Mycenaean Srubnaya_MLBA 0.266±0.029 Tepecik_Ciftlik_N 0.734±0.029 taildiff: 0.588000631 Full output Mycenaean Minoan_Lasithi 0.790±0.023 Srubnaya_MLBA 0.210±0.023 taildiff: 0.187709803 Full output ... Turkmenistan_IA Namazga_CA 0.528±0.040 Srubnaya_MLBA 0.472±0.040 taildiff: 0.561330411 Full output Turkmenistan_IA Dzharkutan1_BA 0.530±0.037 Srubnaya_MLBA 0.470±0.037 taildiff: 0.485083377 Full outputBut seriously, what's the direct link between populations like Tepecik_Ciftlik_N/Minoan_Lasithi and Namazga_CA/Dzharkutan1_BA, except some exceedingly distant farmer ancestry from the Fertile Crescent? See also... An early Iranian, obviously Graeco-Aryan parallels Yamnaya isn't from Iran just like R1a isn't from India
search this blog
Saturday, July 21, 2018
A Mycenaean and an Iron Age Iranian walk into a bar...
What do they have in common? The same type of Near Eastern ancestry? From Iran? Nope, that's a joke. Obviously, they share the same type of steppe ancestry. This probably has some very important linguistic implications.
The relevant Principal Component Analysis (PCA) datasheet is available here. Below are two pairs of formal mixture models that support my inferences from the PCA.
Labels:
Aegean,
ancient DNA,
Ancient Greece,
Caspian Sea,
Indo-European,
Indo-Iranian,
Iran,
joke,
Minoans,
Mycenae,
Mycenaeans,
Pontic-Caspian steppe,
Proto-Indo-European,
R1a,
R1a-M417,
R1a-Z93,
Srubnaya culture
Thursday, July 19, 2018
An early Iranian, obviously
Today, the part of Asia between the Caspian Sea and the Altai Mountains, known as Turan, is largely a Turkic-speaking region. But during the Iron Age it was dominated by Iranian speakers. Throughout this period it was the home of a goodly number of attested and inferred early Iranic peoples, such as the Airya, Dahae, Kangju, Massagetae, Saka and Sogdians.
Indeed, the early Iron Age Yaz II archaeological culture, located in southwestern Turan, is generally classified as an Iranian culture, and even posited to have been the Airyanem Vaejah, aka home of the Iranians, from ancient Avestan literature.
That's not to say that Iranian speakers weren't present in this part of the world much earlier. They probably were, and it's likely that we already have their genomes (see here). But the point I'm making is that Turan can't be reliably claimed to have been an Iranian realm until the Iron Age.
Ergo, any ancient DNA samples from Turan dating to the Iron Age, as opposed to, say, the Bronze Age, are very likely to be those of early Iranian speakers. One such sample is Turkmenistan_IA DA382 from Damgaard et al. 2018.
Below is a screen cap of the "time map" from homeland.ku.dk, with the slider moved to 847 BC, showing the location of the burial site where the remains of DA382 were excavated. The site is marked with the Z93 label because DA382 belongs to the Eastern European-derived Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-Z93. Interestingly, his burial was located in close proximity to archaeological sites associated with the above mentioned and contemporaneous Yaz II culture.
DA382 didn't get much of a run in the Damgaard et al. paper, and little wonder because the authors also analyzed 73 other ancient samples. So let's take a close look at this individual's genetic structure to see whether there's anything particularly Iranian about it.
Damgaard et al. did mention that DA382 was partly of Middle to Late Bronze Age (MLBA) steppe origin. And indeed, my own mixture models using qpAdm confirm this finding with very consistent results and strong statistical fits. Here are a couple of two-way examples...
Turkmenistan_IA Namazga_CA 0.528±0.040 Srubnaya_MLBA 0.472±0.040 taildiff: 0.561330411 Full output Turkmenistan_IA Dzharkutan1_BA 0.530±0.037 Srubnaya_MLBA 0.470±0.037 taildiff: 0.485083377 Full outputThe fact that the MLBA Srubnaya samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe can be used to model DA382's ancestry (alongside Bronze and Copper Age populations from Turan) with such ease shouldn't be surprising, considering the he belongs to R1a-Z93, which is the dominant Y-haplogroup in the Srubnaya and all other closely related MLBA steppe peoples. Now, Srubnaya is generally regarded to be the proto-Iranian archaeological culture. How awesome is that considering those qpAdm fits? But, admittedly, this is just an inference, even if a robust one, based on genetic, archaeological and historical linguistics data. So apart from the fact that DA382 comes from Iron Age Turan, an Iranian-speaking realm, is there any other way to link him directly to Iranians? Well, he's very similar in terms of overall genetic structure to some of the least Turkic-admixed Iranian speakers still living in Turan, and might well be ancestral to them. For instance, below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) featuring a wide range of ancient and present-day West Eurasian samples. Note that, in line with the qpAdm models, DA382 clusters about half-way between the populations of the MLBA steppe and pre-Kurgan expansion Turan, and amongst present-day Yaghnobi and Pamiri Tajiks. In fact, he clusters at the apex of a southeast > northwest cline made up of Tajiks that appears to be pulling towards Europeans. Needless to say, Tajiks, especially Pamiri Tajiks, also pack a lot of Srubnaya-related ancestry. I've talked about this plenty of times at this blog (for instance, see here). But what happens if I try to model Pamiri and Yaghnobi Tajiks with DA382?
Tajik Turkmenistan_IA 0.892±0.023 Han 0.108±0.023 taildiff: 0.794566182 Full outputWow, it's an awesome fit! My mind's made up: DA382 was probably an Iranian speaker and, more specifically, an Eastern Iranian speaker. Who disagrees and why? Feel free to let me know in the comments (unless you're banned, in which case, f*ck off). See also... A Mycenaean and an Iron Age Iranian walk into a bar... Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but... New PCA featuring Botai horse tamers, Hun and Saka warriors, and many more...
