search this blog

Friday, August 2, 2019

The PIE homeland controversy: August 2019 status report


Archeologist David Anthony has a new paper on the Indo-European homeland debate titled Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard. It's part of a series of articles dealing with Allan R. Bomhard's "Caucasian substrate hypothesis" in the latest edition of The Journal of Indo-European Studies. It's also available, without any restrictions, here.

Any thoughts? Feel free to share them in the comments below. Admittedly, I found this part somewhat puzzling (emphasis is mine):

It was the faint trace of WHG, perhaps 3% of whole Yamnaya genomes, that identified this admixture as coming from Europe, not the Caucasus, according to Wang et al. (2018). Colleagues in David Reich’s lab commented that this small fraction of WHG ancestry could have come from many different geographic places and populations.

I think that's highly optimistic. It really should be obvious by now thanks to archeological and ancient genomic data, including both uniparental and genome-wide variants, that the Yamnaya people were practically entirely derived from Eneolithic populations native to the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe. So, in all likelihood, this was also the source of their minor WHG ancestry.

Indeed, they clearly weren't some mishmash of geographically, culturally and genetically disparate groups that had just arrived in Eastern Europe, but the direct descendants of closely related and already significantly Yamnaya-like peoples associated with long-standing PC steppe archeological cultures such as Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog. I discussed this earlier this year, soon after the Wang et al. paper was published:

On Maykop ancestry in Yamnaya

I hope I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that the scientists at the Reich Lab are finding this difficult to accept, because it doesn't gel with their theory that archaic Proto-Indo-European (PIE) wasn't spoken on the PC steppe, but rather south of the Caucasus, and that late or rather nuclear PIE was introduced into the PC steppe by migrants from the Maykop culture who were somehow involved in the formation of the Yamnaya horizon.

Inexplicably, after citing Wang et al. on multiple occasions and arguing against any significant gene flow between Maykop and Yamnaya groups, Anthony fails to mention Steppe Maykop. But the Steppe Maykop people are an awesome argument against the idea that there was anything more than occasional mating between the Maykop and Yamnaya populations, because they were wedged between them, and yet clearly distinct from both, with a surprisingly high ratio of West Siberian forager-related ancestry (see here and here).


Despite all the talk lately about the potential cultural, linguistic and genetic ties between Maykop and Yamnaya, including claims that the latter possibly acquired its wagons from the former, my view is that the Steppe Maykop and Yamnaya wagon drivers may have competed with each other and eventually clashed in a big way. Indeed, take a look at what happens after Yamnaya burials rather suddenly replace those of Steppe Maykop just north of the Caucasus around 3,000 BCE.

Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
RUS_Progress_En_PG2001 0.808±0.058
RUS_Steppe_Maykop 0.000
UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En_I6561 0.192±0.058
chisq 13.859
tail prob 0.383882
Full output

Yep, total population replacement with no significant gene flow between the two groups. Apparently, as far as I can tell, there's not even a hint that a few Steppe Maykop stragglers were incorporated into the ranks of the newcomers. Where did they go? Hard to say for now. Maybe they ran for the hills nearby?

Intriguingly, Anthony reveals a few details about new samples from three different Eneolithic steppe burial sites associated with the Khvalynsk culture:

The Reich lab now has whole-genome aDNA data from more than 30 individuals from three Eneolithic cemeteries in the Volga steppes between the cities of Saratov and Samara (Khlopkov Bugor, Khvalynsk, and Ekaterinovka), all dated around the middle of the fifth millennium BC.

...

Most of the males belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b1a, like almost all Yamnaya males, but Khvalynsk also had some minority Y-chromosome haplogroups (R1a, Q1a, J, I2a2) that do not appear or appear only rarely (I2a2) in Yamnaya graves.

As far as I can tell, he suggests that they'll be published in the forthcoming Narasimhan et al. paper. If so, it sounds like the paper will have many more ancient samples than its early preprint that was posted at bioRxiv last year.

For me the really fascinating thing in regards to these new samples is how scarce Y-haplogroup R1a appears to have been everywhere before the expansion by the putative Indo-European-speaking steppe ancestors of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) people. It's basically always outnumbered by other haplogroups wherever it's found prior to about 3,000 BCE, even on the PC steppe. But then, suddenly, its R1a-M417 subclade goes BOOM! And that's why I call it...

The beast among Y-haplogroups

At this stage, I'm not sure how to interpret the presence of Y-haplogroup J in the Khvalynsk population. It may or may not be important to the PIE homeland debate. Keep in mind that J is present in two foragers from Karelia and Popovo, northern Russia, dated to the Mesolithic period and with no obvious foreign ancestry. So it need not have arrived north of the Caspian as late as the Eneolithic with migrants rich in southern ancestry from the Caucasus or what is now Iran. In other words, for the time being, the steppe PIE homeland theory appears safe.

See also...

Is Yamnaya overrated?

The PIE homeland controversy: January 2019 status report

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

539 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 539 of 539
Leron said...

@Matt

The main point is figuring where the earliest divergences took place. For Proto-Sino-Tibetan this is along the southeastern zone of the Tibetan plateau and for Sino-Tibetan, it’s close to the southern portion of the Hexi corridor. The vast majority of Sino-Tibetan language speakers are Chinese living in the eastern parts of China, yet many of them only speak dialects derived relatively recently from Middle Chinese, with some Daic-Hmong and Austronesian substrates.

For IE, where do you think the earliest sub-family splits occurred? Or to phrase it another way, the area with the highest concentration of divergent IE languages in close proximity, not accounted by modern historical movements.

Matt said...

@Leron, yeah, the diversity doesn't really matter, only if weighted heavily to early splits.

Anyway, considered only on that basis, for IE the safe bet is probably somewhere that triangulates between Anatolian and others that branch early (variously Tocharian, Armenian and Greek, or Tocharian, Italo-Celtic and all other IE depending on the model). But that doesn't really help us narrow down the geography very much on its own, because all the primary candidates are roughly in that region.

Davidski said...

@zardos

How reliable are the admixture proportions from the Viking paper in your opinion?

The qpAdm stuff looks more or less correct, considering that it can vary somewhat depending on the outgroups used.

So it's informative, but I wouldn't use it as evidence to say that Unetice is more closely related to Corded Ware than to Bell Beakers. One of the bar graphs shows that early Slavs from Bohemia had about as much Yamnaya ancestry as Corded Ware, which doesn't look right to me.

JuanRivera said...

Yep, Russian-admixed. Also found out that Magadan_BA prefers Sintashta_MLBA over any other steppe group (and also over Forest Yukaghirs).

JuanRivera said...

Also found out that all three Sintashta outlier groups have Botai and Steppe Maykop ancestries.

Davidski said...

@JuanRivera

Most of the Sintashta samples are from the Kamennyi Ambar 5 cemetery, which is in West Siberia, so the Botai/Steppe Maykop-like admixture is probably from the local pre-Sintashta Siberian foragers.

At this stage, there's no sign that Steppe Maykop people resurfaced among the Sintashta population, although I guess it might be a tempting possibility considering how mobile and reliant on vehicles both cultures were.

Ben Osland said...

@Andrzejewski

It's easy to tell the difference from EEF and WHG in formal stats etc and I have always read that WHG and EEF were very different, but the more I have read, the more I doubt that they were genetically so far removed from one another, if nothing else for the proximity of Anatolia to Europe; the typesite of Barcin is only 90 kms from European part of Turkey. Greece can't be much more than 300 kms.

And again, Anatolia_N were only really just Anatolian Foragers-turned farmers in-situ(perhaps a bit of Iran_N?). Foragers who also shared geneflow with Iron Gates WHG. Pontus Skogland reckoned the direction was from Iron Gates to Anatolia. Again, Sam makes a good point about uniparentals.

@Sam

Your point about Reich: not really a conspiracy theorist, and certainly inter-group diffs were bigger than in the past, but there does nevertheless seem to be a worrying trend in the media for requiring everything (including the past) to fit a certain way of thinking, one that increasingly does not allow questioning. Really, they are noble goals, but the problem is that their unintended consequences are starting to include some kind of score-settling,virtue signalling or need for certain groups to be brought to account for the actions of their ancestors. Which of course is not only crazy but unhealthy for society as a whole, as human nature is not only to want to give back what you are getting, but to rebel against governments seen to be discriminating against them.

Drago said...

@ Zardos

“But even more important, Celtic and Germanic might stem from Eastern regions in which the BB legacy was smashed and only parts reintegrated into the new cultural system from Unetice on.
At their height, BB were in control, but after their demise no more.
I think both Celtic and even more so Germanic came from later cultural formations without direct continuity from BB. Genetically the BB legacy survived in an admixed form.”

Perhaps removed in a few key zones of Central Europe & Hungary ; but they continued elsewhere - most notably Bavaria which very much continued the BB family model but was also closely integrated into a interaction zone with Epi-Corded, north Balkan BA, etc groups . It might have served as a vital link to their cousins further west

Halfalp said...

On the Afanasievo/Tokharian topic, did you notice how much Afanasievo ancestry have Huns of the Tianshans and Xiongnu? And why Tokharians and early Turks were not almost indisguishable genetically? On a Linguistic stand point, it seems Tokharian influenced a lot proto or early Turkic. We dont even know the language of Huns to be honest and Hephtalits also known as White Turks are thought to be linked with Yuezhi.

Davidski said...

@Halfalp

On the Afanasievo/Tokharian topic, did you notice how much Afanasievo ancestry have Huns of the Tianshans and Xiongnu?

They don't have any Afanasievo ancestry. It's an illusion created by a mixture of local Andronovo and early farmer (Sarazm-like) ancestry.

Hun_Tian_Shan
RUS_Lokomotiv_N 0.312±0.011
TJK_Sarazm_En 0.165±0.021
UZB_Kashkarchi_BA 0.523±0.019

chisq 10.007
tail prob 0.615365

zardos said...

@Drago: "Perhaps removed in a few key zones of Central Europe & Hungary ; but they continued elsewhere - most notably Bavaria which very much continued the BB family model but was also closely integrated into a interaction zone with Epi-Corded, north Balkan BA, etc groups . It might have served as a vital link to their cousins further west"

Yes, nests and strongholds survived and showed the independent development of BB groups which were integrated in the new networks without being lost as independent entities.
Adlerberg comes to mind as the most famous example and their physical type had a much higher proportion of the classic BB core type too.

But they were a farcry from the power the BB once had, reduced to a provincial character.
In the centers BB were integrated completely in the following systems.

But if the BB were Proto-Italo-Celtic, a resurgence of a BB group would be possible even if Unetice would, like I expect, being a break with a dominance of CW and-or Neolithic-WHG lineages.

How are the few Unetice samples doing in the analysis?

Barbara said...

Thanks for a great site. Have a degree in prehistory and a master’s in archaeology - trying to educate myself on ancient DNA. Fascinating.

Ric Hern said...

@ zardos

If you have seen Southwestern parts of Ireland you will immediately understand how people with farmer ancestry could have survived the Bell Beaker influx. In County Kerry there is Bogs, Mountains and thick Forests...been there and seen that. Almost slid into a bog with my car...

Gaska said...

