Finally, the focus shifts to the Eneolithic/Bronze Age North Caucasus. In a new manuscript at
bioRxiv, Wang et al. present genome-wide SNP data for 45 prehistoric individuals from the region along a 3000-year temporal transect (see
here). From the preprint (emphasis is mine):
Based on PCA and ADMIXTURE plots we observe two distinct genetic clusters: one cluster falls with previously published ancient individuals from the West Eurasian steppe (hence termed ‘Steppe’), and the second clusters with present-day southern Caucasian populations and ancient Bronze Age individuals from today’s Armenia (henceforth called ‘Caucasus’), while a few individuals take on intermediate positions between the two. The stark distinction seen in our temporal transect is also visible in the Y-chromosome haplogroup distribution, with R1/R1b1 and Q1a2 types in the Steppe and L, J, and G2 types in the Caucasus cluster (Fig. 3A, Supplementary Data 1). In contrast, the mitochondrial haplogroup distribution is more diverse and almost identical in both groups (Fig. 3B, Supplementary Data 1).
Thus, the most important "Indo-European" Y-haplogroups today, R1a-M417 and R1b-M269, did not arrive in Europe from the Caucasus or Near East. They're native to Europe. Hence, it appears that Eneolithic/Bronze Age Eastern Europeans mostly acquired their Near Eastern-related ancestry via female exogamy from populations in the Caucasus. That's basically what I've been arguing for a few years now. It feels good to be vindicated, especially considering the unfair criticism that I was subjected to here and elsewhere because of expressing this opinion (for instance, see
here).
However, as far as I can see, based on the samples in this preprint, neither the Caucasus Maykop nor steppe Maykop appear to be unambiguous sources of this southern admixture in ancient Eastern Europe. That's because the Caucasus Maykop mtDNA profile still looks somewhat off in this context, while steppe Maykop harbors West Siberian forager-related genome-wide ancestry that is practically absent in the Yamnaya and all other closely related peoples.
In any case, please note the happy coincidence that academia has finally caught up to this blog and managed to find European farmer-derived ancestry in Yamnaya:
Importantly, our results show a subtle contribution of both Anatolian farmer-related ancestry and WHG-related ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Tables 13 and 14), which was likely contributed through Middle and Late Neolithic farming groups from adjacent regions in the West. A direct source of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry can be ruled out (Supplementary Table 15). At present, due to the limits of our resolution, we cannot identify a single best source population. However, geographically proximal and contemporaneous groups such as Globular Amphora and Eneolithic groups from the Black Sea area (Ukraine and Bulgaria), which represent all four distal sources (CHG, EHG, WHG, and Anatolian_Neolithic) are among the best supported candidates (Fig. 4; Supplementary Tables 13,14 and 15).
Check out what I had to say about this issue exactly two years ago:
Yamnaya = Khvalynsk + extra CHG + maybe something else. Not bragging, just making a point that I do know what I'm doing here, most of the time anyway.
Wang et al. conclude their preprint with, unfortunately I have to say, some downright bizarre comments in regards to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland debate. But I'll get back to that later, when the ancient data from this and forthcoming related papers are released online.
Citation...
Wang et al.,
The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus,
bioRxiv, posted May 16, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/322347
See also...
Yamnaya: home-grown
Ahead of the pack
Genetic borders are usually linguistic borders too
241 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 241 of 241@Bob Floy and all:
Correction
The dates for both I4901 and I5608 are 2100-1800 BCE, so while they are exactly contemporary with Sintashta (2100-1800 BCE), they cannot be related to the Maykop culture, which was much earlier.
Rather, they're contemporary with Kura-Araxes successor cultures like the Bedeni culture in Georgia, who had contact with Mesopotamia.
The scenario still would be the same.
The remarkable fact is that at these women have no Steppe ancestry at all, and neither do the other contemporary Sappali Tepe individuals. However, there had to be some intermediary who brought them directly to BMAC. Iran is a possible route, but neither the Elamites nor the Sumerians just to their west had direct contact with the Caucasus. However, Sintashta was adjacent to the Eastern Caucasus, and also to the north of BMAC. There don't have to be any intermediaries, or perhaps just contact with the closely related Andronovo/Alakul culture just to the south.
