search this blog

Sunday, February 17, 2019

On Maykop ancestry in Yamnaya


What Maykop ancestry in Yamnaya? There is none, or at least not enough worth discussing, except in one highly unusual female outlier from a burial in what is now eastern Ukraine. But apparently this is still up for debate? Well it shouldn't be.


To anyone with even a passing interest in the Yamnaya culture, it should be rather obvious that it formed during the tail end of the Eneolithic on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, as basically a direct offshoot of the earlier Repin culture, but perhaps also with significant influences from the earlier still Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog cultures. So why should its population history be much different from this?

It isn't, and this is fairly easy to demonstrate now despite the still rather poor sampling of Eneolithic remains from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Below is a series of qpAdm analyses in which I modeled several Yamnaya groups, as well as the closely related Afanasievo and Poltavka populations, exclusively and successfully as two- and three-way mixtures of a few Eneolithic singletons from various parts of the Pontic-Caspian steppe (obviously, I'd love to use homogeneous population sets instead, but, as per my point above, that's not possible yet). The models are sorted by their statistical fits, best to worst. Also note the large number and wide range of right pops or outgroups. I wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing anything.

Yamnaya_Samara
Dereivka_I_I4110 0.324±0.035
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.676±0.035
chisq 6.797
tail prob 0.976979
Full output

Afanasievo
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.638±0.038
Sredny_Stog_II_I6561 0.362±0.038
chisq 10.855
tail prob 0.818366
Full output

Yamnaya_Ukraine
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2001 0.655±0.073
Sredny_Stog_II_I6561 0.345±0.073
chisq 12.676
tail prob 0.696277
Full output

Poltavka
Dereivka_I_I4110 0.324±0.038
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.676±0.038
chisq 12.895
tail prob 0.680437
Full output

Yamnaya_Caucasus
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic_I0122 0.086±0.054
Sredny_Stog_II_I6561 0.221±0.070
Vonyuchka_Eneolithic_VJ1001 0.693±0.101
chisq 13.113
tail prob 0.593562
Full output

So, you might ask, is there any way to add Maykop to these models? Nope, it's pointless, because it doesn't improve the stats (for instance, see here, here and here). In other words, the situation is this: I already have awesome models, and I can't readily fit Maykop into my framework, so why do it? But if anyone out there wants to try, then by all means, and feel free to share the results with us in the comments.

Of course, the fact that most of these Yamnaya and Yamnaya-related populations are best modeled with somewhat different Eneolithic steppe singletons doesn't mean that they have radically different origins. In fact, they're all very closely related and they're basically like one Bronze Age steppe family. They just harbor somewhat different ratios of the same ancient ancestral components.

For the sake of being thorough, as per scientific literature, I pooled all of the above Afanasievo, Poltavka and Yamnaya samples into a Steppe_EMBA set and analyzed it with several genetically and geographically matching pairs of the Eneolithic singletons. This was one of the best fitting models, which I think is interesting, because the region roughly between the burial sites of these pairs of Eneolithic individuals was the home of the Repin culture.

Steppe_EMBA
North_Pontic_Eneolithic_I4110-I656 0.313±0.027
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2001-PG2004 0.687±0.027
chisq 15.378
tail prob 0.497157
Full output

Again, adding Maykop to this model makes no sense (see here, here and here). Clearly, I'd have to come up with a very different framework to successfully model Steppe_EMBA with a Maykop population. However, it's unlikely that such a model would make much sense in the context of various other types of genetic analyses and archeological data.

See also...

Yamnaya: home-grown

Big deal of 2018: Yamnaya not related to Maykop

Yamnaya isn't from Iran just like R1a isn't from India

308 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 308 of 308
Andrzejewski said...

@Colin and @Matt,

"Colin Welling: Neolithic Anatolians predominantly come from Mesolithic Anatolians, they have little to no Levant.

Barcin farmers who are supposed to be the proxy for Anatolian farmers entering Europe probably about 20% Levant_N, according to studies with preceding populations. But Levant itself likely can be modeled as about 40:60 Anatolian Late Upper Paleolithic HG:Natufian"

Unlike Yamnaya, Antaolia_N was far from being a homogenous population: how else would you explain the high ratio of Haplogroups E1b1b (most common among Greeks and Bulgarians, lots of Italians), which was originally a Natufian/Levant_N signal, Haplogroup T, Haplogroup K, Haplogroups J1/J2 (CHC and Semites) etc.

Curiously and interestingly, 30% of Greeks are E1b1b and the second highest one is J1 or J2. Italians (via Etruscans?) have a high ratio of J1 of J2 (CHG/Near East). So we see that not all EEF were originally Y-Hap G like Oetzi was...

Andrzejewski said...

@Phillipe No, but UHG was a sister clade to WHG with mtDNA K1 (which Otzi belonged to, used to be called U8) as its common uniparental marker.

I read here not too long ago that Anatolian Famers descended in part from Greek HG.

Andrzejewski said...

@Kristiina "'water' IE *woder- 'water' U *weti 'water'"

But, another common PIE root for "water" is "ob-".

It was recently demonstrated by (I think) Haakkinen that both terms for 'name' and 'water' were borrowed from PIE into Proto-Uralic or more interestingly, only to SOME Uralic languages.

A said...

"No [...] I read here not too long ago that Anatolian Famers descended in part from Greek HG."

Those sound like contradictory statements...

Apparently around 5500 BC the Black Sea was a lake (substantially smaller than it is today) and Europe was directly connected to Anatolia, so movement back and forth would have been much easier.

Gaska said...


@ Philippe said..."Neolithic Anatolians predominantly come from Mesolithic Anatolians, they have little to no Levant."

Is there any evidence that European hunter-gatherers mixed with Mesolithic or Neolithic Anatolians, prior to the expansion of farming across Europe?

Michael Feldman (2.108)-

"We also detect distinct genetic interactions between the populations of central Anatolia and earlier farming centers to the east, during the late Pleistocene/early Holocene as well as with European hunter-gatherers to the west during the Late Pleistocene"

Based on our observations in PCA and ADMIXTURE analysis we formally tested the 5 ancestral compositions of the three Anatolian populations. We first characterized the ancestry of AHG. As expected from AHG’s intermediate position on PCA between Epipaleolithic/Neolithic Levantines and WHG, Patterson’s D- statistics of the form D (AHG, WHG; Natufian/Levant_N, Mbuti) ≥ 4.8 SE (standard error) and D (AHG, Natufian/Levant_N; WHG, Mbuti) ≥ 9.0 SE (table S3) indicates that AHG is distinct from both the WHG and Epipaleolithic/Neolithic Levantine populations and yet shares extra affinity with each when compared to the other. Accordingly, we find an adequate two-way admixture model using qpAdm12 (χ2p = 0.158), in which AHG derives around half of his ancestry from a Neolithic Levantine-related gene pool (48.0 ± 4.5 %; estimate ± 1 SE) and the rest from the WHG-related one (tables S4 and S5). These results support a late Pleistocene presence of both ancestries in a mixed form in central Anatolia. Notably, the genetic connection with the Levant predates the advent of farming in this region by at least five millennia and potentially correlates with evidence of human interactions between central Anatolia and the Levant during the Epipalaeolithic

Hap-Mit-N1a1/a1- Turkey, Anatolia, Boncuklu, AAF- 8.050 BC
N1a1/a1- Germany, Halberstadt, Neolíthic-5.120 BC

Hap-Mit-N1a1/b- Israel, Kfar HaHoresh, Natufian, Levant-7.650 BC
N1a1/b- Germany, Halsberstadt, Neolíhic-5.102 BC

We examined alleles related to phenotypic traits in the ancient genomes (data table S7).Notably, three of the AAF carry the derived allele for rs12193832 in the HERC2 (hect domain and RLD2) gene that is primarily responsible for lighter eye color in Europeans22. The derived allele is observed as early as 14,000 -13,000 years ago in individuals from Italy and the Caucasus but had not yet been reported in early farmers or hunter-gatherers from the Near East.

