OK, I said I wasn't going to make any bold statements in regards to this issue until we see more ancient genomes from Central Asia, but I'm pretty sure now that the steppe ancestry in the eastern Scythians from Unterländer et al. is mostly of the Steppe Middle Late Bronze Age (Steppe_MLBA) kind, rather than the Steppe Early Middle Bronze Age (Steppe_EMBA) kind.
For background info, refer to the discussion in the comments
here. Now, check out the graph below (based on the datasheet
here). I see four things when I look at this model:
- Steppe_MLBA and Steppe_EMBA are different because the former show excess Central European Middle Neolithic (Central_MN) affinity, and thus cluster at the top of the graph and above the line of best fit, while the latter show excess Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (Caucasus_HG) affinity, and so cluster at the top of the graph but below the line of best fit
- Indo-Aryan-speaking South Asians fall below the line of best fit, which suggests that they don't have much, if any, Central_MN ancestry, so they're probably largely of Steppe_EMBA origin (though their Iran Neolithic-related farmer ancestry might be skewing things to some extent here, because it's more closely related to Caucasus_HG than to Central_MN)
- Both the ancient and most modern-day Eastern Iranian-speakers (Sarmatians and Pamir Tajiks, respectively) more or less hug the line of best fit, suggesting that they're a mixture of Steppe_MLBA and Steppe_EMBA
- all of the Scythians fall above the line of best fit, suggesting that their steppe ancestry largely derives from Steppe_MLBA.
As per point 2, it's possible that the outcomes for the South and also Central Asians are skewed by their Iran Neolithic-related farmer ancestry, but this shouldn't be much of an issue for the eastern Scythians, and if it is, then in fact their Central_MN/Steppe_MLBA affinity is being underestimated here.
Moreover, word around the campfire is that the R1a-Z93 in the eastern Scythian bam files is of the same type as in the Sintashta samples (Z2124+). Not 100% sure if that's true, but it might well be, because it lines up very nicely with the above graph.
Citation...
Unterländer et al.,
Ancestry and demography and descendants of Iron Age nomads of the Eurasian Steppe,
Nature Communications 8, Article number: 14615 (2017), doi:10.1038/ncomms14615
35 comments:
96 samples of mtDNA and not 1 Steppe lineage H6a1 or H6a2.
@jv,
The Scythians had lots of Steppe mtDNA which wasn't H6.
left pops:
Pazyryk_IA
Yamnaya_Samara
German_MN
Daur
Ket
right pops:
AG-MA1
Chukchi
Dusun
Igorot
SAmerind
PapHighland
Kostenki14
Lebbo
Mbuti
Ust_Ishim
Onge
Levant_EN
Villabruna
Iran_EN
EHG
CHG
best coefficients: 0.224 0.050 0.333 0.394
std. errors: 0.050 0.032 0.036 0.057
chisq tail prob
5.835 0.924163
left pops:
Pazyryk_IA
Afanasievo
Sintashta
Daur
Ket
right pops:
AG-MA1
Kostenki14
Chukchi
Igorot
SAmerind
PapHighland
Mbuti
Ust_Ishim
Onge
Barcin
Levant_EN
Iran_EN
CHG
EHG
Villabruna
Yamnaya_Samara
best coefficients: 0.112 0.160 0.323 0.405
std. errors: 0.060 0.049 0.037 0.056
chisq tail prob
9.075 0.696527
But David, aren't modern day south Asians supposedly partially the descendants of the corded ware derived Sintashta type groups?
But David, aren't modern day south Asians supposedly partially the descendants of the corded ware derived Sintashta type groups?
They might be, but they're better modeled as largely Steppe_EMBA, and more specifically Catacomb, as far as I can tell.
So either their Sintashta-related ancestry is minor, or Indo-Aryan languages derive from the Catacomb Culture.
I think Indo Iranians (probably) do not come from Yamna at least according to all the evidence that we have so far. If it appears the Indo-Iranians have Yamna ancestry than it just means that Yamna probably have no descendants and Yamna like ancestry comes from a pre-Yamna population/populations. The Yamna studied all had a almost dead type of R1b (+ one has I) FROM TWO SITES so no need to assume that they are the ancestors of most R1a or even R1b although that is more likely albeit still unlikely. I am excited about when the big paper come out and if they prove I am wrong than that is great but I think they will probably prove I am right as Yamaha will lack the y-lineages ancestral to pre R1a and probably have some poorly resolved autosomial component so everyone will just ignore the y-lineages and say that per the autosomial component they are the ancestors of most R1. Maybe the Yamna had the types of R1a and R1b ancestral to all nowadays but according to the current evidence I think this is highly unlikely. I cant wait to find out the truth :)
@John Smith
Early Indo-Iranians were most likely EMBA-like, rather than MLBA-like.
