male mediated.

Speculative: What happened North of the Caucasus ? Did the rading of women North of the Caucasus maybe push CHG Males to migrate South and into Anatolia and beyond ?

Rob said...

@ Bob Floy

"The data also says that this Sredni Stog guy with M417 was mostly Yamnaya-like, with a good chunk of EEF and a bit of WHG"

Where are you reading that ?
the Ukraine Neolithic guy is plotting up there with the rest of Ukraine Mesolithic, Neolithic, Latvia HG, etc;
not Yamnaya

Matt said...

Changes I spot immediately:

They're encompassing some of the Lepenski Vir samples from Hofmanova's thesis here, but not all of the HG samples she discusses (or even most of the Lepenski Vir).

Big overall changes in the PCA are:

- Peloponnesse Neolithic just appears mostly Anatolian now, with two of four showing some displacement towards Anatolia BA. Rather than all displaced "south" as in the previous print.

- Iron Gates HG all fit on the "line" of Euro HG, rather than a few being displaced towards Europe.

This must be due to improving data quality on these samples.

Samuel: Steppe clans were mobile, good at staying isolated from foreign admixture for many generations while migrating, and typically belonged to a single and young paternal lineage.

Though, az Azra notes, this sample is autosomally looking roughly like Corded Ware Germany (on PCA and roughly on ADMIXTURE). (At the same time as other Corded Ware samples from Latvia didn't...)

Rob said...

@ Ric Hern

"So CHG ancestry North of the Caucasus was Female mediated and CHG South of the Caucasus and Anatolia Male mediated."

Perhaps. Of course, Im sure this picture will change with denser Eneolithic (4-3000 BC) sampling of the steppe.

Bob Floy said...

@Rob

I'm looking at 16561.

Davidski said...

@Rob

The M417 Sredny Stog sample is indeed mostly Yamnaya-like, and actually plots where most Corded Ware usually plot.

Have a look at sample I6561 in the ADMIXTURE bar graph.

Tesmos said...

Is there a full list of the new samples?

Rob said...

Ah right, thanks. I6551 is Eneolithic (42-3500 BC).
That makes sense.
So essentially, we're just waiting for the final details as to how CHG admixed into Eneolithic steppe.

Ric Hern said...

So Derievka was already influenced by Neolithic Farmers +-4900 bC. which indirectly means that they could have used Domesticated Cattle and other Domesticates from this early like the paper about the lower Don and Volga already suggested.....so it was a spread from West to East....

Rob said...

Ric
Cattle yes
But sheep, which predominate on the Caspian side of the steppe might have come from elsewhere (?)

Ric Hern said...

The problem regarding when domesticated cattle occurred in the Steppe could be linked to two papers that shows that Neolithic Farmers crossbred their cattle with local Aurochs as seen in Switzerland and Britain/Ireland maybe to create bigger Animals for ploughing and pulling of wagons...

So Steppe cattle could have been more Aurochs Like which could have created the wrong impression regarding domestication....

Rob said...

@ Sam

"Tell me how much EEF did Yamnaya have? At its heart Corded Ware is the same as Yamnaya, a EHG-CHG mix, no contribution from the Balkans. EEF admixture entered COrded Ware only after it left a home in the Steppe. So, no there wasn't constant interaction between EEF and EHG/CHG."

What does CWC have to do with it ? Nothing
We're talking about the northwest Black Sea region.
As I've mentioned, if you want to 'chat', stick to the topic at hand, instead of false equivalencies.
Btw CWC has 20% ANF on average, and the East baltic isnt the "heart" of CWC.

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

Yes sheep and goats could be a different story especially goats which apparently were domesticated in the Zagros Mountains.

epoch2013 said...

@Tesmos

It's in the Excelsheet Supplementary Tables. Searhc for "Alexandria"

@All

That xl-sheet also claims the Tiefbrunn Corded Ware sample is R1b1. That is sample RISE436. However, I think Allentoft had it mapped to R1a. Rather crucial difference for BB origin scenario's, I'd say.

Rob said...

@ Ric
I dont think there is any problems with the cross breeding of aurochs.
Cattle herding was a sort of "cultural drift" phenomenon as the early farmer model moved north of the Danube. Taken up earnestly by I2a2 then R1a "locals".

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

The problem could have been that Domesticated cattle in the Steppe resembled the local Aurochs more and made it difficult for Archaeologists to distinguise between Wild and Domesticated or Semi Domesticated individuals....

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,

Corded Ware is not off topic of the PIE debate. You just claimed PIE formed during a time fo constant interaction and geneflow between the Balkans and Steppe. But Yamnaya has no EEF and Corded Ware is basically just Yamnaya plus some EEF/WHG. Point is, Balkan EEF isn't a part or at least not a big part of the Steppe likely PIE genetic equation.

Matt said...

More stuff from supplements:

1) There's a fair amount on mentions of the Minoans in the supplements, e.g. Supplement Table 4, gives some kind of comparisons for Peloponnese Neolithic with the Minoans in WHG+CHG+AN, with CHG at P_N 6.5% (p=0.173), Minoan 16.8% (p=0.086), and LBK_EN 1.7% (p=0.434).

Models in ST5 seem to still have problems of higher P values for populations who have experienced some joint WHG+More stuff from supplements:

1) There's a fair amount on mentions of the Minoans in the supplements, e.g. Supplement Table 4, gives some kind of comparisons for Peloponnese Neolithic with the Minoans in WHG+CHG+AN, with CHG at P_N 6.5% (p=0.173), Minoan 16.8% (p=0.086), and LBK_EN 1.7% (p=0.434).

Models in ST5 seem to still have problems of higher P values for populations who have experienced some joint WHG+AN+EHG+CHG admixture combination, which they don't seem to be able to joint model. So Varna gets to be modelled as either WHG:CHG:AN 16:39:45 at P=0.808 or WHG:EHG:AN 7:9:84 at 0.583, which are both a bit imperfect.

(Tho. Y no Mycenaean Mathieson :( ?)

2) Interesting slope of conditional nucleotide diversity between EHG->WHG present in the supplement Fig S2.1. EHG are closer in CND to Anatolia_N than they are WHG.

This might help resolve why WHG can seem more displaced "north" away from the Levant_N than EHG from Iran_N on many PCA, if the genetic drift was higher?

Also might help resolve why there is not much of a gradient of conditional nucleotide diversity in Europe today between populations higher in HG and Yamnaya?

Conditional nucleotide diversity varies inversely with f3 sharing?

3) Selection: The results look revised. SLC24A5 now shows a clear WHG->EHG/AN gradient, and AN has a lower frequency of SLC45A2 than present in the previous preprint, strengthening the case that increases in frequency for SLC45A2 have some linkage to Bronze Age population movements (but it's still a confusing picture).

(The Krepost sample seems pretty interesting. Has CHG, quite early Neolithic in Bulgaria, later populations don't so much? Early CHG groups roaming around?).

EastPole said...

I was speculating some time ago that Corded Ware didn’t come from Yamnay but from Sredny Stog.

“The expert Dmytro Telegin has divided the chronology of Sredny Stog into two distinct phases. Phase II (ca. 4000–3500 BC) used corded ware pottery which may have originated there, and stone battle-axes of the type later associated with expanding Indo-European cultures to the West. Most notably, it has perhaps the earliest evidence of horse domestication (in phase II), with finds suggestive of cheek-pieces (psalia). “

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



http://s29.postimg.org/3k393atbr/image.png

http://s32.postimg.org/mexrc3uo5/image.png

http://s32.postimg.org/6s6hyqgw5/image.png

Now the romantic side of what really happened in Alexandria/Dereivka:

http://musicpleer.audio/#!02e99f568b65098462a9acbe33874ed5

Of course “an angel's kiss in spring” is a poetic metaphor. Girls used hops (xъmel/haoma/soma) not angel’s kisse.

Ric Hern said...

@ EastPole

And what about Phase 1 of Sredny Stog ? Can you throw any light on that ?

Ric Hern said...

@ EastPole

And what about this also from Wikipedia: "...Yuri Rassamakin suggests that the Sredny Stog culture should be considered as an areal term, with at least four distinct cultural elements co-existing inside the same geographical area." Any thoughts ?

Nirjhar007 said...

Bob,

Finding M-417 in Eneolithic Ukraine is significant , but it does not prove that R1a entered in S Asia in 2nd Millennium BC . R1a M417 formed around 6000 BC , we need data from S Asia and surrounding regions to arrive at decisive position .

Yes , In S Asia R1a is an important Y-DNA , although no recent significant study is made on it , a good study on modern S Asian population, will be a key and of course a good amount of aDNA .

Rob said...

@ Sam

"You just claimed PIE formed during a time fo constant interaction and geneflow between the Balkans and Steppe. "

What I actually said was "Seems like constant contact between northeast Balkans and steppe, with the former going east, and coming back a generation or two later, admixed"

As usual, you're obfuscating out of petty paranoia and lack of knowledge.

Rob said...

@ Ric Hern

"The problem could have been that Domesticated cattle in the Steppe resembled the local Aurochs more and made it difficult for Archaeologists to distinguise between Wild and Domesticated or Semi Domesticated individuals...."

Hopefully those archaeologists which created the sophisticated 4 tier Eneolithic typo-chronology that you only just read about on Wikipedia can move toward similarly sophisticated understanding of the difference between a wild auroch and domesticated cattle.
I know you once claimed you're an expert on animal husbandry, so maybe you can make your services available ?

Ric Hern said...