To the west, a genetic link is observed between the Anatolian and Southeastern European Pleistocene hunter gatherers. Inspection of the shared genetic components between these two 15 populations provides us with a model explaining the genetic affinity between late Pleistocene Europeans and present-day Near Eastern populations

Interestingly, while the local population structure remains highly stable, a pattern of genetic interactions with neighboring regions is observed from as early as the Late Pleistocene and into the early Holocene. External genetic contributions, associated with two distinct early 5 farming populations of the Fertile Crescent, substituted about 10% and 20% of indigenous ancestry each.


Matt said...

Re; whether there was any geneflow between steppe groups with a hunting and gathering economy and populations south of the Caucasus with a farming economy, would comment, the difference in subsistence methods doesn't automatically exclude exchange of ancestry.

Pitted Ware Complex groups who were basically fisher gatherers in Northern Europe had EEF ancestry (of 10%, maybe more - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/03/113241.full.pdf), despite not being farmers. So did Sredny Stog II in quite more significant quantities (I6561 and I4110 about >40%), without adopting a farming economy. Hofmanova's thesis (https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/volltexte/2017/100001355/pdf/100001355.pdf) showed that genetically Aegean farmers "infiltrated the nearby hunter-gatherer community of Lepenski Vir" without changing subsistence.

Though basically that if any admixture happened and assuming that groups south of Caucasus had some Anatolian HG related ancestry quite early, it would have to be fine scale and balanced by Central Asian influence.
It would probably make sense to not to be *for* it, as it does seem simpler to propose a deeper CHG+EHG origin for the Eneolithic Piedmont Steppe, but we can't exclude it unless samples are generated that are directly relevant to the question.

A said...

@Diego

Thanks!

epoch said...

@Kristiina


"There are more, but I give only these, because they are easily available."

The non-easily available, what do they consist of? I know Kloekhorst came up with the idea that some of the innovations of Anatolian could actually be archaic only surviving in Anatolian and linked them to Uralic.

@Davidski

Offtopic, so feel free to ignore these, but could you do:

Mbuti GoyetQ116-1 EHG Kostenki14
Mbuti GoyetQ116-1 EHG Muierii2
Mbuti GoyetQ116-1 EHG Sunghir
Mbuti El_Miron EHG Kostenki14
Mbuti El_Miron EHG Muierii2
Mbuti El_Miron EHG Sunghir

A said...

Did Seima-Turbino come from Andronovo?

JuanRivera said...

I think you're conflating RISE1 with another doubtfully R1b Polish CWC sample (which is the unreliable one). On the other hand, Q1a in Iberia is mostly of non-amerindian provenance, and in trees in Y-full and Family Tree DNA it can be observed that most of the Iberian Q1a clusters more closely to other exclusively european clades of Q1a.

JuanRivera said...

Here's an Iberian Q1a clade: Q-BY61803.

JuanRivera said...

Saw in the Family Tree DNA Y-haplotree that most Q1a samples in Spain were indeed Amerindian. However, Q-BY61803 is exclusively Iberian and its most closely related Q1a clades were predominantly of western and central european distribution.

Slumbery said...


Interesting that Sintashta_MLBA_o1 takes some Maykop ancestry. Originally I though that Sintashta_o1 is a result of an eastward Yamnaya (or Poltavka/Catacomb) expansion mixing with the locals. But I am not sure now. In nMontes both Sintashta_o1 and Steppe_Maykop reject Ukraine Eneolithic and Khvalinsk, while in the same test those come up as 40% of the ancestry of Yamnaya_Kalmykia. Sintashta_MLBA_o1 and Steppe_Maykop can be both modelled as just Progress_Eneolthic + WSHG/Botai + minor Maykop admixture, without any further stuff from Ukraine or the Samara region. (Well, Steppe_Maykop also takes some Iran_N like stuff, but that is only AY2001m (however she represents the entire Maykop ancestry in Steppe_Maykop without the outliers too...))

At this point I think it is possible that Sintashta_MLBA_o1 did not have significant Yamnaya ancestry, instead it had significant ancestry from a displaced Steppe_Maykop group.

Davidski said...

@epoch

I don't have Muierii2 in my dataset.

Mbuti GoyetQ116-1 EHG Kostenki14 0.0205 3.199 714577
Mbuti GoyetQ116-1 EHG Sunghir 0.0237 4.894 743379
Mbuti ElMiron EHG Kostenki14 -0.0068 -1.089 585274
Mbuti ElMiron EHG Sunghir -0.0029 -0.607 612343

Mem said...

No,it derived from native west siberian.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Re; whether there was any geneflow between steppe groups with a hunting and gathering economy and populations south of the Caucasus with a farming economy, would comment, the difference in subsistence methods doesn't automatically exclude exchange of ancestry.

Yeah, but positing that the Eneolithic Piedmont population got its elevated level of CHG-related ancestry from Neolithic groups in the Near East doesn't make any sense on multiple levels.

It's special pleading and the usual pitiful reaction to the likelihood that the Yamnaya genotype is native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

pnuadha said...

@davidski

Yes, and if Basal Eurasian was a real population (because keep in mind that it's still just a ghost pop), then yes, EHG has some Basal Eurasian, because it does have some CHG ancestry.

Suppose Basel Eurasian (BE) is not a real population. Can we still say with certainty that WHG does not have CHG or EEF ancestry because of the inferred, although not real, BE element?

Also, can you give a recap as to why you think the CHG in Khvalynsk, Stredny Stog, and Yamnaya came from Mesolithic Eastern Europe (southern steppe) and possibly paleolithic Eastern Europe? Im a bit fussy on the timing and location of important changes.

I know yamanaya like groups were on the steppe by the neolithic. I forget how early and how widespread the yamnaya like cluster was on the steppe. I also know that some of the Caucasus had some "Siberian" (ANE + extra East Asian) ancestry as seen in Maykop, which the yamnaya lack. What other limiting factors do we have to conclude that Yamnaya was a local development? Why do you think there was a CHG cline in Eastern Europe during the mesolithic or even paleolithic rather than having developed during the early neolithic?

Thanks in advance.

Davidski said...