Sintashta has both the motivation (trading for tin at its source and manufacturing bronze with it) and the means of transportation (horses, wagons, and the steppe) to carry this out. We can assume of course that the Bedeni culture got something valuable in return, and that would have to be something they couldn't produce locally. (Livestock, wool, leather, and horses are out.) What makes sense is that Sintashta was trading their manufactured bronze, in ingot form or as cast implements, to the North Caucasian Bedeni culture people, who in turn were selling this precious commodity along their documented trade route to Mesopotamia.
This is a direct but pretty roundabout way to get tin in the form of manufactured bronze to the Near East, but it avoids the sometimes harsh terrain and physical obstacles in Iran, and it bypasses the political rivalry and wars between the Mesopotamians and the Elamites.
This direct evidence of very long distance contact between Central Asia and the Caucasus needs to be investigated.
@EastPole
Christ, it's from where then? Tell me, as every IE culture had the right kind of horses and they were first found domesticated (excluding Botai) in the Forest-Steppe ecotone of Europe.
There's no evidence for horse domestication anywhere else by the time, it weren't the EEF, it weren't the CHG peoples, it appeared in two places: Botai and the Forest-Steppe.
There were no horses in any Sredny-Stog, and we know that the IE horses had ~2.7% Botai ancestry, so they must have been close to one another.
No horses westwards, no horses northwards, no horses eastwards, no horses southwards, no horses pastwards, only IE horses since Yamnaya.
We also know that the Beakers had horses, so, now what? They came from space, as the gifts of Epona?
I think horses became more important in the Steppe due to the aridification starting around 4000 BCE. when we see Cultures becoming more mobile. Horses survive better in arid conditions as can be seen in Mongolia.Their front teeth makes it possible to cut grass much shorter than cattle can.
We see connections between Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk and their offspring Yamnaya. It is not as if Yamnaya fell out of the blue...
Maybe Yamnaya was more of a Survival Strategy adopted by most related Steppe tribes to survive aridification changing from a Semi Nomadic to a full blown Nomadic lifestyle...
@postneo
That's true, sheep and goat herders migrate to provide fodder for their flocks (however, these were also horse nomads) but how and why did two women get from one end of their herding range to the other end, and why didn't they end up in their own nomadic culture?
Pastoralists don't just transport women across continents "for free" and deliver them to another very different culture for no reason, except that they were "migrating in search of fodder". Remember, we don't see such Northwest Caucasian women among Sintashta itself, just among their trading partners, their source of tin.
Do you have a better explanation?
What was the source of tin for Sintashta? Wasn't it BMAC? What did they trade for that tin, that was a required raw material for bronze production like in Arkaim?
@namedguest
Sredny Stog and related groups probably did have domesticated horses.
This paper presents new results of an interdisciplinary investigation of the diet and subsistence strategies of populations living in the North-Pontic region during the Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3800 BC to the 2500 BC). New organic residue analyses of >200 sherds from five Eneolithic sites and two Early Bronze Age settlements are presented. The molecular and stable isotope results are discussed in relation to zooarchaeological evidence. Overall, the findings suggest that each community relied on either a hunting- or a husbandry-based subsistence strategy dependent upon the ecosystem in which they settled; horses and wild animals dominated subsistence in the forest-steppe communities in contrast to ruminant husbandry in the steppe.
Differing modes of animal exploitation in North-Pontic Eneolithic and Bronze Age Societies
@Open Genomes
You keep asking me for the unscaled Global25 datasheets.
I just checked the links here, and they work fine...
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/05/new-pca-featuring-botai-horse-tamers.html
@a
“Still the Yamnaya liked to make scepters like a particular animal, that stamps its feet.
"Indo-European Dispersals and the Eurasian Steppe with J.P. Mallory"
@ 22:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI”
There were many steppe cultures with horse scepters and horses long before Yamnaya:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse#Horse_images_as_symbols_of_power
It remains to be seen who domesticated the right type of horse, and apparently there's a least one major ancient DNA paper on the way that will try to solve this problem. But we already know that the Middle Bronze Age Sintashta people, who lived in the southern Urals, just east of the current border between Europe and Asia, but were the descendants of Eastern European migrants to the region, did keep the right type of horse, that was also phylogenetically somewhat more basal, and thus ancestral, to most modern-day horse breeds.