@Rob

Where did I claim anything like that Rob ?

Looks like you didn't understand what I wrote...Go have a look at the papers about genetic admixture in Ancient Samples of cattle in Switzerland and Britain/Ireland....which no Archaeologicy previously pointed to....as far as I'm aware of.

Rob said...

Sure there was admixture, but no point in obfuscating the picture which has been obvious for decades.

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

Is it obfuscating because there "could" be some truth to it and does not fall neatly into your hypothesis about cattle and other domesticates introduction via the Caucasus ?

EastPole said...

@Ric Hern
“And what about Phase 1 of Sredny Stog ?”

It could be related to the division into Dereivka I and Dereivka II.
Dereivka I population was made of hunter-gatherers and Dereivka II of pastoralists related to Corded Ware Culture.

Because of some local differences Sredny Stog was divided into following cultures: Skelanska, Stogovska, Kvitanska and Dereivka by Rassamakin.

Let’s wait for aDNA from those cultures before we speculate about them.

Rob said...

@ Ric
Haha .
I stated "Cattle herding was a sort of "cultural drift" phenomenon as the early farmer model moved north of the Danube"

How'd you interpret as the Caucasus ?
Did you go to the same school as Sam ?

Ric Hern said...

@ EastPole

Thanks EastPole.

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

No I only went to your other comments in other posts....Maykopia. ..Heheheeeh...

epoch2013 said...

@Rob

"but no point in obfuscating the picture which has been obvious for decades."

Which is that picture?

Rob said...

@ Epoch
The cattle dimension of domesticates was introduced onto steppe from the west (Balkans).

Tesmos said...

@epoch2013

They increased the number of samples from 204 to 223, I can only find one sample from Alexandria, how about the others?

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

Thanks for clearing that up. So now we know that Steppe people was not Pure Hunter Gatherers who waited for Maykop to show theme the Light....

Rob said...

@ Ric
Seriously, you need to concentrate more and also stop trolling .
My position has always been that the steppe was subject to complex set of interactions coming from west (Balkans, Baden, CT) and East. This began in the Late Neolithic and Eneolithic, but was still sporadic. Essentially, until 4000 BC, and even later, mos steppe communities were still by and large hunter-fisher-foragers.
Early S/S will be largely SHG/ UkrHG with some ANF, and the big switch happens c.3800 BC when a new impulse (EHG/CHG) becomes widespread. I have never reduced it to Majkop solely, but have always inferred a complex set of interactions including pre-Majkop (Meshoko horizon), Aral-Kazakh steppe, in addition to Majkop, for which we're still in the realm of hypothesis until actual aDNA comes. This "Eastern" impulse might correlate to other sets of domesticates eg sheep (?from where) and horses (Botai), not to mention Caucasus metal, which becomes widespread through Anatolia , Balkans and Iberia (tanged copper daggers) and north Balkans / Carpathians/ steppe (shaft hole axes), with fusion point in west Balkans.

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

So did sheep and goats pull the Yamnaya wagons ? Maybe there is some connection between Goats pulling Thors Chariot and the Maykop.....just speculation...

Rob said...

@ Ric
Try Shelleys 'no more gaps'
Fixes up any chips, no mater how big

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

Really Rob ? Now your Abfuscating the picture, don't you think ?

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

Whahahaha !!!! And that comment flew right past me since I do not live anywhere near Europe or America or wherever a Shelleys may occur. :D

Bob Floy said...

@nirjhar

"Finding M-417 in Eneolithic Ukraine is significant"

Yes, but why is it significant? It's significant because if M417 originated in south or central Asia(as opposed to eastern Europe) around 6000 BC, it shouldn't be in Ukraine, around 4000 BC, in a guy who has no south or central Asian ancestry. M417 is still young at the time of Sredni stog, but there it is. And the earliest R1a that we have is from an EHG, who lived near the arctic circle. Do you see what I mean? R1a can't be native to both south/central Asia, and eastern Europe, those are mutually exclusive scenarios. It's one or the other. The data points to eastern Europe, I don't see how one could argue against this.

"it does not prove that R1a entered in S Asia in 2nd Millennium BC."

The recent data narrows down the possibilities, and that's really how science works a lot of the time. You're never gonna have a photo of the first guy with M417 being born, with the time and location stamped on it(though someone should really draw that), so the idea is to establish a preponderance of evidence. The data is accumulating fast, and it's all pointing in a certain direction. To "have the scientific attitude" would mean acknowledging that, and not entertaining scenarios that don't fit the data.

Rob said...

@ Bob
And yet the earliest M17 is from Baikal 5000-4000 BC.
M417 is then seen in Eneolithic Ukraine (this man will probably date to 3600 BC when properly carbon dated). So M417 could have arisen anywhere between those regions

Davidski said...

It makes no difference where M417 originated. The only thing that really matters is that its main expansion was from the Pontic steppe via an Yamnaya-like population.

That's why Corded Ware is 70-100% Yamnaya-like and South Asians have a big dose of Yamnaya-like admixture.

Bob Floy said...

@Rob

"And yet the earliest M17 is from Baikal 5000-4000 BC.
M417 is then seen in Eneolithic Ukraine (this man will probably date to 3600 BC when properly carbon dated). So M417 could have arisen anywhere between those regions"

It's unlikely that M417 arose anywhere near south Asia.

Nirjhar007 said...

Bob,

it shouldn't be in Ukraine, around 4000 BC, in a guy who has no south or central Asian ancestry.

No. Central Asian and South Asian ancestry can only be defined by aDNA . And if you give 2 millenniums , that's a huge period.

You're never gonna have a photo of the first guy with M417 being born,

And no one is looking for such thing, its a matter of a component and where was it present/absent and when .

not entertaining scenarios that don't fit the data.

I am not , especially when the data is incomplete/fragmentary .

Nirjhar007 said...

South Asians have a big dose of Yamnaya-like admixture.
It is a matter of time depth .It is needed to know how old is such ancestry :

Is it from 500 BC, 1000 BC, 2000 BC,3000 BC,4000 BC or else...

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"What I actually said was"
"My position has always been that the steppe was subject to complex set of interactions coming from west (Balkans, Baden, CT) and East."

Yeah, so exactly what I said you said. Genetics doesn't indicate the Balkans played a big role in the formation of Steppe. Deal with it, idiot.

Arza said...

@ Tesmos
Is there a full list of the new samples?

Relabelled samples omitted:

< out
> in

> I0070 Minoan_Lasithi
> I0071 Minoan_Lasithi
> I0073 Minoan_Lasithi
> I0074 Minoan_Lasithi
> I0679_d Balkans_Krepost_Neolithic
> I1378 Ukraine_Neolithic
< I1927 Trypillia_outlier
> I3719 Ukraine_Neolithic_outlier
> I5071 Croatia_Impressa_EN
> I5072 Croatia_Impressa_EN
> I5077 Sopot_MN
> I5078 Sopot_MN
> I5207 LBK_Austria
> I5208 LBK_Austria
> I5401 Iron_Gates_HG
> I5402 Iron_Gates_HG
> I5405 Lepenski_Vir
> I5407 Lepenski_Vir
> I5408 Iron_Gates_HG
> I5409 Iron_Gates_HG
> I5411 Iron_Gates_HG
> I5427 Greece_Peloponnese_Neolithic
> I5436 Iron_Gates_HG
< I5953 Ukraine_Neolithic
> I5957 Ukraine_Neolithic
> I6133 Ukraine_Neolithic
> I6561 Ukraine_Eneolithic
> I9005 Minoan_Lasithi
> I9127 Minoan_Odigitria
> I9128 Minoan_Odigitria
> I9129 Minoan_Odigitria
> I9130 Minoan_Odigitria
> I9131 Minoan_Odigitria
< RISE507.SG Afanasievo_published.SG
< RISE508.SG Afanasievo_published.SG
> RISE507.508.merge.SG Afanasievo.SG

Gioiello said...

@ Davidski

"R1b looks like an WHG and EHG lineage to me based on current sampling"

Unfortunately my Pc is out and I am writing from my wife's one, but I always haven't it at hands. Are you the only one to sing "Victory"?

epoch2013 said...

Wow. I5883 is a Dereivka outlier, basically largely Ukranian Mesolithic with a tad WHG. Y-DNA: R1b1a. Alexandria has more EHG/Yamnaya than I4110 Dereivka.

epoch2013 said...

I think i5883 is a good candidate for Nick Pattersons Rule of Suspicion With Regard To Ouliers, though.

Tesmos said...

@Arza

Thank you for the list, I appreciate it!

Ric Hern said...

@ epoch2013

Does this mean that his ancestors maybe survived the LGM outside the Balkans ? Or am I confused ?

J2-M172 Y-Hg Research said...

Is the raw-data (in BAM format) of the samples available? Especially interested in
I5078 OHV-7.1 5000-4800 BCE .. Sopot_MN Balkans_Neolithic Osijek Croatia Y-J2a1
I5207 Ind. 22 5500-4500 BCE .. LBK_Austria LBK_Austria Schletz Austria Y-J2a

Nomic Belief said...

These new data surely indicates that Corded Ware does not come from Yamna but rather Sredny Stog, as some people have proposed before. Yamna harbors an excess of ancestry from Caucasus compared to CW and Sredny Stog and these two also Balkan farmer ancestry not present in Yamna. So the Yamna Steppe folks with kurgan burials look more like an eastern offshoot that as also shown by their y-dna relative to the similarities in geography, single grave burials, let alone the autosomal and y-dna.