@AWood-"Also, poster Gaska keeps emphasizing that Z2103 and L51 having "nothing to do with each other", which is pretty much impossible since they have a common ancestor 700 years earlier, probably the western steppes or the Carpathians"


Exactly-NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER- We have been listening to Kurganists for years to tell us that R1bL51 etc. will appear in any steppe culture, now it seems that you have moved a little to the West and already think of an origin in the Carpathians for L51-

As I am not a fortune teller I cannot know what will happen in the future, but I bet on an origin in any of the German or French Neolithic cultures, even in the Baltic Countries where you have R1b in abundance (70% WHG and 30% EHG). Where do you think the R1b samples have come in the steppes? from Siberia?, and what explanation do we give to all the R1b of Europe (Italy, France, Latvia, Romania even Norway), all extinct? Come on, Aaron, the Kurgan theory has the days counted, and the longer you recognize it, the harder the fall will be.

Only a massive founder effect of R1a in the CWC and L51 in Western Europe can explain what we are seeing. And the big question is, could this founder effect not only provoke, but maintain throughout the millennia the percentages of steppe ancestry that all Europeans apparently have? Olalde and Haak tell us that the steppe ancestry is only linked to R1b-M269. Ok, what happened to the other haplogroups of the steppes? They also went extinct?. Why is there no Q1a or J in Central and Western Europe during the chalcolithic? The influence of Neolithic farmers in Yamnaya is important enough to take it into account, did this genetic flow have linguistic consequences? It had the cultural influence of Maykop linguistic influences?. The more genomes published, the more doubts arise.

This makes the debate increasingly interesting, and at least the dogma of the steppes has become a mini-dogma questioned by more and more independent people.

Ric Hern said...

@Gaska

Nothing to do with each other ? You seem to not understand the R1b Tree...Look again and tell me what this tree basically say.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/

Gaska said...

@Ric-

The resulting phylogenetic tree demonstrates that haplogroup R-L23 splits into two main branches, R-L51 and R-GG400. The former includes West Europeans, while the latter comprises exclusively representatives of East European populations. Note that members of this eastern branch R-GG400 came mainly from the steppe area of East Europe.

A common view is that Bell Beaker groups expanded out of Iberia along the western Mediterranean and along the Atlantic façade before they moved inland (but never further east than Hungary), and always settled in small pockets. This scenario is based on a morphological study of teeth from 2000 European Bell Beaker individuals. They were travelling artisans and probably well-received because of their skills, but they were also a demographic force looking for new places to settle. Through hybridization between the Corded Ware/Single Grave Culture and the expanding Bell Beaker Culture, hybrid Beaker Cultures emerged in the British Isles and in Central Europe. These new cultures experienced a rapid expansion that transformed society in much the same way as the Corded Ware and Single Grave Culture had transformed temperate Europe c. 300 years earlier.

You know that R1b-L754 was divided into R1b1a/2-V88 and in R1b1a/1-L388. In turn, the latter was divided into R1b-V1636 and R1b-P297

You also know (or should know) that V88 has been found in Spain, Germany, Romania, Serbia (Iron Gates) Sardinia and Ukraine, and that the Serbian samples are at least 1000 years before the Ukrainians (I5235-8.884 BC)-Following the Kurganist reasoning but vice versa, we find that since V88 is a relative of P297 (in the same way that L23 is a relative of Z2103), then the western origin of not only V88 (Iron Gates) but its relative P297 would be demonstrated. You also have a lot of P297 samples in the Latvian hunter-gatherers of the Kunda and Narva cultures and they are all P297. Knowing this, as someone can say with total resounding that R1bL51 has an oriental origin? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think exactly the opposite? The WHG of Villabruna and Iboussieres would support this argument, and yet we have to listen without questioning that since L51 is a relative of Z2103, our lineages have to have steppe origin. I think you are very wrong, and that the obsession with the steppes will become a fad.


Gabriel said...

@Gaska

and yet we have to listen without questioning that since L51 is a relative of Z2103, our lineages have to have steppe origin.

It’s because R1b-M269, their parent, hasn’t been found anywhere outside the steppe or steppe-derived populations.

And since R1b-V88 is found in West Africa, maybe you could say R1b-L51 is of African origin?

Gaska said...

@abriel

And all the ancestors of R1b-M269 where they have been found? You know Italy, France, Latvia etc right?

Bla Bla Bla, you should think about things before saying them, unless you have found R1b-V88 in West Africa older than the samples from Serbia.

FrankN said...

Everyone wondering about Basque and the predominance of R1b in Iberia since the EBA (not yet the late CA/BB period, when there was still quite some yDNA diversity, including tha "African" BB) might want to take a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garifuna_language :
"The Caribs had conquered the previous population of the islands, Arawakan peoples like the Taino and Palikur peoples. During the conquest, which was conducted primarily by men, the Carib married Arawakan women. Children were raised by their mothers speaking Arawak, but as boys came of age, their fathers taught them Carib, a language still spoken in mainland South America. When European missionaries described the Island Carib people in the 17th century, they recorded two unrelated languages: Carib spoken by the men and Arawak spoken by the women. However, while the boys acquired Carib vocabulary, after a few generations, they retained the Arawakan grammar of their first language. Thus, Island Carib, as spoken by men, was genetically either a mixed language or a relexified language. Over the generations, men substituted fewer Arawak words, and many Carib words diffused to the women so the amount of distinctly male vocabulary diminished until both genders spoke Arawak, with an infusion of Carib vocabulary and distinct words in only a handful of cases.

I don't want to say that this is exactly what happened in BA Iberia. In fact, one may question whether the process described above would have also taken place if the Spanish arrival in the Carribeans hadn't significantly eroded the political dominance of Carib male conquerors.
Nevertheless, linguistic differentiation between males and females, possibly resulting from asymmetric marriage patterns, was/is anything but unusual. Aside from the Garifuna, it is a/o documented for a number of Andean languges and, IIRC, also Old Japanese. The earliest attested case is Sumerian.
Such assymetrical marriage patterns may lead to quite unexpected linguistic outcomes: The Mednyj Aleut language, e.g., is characterised by a pre-dominance of Aleutic vocabulary but a verbal morphology that is essentially Russian. It is explained from heavy 19th c AD intermarriage between Aleutic women and Russian men, whereby the latter apparently took a more active role in language dissemination to their offspring than Carib males in the Garifuna example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mednyj_Aleut_language

Drago said...

@ Zardos
I’ll look into Unetice again later this week; but from what I recall there was some diversity; but otherwise plot near Central Europe BB
So they might just be locals which profited from an alliance with the southeast; & adopted their symbolism.
Need more data; but presently I think 2500 BC looks the time of PIE expansion. It even accounts for Anatolian

Gabriel said...

@Gaska

It doesn’t matter so much that these samples carry clades ancestral to M269 as much as none of them besides samples on the steppe belong to it, nevermind that there are samples from the steppe who belong to such ancestral clades.

In other words, it’s really unlikely that the R1b-M269 in Yamnaya is of western farmer origin.

Ric Hern said...

At the end of the day it all comes down to Linguistics. How isolated was PIE when it formed and which other Language Families did it impact at time of early formation. Proto Karelian plus Proto Uralic....

Ric Hern said...

Sorry Proto Kartvelian.

Ric Hern said...

Where is the most likely place and time where this could have happened and who lived there ?

Bob Floy said...

@Ric

The northern Caucasus.

Drago said...

@ Ric

“ at the end of the day it all comes down to Linguistics. How isolated was PIE when it formed and which other Language Families did it impact at time of early formation. Proto Karelian plus Proto Uralic....

It has to be what’s most consistent with data from the proposed speakers .
Contacts weren’t necessarily 1st order & direct. So there’d be a zone of possibility . It could be near the Don or could be further West.
And it’s odd that some point to Kartvelian; when it should be NW Caucasian that was closer in location

Andrzejewski said...

@Drago “And it’s odd that some point to Kartvelian; when it should be NW Caucasian that was closer in location”

Probably because Kartvelian is likely a CHG language vis-a-vis NW Caucasus ones who seem to originate with the Anatolian Farmers

Drago said...

Andre
NW Caucasian being an “EEF language” doesn’t have any basis . There hasn’t been any migration from, say, C-T or GAC to the Caucasian foothills

As for YDNA ; from Rootsi

“Concerning the presence of hg G in the Caucasus, one of its distinguishing features is lower haplogroup diversity in numerous populations (Supplementary Table S1) compared with Anatolia and Armenia, implying that hg G is intrusive in the Caucasus rather than autochthonous. Another notable feature is its uneven distribution. Hg G is very frequent in NW Caucasus and South Caucasus, covering about 45% of the paternal lineages in both regions2 in this study. Conversely, hg G is present in Northeast Caucasus only at an average frequency of 5% (range 0–19%). Interestingly, the decrease of hg G frequency towards the eastern European populations inhabiting the area adjacent to NW Caucasus, such as southern Russians and Ukrainians,18, 40 is very rapid and the borderline very sharp, indicating that gene flow from the Caucasus in the northern direction has been negligible. Moreover, these general frequencies mostly consist of two notable lineages. First, the G2a1-P16 lineage is effectively Caucasus specific and accounts for about one-third of the Caucasian male gene pool (Figure 2f). G-P16 has a high frequency in South and NW Caucasus, with the highest frequency among North Ossetians—63.6%. G-P16 is also occasionally present in Northeast Caucasus at lower frequencies (Supplementary Table S1), consistent with a previous report.3 Outside the Caucasus, hg G-P16 occurs at ≥1% frequency only in Anatolia, Armenia, Russia and Spain, while being essentially absent elsewhere. A network analysis of representative hg G-P16 Y-STR haplotypes reveals a diffuse cluster (Supplementary Figure S2). The coalescence age estimate of 9400 years for P16 coincides with the early Holocene (Supplementary Table S4). The second common hg G lineage in the Caucasus is U1, which has its highest frequencies in the South (22.8% in Abkhazians) and NW Caucasus (about 39.7% in Adyghe and 36.5% in Cherkessians), but also reaches the Near/Middle East with the highest frequency in Palestinians (16.7%) and, shows extremely low frequency in Eastern Europe”

Open Genomes said...

@David

Given the admixture we see in Khvalynsk, and the fact that the "CHG-like" admixture cannot be from Maykop or Darkveti-Meshoko, who are the likely candidate populations for this admixture?

I see what seems to be a non-trivial West Siberian Neolithic component in Khvalynsk, in addition to the majority Samara component. Doesn't this indicate that the Iran Mesolithic / Neolithic-like came from some group far from the Anatolian Neolthic that had connections to the people east of the Caspian?

Global25 ancestry composition of sample: I0433 Population: RUS_Khvalynsk_En Neolithic Steppe

Global25 ancestry composition of sample: I0122 Population: RUS_Khvalynsk_En Neolithic Steppe

Ric Hern said...

@ Dragos

Yes however the Proto Kartvelian Language could have stretched over a much bigger area and maybe produced more Kartvelian Languages than what survived until recorded history. Maybe some that were even closer to PIE.

Open Genomes said...

@Drago

The two G2a-P15 subclades specific to the Caucasus today are of recent origin.