@Colin

Suppose Basel Eurasian (BE) is not a real population. Can we still say with certainty that WHG does not have CHG or EEF ancestry because of the inferred, although not real, BE element?

As far as I know, WHG doesn't show any CHG or EEF ancestry.

But the inference that EHG has CHG ancestry is based on direct tests of CHG ancestry in EHG, so it doesn't rely on Basal Eurasian being a real population. In other words, whether Basal Eurasian really exists or not doesn't change the fact that EHG shows a signal of CHG ancestry, whatever that entails.

What other limiting factors do we have to conclude that Yamnaya was a local development? Why do you think there was a CHG cline in Eastern Europe during the mesolithic or even paleolithic rather than having developed during the early neolithic?

There are two main and related limiting factors.

Farmers with significant Anatolian ancestry were dispersed all over western Asia well before 4,000 BCE, including in the North Caucasus (Darkveti-Meshoko).

However, there are no obvious signs of such Anatolian ancestry or cultural Neolithic farmer influences in the Yamnaya-like Eneolithic Piedmont steppe population. So if this Piedmont steppe population wasn't even interacting with the nearest farmers, then why would it be interacting with a more distant farmer population south of the Caucasus and getting its CHG from it?

Thus, the most reasonable conclusion is that the Piedmont steppe and surrounds was something of a refuge for a very ancient CHG-related population, because the Caucasus shielded it from Anatolian admixture. But it wasn't shielded by anything from EHG admixture, which probably affected it very early via bidirectional gene flow, because EHG is recorded on the steppe as early as ~9,000 BCE, and it already shows some CHG admixture at that time.

Gabriel said...

So, where did the Palaeolithic proto-CHG/Iran_N population come from? It’s still likely to be from the Caucasus and surrounds and not from Eastern Europe, right?

Ric Hern said...

From the Baradostion Culture > Imeretian Culture/Dzudzuana in the Caucasus > Kammenaya Balka. Archaeologicaly it was linked to the Lower Don during the Late Upper Paleolithic.

Ric Hern said...

@ Them meee

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamennaya_Balka

Ric Hern said...

@ Them meee

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baradostian_culture

Ric Hern said...

@ Them meee

Apparently the Baradostian contributed the the formation of the Zarzian Culture as well as the Imeretian Culture and apparently Zarzian influence stretched as far as Gobustan. But Imeretian influence reached the Lower Don.If early Caucasus inhabitants lacked EHG but later ones did have EHG it will in my opinion only point to a North to South migration which could have influenced Iran during the Mesolithic.

Open Genomes said...

Here is I1635, R1b-L389* R-V1636 from Kura-Araxes Kalavan.

R1b-V1636 is the Y haplogroup as the two Progress Eneolithic samples PG2004 and PG2001 who were an important ancestral component of Yamnaya.

Chalcolithic ancestry composition of sample: I1635 Population: Kura-Araxes_Kalavan Chalcolithic Caucasus

I1635 is 40.4% Darkveti-Meshkoko.

Meshkoko was a Eneolithic (Chalcolithic) fortress in the North Caucasus, in a culture that preceded Maykop, and which was roughly contemporary with the adjacent Progress Caucasus Piedmont Steppe Eneolithic.

Here in turn is I2056 Darkveti-Meshkoko, who was J2a-Y11200, a subclade of J-CTS900 which is modal in the Northeast Caucasus today.
J-Y11200 was also found in Maykop Culture individuals.

Neolithic ancestry composition of sample: I2056 Population: Darkveti-Meshoko Chalcolithic Caucasus

I2056 is a simple mix of 61.4% CHG, 34.4% Anatolian Neolithic Farmer, 3.0% Ganj Dareh Early Iranian Neolithic, and 1.2% extra ANE.

Was a this, or a similar population, the source of the CHG in Progress Eneolithic, bringing with it a small amount of Anatolian Early Neolithic farmer ancestry, which ultimately ended up in Yamnaya?

Neolithic ancestry composition of sample: PG2004 Population: Progress_Eneolithic Chalcolithic Steppe

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

Was a this, or a similar population, the source of the CHG in Progress Eneolithic, bringing with it a small amount of Anatolian Early Neolithic farmer ancestry, which ultimately ended up in Yamnaya?

The Anatolian-related ancestry in Yamnaya is from the North Pontic steppe. It was mediated via Eneolithic populations like Dereivka I and Sredny Stog II.

Individuals from these cultures provide by far the best mixture references in formal models for Yamnaya and Afanasievo.

Yamnaya_Samara
Dereivka_I_I4110 0.324±0.035
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.676±0.035
chisq 6.797
tail prob 0.976979

Afanasievo
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.638±0.038
Sredny_Stog_II_I6561 0.362±0.038
chisq 10.855
tail prob 0.818366

Open Genomes said...

@David

It seems then based on formal statistics that Progress Enolithic, PG2004, contributes the single most important percentage to the ancestry of both Yamnaya and Afanasievo.

Neolithic ancestry composition of sample: PG2004 Population: Progress_Eneolithic Chalcolithic Steppe

In that case, Progress Eneolithic PG2004, from the piedmont steppe zone of the North Caucasus, needs to be more closely investigated as the most important of the three sources of Yamnaya and Afanasievo, which are Progress Eneolithic, Eneolithic Volga river Khvalynsk, and Eneolithic Dnieper river Dereivka (including Sredny Stog).

While PG2004 is generally a more or less equal mix of EHG and CHG, there's the additional 13.8% "Afontova Gora 3" ANE, the 5.2% European Neolithic-like farmer, and an Iranian Neolithic like element present in both Darra-i-Kur from Tajikistan and Ganj Dareh.

This raises some important questions about Progress:

1. How did the European Neolithic element get to the Eneolithic Caucasus Piedmont steppe?

2. Why does Progress have substantially more ANE than the populations to the north, west, and south, respectively Khvalynsk, Dereivka, and CHG?

3. Most importantly, where is the Iranian Mesolithic/Neolithic-like ancestry coming from that is above what's found in CHG?

Can you show the source of the extra Iranian-like ancestry in PG2004 that isn't present in these other populations, nor in the West Siberian Neolithic / Botai further east?

Does the Early Anatolian-European Neolithic farmer ancestry in PG2004 have WHG, in a way that for example Tepecik-Ciftlik Tep003 doesn't?

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

It's very difficult to correctly model the Progress and Vonyuchka_Eneolithic samples. As you can see, even the distances in your nMonte models are rather high even though you're trying a lot of reference samples.

What this suggests is that your models are only rough approximations of reality.

These Eneolithic steppe individuals actually can't be modeled via formal stats with Anatolian and/or Ganj_Dareh_N admixture, nor with any of the Central Asian Eneolithic populations.

They appear to be the descendants of a more basal sister clade of CHG, but probably with extra ANE and EHG.

It's possible that only the EHG admixture in them is rather recent.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

How much EHG and CHG does the Sidelkino sample show ? Because if ANE is higher both in Sidelkino and Progress it could point to a Pre-9000 BCE ANE population in the Caucasus Piedmont area who got Semi-isolated by desertification to their North or the Black-Caspian Seas Spillway

Davidski said...