Sredny Stog seems like a mixture of Western Steppe + Tripolye.

Nomic Belief said...

"relative to the similarities in geography, single grave burials, let alone the autosomal and y-dna" ... between CW and Sredny Stog.

Ryan said...

@Ric - Chill bud. :)

@Nirjhar007 - I think you're pretty sunk. It's actually really remarkable how tightly confined R1a is. Every single R1a sample we have is from a culture either directly derived from or directly ancestral to Yamnaya. I think it's pretty remarkable that we don't have any samples of R1a from hunter gatherers in Lativa or Romania or Scandinavia. If populations that physically and genetically close to EHG don't have R1a at a significant frequency, I find it extremely unlikely that northern India would. People don't just teleport around without leaving a trace.

R1a isn't your only problem either. You also need an explanation for why all of the R1b found in Pakistan is R1b-L21(xL51) - exactly like Yamnaya.

@David - If R1b is WHG/EHG (and I agree it is), I thin it's better to think of it as just WHG. EHG is ~half WHG after all. Q1a and R1a seem to be the lineages specific to the non-WHG side of EHG's ancestry.

@Matt - Agreed but keep in mind it's just David moderating and he's in a different time zone from most of us.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

You technically can't separate WHG and EHG. They're a mix of the same things. Both are likely a mix of UP Euro and ANE. WHG, EHG, MA1, and Native Americans are all on the same cline.

Bob Floy said...

@nirjhar

"No. Central Asian and South Asian ancestry can only be defined by aDNA."

Yes, so it's important that the earliest known M417 has no central or south Asian ancestry in it's aDNA. That tells us something. Much of modern India does have steppe aDNA, however, which is accompanied in many cases by M417.
So, again, regardless of what theory one prefers, an open mind will have to admit that AIT or something like it is a possibility given the latest data.

"if you give 2 millenniums, that's a huge period."

It's not a huge enough period to erase all traces of S/C Asian ancestry. Look at the WHG ancestry that can still be found in modern Europeans. WHG was totally overwhelmed by first EEF, then EHG and CHG, then more of the same in different configurations, and it all happened over a period of thousands of years. Was WHG ancestry wiped out completely? No, it was assimilated, and greatly reduced, but it's still present in the gene pool of modern Europe, many thousands of years after it's period of dominance ended. I don't think you can find a modern European who dosen't have at least a tiny slice of it. So if M417 originated in a S/C Asian context, it's very difficult to see how that wouldn't be somehow reflected in the aDNA of I6561.

Matt said...

@Ryan, yes, though to be honest I think even putting on full comment control to sieve out irrelevant political / identity rubbish (for which there are a million outlets online) might be better, and then waiting until he checks it in his timezone. Ultimately his moderation policy is his own though (and depends on how much time he wants to waste on managing the trolls).

....

@Rob and @Chad, actually semi-on topic one for you. I was reading a thread on Anthrogenica (not registered there) and came across a discussion about Central European Bell Beaker and its origins with GAC like farmers, per Olalde, due to higher WHG admixture, and how this was a difficult point for the models favoured by Jean Manco, which I am given to understand postulate the origins of Central European Bell Beaker with Cucuteni-Tripolye and Yamnaya.

This was a good point, well made, and the positions of Tripolye samples in this paper make this more plain.

But this did get me to thinking that where we have actual diversity in the Bell Beaker samples, there is an admixture cline not towards GAC, but towards Southeastern Europe.

E.g. see - https://imgur.com/a/ludxc

Some of these intermediate samples are actually from Hungary, where farmers with relatively low WHG seemed to live in the Chalcolithic, but I believe some are from Germany.

My thinking was that this actually did add some plausibility to the idea that Bell Beaker has links to the southeast. Not in the main autosomal contributions being from Yamnaya+CT, for the reasons in Olalde, but that there is at least a minor contribution where many samples can't really be fit as Yamnaya/CW+GAC, and have to be fit as a mix of the main Bell Beaker cluster and SE Europe.

Another possibility is from admixture from other low-WHG farmers around, but even the MN German samples seem to WHG rich to really fit what is going on.

What do you think? From your archaeological and ancient dna knowledge.

Rob said...


@ Matt
That's the impression I get, based on this zoomed PCA of PCA (which might be a no no, but cant be too far off).
https://imgur.com/a/ludxc

And those a central German BB, not southern or Hungarian.

And there is a 'soft trail' from Yamnaya via Hungary to BB East, so why not ?

Davidski said...

@Richard Holtman

If you mess up one of my comment threads again you're going on the banned commentators list.

And don't bother replying to this post. Just stay strictly on topic from now on.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

@Matt,

It was more about the type of hunter ancestry in BB than the amount, but the amount is important in showing that it was Northern MN, rather than SE. I can put some graphs together breaking it down too if you like.

Matt said...

@ Rob, thanks, I'm not sure that's the link you're looking for?

@ Chad, yes for the main population level average, but my question is about what do you think about the intermediate samples present in the PCA space which appear to span between the main Bell Beaker cluster and Hungarian / SE European farmers. These cannot be from admixture between the main Bell Beaker cluster and the GAC cluster?

Ryan said...

@Matt - the trouble with full moderation is it cuts back on a lot of on topic conversations.

@Chad - in terms of uniparental markers we can. Y-DNA and mtDNA forms a tree rather than a cline. There definitely seems to have been distinct pulses of ANE ancestry into Europe too, and the extra ANE for EHG is not the same pulse that brought WHG to Europe.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Uniparental markers go in and out of pops. Less reliable than auDNA.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Which PCA are you referring to?

Rob said...

Sorry Matt, i just posted yours LOL
Maybe this https://i.imgur.com/qpWJmjd.png

Matt said...

@Chad, those I have screencapped in the link in my post, from Olalde's and Mathieson's papers (Mathieson not including labeled Bell Beaker samples, and not at a similar sample count as Olalde).

Ryan said...

@Chad - They go in and out of populations with people though. They don't graft themselves onto someone's DNA from a thousand miles away. So which people went with which markers? I think we can make some reasonable guesses for EHG.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

@ Matt,

Okay, I see what you're looking at. It could be as Rob said, with some admixing with a more SE-like source upon arrival, but I want to wait until I see the data. We don't know for sure which samples these are and what the coverage is.

@ Ryan,

Founder effects, especially with the LGM causing massive pop drops, w/retractions, then expansions can vastly change uniparentals, while not really changing the autosomal DNA. How much time have you actually spent analyzing the DNA, creating your models, rather than just pulling something out of thin air? Not every single haplogroup will jump from group to group with each admixture.

Carlos Aramayo said...

Underhill et al (2015) paper already claimed R1a-M417, although based on modern samples, was from c. 5800 years ago from "vicinity of present-day Iran".

Ryan said...

@Chad - "Not every single haplogroup will jump from group to group with each admixture."

I never said otherwise. You're throwing a lot of stones but not willing to build anything. Are you honestly saying that R1b and Q1a will be found in pure laine Villabruna-type hunter gatherers? Or do you agree with me and are just being pedantic?

Davidski said...

@Carlos Aramayo

The big problem with Underhill's papers is that they posit the origins of R1a in a southern population and major expansions from Iran and even India.

But ancient DNA has shown that R1a came from a northern population with 0% Near Eastern (Basal) ancestry, and that M417 expanded from the Pontic-Caspian steppe via populations ancestral to Corded Ware people and Indo-Iranians, and probably other Indo-Europeans.

Big difference.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

@Ryan,

Details are important, like it or not. A view of "this HG equals this" kind of view is overly simplistic.

Anyway, I don't think you really grasp what WHG, EHG, and ANE are. I'm actually working on this issue. You won't find anything to back your claim.


Ryan said...

@Chad - How about you just answer the question, or reframe if you'd like?

How about this - will we find Q1a or R1a in a hunter-gather individual who shares more drift with Loschbour than with any of the Ukraine Mesolithic samples from this paper?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I wouldn't be surprised

Ryan said...

Ok. That's all I'm trying to get at. My view is just the opposite, but time will tell.

Ryan said...

Or at the very least I think we'd see that the frequency of R1a/Q1a will be proportional to the drift shared with Ukraine_Mesolithic over Loschbour. Something similar to this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SRF-8Wt8p9E/TntpVhb_XQI/AAAAAAAAEJU/hLJmawiL-dc/s1600/denisova1.png

Davidski said...

Ages ago I showed that CHG was already spreading west across Anatolia during the early Neolithic. See here. But it seems that it really started to move west, and even into the Balkans, around 5,000 BC. Check out what they say about that farmer from Krepost, Bulgaria:

In contrast, five southern Greek Neolithic individuals (Peloponnese_Neolithic) – three (plus one previously published 26 ) from Diros Cave and one from Franchthi Cave – are not consistent with descending from the same source population as other European farmers. D-statistics (Supplementary Information Table 2) show that in fact, these “Peloponnese Neolithic” individuals dated to ~4000 BCE are shifted away from WHG and towards CHG, relative to Anatolian and Balkan Neolithic individuals. We see the same pattern in a single Neolithic individual from Krepost in present-day Bulgaria (I0679_d, 5718-5626 BCE ). An even more dramatic shift towards CHG has been observed in individuals associated with the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures, 26 and thus there was gene flow into the region from populations with CHG-rich ancestry throughout the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. Possible sources are related to the Neolithic population from the central Anatolian site of Tepecik Ciftlik, 21 or the Aegean site of Kumtepe, 11 who are also shifted towards CHG relative to NW Anatolian Neolithic samples, as are later Copper and Bronze Age Anatolians.