Most important, Wang et al. (2018) found only two haplogroup G individuals in the ancient Caucasus:
1. ARM002-ARM003 3341-3106 calBCE from the Kura-Araxes culture in Kaps, Armenia. He is in G2b2b-Y37100, the very same subclade as WC1 from Wezmeh Cave in the Zagros Mountains of Western Iran from 7455-7082 calBCE.
2. I16272 3500-3000 calBCE from Maykop Novosvobodnaya. He is in G2a2a-PF3147* (PF3148-) which was found in sample Tep003 from Tepecik-Ciftlik in Central Anatolia from 6635-6475 calBCE.

Neither Y clade has been found in the North Caucasus today. The ancestor of the very common G2a1a1-Z6653 (G-P16) clade found in the northern and central Caucasus today, G2a1a-Z6553, was found in sample I1671 from 5837-5659 calBCE in Seh Gabi (Godin Tepe) in Western Iran, in a Halaf culture context.

It may be that either Northwest Caucasian or Kartvelian are related to the languages spoken by the Anatolian Neolithic Farmers and the European Neolithic descendants, but the absence of haplogroup G in the Chalcolithic in the region where these languages are spoken today does not lend any support to a potential connection.

Drago said...

Yeah perhaps Majkop spake something ~ Proto- Kartvelian ; with modern Kartvelian representing an abridged survivor

Arza said...

@ Open Genomes

Given the admixture we see in Khvalynsk, and the fact that the "CHG-like" admixture cannot be from Maykop or Darkveti-Meshoko, who are the likely candidate populations for this admixture?

Yamnaya.

https://i.postimg.cc/fbn2crP7/yana-EHGyamnaya.png

Drago said...

@ Open G

''The two G2a-P15 subclades specific to the Caucasus today are of recent origin.''

Yes that i what I understood from Rootsi when they suggested ''First, the G2a1-P16 lineage is effectively Caucasus specific and accounts for about one-third of the Caucasian male gene pool''

So as I said, the idea that NW Caucasian is an EEF language a non-entity, proposed by one or 2 commentators here. Instead a more realistic link is with the West Caucasus Dolmen (MBA-LBA) or Koban cultures (LBA-IA).

Matt said...

@OpenGenomes, low influences seen at the Khvalynsk cemetery in some samples by West Siberian Neolithic group are not implausible (the "main Steppe Maykop" cluster that is a simple mix of Piedmont_Eneo+West Siberia N suggests contact in the Volga and Caspian Depression Regions).

But there is no means to understand if any low level of that has arrived in concert with CHG-related ancestry, or separately.

West Siberian is not too correlated with CHG in your nMonte runs.

A fuller transect of the full set of Eneolithic cemeteries that is coming, and I would argue may samples in the Repin culture that was actually interacting with Maykop and with circum-northern shore Black Sea cultures, will be necessary to understand what genetic influences came together and what came separately.

(I am also not sure RISE61 - Nordic_MN_B should be in your models, as this guy is Bronze Age and just has a weird nomenclature. Placed in set baSca by Allentoft - https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14507-s1.pdf).

Arza said...

Kale @ AG said...

Also, on an unrelated topic, does anyone else suspect that y-hg J may have been ANE in origin?
If ANE is a mix of East and West, what was the lineage of the Western source? So far ANE has only been found indisputably with y-hg P1 (and descendents), which is presumably from the Eastern source.
Yg-I is found among, and likely formed in, paleo-Europeans, and is the brother to y-hg J... just as the Western ancestry of ANE is in a way a brother of paleo-Europeans.


It's something that I wanted to write since a long time, but the climate here wasn't lately favourable for any serious discussion.

Y-DNA J is possibly native to EHG.

Autosomal trail of a back-migration that has brought Y-DNA R is clearly visible in the PCA plot I've posted few comments above.

The so called "steppe component" aka Yamnaya can't be modelled as EHG + CHG because it's not shifted (or at least not as much as EHG) towards Yana-like population.

That's why "steppe component" is so unique and it's also an excellent marker - it preserves high level of "Western source of ANE" without having high levels of WHG (like Ukraine_N), Yana-like (like EHG) or basal (like CHG) ancestry that are present in all other populations.

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

The CHG-related ancestry in Khvalynsk comes from the same population as the CHG-related ancestry in Progress and Vonyuchka Eneolithic samples, and this population was very closely related to CHG.

So there's no point in looking for this population east of the Caspian.

Khvalynsk may well have some West Siberia forager ancestry, which wouldn't be surprising given its location, and Steppe Maykop definitely has ancestry from east of the Caspian.

But the CHG in Khvalynsk/Progress/Vonyuchka can't be from Central Asia or even Iran. This is impossible.

Bob Floy said...

@David

At this point do you have a strong opinion on exactly where that CHG likely came from?

Davidski said...

@Bob Floy

At this point do you have a strong opinion on exactly where that CHG likely came from?

Yeah, I had a close look at this using all of the hunter-gatherer samples from around the Caucasus/Caspian, including those from Iran (Belt and Hotu caves), and the only solution I can see is that there was a CHG-rich Mesolithic population similar to Vonyuchka Eneolithic living in the steppes somewhere between the Black and Caspian Seas.

By the way, the Belt and Hotu cave samples are much worse proxies for the CHG ancestry in the Progress/Vonyuchka samples than actual CHG, including Satsurblia alone which is dated to the Upper Paleolithic. So I don't see Anthony's Azeri/Iranian theory working out.

FrankN said...

Dave: " the Belt and Hotu cave samples are much worse proxies for the CHG ancestry in the Progress/Vonyuchka samples than actual CHG, including Satsurblia alone which is dated to the Upper Paleolithic.

True. However, Iran_Hotu may reflect a late arrival from the Zagros: For inconsistent AMS dates that reach as low as ca. 6,100 BC, Lazarides e.a. 2016 warn that, instead of being Mesolithic, the sample may have been introduced from overlaying Neolithic deposits. We need more samples from the S. Caspian, especially samples that are with certainty Mesolithic, before a S.Caspian origin of the CHG in Khvalynsk, Yamnaya etc. can be ruled out.

Progress/Vonyuchka is a more complex case. Some 10% of the sherds in Areni Cave (Arm_CA) bear similarities to N. Caucasian "Pearl-ornamented pottery", suggesting interaction across the Central Caucasus during the late 5th mBC. Moreover, isotopic analyses (Shishlina) showed one of the males from the Nalchik Cemetary having had a largely plant-based diet that contrasts markedly with the meat/dairy/fish diet that otherwise prevailed in Steppe populations (Khvalynsk, Yamnaya Kalmykia, Lola ec.). This is assumed to signify that the Nalchik man was a cereal farmer of possibly S. Caucasian origin.
As such, the elevated CHG in Progress/Vonyuchka is probably reflecting some recent migration from S. of the Caucasus on top of the CHG that was present in Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog II.

"the only solution I can see is that there was a CHG-rich Mesolithic population similar to Vonyuchka Eneolithic living in the steppes somewhere between the Black and Caspian Seas.
Unfortunately, archeology shows a virtually complete hiatus in the Caucasus piedmont between ca. 6.2-4.5 mBC. So, the only feasible option at the moment seems to be the Lower Don (Rakushechny Yar, etc.). Rakushechny Yar pottery strongly influenced pottery development in E. Europe, including Elshan, the Dniepr-Dvina interfluve (Serteya etc.), eventually even Narva and Ertebölle. If Rakushechny Yar was CHG-rich, and demographically strong enough to ultimately bring forward the elevated CHG shares we find in Khvalynsk and elsewhere, shouldn't we find more of that CHG already in UA_Neo and/or the Samara_HG.
More precisely: I believe that Rakushechny Yar contained a substantial CHG element. Its pottery can be linked to the Circum-Caspian, my best guess at the moment is that it originated from Neolithic Gobustan in Azerbaijan. However, I question its demographic strength. We find some uptick of CHG ancestry in UA_Neo compared to UA_Mes, and in Samara_HG compared to Sidelkino, but in both cases we are only talking about some extra 4-5%.
The main surge of CHG ancestry came during the Eneolithic. It is linked to the appearance of Steppe pastoralism, and a new lithic inventory including leaf-shaped points, both of which are ultimately of East Caspian origin.

Davidski said...

@FrankN

Unfortunately, archeology shows a virtually complete hiatus in the Caucasus piedmont between ca. 6.2-4.5 mBC.

Unfortunately, by itself archeology is often unreliable.

At some point you and many others will have to acknowledge that the CHG-related ancestry in Yamnaya is very, very similar to CHG and has nothing to do with the South Caspian or Central Asia.

The funny thing is that this has been obvious for a long time now.

FrankN said...

Dave: "At some point you and many others will have to acknowledge that the CHG-related ancestry in Yamnaya is very, very similar to CHG"

Wang e.a. (2018) see it differently. According to their analyses, Colchian CHG (Kotias) split from the CHG found in Yamnaya at least some 20,000 years ago. Do you have any reason to question their findings?

Drago said...

Y-DNA J is possibly native to EHG.

Surely you don’t mean the entire Hg J tree is “native “ to EHG
I & J split 35,000 years ago
The majority of J probably remained behind the mountains

Davidski said...

@FrankN

Wang e.a. (2018) see it differently. According to their analyses, Colchian CHG (Kotias) split from the CHG found in Yamnaya at least some 20,000 years ago. Do you have any reason to question their findings?

Those sorts of estimates are even less reliable than archeology without ancient samples for calibration.

Wang et al. may as well have plucked a very different figure out of the air and it would've been about as relevant.

The fact is that CHG, Progress, Vonyuchka, and Yamnaya all share a lot of genetic drift. You can see this in any half decent PCA; those steppe samples are almost on a CHG>EHG cline, and show no close relationship to Iran_N, Belt or Hotu.

FrankN said...

Dave: "Unfortunately, by itself archeology is often unreliable."

This certainly holds true for coastal areas, especially those subjected to frequent sea level changes as eg. typical for the Caspian Sea. There are relevant parts of the continental shelf that were exposed between the LGM and the early Holocene (Doggerland, the outer English Channel, Northern Adriatic Sea, Sicily-Malta landbridge, NW Black Sea, etc.) and most likely exploited by Epi-Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans, where it is sheer luck if any archeological finds turn up.

But when it comes to the Caucasus Piedmont, we are dealing with a quite densely populated and well-explored region with a rich archeological record that dates back to the Middle Paleolithic (Neandertalers). The apparent lack of Neolithic finds, and especially a documented archeological hiatus in several key sites such as the Gubs Cave (Adygea) or Tsmi (N. Ossetia) IMO requires a better explanation than that "archeology is often unreliable." This holds even more true in view of the region's resources (obsidian, salt lakes/springs) that attracted human(oid)s since the Middle Paleolithic - and obsidian knapping leaves well identifyable archeological traces.
The Zayukovo Obsidian source described in the link below lies some 15 km south of Progress...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X18306242

Davidski said...

@FrankN

You're ignoring the simple fact that Yamnaya-like foragers were already well at home in the Piedmont steppe well before 4,000 BCE.

If you really think they're recent migrants to the region from somewhere like Iran or Central Asia, and that their high affinity to CHG is some sort of a coincidence, then clearly a new hobby beckons for you and others who are thinking similar things.

Andrzejewski said...