Labels:
Andronovo,
Central Asia,
Eastern Europe,
Indo-Aryan,
Indo-European,
Indo-Iranian,
Iranian,
Iron Age,
Persia,
Pontic-Caspian steppe,
R1a-M417,
R1a-Z93,
Sintashta,
Srubnaya culture,
Turan,
Yaz II
Friday, July 6, 2018
"The Homeland: In the footprints of the early Indo-Europeans" time map
Click HERE to view the interactive time map, and give it some time to load if you're on a slow connection. Use the slider tool to explore different time periods from 6385 BC to 1 BC. It's still a work in progress, so feel free to let the author, Mikkel Nørtoft, know if anything should be added, tweaked and/or generally improved.
Below is a screen cap of the map with the slider moved to 3618 BC. Note the sheep in the North Pontic steppe and the wheels just west of it. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge...
See also...
Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Friendly Yeniseian steppe pastoralists
For most people the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland debate isn't just about language, but also, or even more so, about things like ancestry, politics, racism, and ethnic pride.
I don't want to get into all the dirty details in this post, but, for instance, many of those who argue vehemently against a steppe homeland seem to really hate the idea that their ancestors were, at some level, dominated by a bunch of sheep and cow herders from an obscure part of Eastern Europe. Why? I'm pretty sure because they find this humiliating.
Hence, PIE homeland debates are generally very emotional and often degenerate into shouting matches. So what would happen if we assumed that those sheep herders weren't Indo-Europeans? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they spoke extinct Yeniseian languages.
Well, nothing really...
We still have them expanding in a big way out of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. And the fact that their impact was mostly male mediated, especially at the two ends of its range, in Iberia and India, suggests that they weren't just friendly pastoralists looking for new grazing fields.
In fact, in India, steppe ancestry, including Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, is much more pronounced in the upper castes than in the rest of society. But who knows what that means, right? Maybe those friendly "Yeniseian" steppe pastoralists just got lucky or something?
But that's OK, perhaps this will always remain a mystery? In any case, does anyone know if there's any sort of Yeniseian substrate in Celtic or Mycenaean? Haha.
See also...
"Heavily sex-biased" population dispersals into the Indian Subcontinent (Silva et al. 2017)
Migration of the Bell Beakers—but not from Iberia (Olalde et al. 2018)
Steppe admixture in Mycenaeans, lots of Caucasus admixture already in Minoans (Lazaridis et al. 2017)
Sunday, July 1, 2018
Ahead of the pack
Eurogenes Blog January 2018 (see here):
Yamnaya and other similar Eneolithic/Bronze Age herder groups from the Eurasian steppe were mostly a mixture of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG). But they also harbored minor ancestry from at least one, significantly more westerly, source that pulled them away from the EHG > CHG north/south genetic cline. ... It's interesting and, I'd say, important to note that the West Asian reference groups produce amongst the worst statistical fits (in bold text). What this suggests is that Yamnaya did not harbor extra West Asian ancestry on top of its CHG input. ... Rather, Blatterhole_MN is simply the best proxy in this analysis for the non-CHG/EHG ancestry in Yamnaya, and the important question is why? Considering also the presence at the top of the list of Koros_HG (which includes Hungary_HG I1507), Germany_MN and Vinca_MN, the likely answer is its high ratio of Western European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry. ... So is the missing piece of the Yamnaya puzzle a population with roughly equal ratios of Early Neolithic (EN) and WHG ancestries from the Carpathian Basin or surrounds? Quite possibly. But let's wait and see what happens when I add the ancient groups from the Balkans and North Pontic steppe from the forthcoming Mathieson et al. 2018 to this analysis.And now Wang et al. May 2018 (see here).
In principal component space Eneolithic individuals (Samara Eneolithic) form a cline running from EHG to CHG (Fig. 2D), which is continued by the newly reported Eneolithic steppe individuals. ... However, PCA results also suggest that Yamnaya and later groups of the West Eurasian steppe carry some farmer related ancestry as they are slightly shifted towards ‘European Neolithic groups’ in PC2 (Fig. 2D) compared to Eneolithic steppe. ... 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). ... We find that Yamnaya individuals from the Volga region (Yamnaya Samara) have 13.2±2.7% and Yamnaya individuals in Hungary 17.1±4.1% Anatolian farmer-related ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Table 18)– statistically indistinguishable proportions. Replacing Globular Amphora by Iberia Chalcolithic, for instance, does not alter the results profoundly (Supplementary Table 19). This suggests that the source population was a mixture of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry and a minimum of 20% WHG ancestry, a profile that is shared by many Middle/Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic individuals from Europe of the 3 rd millennium BCE analysed thus far.Strikingly similar, don't you think? However, I'm not implying that they copied me. The point I'm making is that I predicted this outcome ahead of anyone else, and was able to demonstrate it without some of the key ancient samples that Wang et al. had access to. Indeed, kudos to them for finding and successfully sequencing those all important new Eneolithic steppe samples. Moreover, these results mean that it's no longer plausible to argue that the Yamnaya population, by and large, formed due to recent gene flow from south of the Caucasus, let alone from what is now Iran, into the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Obviously, this is a major problem for anyone arguing that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland may have been located somewhere south of the Caucasus, such as Paul Heggarty of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (for instance, see here). But hey, never mind the facts when you have an awesome theory, right? See also... Yamnaya: home-grown Genetic borders are usually linguistic borders too Yamnaya isn't from Iran just like R1a isn't from India
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