"Interestingly, by far the most basal horse genome within the domestic horse clade is Duk2, from an Early Bronze Age archaeological site near the city of Dunaujvaros in Hungary. But it's not certain who this horse belonged to exactly or where it really came from, because the site in question was probably a major trading post, where livestock and crops were exchanged for bronze articles. In other words, Duk2 may have been imported from somewhere nearby or afar. My bet is that it came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Let's wait and see."
I'm just going by what was posted on Eurogenes about basal horses from Hungary. You know Duk2[Dunaujvaros Hungary] is right next to Csepl Island. The Bell Beaker sample with the highest Steppe.
" Some sites on the island have ridiculous quantities of horse remains. I2787's family history may reflect the horse trade and networks that connected different peoples in this area. Maybe his parents were some of those different peoples."
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.ca/2017/07/szigetszentmiklos-cemetery-santas-six.html
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2018/03/
@Ric Hern
“I think horses became more important in the Steppe due to the aridification starting around 4000 BCE. when we see Cultures becoming more mobile. Horses survive better in arid conditions as can be seen in Mongolia.Their front teeth makes it possible to cut grass much shorter than cattle can.
We see connections between Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk and their offspring Yamnaya. It is not as if Yamnaya fell out of the blue...
Maybe Yamnaya was more of a Survival Strategy adopted by most related Steppe tribes to survive aridification changing from a Semi Nomadic to a full blown Nomadic lifestyle...”
Such adaptations could take place by mixing with populations better adjusted to arid conditions like Botai herders.
The history of population mixtures in western steppe could be like this:
1. EHG + CHG = Khvalynsk
2. Khvalynsk + Tripolye = Sredny Stog II
3. Sredny Stog II+ Botai = Yamnaya
https://s9.postimg.cc/dwpjddqv3/screenshot_393.png
@Rob
“The “ steppe Majkop” (with Siberian signal and Q1a) could be from Botai , bringing / trading horses”
good example.
@EastPole
The Botai horses weren't the ones used in the IE expansions, they're differently genetically. If there was a supposed horse trade, commerce, gifting or whatever, it would show, but the best it has is 2.7%, which is nothing.
Also, Botai has East Asian ancestry, West_Siberia_N ancestry, which is not present in Yamnaya.
@David
I was looking for this but forgot the name, so I played safe.
@namedguest
“The Botai horses weren't the ones used in the IE expansions, they're differently genetically. If there was a supposed horse trade, commerce, gifting or whatever, it would show, but the best it has is 2.7%, which is nothing.
Also, Botai has East Asian ancestry, West_Siberia_N ancestry, which is not present in Yamnaya.”
Yes, but we cannot exclude the possibility that there were Botai like populations of herders to the west or around Ural with low or no East Asian ancestry. On PCA with no East Asian component as on David’s PCA they would be located close to Botai from Kazachstan.
Maybe horses from Sredny Stog were better than theirs and they started to breed western horses and adjusted them to dry steppe.
We will see, a lot of possibilities exist.
I am quite sure that PIE culture could not come from dry steppe. There are no bees, no hops, difficult to grow millet on dry steppe. Mead and beer were central to PIE religion. So Yamnaya looks very unlikely as PIE homeland.
There were no NWC people in Maykop or preceding periods in NW Caucasus. Archaeologically NW people are related to those Dolmen cultures who have extra ANF. Which is not surprising because the most important Y dna of NW Caucasians is the G2a2 - U1. Btw U1 was absent from this samples.
EastPole
The R1a in Sredni Stog was not native to Ukraine. It came from East, from very close place to those R1b-M269. The CHG mtdna that CWC has are exactly the same as in Yamna.
There were no single R1a-M198 in all those Eastern European foragers samples. The first time M198 appears is the Sredni Stog which has that Yamna profile + EEF. Underhill didn't found any M198+ M417- from whole Eurasian sampling, only three cases are found with commercial sampling. So M198 was living in the epicenter of 6400 ky ago big bang that wiped out neighbouring diversity.
The EEF in Sredni Stog is from Mariupol complex EEF rich farmers, who were probably living in along Black sea coasts.. It is even possible that Novosvobodnaya G2a2a is also from them. I will check later to that Novosvobodnaya sampla has any EEF/ANF.
What do all this mean? This mean that CWC was either speaking the same Yamna's language either EEF's. A third possibility is practically __impossible__. Choose which one You want. :)
My excuses for numerous errors. I am writing from the phone in a car.