@Ric

I don't know, I haven't tried to model them recently. But from vague memory, Sidelkino doesn't stand out from the rest of the EHG samples in any obvious way. There might be some details about that in one of the recent preprints or papers.

Aram said...

@Andre

The high level of haplogroup E among Greeks has nothing to do with Neolithic farmers. It is a Bronze Age massive founder effect. (4000-4500 years ago).

Halfalp said...

@Philippe Yes, the Lazaridis paper about Dzudzuana, says that already Iron_Gates HG's of the Mesolithic era, shows Dzudzuana ancestry, likely from Mesolithic or very Early Neolithic Anatolians. Wich actually make sense, because Balkans and Anatolian humans had to have relationship in the course of all their history.

My bet, is that Villabruna ancestry, originally came with y-dna I and maybe mtdna U5 from Anatolia from South of the Caucasus early as 30'000 BC. They mingle with Sunghir related people to form Vestonice. But it was too north, the real unadmixed Early Villabruna ancestry must have been somwhere in the Balkans. Then R1b came from Eastern Europe in the Bolling-Allerod interstadial and from the Danube, got into the Balkans and Italy forming probably already the WHG / EHG cline in the east. Then in Mesolithic times, the people from Balkans had relationship with Dzudzuana people as Anatolians HG's, wich can be shows with the few mtdna H13 in Lepenski Vir.

What i'm actually interested to know is: Can the CHG ancestry in Eastern Europe being related with Dzudzuana ancestry, or would a calculator pick up EEF instead of CHG to shows Dzudzuana ancestry? I recall Laziridis saying " Steppe brought Dzudzuana ancestry into Europe ".

Aram said...

Ok. To avoid confusion E-M78 entered Europe with Neolithic farmers. Cardial ware.
But modern high level of E in Balkanes is a recent event. The oldest case of the subclade most common among modern Balkanians is found in Moldavia. Scy197. But it's radiocarbon date is disputed

Gaska said...

@Halfalp

"Surprisingly, the Dzudzuana population was more closely related to early agriculturalists from western Anatolia ~8 thousand years ago than to the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus from the same region of western Georgia of ~13-10 thousand years ago".

ERGO Dzudzuana ancestry spread throughout Europe (from the Balkans to Spain) with the Anatolian farmers. At least that is how I understand it, although I am not surprised by the words of Lazaridis, it seems that everything in Europe comes from the steppes.

"The Villabruna cluster has been modeled as contributing to both the ~30kya Věstonice and ~20kya El Mirón-cluster populations suggesting that it must have existed somewhere in relatively unmixed form long before the oldest genetic data we have from it at ~14kya.

Drago said...

@ Diego
DzDz didn’t expand with ANF
The first part of Halfalp’s perspective is fairly accurate. I’d only contend whether Anatolian Mesolithic (rather, epipaleolithics to be propper) actually represent this Dzudzuana interaction. I’d content no, because they’d have basaloid ancestry, and there was movements from Balkans to Anatolia also

Gaska said...


@Dragos

It is not enough to say that it did not expand with the ANF, I suppose you will have a theory about it and you could share it with us. If DzDz and the Anatolian farmers are related (supposedly genetically), what happened ?, did they leave that autosomal component in Anatolia?

Gaska said...

@All

Lazaridis- "Steppe populations during the Eneolithic to Bronze Age were a mix of at least two elements, the EHG who lived in Eastern Europe ~8kya and a southern population element related to present-day Armenians, and ancient Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and farmers from Iran (CHG)"

What was the mechanism by which steppe populations of mixed EHG and Near Eastern ancestry were formed?

and what was the mechanism by which steppe populations managed to make a major demographic impact in Neolithic Europe?

Both Minoans and Mycenaeans, and to a much lesser extent Neolithic samples from the Peloponnese and Bulgaria also had ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers, suggesting that this ancestry did not come to Europe only via migrations from the steppe, but also independently, perhaps reflecting ancestry from different Anatolian source populations.

If the leaks that indicate the presence of CHG in the Italian Neolithic are confirmed, we would have this autosomal marker all over Europe, without having to resort to the nomads of the steppes. I think the debate is going to be interesting.

Matt said...

Dzuduana definitely looks very baffling at the moment. I'm not totally sure where Lazaridis is going with it ; seems like he is using Dzuduana as the Caucasus "Womb of Nations" (rather earlier than the neolithic) while discounting the "Basal Eurasian" factor (significant basal eurasian, as much as Anatolians, lack or low BEu in pre-Anatolian / Ciscaucasian Steppe expansion pops in north and west).

I had a quick experiment to generate a projection of where Dzudzuana would fit the Global25, based on the Fst values in the paper*: https://imgur.com/a/tTdhBof

This is probably very noisy, esp without any African or ENA outgroups in their Fst table! Lots of over and undershooting prediction (see long branches on tree). However, Dzuduana seems more like a population that clusters with WHG type populations on a Europe PCA, more than Anatolia, from that basis? But lack of outgroups (Ust Ishim, Africans, ENA) mean this method may undershoot shared "Basal Eurasian" factor.

Values for this sim in case anyone wants them: https://pastebin.com/hyYRLPDm
*Methods: Use Fst values to generate Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA). Use regression to project from PCoA onto G25.

Gaska said...

@Matt

What Lazaridis says is that Dzdz is the key to many questions

1- "We can modelled CHG and Neolithic Iran as deriving their ancestry largely (58-64%) from DzDz like populations, but with ancestry from both deep and ANE sources"
2- "Karelia HG-34% from Villabruna and 66% ANE (Afontova gora 3)
3- Dzdz like ancestry must have spread across West Eurasia with Neolithic migrations out of the Near East, but it HAD NOT been previously absent from Europe aas severla HG populations in southern Europe, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia can only be modeled with some such ancestry.
4- Dzdz is genetically closer to Gravettians, Neolithic Anatolian Farmers, and WHG
5-Dzdz was not identical to WHG, as it shared alleles with Upper paleolithic Siberian (Ust'Ishim) and Upper Paleolithic East Asia.









Matt said...

Though I'm not totally sure about how Basal Eurasian in Dzudzuana works.
Looking at the f4 stat f4(X, Kostenki14, Ust Ishim, Yoruba) including Dzudzuana: https://imgur.com/a/VctOQYH

AG3, CHG and Dzudzuana all much in the same range (AG3 quite a bit further from Ust Ishim than European early UP and Siberian early UP).
EHG is not specifically broken out but likely to have a f4(X, Kostenki14, Ust Ishim, Yoruba) between AG3 and CHG, based on the results from the Yana paper.

Plus Chad has discussed how D-stats have a quite strong confound of Africans not operating as an equal outgroup to Anatolian/Levantine HG and farmers. See his post: https://populationgenomics.blog/2019/02/01/of-stone-blood-the-demography-of-the-megalithic-expansions-work-in-progress/. Especially Yoruba.

(Petr's paper on direct estimates of Neanderthal ancestry gives reason to suggest this may be due to confound by ongoing North Africa<->East Mediterranean+Arabian geneflow).