Nirjhar007 said...

Bob,

Yes, so it's important that the earliest known M417 has no central or south Asian ancestry

Nope. By aDNA I meant from S Asia and Surround . It will give us the reference , to compare .

So if M417 originated in a S/C Asian context, it's very difficult to see how that wouldn't be somehow reflected in the aDNA of I6561.

But Indians don't show any EEF or WHG IINW , but yes this ''Yamnaya and Afanasevo Type'' ancestry seems to have a trustworthy relation with IE's , so lets see how deep it is in S Asia and other areas :) .....

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Would it be accurate if I said that the Steppe CHG spread was Female mediated while the Anatolian and Greece spread mostly Male mediated ?

Did something happen in the Northern Caucasus region to maybe initiate a migration of CHG Males to the South ?

Ric Hern said...

Sorry I may have missed something.

Was the R1a found in Neolithic samples near Lake Baikal EHG or something else ? ANE+...?

EastPole said...

What puzzles me greatly is the position Varna and Balkans_Chalcolithic outliers. Assuming that their position on PCA was due to some early migrations from the steppe we can conclude that at the very early age there existed different steppe populations: NO. 1 is like Sredny Stog, NO. 2 is like Yamnaya and NO. 3 is like Yamnaya outlier with a lot of CHG:

https://s26.postimg.org/z4i5e3rbd/screenshot_280.png

Rob said...

@ EastPole
It's probably a gradient that'll fill out with more individuals tested.
I'd also add Kumtepe IV to that list.
It means that the migration of these "steppe" people, aka north Caucasus or central Eurasians, had begun by 4500 BC, and they had started to arrive at key sites

Davidski said...

@Ric

Was the R1a found in Neolithic samples near Lake Baikal EHG or something else ? ANE+...?

Apparently they're EHG/ENA, but I can't confirm that at this time.

Would it be accurate if I said that the Steppe CHG spread was Female mediated while the Anatolian and Greece spread mostly Male mediated ?

Did something happen in the Northern Caucasus region to maybe initiate a migration of CHG Males to the South ?


Yes, because this spread brought a lot of Y-hg J into the Balkans, but CHG was mediated to western Anatolia and the Balkans via populations like Tepecik Ciftlik, and didn't come directly from the Caucasus. As per my quote from the paper above...

Possible sources are related to the Neolithic population from the central Anatolian site of Tepecik Ciftlik, 21 or the Aegean site of Kumtepe, 11 who are also shifted towards CHG relative to NW Anatolian Neolithic samples, as are later Copper and Bronze Age Anatolians.

Ric Hern said...

So basically it could have triggered a chain reaction. One population pushing the other etc....

EastPole said...

@Rob
“It means that the migration of these "steppe" people, aka north Caucasus or central Eurasians, had begun by 4500 BC, and they had started to arrive at key sites”

If a population similar to late Sredny Stog Dereivka formed somewhere on the steppe as early as 4500 BC then I would guess they are the best candidates for PIE.

Alberto said...

So that new Ukraine Eneolithic sample is quite interesting. Apart from having R1a-M417 at the time of the estimated MRCA of that lineage (which kind of limits other possibilities for the origin of its expansion), I'm more interested in its autosomal structure.

The previous Eneolithic sample from Ukraine didn't seem to have EHG admixture, but rather SHG-like admixture (which made sense, given that Ukraine Neolithic had SHG-like foragers and no EHG proper). But this other sample looks (unfortunately not much info about it in the stats or qpAdm models) like it's indeed like CWC samples from Germany: EHG + CHG + Euro Neolithic.

If this is the case (reinforced by its M417 being ancestral to CW samples), then it means that around 4000 BC a population similar to Yamnaya (50:50 EHG/CHG) arrived to Ukraine, replacing the previous Neolithic one. Either from the east or from south-east.

Then this population mixed to some degree with CT people (~25% admixture), and around 3000 BC it was displaced by Yamnaya people coming again from the east (or south-east).

It's also interesting that this sample is autosomally almost identical to CWC from Germnay from 1000 years later. This again means that very little mixing with local populations was going on (like in the case of BB_Germany to BB_Britain). Hard to tell why (if) these R1 populations sometimes seemed to be very inbred and others very outbred.

Rob said...

@ East Pole

The old term Sredny Stog is too loose. This R1a-M417 is probably from Kvityana culture, and would date between 4000-3500 BC.
This again confirms what I have been saying, & Alberto just did above, some kind of new admixture event was occurring on the east-of -Dnieper steppe and forest steppe at this time, because up until this point the -CHG component is missing in steppe samples, and is probably an extraneous component. (and the curious thing is there is no delay in reaching Varna or Anatolia, at least on an individual level.)
West of this , the earlier Suvorovo people and Mikhailovka would be still the older type layer of SHG - Balkan Neolithic mix, as seen by the Ukrainian Neolithics - Eneolithics to date.
Now it's blind guesswork and personal pet-theorism to claim this or that site or sub-region is the PIE.
Intsead, it's very much a interaction thing, with successive waves, with the heavy ANF/SHG being formative for the Balkans, the M417 from middle Dnieper for CWC-related groups, and later the Yamnaya groups, if they're IE.

Salden said...

I don't know what I should look forward to more: Coming research on Ancient Northwest Africa or on Ancient South Asia.

The first one will make Afrocentrics go berserk once the samples don't cluster with any "Black" populations and instead towards West Eurasian ones. The second will make Hindu Nationalists go riot once it turns out India has more or less European heritage going way back.

Matt said...

@Rob, I'm not so clear about the PCA, but thanks for chasing up the link

@Chad, thanks. Makes sense for us to wait and have a full look at the data to see how these outlying samples fit.

Also @both, and anyone else interested in the conclusions of Olalde, I have another brief Olalde 2017 and Bell Beaker related comment that I wanted to run by you.

This is slightly more off topic for Mathieson 2017, and relates to comparing conclusions from Olalde 2017 and the Martiniano paper ("The population genomics of archaeological transition in west Iberia: Investigation of ancient substructure using imputation and haplotype-based methods" - http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006852).

So as discussed, Olalde 2017 (the preprint) is pretty clear that all their qpAdm models and f4 stats indicate that the source of farmer ancestry in Northern / Central Bell Beaker is likely to be a TRB/GAC like farmer, and that these farmers had a Danubian farmer source + extra KO1 like admixture rather than a Cardial farmer source + La Brana/Loschbour like admixture. And this is all quite clear in their models.

Then following this model, NW European populations of the British and Irish Isles derive almost all their ancestry from Bell Beaker migrations, and any patterns of relatedness Isles populations have with Spain and France are probably explained by migration of Central European Bell Beakers to Spain and France, not from pre-Beaker Cardial / Atlantic farmer ancestry.

However, when we turn to Martiniano's imputed haplotypes and coancestry sharing, those show across Western Europe an offset of in relatedness towards Cardial farmers from Spain and their relative in Ireland, when compared against Hungarian, Greek and Anatolia early farmers: https://imgur.com/a/5OkFg.

(These are all based on the sharing counts in Martiniano's supplement). Particularly obvious when we look at coancestry chunk sharing with all the early farmer groups together in a PCA, and there's this separation together of the green colour coded NW Europe group with the SW European groups.

That seems like it shouldn't happen if the only populations who truly had Cardial / Atlantic farmer ancestry are in Spain and France and Beaker... (Instead you should have all of Spain / France / Isles showing high coancestry via Bell Beaker, but low coancestry via Cardial / Atlantic farmers.) Assuming no errors in the imputation.

Only think I can think of that could square it is donation from WHG somehow being conflated, but this seems like a specifically Western European pattern rather than high-low WHG one. (Or alternatively some kind of post-Beaker major turnovers in the Isles that ultimately were a wash in the broad proportions of WHG:AN:Yamnaya, while changing affinities to different farmer populations).

So I don't know. Food for thought. Perhaps the Reich lab will tackle this one and try to resolve. It could simply be an imputation error, or more than that.

(This said, these patterns do look less structurally evident in Davidski's computed IBD/cM lengths: https://imgur.com/a/5b2Pf, for whatever reason).

EastPole said...

@Rob
“The old term Sredny Stog is too loose. This R1a-M417 is probably from Kvityana culture, and would date between 4000-3500 BC.”

There is some confusion about localization of this sample:

I6561 with R1a-M417 is from Alexandria :

https://s26.postimg.org/p7z5ev8y1/screenshot_283.png

Alexandria: 48.6633,33.0968

https://www.google.pl/maps/place/48%C2%B039'47.9%22N+33%C2%B005'48.5%22E/@49.1804447,31.1346783,7z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d48.6633!4d33.0968
On the other hand


Alexandria (1 individual)
An Eneolithic cemetery of the Sredny Stog II culture was excavated by D. Telegin in 1955-
1957 near the village of Alexandria, Kupyansk district, Kharkov region on the left bank of the
river Oskol.

Kupyansk: 49.7015398,37.5432339

https://www.google.pl/maps/place/49%C2%B042'05.5%22N+37%C2%B032'35.6%22E/@49.9999272,36.0400472,8.75z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d49.7015398!4d37.5432339

EastPole said...

Actually both Alexandrias are on the territory of Dereivka culture:

https://s26.postimg.org/bwf4x5kp5/screenshot_284.png

Rob said...

@ East Pole

Yes, its out in east Ukraine
Going by the conversion of SSII into sub-periods, that would mean its Kvityana culture area, possibly very early Repin.