Btw that J2b in MBA North Caucasus is interesting. I guess it is J2b2 like in Balkanes.
@Aram
The R1a in Sredni Stog was not native to Ukraine. It came from East, from very close place to those R1b-M269. The CHG mtdna that CWC has are exactly the same as in Yamna.
There were no single R1a-M198 in all those Eastern European foragers samples. The first time M198 appears is the Sredni Stog which has that Yamna profile + EEF. Underhill didn't found any M198+ M417- from whole Eurasian sampling, only three cases are found with commercial sampling. So M198 was living in the epicenter of 6400 ky ago big bang that wiped out neighbouring diversity.
Good post.
I think we'll soon see this confirmed in aDNA from the eastern side of the Sea of Azov.
Aram
If this can help to a closer look into Novosbodnaya culture and its relations with EEF I post it again. Of course it's from 2014 and define Funnel Beaker as IE ( to be confirmed obviously) .
You talk about EEF in Sredni Stog. How much by the way?
Analysis of the Mitochondrial Genome of a Novosvobodnaya Culture Representative using Next-Generation Sequencing and Its Relation to the Funnel Beaker Culture
A. V. Nedoluzhko, E. S. Boulygina, A. S. Sokolov, S. V. Tsygankova, N. M. Gruzdeva, A. D. Rezepkin, and E. B. Prokhortchouk
I quote the abstract:
The Novosvobodnaya culture is known as a Bronze Age archaeological culture in the North Caucasus region of Southern Russia. It dates back to the middle of the 4th millennium B.C. and seems to have occurred during the time of the Maikop culture. There are now two hypotheses about the emergence of the Novosvobodnaya culture. One hypothesis suggests that the Novosvobodnaya culture was a phase of the Maikop culture, whereas the other one classifies it as an independent event based on the material culture items found in graves. Comparison between Novosvobodnaya pottery and Funnelbeaker (TRB) pottery from Germany has allowed researchers to suggest that the Novosvobodnaya culture developed under the influence of Indo-European culture. Nevertheless, the origin of the Novosvobodnaya culture remains a matter of debate. We applied next-generation sequencing to study ~5000-year-old human remains from the Klady kurgan grave in Novosvobodnaya stanitsa (now the Republic of Adygea, Russia). A total of 58,771,105 reads were generated using Illumina GAIIx with a coverage depth of 13.4x over the mitochondrial (mt) DNA genome. The mtDNA haplogroup affiliation was determined as V7, suggesting a role of the TRB culture in the development of the Novosvobodnaya culture and supporting the model of sharing between Novosvobodnaya and early Indo-European cultures.
@Aram
“The EEF in Sredni Stog is from Mariupol complex EEF rich farmers, who were probably living in along Black sea coasts.. It is even possible that Novosvobodnaya G2a2a is also from them.”
Interesting. Could you provide some genetic data for this. I used to think they should be linked with CHG rich farmers and the source of CHG rich wives for Sredny Stog not EEF rich.
https://s14.postimg.cc/cpnp160gh/screenshot_391.png
Do not exaggerate the role of Botay - bred horses in Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk.
"Analysis of the Mitochondrial Genome of a Novosvobodnaya Culture Representative using Next-Generation Sequencing and Its Relation to the Funnel Beaker Culture
A. V. Nedoluzhko, E. S. Boulygina, A. S. Sokolov, S. V. Tsygankova, N. M. Gruzdeva, A. D. Rezepkin, and E. B. Prokhortchouk
I quote the abstract:
The Novosvobodnaya culture is known as a Bronze Age archaeological culture in the North Caucasus region of Southern Russia. It dates back to the middle of the 4th millennium B.C. and seems to have occurred during the time of the Maikop culture. There are now two hypotheses about the emergence of the Novosvobodnaya culture. One hypothesis suggests that the Novosvobodnaya culture was a phase of the Maikop culture, whereas the other one classifies it as an independent event based on the material culture items found in graves. Comparison between Novosvobodnaya pottery and Funnelbeaker (TRB) pottery from Germany has allowed researchers to suggest that the Novosvobodnaya culture developed under the influence of Indo-European culture. Nevertheless, the origin of the Novosvobodnaya culture remains a matter of debate. We applied next-generation sequencing to study ~5000-year-old human remains from the Klady kurgan grave in Novosvobodnaya stanitsa (now the Republic of Adygea, Russia). A total of 58,771,105 reads were generated using Illumina GAIIx with a coverage depth of 13.4x over the mitochondrial (mt) DNA genome. The mtDNA haplogroup affiliation was determined as V7, suggesting a role of the TRB culture in the development of the Novosvobodnaya culture and supporting the model of sharing between Novosvobodnaya and early Indo-European cultures."