@OpenGenome @Drago “Neither Y clade has been found in the North Caucasus today. The ancestor of the very common G2a1a1-Z6653 (G-P16) clade found in the northern and central Caucasus today, G2a1a-Z6553, was found in sample I1671 from 5837-5659 calBCE in Seh Gabi (Godin Tepe) in Western Iran, in a Halaf culture context.

It may be that either Northwest Caucasian or Kartvelian are related to the languages spoken by the Anatolian Neolithic Farmers and the European Neolithic descendants, but the absence of haplogroup G in the Chalcolithic in the region where these languages are spoken today does not lend any support to a potential connection”

So the Halafians and Ubaidians spoke a language close to modern Kartvelian/NW Caucasus? These languages were the source in all likelihood of substrate in Sumerian

Arza said...

@ Drago

Native in the same sense as e.g. Y-DNA I found in different WHG(-rich) groups is also "native" to them. In other words that J trickled down to EHG from some West Eurasian population that became also the core of autosomal composition of EHG, CHG or ANE proper.

@ Davidski

You're ignoring the simple fact that Yamnaya-like foragers were already well at home in the Piedmont steppe well before 4,000 BCE.

Yamnaya-like foragers (or rather their genes) were at that time north of the steppe and in Bulgaria.

Varna outlier is dated to 4711-4542 calBCE and it carries not only Yamnaya-like ancestry coupled with EEF, but also the "Balto-Slavic drift" - some specific HG admixture likely from Belarus or northern Ukraine.

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

This entire controversy about "R1b Bell Beaker is Basque" will blow over when R1b of the Bell Beaker type is discovered in Corded Ware, which is very likely given the state of affairs now. I predict something like this will be out within the next year or so.

Davidski said...

@Arza

Varna outlier is dated to 4711-4542 calBCE and it carries not only Yamnaya-like ancestry coupled with EEF, but also the "Balto-Slavic drift" - some specific HG admixture likely from Belarus or northern Ukraine.

Interestingly, this sample has my mtDNA haplogroup.

But more importantly, this individual has been renamed to Varna_EN3, which might suggest that she's not an outlier anymore and there are more where she came from.

Davidski said...

@ANI EXCAVATOR

This entire controversy about "R1b Bell Beaker is Basque" will blow over when R1b of the Bell Beaker type is discovered in Corded Ware, which is very likely given the state of affairs now. I predict something like this will be out within the next year or so.

Well, Basques are definitely the direct descendants and also overwhelmingly the direct paternal descendants of Iberian Beakers. Just look at the PCA here...

What are the linguistic implications of Olalde et al. 2019?

This won't change if and when it's eventually shown that Beakers and their P312 are ultimately of Corded Ware/Single Grave origin.

And I expect that the Beaker/Basque controversy will continue, because Beakers for many people are synonymous with proto-Celts, but this is unlikely to be true. Rather, it seems that Beakers spoke an extinct language, and Celtic appears to have formed in a more heterogeneous post-Beaker population in Central Europe. This might be a huge issue because for many it takes some gloss off the Beaker phenomenon.

FrankN said...

"You're ignoring the simple fact that Yamnaya-like foragers were already well at home in the Piedmont steppe well before 4,000 BCE."

You are wrong here. There wasn't anything like "Yamnaya-like foragers" ever living in the Piedmont Steppe (and if they were, they can't have been speaking PIE, if we take Mallory/Adams serious). There were Yamnaya-like pastoralists, but they were relatively recent arrivals. Acc. to Shishlina e.a. "After applying a reservoir effect correction for the steppe Eneolithic period, the time interval for the Caspian steppe Eneolithic population has now changed to 4300–3800 cal BC."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254821440

And before that, there apparently was very little. Trifonov has provocatively asked, whether there was a Neolithic at all in the W. Caucasus - unfortunately in Russian only, so I don't know what he has concluded . But, presumably, some visitors here may understand Russian and can help out in this respect.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283122496_Whether_the_Neolithic_existed_in_the_Western_Caucasus_or_not_in_Russian

The southernmost findspot with a reasonably dense Neolithic archeological record including a burial dated to ca. 5,000 BC appears to be Rassypnaya VI, some 200 km S. of Rakushechny Yar, and 350 km NNW of Progress. "The flint industry is similar to that at Kremennaya II and III and other sites in the Eastern Azov basin (Rassypnaya 1, Zhukovskaya 2, etc.).(..) Given the typology, we can suppose that most material can be dated to the last quarter of the 6th to the first quarter of the 5th millennium BC. Although this site was probably also visited/inhabited during the 7th and second half of the 5th millennium BC."
https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/44.13/7349

The problem here is that the flint assembly was still of the Neolithic type, i.e. excluded the "leaf-shaped points" so typical of Khvalynsk, Yamnaya, even BB ("Palmela points"), which only entered with the (pre-)Caspian culture.
From the link above: "Kremennaya II and Rassypnaya VI are attributed to early stages of the Neolithic period, and Kremennaya III to a later stage.(..)Kremennaya III is located near Kremennaya II, at a low hypsometric level. (..) New tools appeared: polished flint heavy duty tools and arrowheads." Unfortunately, Kremenaya III has produced a wide range of AMS dates from as early as 6600 BC to as late as 4075 BC, so it has remained unclear to me when typical (pre-)Caspian lithics ("heavy duty tools and arrowheads") appeared there, but we seem to be dealing with a later time frame than the one attested for Rassypnaya IV.
(Pre-)Caspian Culture sites on the Lower Volga have been AMS-dated to the first half of the 5th mBC, and belonged to pastoralists, not foragers, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287799497_The_origin_of_farming_in_the_Lower_Volga_Region

Drago said...

I think the CHG in Progress/ Vonychka is eastern; not Colchian. They lie on a cline from EHG - Khvalynsk - Progress - Sarazm & Hotu; not Kotias, and not Meshoko. It was female mediated trans-Caspian exogamous exchange between patrilineal hunter-fishers.
But what does this mean? Well, simply that Progress are a probably derive from the north Caspian.
Yamnaya itself might derive from a more western groups, perhaps by the lower Don. Corded Ware in turn, around Dereivka & the southern forest steppe, and so forth. The networks could shift, and at times, the system disrupted by actual migrations & displacements, etc
I don’t see huge reason to place the primacy on this “eastern CHG”.

FrankN said...

Dave, did you ever look at Chad's qpGraph analyses of the Progress samples? If so, what is your opinion about them? The graph with Progress as 9% CHG and 91% [62% EHG & 38% Tepe Hissar_CHL] seems to produce quite a good statistical fit.

I also found the f3 analyses interesting, e.g.

X Y Test f3 std. Error Z-score SNPs

CHG EHG Progress -0.001668 0.002449 -0.681 413273

Iran_Meso EHG Progress 0.010461 0.003531 2.963 70383

Hajji_Firuz EHG Progress 0.005077 0.002363 2.149 448044

Geoksiur EHG Progress 0.004428 0.002316 1.912 347963

https://populationgenomics.blog/2019/03/09/steppe-eneolithic-or-prikaspiiskaya-caspian-culture-from-the-south/

Open Genomes said...

@Matt, thank you for pointing out that RISE61 is in fact a Bronze Age sample with Steppe ancestry.

@David
I reran the restricted nMonte for the two Khvalynsk samples, and came up with something interesting for I0433:

Global25 ancestry composition of sample: I0433 Population: RUS_Khvalynsk_En Neolithic Steppe

I0433 has 8.6% Darkveti-Meshoko (specifically associated with sample I1722).

If we analyze Darkveti-Meshoko I1722, we see that I1722 does in fact have 20.6% Anatolian Neolithic and 10.8% Levant PPNB.

ncestry composition of sample: I1722 Population: RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En Neolithic Caucasus

So it seems that at least I0433 from Khvalynsk has Anatolian Neolithic ancestry via Darkveti-Meshoko, and that David Anthony is wrong in saying that the "CHG" ancestry in Khvalynsk must have come from an unadmixed CHG / Iranian population.

BTW, I3499, the Croatia Starcevo Neolithic outlier, seems to be actually a Bronze Age or even Medieval individual, and this confuses the nMonte results for I0122 from Khvalynsk.

When I3499 is excluded, I0122 also shows up with 5.0% Darkveti-Meshoko:

Global25 ancestry composition of sample: I0122 Population: RUS_Khvalynsk_En Neolithic Steppe

So Khvalynsk seems to be EHG (i.e. Samara HG) + additional CHG from a Darkveti-Meshoko-like population + West Siberian Neolithic.

Arza said...

@ Drago

cline from EHG - Khvalynsk - Progress - Sarazm & Hotu

Such cline doesn't exist.

G25, reprocessed, 3D, rotated:
https://i.postimg.cc/KjzJHGh7/drago-Cline.png

Red - your "cline".
Blue - reality.

Arza said...

@ Open Genomes

So Khvalynsk seems to be EHG (i.e. Samara HG) + additional CHG from a Darkveti-Meshoko-like population + West Siberian Neolithic.

No, it doesn't seem to be like that.

G25, reprocessed, PC1/2/4 3D, rotated:
https://i.postimg.cc/SRcNHMFC/opengenomesmodel.png

Red - your model.
Blue - reality.

Matt said...

Off topic: https://phys.org/news/2019-08-ancient-pigs-genomic-turnover-europe.html - predominant replacement of Near Eastern pig ancestry with European wild boar ancestry introgression since the Neolithic.

Gradual, not connected with sudden steppe ancestry migration.

Though Western Yamnaya on the Dnieper (Mikhaylovka) did seem keep pigs judging by bones, alongside their overwhelming cattle complex. As did Repin on the Lower Don, with their large horse population (as suggested by Anthony to be linked to raising horses for export to the Maykop phenomenon). See - https://imgur.com/a/ybmxZKk

Bob Floy said...

@David
"the Belt and Hotu cave samples are much worse proxies for the CHG ancestry in the Progress/Vonyuchka samples than actual CHG, including Satsurblia"

In other words, more evidence that the CHG in steppe is "true" CHG, rather than Iran_neo. Am I right in thinking that?

Davidski said...

@Bob Floy

In other words, more evidence that the CHG in steppe is "true" CHG, rather than Iran_neo. Am I right in thinking that?

Nope, it's a population very closely related to CHG.

Basically like Vonyuchka Eneolithic, just probably with less EHG.

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

There's no Darkveti-Meshoko ancestry in the Eneolithic steppe populations.

Khvalynsk has CHG-related ancestry from a population like Piedmont (Progress + Vonyuchka) Eneolithic, and doesn't show any genome-wide, mtDNA or Y-DNA links to Darkveti-Meshoko.

Drago said...

@ Arza

There is someting odd with your plot; because Meshoko (which packs ANF_related ancestry) and whilst Geoksur & Hotu (which do not, and instead have something like Siberian) shouldn't be plotting on top of each other, as they do in yours. It suggests that for some reason, it cannot discern differences in CHG

Here's the cline

So I think Frank might be right in that respect, although I don't agree with his insinuations about pastoralism, P.I.E & languages in general

JuanRivera said...

I have obtained better fits for Khvalynsk using Progress_Eneolithic.

Andrzejewski said...

@Drago “There is someting odd with your plot; because Meshoko (which packs ANF_related ancestry)...”