EastPole said...

@Rob
„Yes, its out in east Ukraine”

It is very confusing, because on their map they also show Alexandria West of Dnieper River:

https://s26.postimg.org/4ngzuj5zd/screenshot_285.png

Davidski said...

I put together a spreadsheet listing the samples from this paper.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oeA1S2Dc-YFuwo9p1D1h4sstx_upPFkqRRdcLORnj-c/edit?usp=sharing

A spreadsheet with the old set of samples is here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_Xxtc19_QTwWm58JlSuXQrDoFi_5aD_zNGoscqKgTm0/edit?usp=sharing

bellbeakerblogger said...

@Matt,
If I understand your question to the guys above, it is specific to the heterogeneity and mixture of the East Group? Hopefully that's right, so I'll try to square that though I admit I'm shaky on a lot of it.

The Csepel cemeteries are highly cosmopolitan, large, old, flat cemeteries that usually begin with Baden folks and are added to over long periods of time. Anthropologically, the groups are very distinct. Archaeologically, the Beaker 'ethnic' comes from the West rather late from Moravia, Bohemia and the Alpine forelands. It's a natural expansion eastward along the Danube. Over time the percentage of brachycephally increases and a number of anthropologists have pointed to later cultures such as Kisapostag and Gata-Wieselburg as indications of the full ethnic impact (Gata-Wieselburg has also revealed R1b haplotype).

They seem to add to rather than replace locals and Beaker takes on a unique local flavor incorporating the cremation burials and local begleitkeramik.

Some of those common ware styles unevenly spread west which might reflect trade, mobility and marriage networks. Csepel Island is like a big garrison and it was probably settled to control the river and gain access to the local populations. I think most everyone is misinterpreting the heterogeneity of cemeteries like Szigetszentmiklós because of the very high and very low proportions of Steppe ancestry which gives people an excuse to draw a big arrow from the Caspian Steppe across continental Europe. But the details reveal something else.

These two might be helpful, a 2000 paper by Zsuzsanna Zoffmann
http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/22425/1/biologica_044_075-079.pdf

and a summary of some of the local anthropology
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/05/anthropological-background-of-danubian.html

Carlos Aramayo said...

@Davidski,

You wrote:

"The big problem with Underhill's papers is that they posit the origins of R1a in a southern population and major expansions from Iran and even India. But ancient DNA has shown that R1a came from a northern population with 0% Near Eastern (Basal) ancestry, and that M417 expanded from the Pontic-Caspian steppe via populations ancestral to Corded Ware people and Indo-Iranians, and probably other Indo-Europeans..."

I tend to agree, but still I think only one sample of a Eneolithic Sredny Stog skeleton on the Pontic (Ukrainian) steppe who belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a-M417 may be is not enough to make generalizations in this particular case yet. Of course, steppe origins are very likely, but I would like more samples and publications related to aDNA from Anatolia, Iran , etc.

Nomic Belief said...

The approximate location of the I6561 site on map based on coordinates given in the data sheet:

https://www.google.fi/maps/place/48%C2%B039'36.0%22N+33%C2%B006'00.0%22E/@48.6600035,28.6175783,6z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d48.66!4d33.1

EastPole said...

@Rob
“The old term Sredny Stog is too loose. This R1a-M417 is probably from Kvityana culture, and would date between 4000-3500 BC.”

According to Rassamakin it is Dereivka culture:

https://s26.postimg.org/7k2489utl/screenshot_286.png

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/36079970/_Marsha_Levine__Yuri_Rassamakin__Aleksandr_KislenkBookFi.org.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1506015873&Signature=uDab1NbZlU8GOZQmgRpWHfOePD4%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DLevine_M._Rassamakin_Yu._Kislenko_A._and.pdf

Anthro Survey said...

When this paper first got published, they said Peloponese Neolithic were Levant-shifted. Now they say it was a CHG-shift instead. Why such a drastic change in verdict?

Matt said...

@BBB, really, yes, whether that heterogenity is related to the origin of the main cultural artefacts, inferred practices, etc of the Bell Beakers (if that is even a coherent idea) or whether it's a peripheral phenomenon. I'll have to read up your post a bit later, appreciate that you commented.

All, by the way, this is the new big adna news - http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)31008-5 - today (and probably for the month!)

Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure - "Africa harbors more genetic diversity than any other part of the world (Cann et al., 1987, Tishkoff et al., 2009). This is reflected both in a higher average number of differences among sub-Saharan African genomes than among non-African genomes (Cann et al., 1987, Ramachandran et al., 2005) and in the fact that the ancestry found outside of Africa is largely a subset of that within it (Tishkoff et al., 2009). Today, some of the earliest-branching African lineages are present only in populations with relatively small census sizes, including the southern African Khoe-San (see STAR Methods for terminology), central African rainforest hunter-gatherers, and Hadza of Tanzania (Gronau et al., 2011, Schlebusch et al., 2012, Veeramah et al., 2012). However, the population structure of Africa prior to the expansion of food producers (pastoralists and agriculturalists) remains unknown (Busby et al., 2016, Gurdasani et al., 2015, Patin et al., 2017). Bantu-speaking agriculturalists originating in western Africa are thought to have brought farming to eastern Africa by ∼2,000 years BP (years before present, defined by convention as years before 1950 CE) and to southern Africa by ∼1,500 BP, thereby spreading the largest single ancestry component to African genomes today (Russell et al., 2014, Tishkoff et al., 2009). Earlier migration(s), which brought ancestry related to the ancient Near East (Lazaridis et al., 2016, Pagani et al., 2012, Pickrell et al., 2014), brought herding to eastern Africa by ∼4,000 BP (Marshall et al., 1984) and to southern Africa by ∼2,000 BP (Sadr, 2015)."

(and still almost nothing from ancient mainland East Asia, or India!).

Matt said...

lol, no sooner do I say that this (http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)31008-5) is going to be the biggest adna story to drop this month, than this is present:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569?rss=1 - Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe -

"One of the greatest transitions in the human story was the change from hunter-gatherer to farmer. How farming traditions expanded from their birthplace in the Fertile Crescent has always been a matter of contention. Two models were proposed, one involving the movement of people and the other based on the transmission of ideas. Over the last decade, paleogenomics has been instrumental in settling long-disputed archaeological questions, including those surrounding the Neolithic revolution. Compared to the extensive genetic work done on Europe and the Near East, the Neolithic transition in North Africa, including the Maghreb, remains largely uncharacterized. Archaeological evidence suggests this process may have happened through an in situ development from Epipaleolithic communities, or by demic diffusion from the Eastern Mediterranean shores or Iberia. In fact, Neolithic pottery in North Africa strongly resembles that of European cultures like Cardial and Andalusian Early Neolithic, the southern-most early farmer culture from Iberia. Here, we present the first analysis of individuals' genome sequences from early and late Neolithic sites in Morocco, as well as Andalusian Early Neolithic individuals. We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans are distinct from any other reported ancient individuals and possess an endemic element retained in present-day Maghrebi populations, indicating long-term genetic continuity in the region. Among ancient populations, early Neolithic Moroccans share affinities with Levantine Natufian hunter-gatherers (~9,000 BCE) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers (~6,500 BCE). Late Neolithic (~3,000 BCE) Moroccan remains, in comparison, share an Iberian component of a prominent European-wide demic expansion, supporting theories of trans-Gibraltar gene flow. Finally, the Andalusian Early Neolithic samples share the same genetic composition as the Cardial Mediterranean Neolithic culture that reached Iberia ~5,500 BCE. The cultural and genetic similarities of the Iberian Neolithic cultures with that of North African Neolithic sites further reinforce the model of an Iberian intrusion into the Maghreb."

(and this is the day for full comment control haha)

(Maybe some of Dienekes old calculators which turned out a separate NW Africa component rather than simply modeling it as Levant+West Africa weren't off base in the deep ancestry?)

Steven said...

If I2a2 and R1b were in the Balkans before the Bronze Age doesn't that put in to question the idea that they were brought by the Indo Europeans?

Rob said...

@ Matt

Great link ! Amazing paper.

About the Martiano paper, were you referring the switching WHG affinities ?
Initially mostly KO-1 then western WHGs, then back to hungary HG ?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Matt,

Also, NW AFrican mtDNA has affinity with both Europe (H1, H3, T2b, J1c) and SW Asia (M1, R0a, J2a2). Natufian and then later European EEF affinity in Neolithic NW Africa isn't a suprise.

Matt said...

@Rob, yes, there does seem to be some tentative sign of a switching of HG affinities in the haplotype donation, between Unetice and the Roman Brits for example (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/figure/image?size=large&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006852.g002).

But really I just mean that the samples from the NW European group (GermanyAustria, Scottish, Welsh, English, Ireland) all seem in Martiniano's imputed data to have an excess of haplotype sharing with the Atlantic farmers - Iberian farmers, Gok2 (TRB) and Ireland Ballynahatty - relative to the Danubian/ Central - Hungarian - farmers.

I found that more difficult to explain if the model in Olalde is literally true and all the European Early-Middle Neolithic ancestry comes in to Central European Bell Beakers through a Danubian source (but richer in KO1 type WHG), and then Bell Beakers migrate to the British Isles with no admixture from Atlantic farmers. Sorry if this still doesn't make a lot of sense. It may just be a confound of WHG ancestry somehow though...

Matt said...