So even the signals of Basal Eurasian dilution of proximity to Ust Ishim may reduce under Chimp outgroup stats. f4(X, K14; Ust Ishim, Chimpanzee) may show an even more compressed pattern among ancient West Eurasians which already does not that clearly distinguish in theory Basal Eurasian rich populations!

Ust Ishim was the means to keep the Basal Eurasian concept after K14 sample demonstrated extensive geneflow found between later European HG and some ghost populations that branched off from ENA slightly later. We don't really have a means of estimating it without Ust Ishim. So if f4(X, K14; Ust Ishim, Chimpanzee) doesn't find differences among ancients, that's going to be a clear problem.

It may push us to models where, instead of a "Basal Eurasian" that's basal to ENA+"West Eurasian" divergence, prior to Ust Ishim, we're talking about a Basal Eurasian that splits off after UI, and maybe even after ENA+"West Eurasian" divergence.

(@Diego, just for info, sorry, this is just an extended riff on my previous comment. I'm a bit skeptical on your ability to understand ancient autosomal dna given your previous comments on the subject, so I'm going to refrain from engaging with you on that here. I don't think it would be useful for either of us.)

Leron said...

Basal Eurasian is theoretical but it’s obviously something that once existed, this is why researchers keep using it. Let’s not believe in conspiracy theories that say Basal doesn’t exist.

Leron said...

@Diego

The seafaring aspect has been often overlooked. CHG didn’t need to travel across all of Europe if they had the Mediterranean at their disposal.

I suggest you take a look at page 7

brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/maritimearchaeology11/files/18306900.pdf

Drago said...

On the graphic Matt shared, if a Dzudzuana-like populations existed across the latter phase of the UP in north -Western Asia, then after the LGM the Caucasus shifts toward Iran, whilst Anatolia is Natufian shifted (& would like to see where Pinarbasi sits).

El Miron lies on a cline with Dzudzuana, but in an opposite direction to the shift Dzdz.-> “CHG”, confirming an older timeframe -(although El Miron and the earliest Ck-CHG are broadly contemporary.).
WHG & Villabruna sit on a cline b/w E.M. & Afontova.
EHG are here indeed basally-shifted from the ANE-WHG cline

JuanRivera said...

From what I remember about my last Sidelkino model, Sidelkino had ~33% WHG and ~7% CHG, the rest being ANE. Later EHG had ~30% WHG and ~3% CHG, with the rest being ANE. Sidelkino is barely any different to later EHG.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski @ JuanRivera

Thanks.

a said...

It will be interesting to see the basal neanderthal tracer dye parsed into Yamna and Maikop.Since we know Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal and Dzudzuana and Dmanisi are close to Progress Eneolithic PG2004.We also have Neanderthal in Villabruna cluster Malta Afonta Gora Vestonice El miron.

Gaska said...

Thank God, I understand perfectly what Lazaridis says

"CHG resembled Near Eastern populations in the possesion of Basal Eurasian"

"Villabruna has been modeled as contributing to both 30 kya Vestonice and 20 kya El Mirón, and it's unlikely that Villabruna sujourned in mainland Europe between 30.000-14.000 years BC-Increased affinity of this cluster to Near Eastern populations"

"ESHG share more alleles with DzDz than with PGNE populations. The European affinity of Neolithic farmers does not reflect admixture into the Near East from Europe, as an Anatolian Neolithic like population (Dzdz) existed in the Near East 26.000 BC"

JuanRivera said...

The reason why EHG and SHG are closer to Dzudzuana than to most post-LGM near eastern populations is because EHG has CHG admixture and passed it to SHG, Ukraine_HG, Romania_HG, Iron_Gates_HG and West_Siberia_N (who may have been a population since the Mesolithic)

Ric Hern said...

All that Dzudzuana could be I think is Y-DNA Haplogroup IJ, basal to Y-DNA Haplogroups I and J. K already left thousands of years earlier than the IJ split it seems...or did Yana also show some Dzudzuana affinity ? If so then it only points to Haplogroup IJK. How does G and H fit into this cause they split much earlier than K...? The time of Dzudzuana seems much to recent for significantly undiluted Basal Eurasian if I understand what they actually mean by Basal....I wonder if Neanderthal admixture sped up the Mutation rates....

JuanRivera said...

As far as we know, the authors of the Dzudzuana and Yana papers did their research independent of one another, plus the authors were completely different ones (Lazaridis and possibly Reich for the Dzudzuana paper, along others, and Sikora, Damgaard and Fu, along others, for the Yana paper). In order to check if there's Dzudzuana admixture in Yana RHS, MA1 and AG3, we'll have to wait for the Dzudzuana and Yana genomes to be released. For Yana, it could be tested both by F3 stats and how are the fits of a K14+Dzudzuana+ENA model compared to a K14+ENA model. For MA1 and AG3 it could be checked both by F3 stats and fits of models of pure Yana, Yana+Dzudzuana, Yana+ENA and Yana+Dzudzuana+ENA.

epoch said...

@Ric Hern

FrankN stated that the Mesolithic North-Pontic Kukrek culture is considered an offspring of Georgian Imereti culture.

Lee said...

@Davidski

I can model most Iberia Bell beakers as most related of Minoan_Lasithi or North Italian Beaker versus anything steppe. Looks to be a continuation of the CHG ancestry expansion seen going across the med versus Steppe/Yamanaya or Corded ware.

So Iberian Bell beakers may have little to do with the corded ware/yamana/central European Bell Beaker populations--genetically speaking.

Many of them look like they could be a mix of Minoan and WHG.

This is true for I0257, I0261, I5665,

I6472 and I6539 may be a mix of Europe_LNBA and Northern Italy Beaker/Minoan

I6626 looks to be a potential Steppe mixed sample


When you take Iberia Bell beaker as a group you can get a decent fit using qpAdm without Steppe--

A straight mix of WHG and Anatolia-BA. tail probability 0.548283
best coefficients: 0.326 0.674
Jackknife mean: 0.328504833 0.671495167
std. errors: 0.071 0.071



A straight mix of Loschbour and Anatolia-BA. tail probability 0.442435
best coefficients: 0.300 0.700
Jackknife mean: 0.300564820 0.699435180
std. errors: 0.069 0.069

or ElMiron and Anatolia-BA: tail probability of 0.561722
best coefficients: 0.233 0.767
Jackknife mean: 0.233206638 0.766793362
std. errors: 0.063 0.063


or ElMiron and Minoan-Lasithi: tail probability of 0.400
best coefficients: 0.182 0.818
Jackknife mean: 0.183795819 0.816204181
std. errors: 0.071 0.071


WHG and Beaker_Northern _Italy gives a very good probability though the error is higher than I want: Probability is 0.967607

best coefficients: 0.150 0.850
Jackknife mean: 0.156469115 0.843530885
std. errors: 0.100 0.100

Elmiron can substitute for WHG though it changes the percentage of WHG to 0.086



Beaker_Sicily and Beaker_Southern France are infeasible

Beaker Britain has a low probability of 0.055



If you go less proximal in dates and add a three way mix:
I can get Loschbour, CHG and Anatolian_N to fit with a 0.22459 probability.

best coefficients: 0.297 0.212 0.492
Jackknife mean: 0.294341622 0.210319783 0.495338595
std. errors: 0.053 0.065 0.084


EHG can be substituted in for CHG but probability drops and Error goes WAY up--so unlikely

So--No steppe really needed for Iberia Bell beaker-Minoan_L to Northern Italian Beaker to Iberia---> again looks like a southern spread of CHG independent or coincident with Yamanaya to central europe

Lee











Gabriel said...