That’s why I assumed that either Kartvelian or NW Caucasian are ANF language(s)

Drago said...

@ Andrze

Meshoko-Darkevti has ANF-like ancestry from further south, but it's predominantly CHG, and overall they’re a very different population to EEF.

Davidski said...

@FrankN

Dave, did you ever look at Chad's qpGraph analyses of the Progress samples? If so, what is your opinion about them?

I think they're very creative, but unfortunately they don't have anything to do with reality, as there is no Tepe_Hissar_CHL ancestry, or anything of the kind, on the Eneolithic steppe.

It's just a simple fact that you can work out for yourself even just by looking at the uniparental markers.

Davidski said...

There's way too much wishful thinking and creative interpretations of the data when it comes to these issues.

Eneolithic steppe populations form a different biogeographical zone from those in what is now Iran.

Look at the data objectively and deal with the facts. A large proportion of the Y-HGs in the ancient pops from Iran are really weird for the Eneolithic steppe, like R2, L, and H. The mtDNA HGs are also weird, like U7.

You really have to massage the genome-wide data in very special ways to back the theory that the Piedmont Eneolithic foragers were the recent descendants of migrants from anywhere far to the south of the steppe.

FrankN said...

Dave: "there is no Tepe_Hissar_CHL ancestry, or anything of the kind, on the Eneolithic steppe.
It's just a simple fact that you can work out for yourself even just by looking at the uniparental markers.
"

Hmm.. The Naramsimham e.a. identification of uniparental markers seems quite questionable. As concerns Khvalynsk, we just have learned that its yDNA diversity was broader than suggested by the early published three samples. For the Elbrus piedmont, we so far have three samples. I don't think that - with a view towards genetically related Khvalynsk, but also apparent substantial UA_Mes/Neo cultural influence - they already fully capture the uniparental profile of the Elbrus piedmont.
Among all the arguments to be potentially brought forward, the "uniparental marker" one currently looks as the weakest to me (which doesn't mean that you can't convince me otherwise).

FrankN said...

Otherwise, I don't think it is adequate to lump together everything from modern Iran because it is from modern Iran - a concern I have already voiced here several times and since quite some time. Iran is pretty large and geographically very diverse, which is reflected archeologically as well as genetically (possibly human, certainly goat aDNA) and linguistically (modern Iran houses Azeri [Turkic] speakers as well as Farsi and Kurds).

The Central Zagros (Ganj Dareh etc.) differs considerably from the Urmia Lake area (Haji Firuz), both look archeologically (ecologically anyway) quite different from the SE Caspian coast (Hotu cave), and the Alborz foothills (N. of Teheran) and the Persian Gulf coast are yet again very different from all the a/m in multiple respects, and so far uncovered aDNA-wise.

Davidski said...

@FrankN

The Naramsimham e.a. identification of uniparental markers seems quite questionable.

Yes, but the Y-DNA calls were released and the mtDNA haplogroups make good sense, so we don't have to wonder whether the ancient uniparentals from the steppe match with those from Iran. They don't, except in the case of Steppe Maykop to some degree.

As concerns Khvalynsk, we just have learned that its yDNA diversity was broader than suggested by the early published three samples.

Yeah, broader, by two haplogroups (I2 and J). And these haplogroups, like the other haplogroups reported for Khvalynsk, have also been reported in Eastern Euro foragers: I2, J, Q1a, R1a and R1b.

For the Elbrus piedmont, we so far have three samples. I don't think that - with a view towards genetically related Khvalynsk, but also apparent substantial UA_Mes/Neo cultural influence - they already fully capture the uniparental profile of the Elbrus piedmont.

I think they do, considering they're exactly what one should expect when also looking at all of the obviously closely related samples. So I don't expect any surprises.

Why hasn't any obvious link to something like Tepe_Hissar_ChL surfaced yet in all of the Eneolithic and Bronze Age data from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, except for Steppe Maykop?

Probably because only Steppe Maykop has this type of ancestry.

Open Genomes said...

@David, fair enough about the CHG-like ancestry in Khvalynsk coming from a Piedmont Eneolithic population.
This is what I get for Khvalynsk when I include Eneolithic/Chalcolithic samples:

Global25 nMonte ancestry composition of sample: I0122 Population: RUS_Khvalynsk_En Neolithic Steppe

I0122:
50.8% EHG
30.4% Progress Eneolithic
10.0% Sredny Stog II
7.0% West Siberia Neolithic
1.8% Afontova Gora 3

Global25 nMonte ancestry composition of sample: I0433 Population: RUS_Khvalynsk_En Neolithic Steppe

I0433:
59.2% EHG
20.4% Progress Eneolithic
10.6% West Siberia Neolithic
9.8% Sredny Stog II

This is pretty straightforward, but is it valid chronologically?

Notice that the West Siberia Neolithic in Khvalynsk is in addition to this kind of Piedmont Steppe ancestry.

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

The Progress/Vonyuchka Eneolithic samples look like a stable mixture despite being from two different sites and carbon dated to ~4,200 BCE.

So a population like this existed somewhere on the steppe well before 4,200 BCE.

The Khvalynsk samples aren't carbon dated and appear to be genetically a variable and thus new population mostly made of up local foragers and something like the Progress/Vonyuchka samples. They might well have some Siberian ancestry too considering their location north of the Caspian near West Siberia.

Open Genomes said...

@David

So if Khvalynsk is the PIE population, then we have 4 ancestral components:
1. EHG
2. CHG (via Piedmont Eneolithic)
3. West Siberian HG / Neolithic
4. Iranian Neolithic (via Piedmont Neolithic)

It seems that based on the ancestral components, the linguistic situation would be more than a two-way mix between an "EHG" Proto-Uralic and some kind of "CHG" language (NW Caucasian, or Kartvelian - which?)

JuanRivera said...

I'm with OG regarding West_Siberia_N ancestry in Khvalynsk. After all, the A8, A10 and U4a3 in Western Europe had to come from somewhere (A8 and pre-U4a3 are seen in Neolithic Western Siberia, while A10 is recorded in Ust'-Tartas, which is Chalcolithic). U2e1'2'3* also likely belongs to that basket, but could equally be EHG (but it's not of WHG origin, considering that the Basque and most North Africans lack it [but I don't know of the Sardinians; they possibly don't have, given that all populations with U2e1'2'3* share steppe ancestry, with the exception of Scandinavians, who have no U2e1'2'3* but do have steppe U2e1 and U2e2]). So far, a West Siberian spread via Khvalynsk and consequent steppe peoples of U2e1'2'3* looks likely given that U2e1'2'3* is first seen in the oldest West_Siberia_N sample (though it was around for far longer, given its immense age), the presence of descendant U2e2'3* in Steppe Maykop and the spread of U2e2, U2e3 and several U2e1 clades with steppe (with the last subset making it as far to Iberia and India [which is mirrored by U2e1'2'3*]).

Bob Floy said...

@David
"Basically like Vonyuchka Eneolithic, just probably with less EHG."

This makes good sense to me. So we're talking about a CHG-adjacent population from north of Kotias and Satsurblia, which would have intermingled with EHG sometime in the Mesolithic.

JuanRivera said...

Curiously, only U4a3 and U2e1'2'3* is observed in Iberia out of all haplogroups of West Siberian origin observed or inferred in steppe.

JuanRivera said...

Isn't a word for horse (*kebʰ-) present in PIE? That root is postulated to be from something similar to Botai. Also, Botai has extra AG3 that West_Siberia_N didn't have, so a Botai-like population without the extra Baikal_N present in Botai were likely the source of West Siberian admixture in Khvalynsk.

JuanRivera said...

@OG

Could you model Magadan_BA using ancient and Tundra Yukaghir samples?

JuanRivera said...

And could anyone run F3-statistics using Magadan_BA-Afanasievo, Magadan_BA-Ust_Belaya, Magadan_BA-Okunevo, and Magadan_BA-Sintashta_MLBA? I'm unable to do that.

Ebizur said...

Present-day Yakut mtDNA of Western Eurasian origin or affinity:

HV1a1a: 3/169 = 1.78% of Yakut samples of Duggan et al. 2013, 5/423 = 1.18% of Yakut samples of Fedorova et al. 2013

HV1a1a also has been observed in Tunisia, Yemen, Armenians, Matera (southern Italy), and Qashqai (a Turkic-speaking population in Iran). Outgroup HV1a1b has been observed in a Syriac and in an Armenian. HV1a1* has been observed in Armenia (incl. an ancient specimen), Poland, and Trapani (Sicily).

H49: 3/169 = 1.78% of Yakut samples of Duggan et al. 2013. (Fedorova et al. 2013 have 12/423 = 2.84% H(xH1, H8, H20) in their Yakut samples, but have not resolved whether any of them belongs to H49.]

H49 also has been observed in Spain, Netherlands, a Mennonite from Mutterstadt (Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany), Poland, Sweden, and Finland.

W3a1+199: 2/169 = 1.18% of Yakut samples of Duggan et al. 2013. (Fedorova et al. 2013 have found 6/423 = 1.42% W in their Yakut samples, but they have not resolved whether any of them belongs to W3a1+199.)

W3a1 with an additional T199C mutation also has been observed in England, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Hungary, and New Zealand.

Davidski said...

It's not possible to confirm the presence of West_Siberia_N admix in the Khvalynsk population because we only have three very low quality Khvalynsk samples to work with (and only two in the Global25).

Another problem is the lack of a clear signal of West_Siberia_N ancestry in Sredny Stog, Yamnaya, Corded Ware, Bell Beakers, etc.

So something doesn't look right, and at this stage I would hold off with any claims that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were partly of Western Siberian origin.

Ebizur said...

[cont.]

T2g1[a]: Observed in 2/169 = 1.18% of the Yakut samples of Duggan et al. 2013. Duggan et al. have reported these as T2g1, but they belong to T2g1a according to Ian Logan. Fedorova et al. 2013 have found T2 in 5/423 = 1.18% of their Yakut samples, but they have not resolved whether any of them belongs to T2g1.

T2g1* has been observed in Palestine and in a Lowland Tajik from Dushanbe. Besides Yakuts, T2g1a* has been observed in specimens from ancient England (including two victims of the Black Death from East Smithfield medieval cemetery in London), Egypt, Palestine, Yemen, a Jewish individual, a Persian individual from Iran, an Armenian individual, Turkey, Kyrgyz from Kyrgyzstan, and an individual from Jammu and Kashmir. T2g1a1 has been observed in Hungary and Iraq. T2g1a3 has been observed in Italy (including an individual from Sardinia). T2g1 has been found in a Jew from Lithuania and a Jew from Iran, so it may have an ancient presence among Jews.

J1c5: Observed in 1/169 = 0.59% of the Yakut samples of Duggan et al. 2013 and in 6/423 = 1.42% of the Yakut samples of Fedorova et al. 2013.

J1c5* also has been observed in a Jewish individual, Spain, England (including two ancient specimens), Scotland (including Orcadians), Denmark (including two ancient specimens), Sweden, Poland, Russia (Novgorod Oblast, Belgorod Oblast), and a Finnish individual. J1c5a has been observed in Russia (Oryol Oblast, Pskov Oblast), Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, a Herzegovinian individual, Ireland, and Spain. J1c5a1 has been observed in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, and Newfoundland. J1c5b has been observed in Denmark and Germany. J1c5c* has been observed in France and Greece. J1c5c1 has been observed in Spain and in a French individual. J1c5d has been observed in a European, Newfoundland, and Russia (Belgorod Oblast). J1c5e has been observed in Europe and India ('Punjab138'). J1c5f has been observed in Denmark and in an individual from Nijmegen in the Netherlands.