@ Samuel, with mtdna one thing they do talk about here is "Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups obtained for IAM (Moroccan Early Neolithic) and KEB (Moroccan Late Neolithic) indicate either a population replacement or an important genetic influx into Morocco between 5,000–3,000 BCE. IAM samples belong to the mtDNA haplogroups U6a and M1—both of which are associated with back migration to Africa 78 13,14—while KEB samples belong to haplogroups K1, T2 and X2, prominently found in Anatolian and European Neolithic samples (Supplementary Note 4)."

For some reason I was expecting the U6a mtdna to be associated with a WHG like imprint in Africa, however IAM are very far from that, and if their position in the world PCAs in the supplement makes any sense, these samples seem more distant from West Eurasians than Natufians.

On thing I'm a bit surprised about is that they don't seem to have tested IAM to see if they fit the profile for "Basal Eurasian", e.g. "Equally related to WHG and East Asian in the stat f4(Outgroup,adna,WHG,East Asian" (maybe one of the first things Lazaridis would've liked them to do in an ideal world!).

Rob said...

No I understand.
I think we'd need to be sure what it means technically, to piece it together overall.
And it's probably important to do so. What could be conflating the WHG ?

Olympus Mons said...

Its just a note, Nothing else.
Crazy people like me that says stuff like the Shulaveri became merimde and later entered Iberia by 3000bc.... when you wiki T-M184 you get this:


"Prevalence of T-M184 in Armenians from Sasun
Interestingly, haplogroup T-M184, which is relatively rare in other Near Eastern populations, as well as in three of the Armenian collections tested here, represents the most prominent descent in Sasun, comprising 20.1% of the samples. The presence of this haplogroup in Ararat Valley, Gardman and Lake Van, by contrast, is more limited, composing only 3.6%, 6.3% and 3.9%, respectively, of the individuals from those collections.[...]Sasun, however, exhibits statistically significant divergence from the remaining Armenian populations, most likely as the result of the prominence in Sasun of lineages (T-M184 and R2a-M124) found at substantially lower frequencies in Ararat Valley, Gardman and Lake Van."

EastPole said...

@Rob
“Now it's blind guesswork and personal pet-theorism to claim this or that site or sub-region is the PIE.”

Yes, I am guessing and it is my pet theory but it is not blind. There are reasons to believe that it is a very probable theory.

R1a-M417 is a good candidate for PIE marker. Corded Ware Culture is considered to be IE.
Here are 12 articles on Corded Ware ornamentation phenomenon in central and eastern Europe:

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/handle/10593/3816/simple-search?query=&sort_by=score&order=desc&rpp=10&filter_field_1=dateIssued&filter_type_1=equals&filter_value_1=%5B2010+TO+2015%5D&etal=0&filtername=dateIssued&filterquery=2010&filtertype=equals

“Moreover, there are times and places when such ornamentation was extremely frequent. This concerns above all central and eastern Europe from the 5th mill. BC to the 3rd mill. BC. Corded ornamentation in this context even became a type of distinguishing mark, allowing for the creation of a name for one of the important archaeological taxonomic cultures identified in the 3rd mill. BC, the Corded Ware culture (CWC).
BPS-15-1_A_Kośko_M_Szmyt

“Corded ornamentation was observed for the first time in the steppe area between the Dnieper and the Don rivers in the Sredniy Stog culture monuments of the early Eneolithic Age. Artefact ornamentation was represented by imprints of a coiled cord [Kotova 2008]. Classic ‘corded’ ornamentation appeared in the Middle Eneolithic in the monuments of the Dereivka culture and the lower layer of the Mykhailivka settlement.”

Classic ‘corded’ ornamentation was also found in Alexandria/Oleksandriya where we now have R1a-M417:

https://s26.postimg.org/xe0xolwsp/screenshot_287.png

BPS-15-6_N_S_Kotova

After Dereivka, Tripolye, TRB, Yamnaya and other cultures started to use it too.

Dereivka culture occupied southern part of the forest-steppe region, interacted with Tripolye and is the region where steppe and farmer tradition mixed. I think that PIE were a mixed culture not a pure steppe culture.
4200-3850 BC Alexandria settlement was occupied by Dereivka culture.

Assuming that PIE started to depart after 3500 BC and before that lived on area not exceeding 500000 km2 this is the best candidate for PIE homeland IMO:

https://s26.postimg.org/i7uvxo6rt/screenshot_289.png


Rob said...

@ EastPole

I don't think you're wrong, but that's my point, it's seems a tad speculative to argue we can drop pre-expansion PPIE right at the door of Dereivka, or wherever someone else might prefer.
Tracing back presumed development of the Corded ware Pot, or an M17 lineage, is a different phenomenon to understanding the intertwining prehistory of sociolinguistics

Rob said...

Oh and congrats to R1a bros for finding their roots

Alberto said...

@EastPole

One thing we've learned this year thanks to the aDNA from the north pontic region (Ukraine) is that this area was not the homeland of the Yamnaya-like population that some presume to be PIE.

That area during the Mesolithic and Neolithic was not the home to either EHG or CHG. The native Neolithic people were SHG-like, and they were replaced by this Yamnaya-like population on their migratory way.

So there's 100% certainty that even if this Yamnaya-like population carrying R1a-M417 and R1b-L23 was PIE, the North Pontic region was not their homeland. They just entered Europe through that region.

The possible origin of such population can be:

- The North Caucasus
- The North Caspian region
- Central Asia?

I always favoured Central Asia, but no aDNA from there make it difficult to guess.

Davidski said...

The possible origin of such population can be:

- The North Caucasus
- The North Caspian region
- Central Asia?

I always favoured Central Asia, but no aDNA from there make it difficult to guess.


Nonsense.

The relevant mixture event between EHG and CHG took place on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe.

Gioiello said...

@ Alberto

"The possible origin of such population can be:

- The North Caucasus
- The North Caspian region
- Central Asia?"

Why are you usurping an Italian name?

Alberto said...

@Davidski

The relevant mixture event between EHG and CHG took place on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe.

Not sure if you're debating semantics here by using the generic Pontic-Caspian name or Eastern Europe.

I'm referring to the north Pontic specifically, the area marked by EastPole as the homeland of PIE. We have aDNA from there now, and the native population is SHG-like. Yamnaya-like people are as native to that area in Ukraine as they are to Latvia or Poland. They just arrived there a bit earlier.

@Gioiello

I don't get your remark, sorry. Is it related to my comment that you quoted? Or to my own personal name? I'm sure you know that name is neither Italian or Spanish in origin, so I'm clueless about what you mean.

ak2014b said...

"It can't be a coincide that all of their Yamnaya samples from Ukraine are females.

I reckon they're holding the males back for their South Asian paper."


But you'd said in an update that they weren't holding back Yamnaya males?

Update 19//05/2017: Please note that the authors are not holding back any Yamnaya males from Ukraine for a future paper, as per my claim in the last paragraph above. They used what they had for the time being.


Amazing that they've at last found an R1a-M417 so close to M417's age, and just on time for the rumoured publication of the South Asian papers. (Assuming the impending South Asian papers don't forever remain at rumours, that is)

ak2014b said...

Is the current haplogroup assignment of R1a1a1 for Mesolithic Karelia I0061 correct, or am I misreading it? Since R1a-M417 is denoted as R1a1a1 as per the current ISOGG tree, does that mean Karelia is now R1a-M417 too?

Or is the current designation of R1a1a1 for Karelia an error, because Karelia I0061 was assigned to "R1a1* (xR1a1a)" in page 42 of the Supplementary Information of the Haak et al 2015 paper,

"I0061 (Karelia_HG)
In contrast to I0104 and I0099, the hunter-gatherer from Karelia could only be assigned to haplogroup R1a1 (M459:6906074A → G, Page65.2:2657176C → T) and the upstream haplogroup R1a (L145:14138745C → A, L62:17891241A → G, L63:18162834T → C, L146:23473201T → A). It was ancestral for the downstream clade R1a1a (M515:14054623T → A, M198:15030752C → T, M512:1631515 3C → T, M514:19375294C → T, L449:22966756C → T). Thus, it can be designated as belonging to haplogroup R1a1*(xR1a1a) and it occupied a basal position to the vast majority of modern Eurasian R1a-related Y-chromosomes 4, although more basal (R1a-M420*) Y-chromosomes have been detected in Iran and eastern Turkey 4. Overall, our detection of haplogroup R1a1 in a northwest Russian hunter-gatherer establishes the early presence of this lineage in eastern Europe, and is consistent with a later migration from eastern Europe into central Europe which contributed such haplogroups to the Corded Ware population."

Gioiello said...

@ Alberto

"@Gioiello

I don't get your remark, sorry. Is it related to my comment that you quoted? Or to my own personal name? I'm sure you know that name is neither Italian or Spanish in origin, so I'm clueless about what you mean".

Of course I know that the name Alberto isn't of Latin origin, but "Alberto" is the Italian spelling now (and perhaps a few other languages). My grandfather was named Alberto Tognoni (1892-1974). All what you said about the origin of R1 is a bullshit: R1, as also the same Davidski said, was the haplogroup of the "European" hunter-gatherers, and, if R1a very likely came from Northern Europe, R1b came very likely from Southern Europe. We'll see when more samples will be tested in the Villabruna land.

epoch2013 said...

@Alberto

"The possible origin of such population can be:

- The North Caucasus
- The North Caspian region
- Central Asia?
"

You missed Combed Ware. The Baltic paper stated it was basically like EHG. I think the sample was called Latvia_MN2. Even if it wasn't entirely 100% EHG the source couldn't have been that far away. It also basically excludes North Caucasus.