The current study contradicts these assumptions. The Novosvobodnaya looks like a phase of Maikop culture, but not as an independent culture, which by the way earlier was noted by anthropologists.
Maikop has a Near Eastern admixture, the fact that they recorded it in the Globular Amphora is only a matter of their modeling, they just other modeling options and not considered.
@Grey: more a wild guess than an explanation but... shiny metal
As a why of migration, then I guess nothing obviously wrong I can see. Really my question there was more of how migration would happen without anything impacting Maykop populations? But I guess leapfrogging migrations are generally no problem.
...
EastPole: Khvalynsk + Tripolye = Sredny Stog II
Sredny Stog II+ Botai = Yamnaya
From the perspective of Fst+PCoA analysis: https://imgur.com/a/o5cDIRn
The Ukraine_Eneolithic whole sample does not look like it could plausibly be admixed between the Khvalynsk samples from Samara and Tripolye samples which we have. Just not clinal between the two of them.
But of course only I6561 was from Sredny Stog context, and I6561 does look reasonably Trypillian+Khvalynsk in Global_25.
However presently sampled I6561 / Ukraine_Eneolithic+Botai looks hopeless for all Yamnaya samples. Just not enough relatedness to Near East.
Btw, few more graphics for anyone interested using G25 distances from the ancient SE Asian samples: https://imgur.com/a/P5IqSRe
("XiongNu" here is the two North Chinese like "XiongNu").
Remarkable degree of structure and signal.
supernord
ok
so farmers in novosbodnaya came from the south. They were ANF not EEF. That is what you are saying?
There is no one Sredniy Stog II tested sample. The sample from Alexandria belonged to the Dereivka culture. Sredniy Stog II it occurs from Don.
@ Aram
The R1a in Sredni Stog was not native to Ukraine. It came from East (...) There were no single R1a-M198 in all those Eastern European foragers samples. The first time M198 appears is the Sredni Stog which has that Yamna profile + EEF.
OK, but on the other hand we have:
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-ukraine_n1/
The calls show that Ukraine_N1 belonged to Y haplogroup R1a1-M459*.
https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2118880012/2086207357/gr1_lrg.jpg
6469-6293 cal BP
@ Davidski
I would be extremely grateful for G25 coordinates of Ukraine_N1, Ukraine_HG1 and RISE568. I believe that they show traces of a not yet sampled WHG population that may shed light also on the structure of steppe populations.
I can already show this using West Eurasian PCA, but I want to compare everything with a second spreadsheet as a sanity check, so it would be great if you'll find time to run them e.g. in the next batch of samples.
“The EEF in Sredni Stog is from Mariupol complex EEF rich farmers, who were probably living in along Black sea coasts..”
No. In Mariupol complex was not EEF rich farmers. There are no tested samples, but the anthropology of Mariupol burial is close to the Oleniy Island on Onega lake. The Dnieper samples of the Mariupol complex of the same time are more western place than Mariupol and have no links with EEF.
@ Matt
From the perspective of Fst+PCoA analysis The Ukraine_Eneolithic whole sample does not look like it could plausibly be admixed between the Khvalynsk samples from Samara and Tripolye samples which we have. Just not clinal between the two of them.
But is this I6561 only or I6561, I4110, I5882 and I5884 under one label?
@Arza
"The calls show that Ukraine_N1 belonged to Y haplogroup R1a1-M459*."
Ukraine_N1 is Mesolithic, but not Neolithic. The Neolithic population of Ukraine replaces Mesolithic. As well as Eneolithic population replaces Neolithic population of Ukraine. The Sredniy Stog culture spreads from the East not from the territory of Ukraine, from the Don.
@Arza, for Fst, the latter, which is a problem.
Yamna(ya)= PostStog + Repin (basically)
Poststog follows Serednyi Stih (Sredny Stog) + Lower Mykhajlivka and other inputs.