Fedorova et al. 2013 also have found J1c5 in 4/125 = 3.2% of their samples of Evenks from Yakutia (collected in Olenyoksky District, Zhigansky District, and Ust-Maysky District) and in 1/105 = 0.95% of their samples of Evens from Yakutia (collected in Eveno-Bytantaysky National District and Momsky District).

Another subclade of mtDNA haplogroup J, J2a2b (J2a2b3 according to Ian Logan), has been observed in 2/46 = 4.3% of a sample of Evenks from the basin of the Nyukzha River (Duggan et al. 2013). Fedorova et al. 2013 observed mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup J2 in 7/125 = 5.6% of their samples of Evenks from Yakutia, but they have not resolved whether they belong to J2a2b. Judging from sequences on GenBank associated with a paper by Pala, M., Olivieri, A., Achilli, A., et al. (2012) ("Mitochondrial DNA signals of late glacial recolonization of Europe from Near Eastern refugia," Am. J. Hum. Genet. 90 (5), 915-924), J2a2b3 also has been observed in samples labeled as "YK11" from "Russia: Siberia" and "Evenk10-3099" from "Russia: Siberia," so it may also be found among Yakuts (or perhaps Yukaghirs).

J2a2b* has been observed in United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Armenia (Oshakan). J2a2b1* has been observed in Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen. J2a2b1a has been observed in Morocco, Tunisia, the Canary Islands, and southern Italy (Calabria). J2a2b2 has been observed in the UK, Greece, Armenia (Oshakan), and Russia (Vladimir Oblast).

JuanRivera said...

Went to nMonte3 to model Magadan_BA. Turns out they model great (below 1.35l with both Afanasievo and Sintashta, which fits with the hypothesis of two steppe waves to the Far East. The sample closest to modern Chukotko-Kamchatkan speakers has more Sintashta and Kolyma_Meso, whereas the other has more Afanasievo. Problem is that both samples are modeled with more than 20% of each kind of steppe ancestry, something which is suspicious, when one considers both nMonte (~5% steppe ancestry) and the Yana paper, which shows no more than ~15% steppe ancestry.

JuanRivera said...

Paywallment of archeology papers on the region doesn't help.

Arza said...

@ Drago

My plot is perfectly fine. If you have a 3D space you can rotate it in a way that any given pair points can be overlaid on each other.

The plot with your "cline" was rotated to maximize visual difference between EHG-Khvalynsk vector and a set of three vectors - EHG-Progress, EHG-Darkveti-Meshoko and EHG-Sarazm/Hotu. That's why they are clustered together.

There is a very good separation between Hotu and D-M, you just don't see it in this particular projection, because the vector of the difference between them is perpendicular to the screen (think that D-M is "well behind" the screen, CHG in a plane of the screen and Hotu in front of it).

Note also that this is a reprocessed PCA. It pulls out a lot of information from the original PCA that is usually smeared across multiple dimensions and maximizes the visual difference between populations.

To see that your cline is not a cline you don't even have to use any 3D-plotting software. Just make subsets of the data, reprocess them in PAST and plot the first 3-4 dimensions against each other.

When it comes to your plot - the arrow points upwards (tip of it is even "above" CHG), while Hotu & Co are diving deep "behind" the screen). If you would rotate it 90 degrees around the green line you would see the structure that I showed on my plot, just flattened due to the lack of reprocessing.

Drago said...

Arza
Sure; I don’t have a strong opinion ; given the blanks in data which remain
As I have concluded earlier- it’s fascinating in its own right; but the whole EHG/ CHG thing doesn’t appear directly relevant for PIE; other than being the end of a chain

JuanRivera said...

Whether nMonte or nMonte3, Magadan_BA does model better as having steppe ancestry.

Arza said...

@ Drago

IMHO it's very important and highly relevant to the PIE debate. David doesn't have to trust me, but if he would trust his own data (because that's all what I'm doing here - showing his work), he would be able to definitively end the discussion with FrankN with just one sentence.

Despite that the difference between Progress and Yamnaya may be subtle, it's at the same time big enough to conclude that "Yamnaya component" instead of Progress was a basis of Khvalynsk. This turns the chronology upside-down. Suddenly Khvalynsk becomes a genetic sink irrelevant to the PIE dispute.

And after the existence of Varna ANI163 with EMBA/MLBA steppe ancestry coupled with the "Balto-Slavic drift" this is the second proof that Yamnaya-like population was present north of the steppe already in the 4th millennium BCE.

This instantly kills any idea of any recent input from the Caucasus (not to mention Iran). In fact in Khvalynsk, from the point of view of the formation of Yamnaya, we are dealing not with the increase of CHG ancestry, but rather decrease and dilution of it in an EHG-rich population.

The same thing, as about Khvalynsk, we can say about Progress or Vonyuchka - they are irrelevant, late and peripheral off-shoots with some Sarazm/Geoksiur shift.

At this moment everyone looking for the PIE homeland is looking at the wrong place and at a wrong time... to sort things out we need to strictly follow the data and not reject it just because saying that "Yamnaya" is ancestral to Khvalynsk is currently viewed as a heresy.

PS The latest rumours about Khvalynsk say that it's full of Yamnayan Y-DNA, but also has multiple other haplogroups that are not present in Yamnaya (or even in any other post-PIE culture) and I saw people wondering how this is possible when Khvalynsk is the source of everything and the PIE homeland... well... you have your answer now - Khvalynsk isn't the source of anything.

Davidski said...

My argument earlier this year was that Piedmont Eneolithic, Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog and Yamnaya all basically came from a ghost population living on the Don-Caspian steppe.

The PIE homeland controversy: January 2019 status report

So yeah, Khvalynsk wasn't ancestral to Yamnaya, nor Yamnaya ancestral to Khvalynsk. They were both derived from a third, as yet unsampled source.

And I haven't really changed my mind since then.

Drago said...

@ Arza
''The same thing, as about Khvalynsk, we can say about Progress or Vonyuchka - they are irrelevant, late and peripheral off-shoots with some Sarazm/Geoksiur shift.''

That's what I meant. Whatever the exact details & origins, given that both Progress/Vonuchka & Meshoko appear amidst an already burgeoning Sredni Stog (senso lato) network, the exact nature of CHG isn't actually the deal breaker- they could be from Colchis, Azerbaijan or the Aral region, it wouldn't make a huge difference.

As for how they Progress ties in with Yamnaya & Khvalynsk I’m not 100% sure. But it seems Progress -like groups moved south toward the mountains

'' The latest rumours about Khvalynsk say that it's full of Yamnayan Y-DNA''

Althought we should naturally scrutinise which exact sublineages they are & what their carbon dates might be.



''At this moment everyone looking for the PIE homeland is looking at the wrong place and at a wrong time''


Here's something to think about - casting aside for a second speculations about ''pre-pre-protos''; working backward from the daughater languages takes us to east-central Europe; and not too much earlier than 2500 BC

JuanRivera said...

Found that the Early Neolithic of Kamchatka belonged to the Ushki culture (which was a long-lasting culture which existed since the Late Upper Paleolithic). The latest date for Ushki is 4200±100 BP. The next culture in Kamchatka is Tarya, which is attested since ~4000 BP. The former is likely Kolyma-like in autosomal DNA, while the latter must have been Magadan_BA-like, considering that the Tarya culture is the ancestor of the Old Itelmen culture, from which modern Itelmen descend in turn. Though, steppe-admixed Magadan_BA-like people may have existed somewhat before the collapse of the Ushki culture, something which is seen also in other places (looking at you, BMAC, Old Europe, etc).

Arza said...

^^^
Correction: should be "5th millennium BCE" instead of "4th".

@ Davidski

Whatever the exact source was and no matter how directly it was linked to the Yamnaya Culture the CHG-rich, Yamnaya-like population was already there... probably somewhere in the forest steppe zone or maybe even further north.

Davidski said...

Yeah, in the Taiga zone. In their tipis.

Don't think so Arza. This is a steppe population we're talking about.

JuanRivera said...

Found an interesting site in the North Okhotsk Coast named Nil-Ust'e (that Slobodin 2001 describes). Its earliest date is 4970±70 BP, whereas its latest date is 4150±120 BP. So, steppe ancestry may have arrived as early as Nil-Ust'e oldest date, which seems supported by it continuing until just shy of the 2nd millenium BC and also by not being any sharp break in the site (at least not as strong as what happens between Ushki and Tarya in Kamchatka).

JuanRivera said...

Before ~4000 BP, the populations of the Northern Sea of Okhotsk Coast and Kamchatka don't seem very connected, as while Kamchatka was inhabited by a group and culture persisting from the LUP until ~4000 BP, the other zone seems to have gone from a Dyuktai-Ushki hybrid culture to a Sumnagin one to a Syalakh one (and then a Bel'kachi one, which ended up migrating to Kamchatka, breaking the genetic differences since Syalakh appeared).

Ebizur said...

[Western Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups found among indigenous people in Yakutia, continued]

H15a1a[1]: Duggan et al. 2013 have found H15a1a (H15a1a1 according to Ian Logan) in 1/169 = 0.59% of their samples of Yakuts. To be precise, this individual was found in their sample of Northeast Yakuts from Verkhoyansky District. Fedorova et al. 2013 have found H(xH1, H8, H20) mtDNA in 12/423 = 2.84% of their samples of Yakuts and 4/125 = 3.2% of their samples of Evenks from Yakutia. However, they have not resolved whether any of these individuals belong to H15a1a.

Besides the Yakut from Verkhoyansky District, H15a1a1 has been observed in ancient Armenia, modern India, an Azeri individual from Iran, a German individual from Halle on the Saale, and five Pamiri individuals from Gorno-Badakhshan Province of Tajikistan. H15a1a* has been observed in Kazakhstan and Poland. H15a1b has been observed in two Qashqais from Iran, four Pamiris from Gorno-Badakhshan Province of Tajikistan, three Sarikolis from Tashkurgan, four Uyghurs, and three individuals (BSQ1337, BSQ6446, and BSQ6447) from a study titled, "The Basque Paradigm: Genetic Evidence of a Maternal Continuity in the Franco-Cantabrian Region since Pre-Neolithic Times." H15a1* has been observed in Denmark, Sweden, England (ancient specimen), Germany (incl. an ancient specimen), Hungary, Armenia (incl. an ancient specimen), Iran (including an "Iranian" and a "Qashqai"), and in a Sorani Kurd from Rawanduz in Iraq.

H1 and H1a:
Fedorova et al. 2013 have found mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup H1(xH1a) in one Northern Yakut and one Evenk from Yakutia. They also have found mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup H1a in one Central Yakut and one Dolgan. H1 and H1a are very widespread mtDNA haplogroups, and Duggan et al. have not observed any instance of H1 or H1a in any of their samples from Yakutia and other parts of eastern Siberia, so I have no idea as to which subclades these Yakut, Dolgan, and Evenk individuals might belong nor where their nearest matrilineal relatives might reside.