Plains Wanderer said...

@Alberto

"The possible origin of such population can be:

- The North Caucasus
- The North Caspian region
- Central Asia?"

I think the Khvalynsk samples are a clue. They show that CHG and EHG began forming a Yamna-like population in the region from the lower Volga to the North Caucasus. The formative region of PIE will likely be in this zone, either around the Don River Valley or the North Caucasus (maybe Maykop?).

Olympus Mons said...

When it comes to the steppe, nobody makes broad connections, right?

a. so, Ukraine (Steppe!) up until say 4900bc (here again this date) was I2a, with U4, U5 as mtdna.
b. After that, is basically R1b with same Mtdna. So a bunch of R1b males came from somewhere.
c. One of them was actually very close to Anatolian farmer and strangely its exactly the time CHG (wasn't it a solid component of South Caucasus and Iran?) also got into Steppe.

Nope. can not see any relation here! -- Move along, nothing to see, nothing to see.

Davidski said...

There's plenty of R1b in Mesolithic remains from all over Eastern Europe, including from the steppe, you idiot.

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski
Idiot by Idiot is you not seeing that the incomming R1b most likely had its origin in Iron gate and moving though Lepenski Vir, Ovcarovo Gorata, Ostrovul Corbului. and if you are looking for a route to get CHG into steppe...than had Fikirtepe and Shulaveri on the path.

I might be the idiot... but not the Idiot that call others idiot because Kum6 had no CHG when in fact every publishing author mentioning Kum6 says it did.

So, how about cutting the name calling out?

Davidski said...

Listen to me carefully, indigenous Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers carried R1b.

R1b was already well established in Eastern Europe before Shulaveri ever existed. And in fact there was an influx of southern mtDNA onto the Eastern European steppe, minus any obvious southern lineages like J (R1b doesn't count, because it's native to Eastern Europe!).

Now you come here, talk shit about only I2 being in Eastern Europe before the Neolithic, and claim that the mtDNA lineages didn't change.

You're a total moron at best, and at worst, you're insane. Go and see a therapist.

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski,
you are becoming too nervous. I wonder why. And particularly like the acquired love for "eastern Europe" as broad brush. Planning to drop steppe and now moving to eastern europe? gosh not longer it will be the all hemisphere.

No. you listen carefully: R1b was all over. As was I2 or many others. However, there is no special pleading for steppe... no, no. You make broad inferences from single samples and take new admix over span of milenia as "proof". So same applies to Steppe! No especial rules there.

So, unless the excel you posted is fake. I am correct!

Davidski said...

You appear to have some sort of mental condition that prevents you from accepting data that contradicts your pet theory.

The excel I posted contains the correct data, and shows a lot of R1b in Eastern European foragers from the Mesolithic and Neolithic that have ZERO Near Eastern admixture, so obviously they couldn't have gotten their R1b from Shulaveri migrants.

But your brain refuses to register this against all odds. I'd be very worried if I were you. There's clearly something strange going on in your head.

Olympus Mons said...

... and for those that might be wandering about shulaveri.

a. Shulaveri was exogenous to South Caucasus.
b. Shulaveri came from west (as per cattle and sheep adna).
c. Shulaveri shared obvious lifestyle traits with Balkan cultures as I mentioned above, and clearly acquire some architecture and tools with fikirtepe in Anatolia (south black sea) and even share traits with Halaf.
d. Shulaveri was the Origin of PIE.
e.Shulaveri by 4900bc were many and marked the history of western civilization. Origin of PIE and the most proliferated subclades of R1b.

Olympus Mons said...

@davidski....
usually we project on others what we are.

And you cant even read! - Mesolithic and neolithic and then mentioning Shulaveri. give me a break.
You know very well that it would only be relevant from 4900bc onwards. And if we talk about Dereivka, kvalinsky, etc and having R1b and CHG... than you must know I am right... or you have a very delusional view of your skills and intelligence.

Olympus Mons said...

....and cut it out with eastern europe and go back to your steppe. steppe, steppe...

Olympus Mons said...

Oh... does anyone wanna bet that the Dereivka Anatolian will cluster real close to KUM6! I dare you!

Davidski said...

You're a wanker mate.

Matt Thomas said...

I have a hard time believing that WHG and EHG are the same. Isn't the origin of Malta'buret culture and ultimately EHG in the lake baikal area ? That is almost on the other side of the planet.

Davidski said...

Much of Eastern Europe and Siberia were part of the same ecosystem back then, and for foragers that's more important than distance.

That's because foragers can move great distances, usually when following prey, but they have a very hard time moving from one ecosystem, to which they're adapted, to another, to which they're not.

But I doubt that EHG originated near Lake Baikal. Both WHG and EHG look like a population that formed after the LGM in Europe and maybe Western Siberia from a mixture of European and ANE foragers. The ANE foragers were probably migrants from around Lake Baikal.

If ancient DNA shows the presence of EHG around Lake Baikal during the Mesolithic and/or Neolithic, then they will be migrants from the west.

Alberto said...

@epoch

You missed Combed Ware. The Baltic paper stated it was basically like EHG.

No, you missed the point. A Yamnaya-like population requires not only EHG, but also CHG. The R1a-M417 sample could have arrived to Ukraine from the north or the west. Not possible.

It also basically excludes North Caucasus.

No, the North Caucasus is a prime candidate for a population 50:50 EHG/CHG that arrived to Ukraine in the Eneolithic replacing the Neolithic SHG-like population that was native to that area. The options are basically the ones I pointed out above.

@Gioiello

Ah, so you were just making a parody of yourself: "Everything came from Italy, even when it obviously didn't". That was funny after all.

Regarding R1, you don't seem to follow. The R1a-M417 sample found in Eneolithic Ukraine arrived there around 4000-3500 BCE from the east (or south east). There is nothing to debate about that. It couldn't have arrived from Italy or anywhere in the west at that date.

Olympus Mons said...

@Alberto,
Where can I read the part where Neolithic Ukraine was SHG?

One of the many times Davidski call me an idiot, puta que o pariu, was when I mentioned that by nmdental traits and Suborova work, the neolithic population of Ukraine up to the barrier of Urals and the barabada forest in the east ... Was genetically related to karelia and baltic area pop. They shared very specific dental traits.

Alberto said...

In the paper linked in this post there is plenty of information about it. If you want specific figures, on Supplementary Table 4.1.3 they have these qpAdm models:

Motala_HG: 48.3% WHG, 47.1% EHG, 4.6% CHG
Ukraine_Neolithic: 39.1% WHG, 52% EHG, 8.9% CHG

In contrast:

Yamnaya_Samara: 2.8% WHG, 47% EHG, 50.1% CHG

Gioiello said...

@ Alberto
“@Gioiello

Ah, so you were just making a parody of yourself: "Everything came from Italy, even when it obviously didn't". That was funny after all.

Regarding R1, you don't seem to follow. The R1a-M417 sample found in Eneolithic Ukraine arrived there around 4000-3500 BCE from the east (or south east). There is nothing to debate about that. It couldn't have arrived from Italy or anywhere in the west at that date”.

David protects the privacy of you bloggers, but it would be very important to know who you are. You know who I am. I find in you the same pretension of Underhill who found R1a in Iran and kept silent about the only sample he found in Italy. Those old haplotypes are very recent as to their origin and don’t demonstrate anything as I wrote in many places, also on the YFull page of FB.

1) R1 is very old, I think the separation of a and b is closer to 27000 ya rather than the Yfull 22000, thus what you say has no meaning. We’ll see if it will be found in Iran or Southern Asia. I think they don’t.
2) R1b1 has been found at Villabruna, Italy not Iran or India, 14000 ya.
3) R1b in Eastern Europe gets only some subclades, and the Western European ones don’t derive from them. And no R-L51, which has in the sister clade R1b-L51-PF7589 its oldest samples in Italy.
4) That R-V88 and R-L389 did come from the Italian Refugium I think is demonstrated out of any doubt, and this last paper on Moroccans demonstrates that, and also the post of Kristiina about mt. U6.
5) If I were you I’d be less pretentious like some American PhDs.

Olympus Mons said...

@Alberto
Tks. Yes makes sense. Will try to revisit Zubova work ( not Suborova) on the flow of people from reindeer island, karelia and overall baltic (she mentions cultures I know nothing about) into the steppes of Ukraine and its contrast with baraba forest and baikal people...

Not that nmDental is to replace aDna but everyday older inferences from it pans out and is proven by new papers.

So, who gives a f*ck what some steppe junkies think.

Davidski said...

The Mesolithic/Neolithic Ukrainian foragers are not SHG, nor are they derived from SHG. They just have a similar ratio of WHG/EHG ancestry.

There is no R1b or R1a in any SHG samples tested to date, but plenty of R1b and R1a in Baltic, Balkan, Russian and Ukrainian foragers with zero Near Eastern ancestry.

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski.
You pathetic, little post-hoc, motivational thinking, prick (can I call you that, if not I am sorry)!.

No. You do not get to play with words, time and space.
Ukraine, steppe, prior the arrival of a pastoral/agriculture people that were exogenous to steppe, therefore excluding Dereivka and Kavalinshky.... was almost completely I2!
Just read two of your posts bellow.

SO, tell me: You can do complex models but can't sort and filter with excel?! - Whats this bullshit Davidsy?

Alberto said...

@Gioiello

Please, stay on topic. I don't know who you are anymore than you know who I am, nor do I care. I'm Spanish and have no affiliation with any professionals in this field. This is just a hobby for me.