Indo-Aryans affinity towards Steppe_EMBA is not surprising considering they were first wave of Indo-Iranian migrations to South Asia and Anatolia and were probably more EMBA shifted.
Iranic tribes on the other hand were second wave, they continued to live in the steppes, arriving much later to Iranian plains and were probably more MLBA shifted.
Hehehe :) So David Wesolowski , you are saying Catacomb now as Aryan?. Well It didn't even touch Asia BUT read this :
Grigoryev's (1998) version of the Armenian hypothesis connects Catacomb culture with Indo-Aryans, because catacomb burial ritual had roots in South-Western Turkmenistan from the early 4th millennium (Parkhai cemetery). The same opinion is supported by Leo Klejn in his various publications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture#Language
Can be related to Proto-Baltic , we will see.
The singleton Catacomb sample we have, Ulan IV RISE552, is typical of Steppe_EMBA, just with a higher ratio of CHG, and that's why he's such a good fit for South Asians.
There's nothing suggesting that he was or his ancestors were from anywhere near Turkmenistan.
He belongs to Y-HG I2a2, but if it turns out that similar Catacomb samples belong to Z645 and Z93, then Catacomb will be a good option for a steppe proto-Aryan culture.
Archeology will have to adapt to this new information. I read somewhere recently that Leo Klejn was whining about the latest ancient DNA results, because they didn't match his expectations. But he didn't have a good argument against them. Sort of like Nirjhar.
You don't know about Archaeology so, Stick to Your field the Genetics , a simple aDNA of Parkhai ,will bring you down to earth .
Said that, More Catacomb aDNA is very welcome , but as already it had I2 , I don't think so buddy...
@Nirjhar
Well, the early Baltic Corded Ware are Z645+ and basically identical to Yamnaya and Ulan IV. They're a good option for proto-Aryans too, if you prefer.
You should focus less on people and names, and more on the new data. If you did that, we'd be having much more interesting and fruitful discussions.
As I understand, Archaeology is so far more or less within the findings . Archaeology is not something that you can just vapor away , the Kurgan Hypothesis is itself based on some archaeological interpretations . So You must need archaeology taken into account , without any prior assumptions , Mallory has recently shown that .
By interesting, its always the discussion of different possibilities! , with some data provided by scholars , your suggestion has no archaeological background , mine does ,as I have highlighted !.
I2-M223 has a weak distribution in Central Asia, and it very clearly came from the west.
@Nirjhar
Z645 is from Eastern Europe, and you know it. Most scholars don't know what Z645 is, but at least you do. So quit fooling yourself.
The story is what it is. All we have left to discuss are the little details.
@MaxT
" Indo-Aryans affinity towards Steppe_EMBA is not surprising considering they were first wave of Indo-Iranian migrations to South Asia and Anatolia and were probably more EMBA shifted. "
Most linguistic models have the Anatolians first to leave and the indo-iranianas/aryans as the last to leave.
So its not quite what you just said. Personally, I don't think such models are cast in stone. But consensus is not the norm in linguistics so perhaps the fact that most agree on this aspect may hold some weight.
@postneo
I'm talking about Mitannis, Indo-Aryan superstrate in Anatolia. Not earlier Hitties of Anatolian branch.
The reason that Scythians fall above the trend line is the East Asian component of their ancestry. Caucasus_HG is more basal than Central_MN and the D statistics will be affected by this. I believe the Reich Lab finding that Scythians are better modeled as Steppe_EMBA + East Eurasian.
Davidski claimed that Rakhigarhi was an eneolithic culture. Not so. The people were expert in using bronze even in the making of fine art and not just in utilitarian objects. For example, see the following from the Harappan site of Mohenjo-daro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Girl_(Mohenjo-daro)
Davidski also wrote that he was aware of aDNA results from Rakhigarhi and that they should significant ASI. This would not at all be unexpected since Rakhigarhi is the easternmost part of the Harappan civilization. The people there surely mixed with the people of the Gangetic plain and had some ASI. But people further west in what is now Pakistan would have had much less ASI. Today, there is a lot of ASI in Pakistan. For example Punjabi_Lahore has more ASI than Brahmin_UP. But this happened after the Islamic domination of the Subcontinent in the late thirteenth century after which large numbers of high-ASI slaves were transported to what is now Pakistan. An analogous phenomenon occurred in North Africa with sub-Saharan slaves being transported north across the Sahara after the coming of Islam.
@Balaji
Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic and early Bronze Age South Asians have nothing to do with Bronze Age Europeans.
South Asians acquire European steppe ancestry from Aryan invaders after Harappa collapses. Just deal with it already.