@Aram

Is the E founder effect in the Balkans related to the steppe expansions, even if a side effect?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Leorn,
"Basal Eurasian is theoretical but it’s obviously something that once existed, this is why researchers keep using it. Let’s not believe in conspiracy theories that say Basal doesn’t exist."

Yep. The idea of ANE used to be questionable. Now, we know ANE was a very real thing & that nearly pure ANE continued to exist in northern Asia till as late as 2000bc.

Gaska said...

@Leron

Thanks Leron, in Spain have found drawings of boats dated in the Neolithic that demonstrate the possibility of Mediterranean connections around 6,000 BC (which coincides with your page 7). I send you the link if you're interested (it's in Spanish).

https://rodin.uca.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10498/14769/EMBARCACIONES%20IBERAS%20de%20LAJA%20ALTA03.pdf?sequence=1

Ric Hern said...

@ epoch

I really can not say how he came to that conclusion. According to the papers I read Kukrek looks minimal influence from the Caucasus and more from the Northwest Pontic Steppe...But maybe Kukrek recieved some influence from the Kammenaya Balkovsky Culture who preceded them...Some connect Vasilievka with Kukrek and if I remember correctly the Y-DNA shows I2a in that area....?

a said...

Ric Hern said...
".............The time of Dzudzuana seems much to recent for significantly undiluted Basal Eurasian if I understand what they actually mean by Basal....I wonder if Neanderthal admixture sped up the Mutation rates..."
Interesting ideas, I wonder if it shows up in Yamnaya or Maykop?. We need some Iranian and Natufian Neanderthal figures to compare with CHG and European Neanderthal.
Some tracer dye Neanderthal stats---- Extended Data Table 2: Estimated proportion of Neanderthal ancestry
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993/tables/2
Extended data on Neanderthal genes
Malata[24305BP]-1 2.9%
Afonta Gora2/3[16710BP] 2.2%-3%
Villabruna[13980BP] 2.7%
Satsurblia[13255BP] 1.5%
Kotias [9720BPBP]1.8%
English 1.5%
Sardinian 1.2%

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993/tables/2

Article | Published: 02 May 2016

The genetic history of Ice Age Europe
Qiaomei Fu, Cosimo Posth[…]David Reich
Nature volume 534, pages 200–205 (09 June 2016) | Download Citation

Davidski said...

@a

From this point on, I will delete all of your comments that refer or allude to Neanderthals.

You have been warned.

George said...

This lecture by D. Reich posted Dec 2018 describing his group's work and others is worth viewing again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=990052wQywM

Iberia is discussed at 49 minutes into the presentation.

Cy Tolliver said...

@ Them meee

"Is the E founder effect in the Balkans related to the steppe expansions, even if a side effect?"

Definitely. Balkan E is overwhelmingly E-V13, which as someone above mentioned earlier coalesced around 4,500 years ago and then rapidly diversified into several various branches. Of all the Neolithic samples we have from both the Balkans and Anatolia (and we have a lot), only a small handful were found to be E, the great bulk of early farmer Y-DNA was G2a followed distantly by I2a, and the rest a hodge podge of T1a, H2, C1a2, and a smattering of E.

IMO, the current distribution of E-V13 in Europe has to be tied to the Indo-European expansion. One of the few European Neolithic E samples was from I think Hungary, and I believe when early Yamnaya groups began expanding into the Pannonian plain, they must have absorbed an early tribe of E-V13 folk they found there, who became assimilated into their new Indo-European milieu and colonized the rest of Europe right along with R1b and R1a.

Gaska said...

@George- "Iberia is discussed at 49 minutes into the presentation"

Even if you do not believe it, it's 49 minutes lost because few things that Reich says make sense. Before or after he will have to rectify. Everything is more complicated and at the same time simpler than the famous theory of steppe invasions. He would have to come to Spain with Olalde to explain his theories. If it were convincing we would accept it without problems.

Gabriel said...

@Cy Tolliver

Corded Ware is unlikely to be from Hungarian Yamnaya anyway. Your explanation makes sense for the Balkans, but not much of the rest of Europe.

a said...

Nice paper on research gate, pottery with dates!-Sphere of influence pointing to autochthonous development--
"Conclusion-

........Samara and Khvalynsk cultures, on the one hand,and the early (Repin) stage of the Yamnaya culture,on the other, made it possible to show continuity in the production of pottery from the Eneolithic period to the Early Bronze Age, which means that an autochthonous line of development prevailed in the region. The studies were supported by radiocarbondates......"

How does it compare to Maykop style of pottery?




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287799741_Pottery_from_the_Volga_area_in_the_Samara_and_South_Urals_region_from_Eneolithic_to_Early_Bronze_Age

Cy Tolliver said...

@Matt

"It may push us to models where, instead of a "Basal Eurasian" that's basal to ENA+"West Eurasian" divergence, prior to Ust Ishim, we're talking about a Basal Eurasian that splits off after UI, and maybe even after ENA+"West Eurasian" divergence."

Assuming this model is correct (and I realize you're just theorizing at this stage), then we should stop referring to this as "Basal" Eurasian, right? BE is supposed to split off from the main Eurasian stem before the divergence of "Crown" Eurasians into West and East Eurasians. It doesn't share more derived alleles with either one of West or East Eurasians over the other, but shares more with both of them than it does with SSA (at least that's what I've read, but I'm not sure how exactly that's being quantified). The scenario you outline would essentially entail Ust-Ishm is the actual "Basal" population, and indicate a trifurcation under the Crown Eurasian node of ENA, West Eurasian, and what we currently call "Basal".

It's definitely an interesting thought, and (assuming I'm understanding you correctly) it dovetails a bit with some of my own intuitions. I personally suspect that there's not really such a neat bifurcation between West and East Eurasians, I think if we're ever lucky enough to get aDNA from the Middle-East and Central Asia between 50,000 - 70,000 years ago we'd see signs of bidirectional gene flow between the antecedents of what we now think of as structured West and East Eurasians. Hopefully we get some aDNA some day to sort it all out.

Davidski said...

@Cy Tolliver

One of the few European Neolithic E samples was from I think Hungary, and I believe when early Yamnaya groups began expanding into the Pannonian plain, they must have absorbed an early tribe of E-V13 folk they found there, who became assimilated into their new Indo-European milieu and colonized the rest of Europe right along with R1b and R1a.

Overall, this is rather unlikely. See here...

Hungarian Yamnaya predictions

Andrzejewski said...