And all that you wrote is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm speaking of the origin of a Yamnaya-like population that arrived to Ukraine in the Eneolithic, carrying R1a-M417. And that population came from the east or south east (I mentioned North Caucasus and North Caspian, maybe Central Asia. Where did I say they came from Iran or India??). You know that R1a-M17 was found in Neolithic (or Eneolithic) Siberia (near Lake Baikal, right? So what's your problem with R1a-M417 coming east of Ukraine?

Again, stay on topic or I won't waste my time answering your ramblings.


@Davidski

Of course Ukraine Neolithic are not HGs from Scandinavia! They're just genetically very similar. And very different from Yamnaya.

Yes, R1a and R1b has been found in many European foragers, including Latvia, Karelia, Italy, Serbia... And all that's irrelevant for this discussion too. None of those places are PIE because their foragers carried R1.

You have to be specific, as I'm being. This discussion started about a very specific place marked by a circle as the proposed PIE homeland, and I replied that we have aDNA from that area and it wasn't the homeland of this Yamnaya-like population carrying R1a-M417 and R1b-L23. And that's absolutely clear. We have the Neolithic samples that prove it. So what's the problem here? Are you proposing that the Ukraine Neolithic people transformed in a matter of centuries into Yamnaya-like people by drift? No, they were replaced by people who came from somewhere else. Therefor, it wasn't the homeland of those newcomers.

Davidski said...

@Olympus Mons

The problem for you is that R1b is found in steppe foragers from Ukraine and Samara with no Near Eastern ancestry.

This is a problem for you, because you're trying to argue that steppe foragers belonged to I2 and R1b was introduced onto the steppe by Shulaveri farmers from the Near East.

So clearly you have no argument. At best you can argue that Shulaveri farmers introduced R1b-M269 onto the steppe already rich in other types of R1b, but this is clutching at straws.

You can keep clutching at straws if you like, but don't expect anyone in their right mind to take your juvenile posts seriously.

Davidski said...

@Alberto

You think you're being specific, but in fact you're skewing reality like you always do.

If we're being specific, then based on all available evidence the most likely time and place of origin of the typical Yamnaya genotype is the Eneolithic steppe around the lower Don river, not the North Caucasus.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/two-starkly-different-neolithic.html

Alberto said...

@Davidski

Do you mean the lower Don or the Lower Volga?

mike said...

If you look at P297 in hunters appearing both at Samara and the east Baltic then the likely geographical link that covers the bulk of the area,between is the Volga https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/1c644ca7c3.gif
Date wise the link must predate the hunter pointed pottery which both areas share as the Baltic P297 hunters appear too early. It rather is likely connected with the pressure flaked microblades which both areas again shared. That technology was known on the Volga at Zolotaruče shortly before 10000BC and was a feature of the Butovo culture of the Volga from 9500BC but only appeared in the Baltic with the Kunda culture 8000BC. So that could indicate cultural link as well as the timing and direction of movement that resulted in P297 in Samara and Baltic hunters. If not then you would need to look even further back to look for a common cultural thread linking the two P297 hunter areas to some common link even further back but that gets tricky as the east Baltic was not settled back then.

Davidski said...

@Alberto

I mean the lower Don. But that's not very far from the lower Volga, so it's not like both of these regions could not have been involved in the process. Have a look here how the steppe pastoralists moved around this area.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313834821_Seasonal_practices_of_prehistoric_pastoralists_from_the_south_of_the_Russian_plain_based_on_the_isotope_data_of_modern_and_archaeological_animal_bones_and_plants

Alberto said...

Your blog post linked above was about the lower Volga. So I don't know what's the problem. The options I wrote were:

- The North Caucasus
- The North Caspian Area
- Central Asia?

The lower Volga and the North Caspian area are the same place, and the lower Don is as close to the lower Don as it is to the lower Volga. And both are clearly east (or south east) of Central Ukraine. So again I don't see what's your problem with it and how I'm skewing reality.

Once you start talking specifically, we're quite in agreement.

Grey said...

Matt Thomas said...
"I have a hard time believing that WHG and EHG are the same."

maybe they were the same originally but diverged when EHG had to adapt to the mammoth steppe (perhaps by admixture with already adapted ANE)?

Ric Hern said...

I wonder if R1a survived the LGM out on the Steppe or did they also find a refuge area ? Crimea maybe ?

mike said...

All we know about R1b is R was in Siberia 24000BC early in the LGM and next data point is some of it is in Europe in 12000BC. Some other branches may have arrived in a later wave. The south Urals refugium may be relevant.

Rob said...

@ Mike
We know more than that.
Specifically, there is L754 in Late Glacial Europe, a new genome-wide admixture even in Western Europe by 16kyBP, and various R1b Clades in Central -Eastern Europe by the Mesolithic. It means that R1b might have arrived around the LGM, in EE.
On the other hand, R1a and Q1 look like possible fits for microblades.

Slumbery said...

Ric Hern:
I think it survived in the East (maybe Altai region, but it is impossible to specify now) and moved west with the post-LGM ANE expansion. It was brought into EHG from the ANE side.

Ric Hern said...

@ Slumbery

Thanks Slumbery.

epoch2013 said...

@Alberto

O, off course, you meant Yamnaya. Yes, I misread that.

"No, you missed the point. A Yamnaya-like population requires not only EHG, but also CHG. The R1a-M417 sample could [you mean couldn't?] have arrived to Ukraine from the north or the west. Not possible."

We see another WHG with slight EHG mixture population change to almost pure EHG in the Baltic. Why couldn't Ukraine WHG not be similarly replaced by EHG from the same source, bringing R1a-M417 with them and then mix with a CHG like population?

Alberto said...

@epoch2013

Yes, I meant "couldn't", sorry.

I can't really see the scenario you suggest. Can you see that happening or are you just asking if it's technically possible? If the former, could you give more details so I can follow your rationale?

epoch2013 said...

@Alberto

Technically possible, I'd say. As response to you're "not possible". But while it's not all that elaborate Karelian EHG north of Ukraine had R1a while Samara EHG east had R1b. But, n=2.

To counter my own suggestion: The Combed Ware sample had Siberian influences and Yamnaya has not, IIRC. Still, couldn't it point to at least the possibility that R1a came with an EHG expansion from the north?

Alberto said...

@epoch2013

Yes, technically possible are many things. A similar scenario could have happened say in northern Germany: EHG expansion from the Baltic who settled in North Germany. Then some CHG-like pastoralists (?) migrate there too. Both populations merge in such a way that somehow the HGs usurp the women, domestic animals and way of life of the pastoralists, resulting in a Yamnaya-like population with those 2 specific R1 lineages. Then some of them migrate to the steppe, whole others stay around Europe and mix with the Neolithic farmers (creating BBC and CWC).

That's technically possible, but, as you can see, only someone obsessed with his pet theory of a homeland in Northern Germany of this presumed PIE population (AKA original Aryans) would go into those mental gymnastics to keep his dream alive.

For the rest of us, it's clear enough that this population's homeland was neither in Northern Germany or in Central Ukraine. And neither you or me should waste our time with those kind of twisted speculations of what is technically possible to have happened in the gap between the youngest Neolithic sample we have from Ukraine and the oldest Eneolithic one.

Davidski said...

The Northern Germany scenario isn't possible, let alone plausible.

However, what is possible and plausible is that R1a-M417 is native to the Dereivka region, because we already have Mesolithic and Neolithic R1a from there.

And a realistic way to explain the Yamnaya-like genetic structure of the M417 male is via the generally accepted cultural and economic contacts with Khvalynsk and female exogamy.

His mtDNA is H2a1a, while the mtDNA of the R1b Khvalynsk guy is H2a1, so that fits.

Alberto said...

@Davidski

No, that's totally unrealistic. Look again:

Ukraine_Neolithic: 39.1% WHG, 52% EHG, 8.9% CHG
Yamnaya_Samara: 2.8% WHG, 47% EHG, 50.1% CHG

Those 2 populations cannot be one and the same, neither can one be derived from the other. Female exogamy won't make it. Certainly not in that timespan or in any realistic amount.

The first population (who were food gatherers, despite the "neolithic" label) was replaced by the second one (who were food producers). Don't make complicated what is simple.

Davidski said...

@Alberto

You're making assumptions out of thin air, and ignoring the long posited links between Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk.

There's nothing in those ancestry proportions that you posted that prevents the formation of a Corded Ware-like population at Dereivka during the Eneolithic.

R1a has a long presence in the area, and the only thing that changes is the mtDNA, from strictly U4 and U5 clades to more southern clades, like J2 and the H2 that is seen in Khvalynsk and common in later steppe groups.

And keep in mind that lots of population movements, even if sex biased, can change the genetic structure of small groups very quickly.

epoch2013 said...

@Alberto

The first population (who were food gatherers, despite the "neolithic" label) was replaced by the second one (who were food producers). Don't make complicated what is simple.

I wouldn't call incoming EHG foragers displacing the first population and form Yamnaya a complicated scenario. Especially as we have seen similar things in nearby Latvia.

Olympus Mons said...

"His mtDNA is H2a1a, while the mtDNA of the R1b Khvalynsk guy is H2a1"

so, is the SHulaveri Shomu Mtdna (at least one) and that does not seem to tell you nothing. .. Oh, I see, wrong pet theory. Check!

epoch2013 said...

@Alberto


Similar things in Latvia with regards to EHG taking place in former WHG territory, I am not suggesting the formation of Yamnaya took place in Latvia.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 223   Newer› Newest»