H20a:
Fedorova et al. 2013 have found mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup H20a in a Vilyuy Yakut and in a Dolgan.

H20a* has been observed in Buryat, Armenian, and Polish individuals. H20a1* has been observed in an Azeri from Iran, in a Lebanese individual, and in an individual who bears a Greek name. H20a1a has been observed in an individual from Portugal, an individual from Turkey, and in a Uyghur. H20a2 has been observed in Armenians, an individual from Greece, and an individual from southern Italy (Calabria). As for outgroups, H20b has been observed in Druze, and H20c has been observed in France (Basques? "BSQ5443" and "BSQ9602") and Hungary.

H8:
Duggan et al. 2013 have found mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup H8b (H8b1 according to Ian Logan) in 5/46 = 10.9% of a sample of Nyukzha Evenks. Fedorova et al. 2013 have found mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup H8 in 1/125 = 0.8% of their samples of Evenks from Yakutia, but they have not resolved whether this individual belongs to H8b or H8b1.

Besides Nyukzha Evenks, H8b1 has been observed in two Kyrgyz from Tashkurgan, two Shors, two Buryats, and a Uyghur. H8b* has been observed in Lebanon, Poland, and France (Basque? 'BSQ8687').

Ebizur said...

U4a1[e]:
Duggan et al. 2013 have observed mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup U4a1 (U4a1e according to Ian Logan) in 1/169 = 0.59% of their samples of Yakuts. Fedorova et al. 2013 have observed mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup U4a1 in 1/125 = 0.8% of their samples of Evenks from Yakutia and in 1/154 = 0.65% of their samples of Dolgans from Yakutia and Taymyr. However, Fedorova et al. have not resolved whether these Evenk and Dolgan individuals belong to U4a1e.

Besides the Central Yakut from Aldansky District from the sample set of Duggan et al. 2013, U4a1e has been observed in Norway and Denmark. U4a1* has been observed in ancient Baltic, ancient Roman, Ireland, Scottish, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Czech, Romanian, Armenian, Kalash, India, Sarikolis, Kyrgyz (from Kyrgyzstan and Tashkurgan), and Uyghur.

U4d2:
Duggan et al. 2013 have observed mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup U4d2 in 1/169 = 0.59% of their samples of Yakuts. (To be more precise, this particular individual is from a sample of Central Yakuts from Namsky District.) Fedorova et al. 2013 have observed mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup U4d2 in 1/111 = 0.9% Vilyuy Yakuts and 1/154 = 0.65% Dolgans from Yakutia and Taymyr.

Besides the aforementioned Yakut and Dolgan individuals, U4d2 has been observed in Mongolia, Avam Nganasan from the Taimyr Peninsula, Khakassian, Tuvinian, Kyrgyzstan, Uyghur, Volga Tatars, Russians, Poland, Czech, Serbia, Palestinian, ancient Baltic, and ancient Romania. U4d* has been observed in an Armenian and in an individual from Saudi Arabia. U4d1* has been observed in the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Poland, and Russia (Pskov Oblast). U4d1a* has been observed in a Volga Tatar. U4d1a1* has been observed in Finland and in a Russian. U4d1a1a has been observed in Finland. U4d1b has been observed in Russians and in a Volga Tatar. U4d3 has been observed in a specimen from ancient Germany and in modern individuals from Denmark, Canada (with reported Scottish ancestry), and the USA.

U5b1b1a:
Fedorova et al. 2013 have found mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup U5b1b1a in 1/164 = 0.61% of a sample of Central Yakuts and 1/148 = 0.68% of a sample of Northern Yakuts. Achilli et al. 2005 ("Saami and Berbers--an unexpected mitochondrial DNA link") also have found mtDNA that belongs to U5b1b1a in a Yakut individual.

Besides Yakuts, haplogroup U5b1b1a has been observed in Saami, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, ancient Baltic, and ancient Denmark.

K:
Fedorova et al. 2013 have found mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup K in 2/154 = 1.3% of their samples of Dolgans from Yakutia and Taymyr.

R1b:
Fedorova et al. 2013 have found mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup R1b (R1b2a according to Ian Logan) in 2/148 = 1.4% of their sample of Northern Yakuts. Duggan et al. 2013 have found mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup R1b2a ("R3" according to Duggan et al. 2013) in 1/88 = 1.1% of a sample of Central Yakuts; this particular individual is from Aldansky District.

MtDNA haplogroup R1b2b has been observed in two Uyghurs. So, the mtDNA R1b2 clade appears to have split into one subclade that is now found among Yakuts and another subclade that is now found among Uyghurs.

MtDNA haplogroup R1b has been observed in an ancient specimen from the Baltic. R1b1* has been observed in an ancient specimen from Armenia and in modern individuals from India, Armenia, and Bulgaria. R1b1a has been observed in Uyghurs. R1b1b has been observed in Finland (including a Finland Swede).

JuanRivera said...

R1b is also observed in AG3, Karelia_HG, Botai, and maybe other ancient samples.

Leron said...

It would cause many complications if relatively high levels of Steppe is found in early non-IE populations while early attested IE speaking groups having comparatively less Steppe than them. I don’t see how looking thst far east, so to speak, will make the PIE question easier to solve.

JuanRivera said...

For now, it's just musing at how far east steppe ancestry went and when it arrived.

JuanRivera said...

We have now two situations regarding early entry of steppe ancestry (one in Iran, specifically Hajji_Firuz_BA, showing both Catacomb and Sintashta, and the other in the North Okhotsk coast with Nil-Ust'e, Kukhtuy III and others, which may be both Afanasievo and Sintashta, as the Magadan_BA samples comes from the same general location). More situations of the type could be found in the future (or maybe it already has, if Swat_IA fits better with Sintashta than with Tajikistan Andronovo).

JuanRivera said...

All three above also qualify by being relatively sudden, to which Corded Ware and steppe Bell Beakers also qualify.

epoch said...

@JuanRiveira

"R1b is also observed in AG3, Karelia_HG, Botai, and maybe other ancient samples."

The R1b in AG3 is mtDNA R1b, just like KO1. AG3 was female.

Matt said...

In f3 statistics, you can get "Yamnaya specific" drift dimension to some degree: https://imgur.com/a/f8Cf6hd

Dimensions 1-4 deal with All vs None, Starcevo_N vs EHG, CHG vs Iron Gates, StarcevoN+EHG vs CHG+IronGates, then you finally get to the Yamnaya specific numbers.

Particularly attracted to Yamnaya seems to be Afanasievo, Poltavka, Catacomb, Kubano-Tersek, Yamnaya_Caucasus, Yamnaya_Ukraine, while Darkveti-Meshoko seems to be on the other pole.

I'm not 100% sure all the positions are exact; some may be pure artefacts - for'ex there's no reason for Iberia_Northeast c8-12CE to be far from present day Iberians and Europeans.

But those are the problems you get when looking at extremely fine f3 stat differentiation. (Similar problems emerge splitting f3 for Iberia+British farmers vs Globular Amphora Poland - there's clearly some real effect confounded by statistical artefacts).

Matt said...

Note, "Yamnaya specific", above means "using Yamnaya_Samara as a column".

Ryan said...

Backtracking a ways here - re: Ireland becoming more "southern" in the Iron Age. Are there any R1b haplogroups that reflect that? Are there any obviously Halstatt haplogroups present?

JuanRivera said...

I know it's mtDNA.

JuanRivera said...

Speaking about Botai, Y-DNA R1b and mtDNA R1b may have coexisted in the same individual.

Matt said...

@Ryan, re: y dna and population change in Ireland there's not an adna record as of yet. So eyeballing wiki's data on the topic, I'd guess that there could be.... but that equally all the present day y-dna seems to be R1b (vastly the majority), then equal and small minorities of I2a, I1 and R1a which is probably plausibly attributable to a composite of local "pre-Beaker" farmers and Germanic population movements with the Vikings and Saxons, and some much smaller scale movements before that.

That's a crude look at relatively high level haplogroups though, perhaps people who are hardcore into y phylogeny within R1b or something like this could say more.

Generally, the idea of later population movements into the BI which are masked by similar percentages of steppe:farmer:WHG is interesting, but is hard to quantify.

I suspect that unlinked PCA (whether G25 or Celtic-Germanic or Northern European PCA or West Eurasian PCA) tools will be minimally useful to solve this and haplotype chunk profiles will be required, as with the recent Viking Age adna paper (whether or not they got this right, it is probably the way to go).

Broad unlinked PCA will not have the discriminatory power necessary, and small differences between affinity to ancient Steppe, Neolithic, etc will disguise strong resemblances at haplotype level.

Certainly Cassidy's 2016 paper on the Bronze Age Rathlin Island genomes using haplotype chunks shows a *really* *really* strong signal in the Isles mapping to Wales+Scotland+Ireland, with only England an exception, probably explicable by Saxon and Viking era movement and ongoing two-way movement between England and France - https://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368 (see Fig 3, though note these are normalized to Max=1, and the absolute haplotype chunk sharing for Rathlin at its max is higher than e.g. Ballynahatty).


Not a pattern where the Rathlin Island haplotypes only have limited resemblance in Ireland today or something like this.

But it's hard to quantify ancestry %s from haplotype chunks of course.

Though I think if we start to get high quality late Bronze Age-early Iron Age genomes from the continent with broad autosomal similarities and they simply don't show these patterns of haplotype donation to the BI that Rathlin Island shows, that will speak volumes that the ancestry must necessarily have been much lower, even if quantifying anything like this is hard.

epoch said...

@Juan

My bad, you were refering to mtDNA.

Samuel Andrews said...

Indians only have about 13% Andronovo ancestry. That equals 8% 'Yamnaya' ancestry. On the other hand, Indians are probably 30-40% Iran Neolithic. So, the bulk of their West Eurasian ancestry is from Iran.

Also, Indians don't have BMAC ancestry. This means the Aryans did not mix heavily before arriving in India. This probably means they were mostly Andronovo when they arrived in India.

vahaduo said...

@ all

Hi. I'd like to share something with you.

https://vahaduo.github.io/vahaduo/

This is a new online tool for quick estimation of ancestry proportions.

All tabs and options are rather self-explanatory, but there are few things to keep in mind:

- data should be pasted without headers,
- some errors in the pasted data are auto-corrected,
- in the [DISTANCE] tab Euclidean distance is calculated,
- default colour gradient options in the [DISTANCE] tab are optimized for Global 25 scaled spreadsheet;
- in the [SINGLE] tab precision is set to 0.2%,
- in the [MULTI] tab default precision is set to 0.2% and it could be dropped to 0.8% - [FAST MODE - YES],
- sometimes there is some randomness visible in the results - theoretically it's possible to reduce this effect, but the time cost is too high to be worth it, as the algorithm is optimized for speed of operation,
- tables displayed in the [MULTI] tab are sortable,
- I wasn't able to test this tool on different platforms and in multiple browsers, so if you find any errors or glitches, let me know.

Enjoy!

vahaduo said...