@Cy Tolliver "Definitely. Balkan E is overwhelmingly E-V13, which as someone above mentioned earlier coalesced around 4,500 years ago and then rapidly diversified into several various branches. Of all the Neolithic samples we have from both the Balkans and Anatolia (and we have a lot), only a small handful were found to be E, the great bulk of early farmer Y-DNA was G2a followed distantly by I2a, and the rest a hodgepodge of T1a, H2, C1a2, and a smattering of E."

E was Natufian, spread along with the Anatolia Farmers, and the C1a2 and I2a were mostly Villabruna cluster forager WHG marker.

Gabriel said...

@Davidski

Do you think there was an E1b1b founder effect in the Balkans caused by Yamnaya or KMK expansions into the Balkans, either due to them carrying the marker, assimilating it or social causes triggering a founder effect somehow?

Cy Tolliver said...

@Davidski

Good stuff. Hungarian Yamnaya groups may not have been the direct vectors E-V13 throughout northern and western Europe. But the thrust of my point still stands, the distribution of E-V13 in Europe is not a direct legacy of the Neolithic and is going wind up being tied to the spread of IE in one way or another. There's no other explanation given its age, wide distribution, and frequency.

Drago said...

There’s still much to learn
Who says R1a or R1b were “the original PIHs”?
Well many people do here, but that doesn’t mean it’s valid
EV13 could have expanded after CWC; with the Bronze Age elites . It’s expansion really doesn’t match with R1b or R1a; so the idea they were passive tag-alongs is a rather R1-centric view

JuanRivera said...

Actually, models choose CWC_Germany over Minoans when it comes to Southern Beakers. So do modern Iberians, Southern French and Italians.

JuanRivera said...

Especially G25 nMontes, where one gets fits of ~2% or less with it

JuanRivera said...

I wonder if leftover ANE last survived in arctic islands. There are human remains in the New Siberian islands, possible stone tools in Svalbard (although very unlikely) and some evidence of human inhabitation in Wrangel Island. And Novaya Zemlya, Severnaya Zemlya, Franz Josef Land and other arctic islands have possibilities of having been occupied by people.

JuanRivera said...

May be useful to test the Zhokhov remains.

JuanRivera said...

If really inhabited, the leftover ANE population in them may have holded out until at least 50 AD. Just speculation, though.

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera Where did the Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic people come from? All of the sudden they made an abrupt emergence into the world's stage in areas that traditionally used to be purely ANE (Baikal - Altai Mountains - Mongolia): Okunevo, Cimmerians, (some) Saka, Xiongnu/Huns, Jie.

JuanRivera said...

By the time those people appeared, those regions were primarily East Asian-like. For example, Shamanka_N and Lokomotiv_N.

Andrzejewski said...

Yep. It appears like those "Altaic" speakers (="NeoSiberians") originated in the proximate of the location where ANE did 25,000 years before.

Gaska said...

EV13 is a marker clearly related to the first Neolithic farmers. In Iberia we have a sample in Avellaner Cave (Catalonia). 5.167 BC related to the Cardial Culture. The other five men found in the cave were G2a. H is also a marker related to neolithic migrations, I remember at least two samples, one in Portugal and the other in Spain.

I2a, C1a2, R1b are lineages of European hunter-gatherers

By the way, although Reich says that the men of the Iberian chalcolithic were exterminated by the invaders, 3-4% of Spanish men are currently EV13 and another 4.5% G2a. C1a2 and H do not exist in Spain at present.

JuanRivera said...

Actually, R1b was shared between all three primary populations in Europe, though steppe had more variety. Minimizing the impact of steppe people isn't a good idea. Also, C1a2 and H2 are still present in modern Iberians. Overall, your ideas seem straight out of Molgen.

Gaska said...


@Juan rivera

Lee has already explained that Iberian BBs can be perfectly modeled without having to resort to steppe ancestry. In fact, all comparisons are made between Anatolia Neolithic (or other Early Neolithic) and Yamnaya or Corded Ware. Chalcolithic is not used nor, the hunter gatherer populations or anything related. This means that everything will be much-more Yamna-like than it should. Spaniards have to look for other alternatives because what Olalde has explained is not convincing.

He also ruled out Iberian migrations when Desideri has shown years ago that the central European BBs (Switzerland) come from the Mediterranean and when the coincidence of mitochondrial haplogroups in some European BB regions is more than evident.

JuanRivera said...

And, while Q1a is extremely rare in Iberia, there's an exclusively Iberian clade of Q1a, whose closest relatives are western and central european. That clade is Q-BY61803.

JuanRivera said...

F3 stats and G25 nMonte show genuine steppe ancestry, and a combination of WHG, ANF and CHG can't replace it. Steppe people didn't get replaced, instead, more and more data shows that Europeans have clear steppe ancestry. Also, to say that Europeans don't have steppe ancestry but Iranians, Central Asians and South Asians do have it is a huge double standard.

JuanRivera said...

Actually, it's well established that europeans (except some Sardinians) have steppe ancestry. Why not try to do your own nMonte runs?

Gaska said...

@Juan rivera- "Minimizing the impact of steppe people isn't a good idea. Also, C1a2 and H2 are still present in modern Iberians. Overall, your ideas seem straight out of Molgen"

Why? we are only looking for the truth, we know our prehistory and our genetics and nobody is going to tell us how to interpret it. If you are obsessed with the steppes, it is your problem. I do not know who my ideas are like, you look like a fan of Harvard, Reich and the steppe invasions, it's also your problem, they are prestigious scientists but nobody is infallible and in this case, do not doubt that they will end up rectifying.

@Juan "And, while Q1a is extremely rare in Iberia, there's an exclusively Iberian clade of Q1a, whose closest relatives are western and central european. That clade is Q-BY61803"

Do you know the antiquity of that clade in the Iberian peninsula? You know that in Spain there were more population movements in the Iron Age, right? In addition, I suppose you have heard about the Romans, Goths, Swabians, Alans, and Franks, right?

@ Juan "Actually, it's well established that europeans (except some Sardinians) have steppe ancestry. Why not try to do your own nMonte runs?"

The percentage of steppe ancestry in the Basques and Spaniards in general is very small. It does not agree with the absolute majority of men r1bP312. Have you thought about the possibility that this ancestry would enter Iberia in different ways and at different historical moments? Your theory of the CWC men who joined the BBC does not make any sense. Think a bit about it, if you knew the Iberian chalcolithic you would realize that it is absurd.You can say what you want about Spain and our Prehistory but you are not an expert and I do not think we should accept your opinions without discussing them.

I know my autosomal components and the only thing that surprises me is my high percentage of Germanic blood. That does not agree well with the history of the Basques, I suppose it will come through my mother's line.

The genetics is wonderful, when I was a kid at school, Father Zumalacarregui explained to us that Basques with blue eyes, were not authentic Basques but descendants of Vikings. It's a shame that he has not seen the advances in genetics.



old europe said...


@juanrivera

the farmers genetic signal in Maykop-Novosbodnaya, steppe Maykop and eneolithic caucasus comes from the EEF or directly from Anatolian farmers ( in case they are distinguishable)?