Repin follows Khvalinsk (plus forest steppe input)
We have as yet no aDNA from PostStog or Repin or Lower Mykhajlivka (which BTW has close arch. ties to Majkop)
So any final conclusions re exclusive or preponderant sources in Yamna(ya) are still a bit premature.
@Vincent
I've already looked at the Yamnaya X chromosomes, have you? By the way, idiot, you're banned.
@All
Commentator Vincent is now banned from this blog.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/banned-commentators-list.html
@opengenomes
Theres a network of mobility through out mountain ranges and mtdna could have spread through regular exogamous exchange. The Kalash have some anomalous west eurasian mtdna vs neighboring areas. Their mountainous refuge has allowed preservation.
Pack animals like horses and donkeys are needed by current nomads
@David
The new datasheets you just posted are missing these Southeast Asians:
Man_Bac:I2947_new
Man_Bac_all:I0627_all
Man_Bac_all:I1137_all
Man_Bac_all:I2731_all
Nui_Nap_all:I2497_all
Nui_Nap_all:I2948_all_new
Oakaie1_all:I4011_all_new
Matt
"Really my question there was more of how migration would happen without anything impacting Maykop populations? But I guess leapfrogging migrations are generally no problem."
thing is, looking at it as a sequence - if metallurgy 101 was simply native metals + cold hammering simple shapes then at that point regions with mineable soft metals wouldn't be a thing - they'd mostly be hostile mountain regions with a few HGs or goat herders living on them but as soon as some group or other figured out metallurgy 201 (mining and smelting) then all of a sudden regions with mineable copper, silver, tin, gold etc become super valuable - so it seems likely to me that as soon as the metallurgy 201 phase begins then those regions would suddenly start being colonized (and fought over) by people who were part of that metallurgy 201 event.
(and as well as the incoming miners they might need some security and maybe some horse breeders to provide the horses to drag all the wood to the mine)
(also although i don't think this is accepted by linguists a PC strategy game i played said one derivation of Armenia was "metal worker" and it would be fun if that was true)
@Open Genomes
I don't know which datasheets you're looking at, but those new ancient Southeast Asian samples are indeed in my updated datasheets, both the txt and dat datasheets.
I wonder why they dropped the Onge-like ancient samples?
Which Onge-like samples? In the Southeast Asian ancient paper?
Lol; I just remembered that it was a different ancient Southeast Asia preprint.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/08/278374
Arza
M459 is not the same as M198. https://yfull.com/tree/R-M459/
M459 is R1a1. It was found in many places. Karelia, Ukrain_N, etc.
M198 is R1a1a which was not found until Sredni Stog sample. Notice the the age of M198 is quite high.
M417 is R1a1a1
---
R1a1 M459/PF6235, L122/M448/PF6237, Page65.2/PF6234/SRY1532.2/SRY10831.2
• • • R1a1~ L120/M516/PF6236
• • • • R1a1a M512/PF6239, L168, M17, M198/PF6238, M514/PF6240, M515
• • • • R1a1a~ L449/PF6223
• • • • • R1a1a1 M417, Page7
supermord
One of Ukraine_N samples was 100% EEF. I didn't read the supplements but I have seen suggestions that he ( it was I2a2 ) represents Mariupol farmers around Azov sea.
@Aram
I don't know what you mean. Azov sea had no one at all, there is only Dnieper river.
In the transition period between the Neolithic and the Eneolithic there is only one sample from the Dereivka I I3719 (Central Ukraine), which does not belong to Mariupol, but is a Tripolie influence. It is very far from Azov sea.
@Gill
About doing a neighbor-joining network:
I tried it, and the comparison with the Ward's Euclidean distance-squared trees is here:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/05/global25-past-compatible-datasheets.html?showComment=1526798646981#c5369903826315825373
Basically, neighbor-joining first builds up the obvious clusters, and then the more isolated sample attach to those clusters. That means that small highly drifted / bottlenecked populations distort the topology of the tree. it's harder to see the relationships between individual outliers and larger populations using a neighbor-joining tree.
@ Aram
I know that it's not the _right_ clade and that it's pretty old, but if you would place N1 on the "beast" map, Eastern Ukraine will look quite interesting. Also I'm partly relying on the autosomal profile of this sample. Besides what I wrote first was an "OK", as I'm generally agreeing and I just wanted to remind about the "forgotten" N1 as it may be important in the future.
Post a Comment