I personally think that Catacomb is more related to Proto-Greek and some Paleo-Balkan languages. This languages arrived rather late in the balkan and had some affinities with Indo-Iranian despite being originally spoken by R1b-rich people. Abashevo is in my opinion Proto-Indo-Aryan and that would also explain why some Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic languages are closer to Indo-Aryan than to Iranic. Abashevo originated from contacts between Fatayanovo/Balanovo and Catacomb/Poltavka. Indo-Iranians were very much influenced by Yamnaya-derived cultures of the steppe and that is the reason why so many archaeologists assumed that they originate from Yamnaya but the lack of R1a make this unlikely. Fatayanovo had links with the Midddle Dnepr culture from where Proto-Indo-Iranians maybe got their EEF admixture.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=ou1j13&s=6
Z645 is from Eastern Europe, and you know it. Most scholars don't know what Z645 is, but at least you do. So quit fooling yourself.
No I don't know it , I don't think any sensible man knows it yet mate .
OK, keep hoping for a miracle then. You, Balaji and Jaydeep.
@Davidski
"OK, keep hoping for a miracle then. You, Balaji and Jaydeep."
Count me in. I love miracles. Especially when they make very very very unlikely things happen. Those are the best types of miracles.
I'm looking for the first Saint of Ancient Genetics.
So does this mean that the Kalash and Greeks are actually related but due to a much older connection than Alexander the Great in the form of the Catacomb Culture ?
1) The founding roots of 90% of the world's Male and Female lineages.
2) Archaeological evidence from Stone Age to the birth of much advanced Neolithic civilization.
These evidences are radiating out from South Asia towards other regions.
You are only deluding your self by talking about Aryan Invasion from the Steppe, They were only coming home to their roots, what they actually invaded from the steppe was the regions further west which were mostly populated by cave dwelling hunter gatherers.
@Balaji they were no ASI rich slaves. Populations in the Indus Gangetic plains always had a good amount of ASI. Yes you are right those samples are not Eneolithic, they are largely early Bronze Age, Eneolithic would be the Merhgarh culture centered in Balochistan and SW Pakistan. I think getting samples from Pakistan would be more beneficial , as the IVC and proto IVC sites are there. The spread of rice farming would have definitely dumped more ASI as it was brought by Austroasiatic farmers, those Rakhigarhi sites indicate largely rice farming as well as wheat.Wheat Farming was brought by Neolithic Iranians. PJL Lahore has more ASI because it is from a Tribal/Dalit, in fact most of the sample of PJL are from Dalit/Tribal.
Eastern Scythians would have been like Turkic groups. Western Scythians
are very much Androvono like but with some minor Asiatic admixture ,but based of Chinese descriptions , they resemble NE Europeans.
@RicHern
Kalash and Greeks are not related, Kalash have more steppe ancestry than Greeks. While Greeks are predominantly EEF. Neither did Alexander the Great or his army leave any genetic contribution in that region.
@Nirjhar
You're reading the good stuff.
I mentioned this last year or the one before, but Grigoryev also clues in:
And there are no Finno-Ugric borrowings in languages of Avesta and Rig Veda.
Not a small variable to dismiss.
Looking forward to that BMAC dna.
So some of the ancestry of both did not originate within the Catacomb Culture ? Sorry maybe the comment above points to some other East Iranian peoples that are probably related to Catacomb.
Sorry not East Iranians but Indo-Aryans....
An interesting article about the end ('transformation') of BMAC
"A NEW ASSESSMENT OF THE END OF THE OXUS CIVILIZATION (SOUTHERN CENTRAL ASIA, CA. 1750-1500/1400 BCE): OVERVIEW OF THE TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE SOCIETY " Lunea.
No direct transplant of steppe cultures for sure, but definitely a large ideological shift in material culture; with notable impact of Andronovo communities becoming palpable, especially in the realm of metalwork.
@Rob
Interesting. The paper avoids conjecturing about any agents of change, but we can take some guesses at it.
Routes of trade do offer precursor for exchanges of ideas, sometimes preliminaries/contexts for war, rises of new cultures, etc.
Anyone know where Grigoryev got his early 4th millennium date for Parkhai II? He gives no reference for it and everyone else (like, the actual excavator) says mid- or first half of *3rd* millennium BC.
I updated the datasheet and plot.
Karasuk and the less admixed Karasuk2 are basically Scythians.
@balaji
"Today, there is a lot of ASI in Pakistan. For example Punjabi_Lahore has more ASI than Brahmin_UP."
You are comparing Punjabis of unnamed castes to a specific caste (Brahmins) in UP. How is this a valid comparison? You should compare castes to castes.
Where is the proof that Islamic conquest saw "high-ASI slaves" being sent to Lahore?
Post a Comment