Sample output (model - 147 Bell Beaker samples, target - English average, calculation time - 0.658s):

Target: English
Distance: 1.0838% / 0.01083801
Aggregated
31.2 Bell_Beaker_England
22.8 Bell_Beaker_FRA_C
11.2 Bell_Beaker_England_EBA
9.0 Bell_Beaker_CZE
9.0 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
7.0 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria
4.8 Bell_Beaker_NLD
2.0 Bell_Beaker_HUN
1.6 Bell_Beaker_ITA
1.4 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA

JuanRivera said...

Gives results extremely similar to nMonte3; checked with Magadan_BA.

vahaduo said...

@ JuanRivera

It's because the principle is the same (Monte Carlo random walk simulation). What matters is the different implementation. The algorithm is much faster and it auto-scales with the data (more source populations - longer run, fewer source populations - shorter run).

I have another (actually the original one) algorithm ready to deploy that works on a completely different basis. It gives virtually the same results, but due to different way of operation some other interesting tools can be built upon it.

weure said...

Last weekend in a Dutch newspaper the Volkskrant: ‘On the Veluwe there once lived probably 100.000 Russian and Ukrainian people.’ The article is about a citizen science project under auspicien of the archeologist Bourgeois. In the Dutch region the Veluwe, famous as a Bell Beaker hotspot, they have made photos with laser technology. With citizens help they have screamed 240000 pictures until now.That’s a third of the total amount. Previous was thought that there were 500 a 750 Single Graves, the front runner of the Bell Beakers. Based on this research the amount must be much higher about 2000. This means that there were are lot more Steppe pastoralist. On the Veluwe probably 100000 and the Veluwe is only one hotspot in the Netherlands, areas like Drenthe may have had also those kind of amounts. These areas where dense populated at that time.
Researchers also found that in the teeth of those people there was some plague dna.
In the end that makes the ‘neo Dutch model’ of Davidski that people of the Single Grave flowed into Dutch Bell Beaker and spread to for example the Isles even more likely IMO.
Article, in Dutch:
[url]https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/op-de-veluwe-woonden-eens-misschien-wel-honderdduizend-russen-en-oekrainers~b916bf75/[/url]

FrankN said...

Arza: You seem to have misunderstood me. I have never proposed anything like a post-4000 BC Transcaucasian migration as origin of "Steppe" ancestry. [Such link, however, may explain the appearance of non-light sensitive barley in Eastern Europe and ultimately Danish Single Grave, but that's a secondary aspect.]

Instead, I am with Dave when he posits: "Piedmont Eneolithic, Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog and Yamnaya all basically came from a ghost population living on the Don-Caspian steppe." I actually wouldn't call it a "ghost population" but think we can attach a name to it: (pre-)Caspian Culture.

See also
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/two-starkly-different-neolithic.html
where our host here stated: "I think it's possible that these [pre-Caspian] migrants could have been the main source of the, thus far imprecisely characterized, Caucasus-related ancestry in the potentially Proto-Indo-European Khvalynsk and Yamnaya peoples."
The (pre-)Caspian culture has certainly supplied the template for later "Steppe" cultures, in the form of typical Steppe pastoralism with a strong aquatic element in the diet, and also as concerns "Steppe-typical" lithics such as the leaf/fish-shaped arrowheads extensively discussed by Gimbutas.
Available AMS dates point to an entrance on the Lower Volga during the early 5th mBC, and subsequent expansion into various directions, where Pre-Caspian People absorbed region-specific local substrate (Transcaucasian in the Elbrus Piedmont, EEF/CT-related in Sredny Stog, elements connected to the Combed Ware "out of Siberia" expansion in Khvalynsk).

Andrzejewski said...

@FrankN “Available AMS dates point to an entrance on the Lower Volga during the early 5th mBC, and subsequent expansion into various directions, where Pre-Caspian People absorbed region-specific local substrate (Transcaucasian in the Elbrus Piedmont, EEF/CT-related in Sredny Stog, elements connected to the Combed Ware "out of Siberia" expansion in Khvalynsk).”

Yes, that’s what I’m starting to think: PIE has originated in migrants from the Caucasus into Khvalynsk(and other areas and regions) 7,000 years ago. It may or may not have been associated with the Black Sea Deluge as described in legend of Gilgamesh.

Andrzejewski said...

@Sam why did the Andronovo not admix with either Botai or BMAC but did with Dravidians is beyond me. Aren’t ASI = “Dravidians” something like 35% Iran_N and 65% Onge?

Ric Hern said...

@ weure

Thanks. Very interesting.

Andrzejewski said...

Is it possible that Prikaspiiskaya culture arrived with CHG elements and they partially replaced EHG like Elshanka Culture?

Andrzejewski said...

Is it possible that Pit Ware/Combed Ware is of West Siberian ancestry and derivation?

FrankN said...

The 100 Million Dollar question is: From where did the (pre-)Caspian Culture, proto-Yamnaya [proto-late PIE?] migrants reach the Lower Volga? Russian research is still puzzled in this respect. Vybornov 2016, e.g. states: "The origin of Prikaspiiskaya culture is reckoned to be connected with the Lower Don region. Some migration from Western Asia could also have occurred." Tsybrij e.a. 2017, OTOH, describe (pre-)Caspian elements as late, non-native entrants on the Lower Don, thereby effectively ruling out a Lower Don origin (for respective links see my posts above).

I myself am also unable to point towards a specific place of origin. Nevertheless, exclusion and triangulation provides some hints.

Let's start with the subsistence model: Pastoralism, strongly based on sheep and goat plus some bovids, but so far w/o any attestation of domesticated pigs, coupled with a lot of fishing.

1. Virtual absence of domesticated pigs allows for excluding all cultures with a strongly pig-based subsistence, i.e. Darkveti-Meshoko, Neolithic Crimea, Varna-Gulmenita, CT, GAC. In all likelyhood - provided that not some day some bones of domesticated pigs show up in "Steppe pastoralist" assemblages - the exclusion may be extended to all ANF-descended/related cultures, where domesticated pigs always played a relevant, albeit typically not dominant role. This most notably concerns Caucasian Shulaveri-Shomu and Sioni, and the Neolithic Sursk(aya) Culture around the Dniepr Rapids (UA_Neo I1732/ I1738, presence of domesticated pigs archeologically attested).
In fact, there ís only one area with a „no pigs“ Neolithic model: Central Asia. I leave an extensive discussion to another time and place. For the time being, please refer to Mallory's respective discussion in his recent paper on Tocharians (see the preceding posts here).

2. The fishing stuff points towards either a coast or larger watercourses.

t.b.c

JuanRivera said...

With nMonte3 and the new model, Magadan_BA models with a lot of Afanasievo and another lot of Sintashta.

JuanRivera said...

There was actually a North Okhotsk culture in the local Neolithic, which influenced Ust'-Belaya. That culture spanned the Okhotsk coast from NW Kamchatka to the point where the coast shifts from a SW-NE alignment to a W-E one. The Kukhtuy III site (which is the westernmost site of that culture) is just slightly east of that point. Before that culture, I suppose there was a mixture of Syalakh and local Mesolithic/Early Neolithic cultures.

JuanRivera said...

While Magadan_BA could have massive amounts of steppe (regardless, it has steppe), only Ust'-Belaya has some steppe ancestry north of the Kolyma and Koryak mountains. It correlates with sites related to the North Okhotsk culture being only located on or south of said ranges, and the influence of the North Okhotsk culture on Ust'-Belaya. Forest Yukaghirs lacked steppe admixture (until mixing with Russians), whereas modern Chukotko-Kamchatkan speakers have some (by virtue of being at least partly descended from Magadan_BA), which points to such pattern persisting until Russian colonization (and in some way even after that, as the Magadan_BA samples predate Russians in the area by roughly 1.25 millennia, whereas Forest Yukaghirs lack such steppe ancestry).

Davidski said...

@vahaduo

Hi. I'd like to share something with you.

https://vahaduo.github.io/vahaduo/


Thanks, I'll check it out.

Open Genomes said...

@Juan Rivera

M9984 from Magadan on the Sea of Okhotsk does have about 5.6% Steppe ancestry, and Tien Shan Hun-like ancestry:
Global25 nMonte ancestry composition of sample: M9984 Population: RUS_Magadan_BA Bronze Age Siberia

However, individual M0831 from Magadan is entirely lacking in this kind of ancestry:
Global25 nMonte ancestry composition of sample: M0831 Population: RUS_Magadan_BA Bronze Age Siberia

If this is true, then it's fascinating how Steppe ancestry reached the shores of the Pacific Ocean after 1000 BCE.

@David, can you confirm this Steppe ancestry in the case of M9984?

Given that these are both women, it seems that this may be mediated by the female line via bride exchanges in a network extending westward to Afanasievo. However, both mtDNAs, G1b and D2a1 respectively, are Siberian.

epoch said...

@weure

The university of Leiden is reinvestigating a recovered grave from their attics: A barrow of Niersen, in the middle of a row of barrows. The barrow was excavated in 1907 by J.H.Holwerda, is roughly 2500 BC. Skeletal remains of several people were found, plus bones from an animal. Likely a cow or a horse.

The remains were lifted in one piece and transferred to Rapelenburg in Leiden (Dutch museum) and are currently investigated. If the animal remains are indeed from a horse it would be important.

https://www.archeologieopdekaart.nl/de-eerste-boeren/nierssen/pointofinterest/detail

Here more Dutch info on the row of barrows, which is dated 2600-2500BC. Exactly the moment of the transformation of SGC to BB:

https://www.handelenwandelopdeveluwe.nl/index.php/artikelen/10-de-grafheuvelreeks-epe-niersen-deel-1.html
https://www.handelenwandelopdeveluwe.nl/index.php/artikelen/12-prehistorische-astronomie-op-de-veluwe.html

I think this has potential.

Ric Hern said...

@ epoch

Thanks.

Ric Hern said...

@ epoch

What is interesting is the poles, small buildings and other structures found near the grave mounds...does this maybe point to some permanent type of Graveyard maintenance by an upkeeper ? Very interesting.

epoch said...

@Ric Hern

I actually visited a number of them two year ago. The area still has large swathes of heath, kept clear of trees by sheep herds and you can clearly make them out.

https://mijngelderlandmedia.azureedge.net/beeld/Verhalen/verhalen/Grafheuvels_Epe.jpg

The recent investigation just added even more, less visible.

epoch said...

@Ric Hern

I just heard that they are investigating if it would be feasible to extract aDNA, and if so, where to extract it form.

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

Magadan_BA M9984 does have some steppe ancestry. Sintashta works well enough, better than Huns, at least in the model that I tried.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JJPbgPkgxzCoVcYQ6h_TAlQHZFR_b8Bx

weure said...

@epoch, thanks (late response due to holiday).

Ric Hern said...

@ epoch

Something else that is interesting is the seemingly continual interaction between the Netherlands Beaker folk and Seine-Oise-Marne and Wartburg areas....

Davidski said...

@vahaduo

Your online tool is awesome. And it works offline too, after downloading the web page.

I put a link to it in my guide to the Global25.

Getting the most out of the Global25

vahaduo said...

@ Davidski

Thanks! I'm glad you like it and you find it useful.

a said...

Hopefully the new papers will have some wagons/chariots/basic metallurgy/horses to compare with the future paper on Indian chariots/wagon/horse finds.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 539 of 539   Newer› Newest»