EastPole said...

Swedish movie about history (in Swedish).
At 2:50 Yamnaya is coming to Europe and spreading:

https://i.postimg.cc/N0ZcZZFX/screenshot-479.png

https://i.postimg.cc/N0BTmPB1/screenshot-480.png

https://www.svtplay.se/video/21181999/de-forsta-svenskarna/de-forsta-svenskarna-sasong-1-avsnitt-2?start=auto

I don’t know the language and can’t comment.

Gaska said...

@ juan rivera-"Minimizing the impact of steppe people isn't a good idea"

Maybe you would change your mind if you had studied the Olalde data carefully. In the period between 2,700 and 2,100, he studied 93 cases of men related to the BB culture throughout Europe. Do you know what is the result of studying their mitochondrial haplogroups?

Mit-Hap- H-33 samples-35,48%- (Mit-Hap H/H1-18 samples-19,35%)
Mit-Hap V- 2 samples-2,15%
Mit-Hap- U5b/U5a/U4- 14 samples- 15,05%

Total mitochondrial haplogroups related to hunter-gatherers in Western Europe-52,68%

You know how many of these haplogroups have been documented in the steppes or in the CWC?
5 samples 1 (H6a), 1 (H6a1a), 1 (H6a1b) 1 (U5a1/a1), 1 (U5b2/b1)- 5,37%

Mit-Haps related to Neolithic farmers-

Mit-Hap-k-16 samples-17,20%
Mit-Hap T2b, T1a- 9 samples-9,68%
Mit-Hap-J-8 samples- 8,60%
Mit-Hap-X-5 samples- 5,37%
Mit-Hap-I- 4 samples- 4,30%
Mit-HAp-W- 2 samples-2,15%

You know how many of these haplogroups have been documented in the steppes or in the CWC?
5 samples - 3 (X2b4), 1 (T1a1), 1 (W3a1)-5,37%

Then the total contribution of the steppes and/or CWC to the BB culture with respect to women is- 10,74%. And most of them do not come from Yamnaya directly, but from the contact areas between CWC and BBC, especially south of Germany and the Czech Republic.

Does it still seem a bad idea to minimize the impact of the steppes in Western Europe?

If you are interested I can give you the data of the repetition of mitochondrial haplogroups in Iberia and the rest of the BB regions. Surely you changed your mind quickly.

In the south of France, Italy, Portugal and Spain, these haplogroups related to the CWC have never been documented. What's your opinion about it?


Gaska said...

@Juan

Someone may have some doubt regarding the attribution of H/H1/V haplogroups to hunter-gatherers. This is what we know.

Mit-Hap-V
Iberia-Els Trocs, Bisaurri, Aragón-I0413-5.188 BC/ Portugal, Neolíthic-5.125 BC
France- Burgundy, Paris Basin, Neolithic-5,018 BC / Alsace, Obernai-4,661 BC

Mit-Hap-H1
Iberia-Els Trocs-Troc8-5.188 BC/Alto de Rodilla-Rodi1-5.140 BC/El Prado, Pancorbo, Burgos, Neolithic- 5.123 BC
France-
France, Burgundy, Paris Basin, Neolithic-5,018 BC / Gurgy-4,839 BC / Gurgy-4,625 BC / Alsace, Culture of Michelsberg, Neolithic-3,950 BC /

Mit-H
Iberia- Cantabria, Pasiega Cave, Puente Viesgo, Magdalenian-15.970 BC/Cantabria, EL Mirón Cave, Ramales de la Victoria- Magdalenian-13.000 BC /Portugal, Estuario del rio Sado, Mesolíthic-8.500 BC/Linatzeta Cave, Lastur, Deba, Guipúzcoa, Mesolíthic-6.165 BC

Of course, they do not look like steppe markers. Truth?


Gaska said...


@juan

I hope you do not intend to make us believe that we Spaniards have steppe ancestry thanks to CWC/steppe women. And what about men? This whole steppe affair really started with Haak in 2015-And you know how he got his conclusions?

Haak et al, (2.015)- "I0410-Troc3- R1b1* (R1b-L754 x M269)- DNA Mitocondrial- T2c1/d. Y derived SNP-M415. “We determined that this individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (M415:9170545C→A), with upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, the individual was ancestral for R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C), R1b1a2 (PF6399:2668456C→T, L265:8149348A→G, L150.1:10008791C→T and M269:22739367T→C), R1b1c2 (V35:6812012T→A), and R1b1c3 (V69:18099054C→T), and could thus be designated R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1c2, R1b1c3). The occurrence of a basal form of haplogroup R1b1 in both Western Europe and R1b1a in Eastern Europe (I0124 hunter-gatherer from Samara) complicates the interpretation of the origin of this lineage. We are not aware of any other western European R1b lineages reported in the literature before the Bell Beaker period (ref. 2 and this study). It is possible that either (i) the Early Neolithic Spanish individual was a descendant of a Neolithic migrant from the Near East that introduced this lineage to western Europe, or (ii) there was a very sparse distribution of haplogroup R1b in European hunter-gatherers and early farmers, so the lack of its detection in the published literature may reflect its occurrence at very low frequency. The occurrence of a basal form of R1b1 in Western Europe logically raises the possibility that present day Western Europeans (who belong predominantly to haplogroup R1b1a2-M269) may trace their origin to early Neolithic farmers of Western Europe. However, we think this is not likely given the existence of R1b1a2-M269 not only in Western Europe but also in the Near East; such a distribution implies migrations of M269 males from Western Europe to the Near East which do not seem archaeologically plausible. We prefer the explanation that R-M269 originated in the eastern end of its distribution, given its first appearance in the Yamnaya males (below) and in the Near East.


Does not this conclusion seem a little hasty without having studied deeply the subclades of R1b to which these individuals belonged?

Drago said...

@ Davidski
What’s your view on the slightly elevated ANE in Progress & Vonuchka cf Khvalynsk ?

Mem said...

C1a2 also found in Anatolian Neolithic and Mesolithic.

Mem said...

There is not "altaic" speakers.This theory debunked years ago.

Davidski said...

@Dragos

That southernmost part of the steppe seems like it was a cul de sac with all sorts of diversity and weird stuff.

The elevated ANE in the Eneolithic Piedmont steppe group is nowhere near as bizarre as the genetic structure of Steppe Maykop.

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera "Actually, it's well established that europeans (except some Sardinians) have steppe ancestry. Why not try to do your own nMonte runs?"

Actually, even Sardinians have a minimal amount of Steppe Kurgan ancestry, to the tune of 5% - 10%. It's minor but existent.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski According to Yamnaya entry in Wikipedia the ANE ratio in this population was on average 50%, because of ANE-rich EHG and also ANE-rich CHG. We now know that up to 15% of Yamnaya was a WHG-rich EEF component from GAC and Cucuteni Tripolye. So the "50% ratio" of ANE in Yamnaya seems much more elevated and exaggerated than in reality, right? I would give it perhaps 30%-35% the most.

JuanRivera said...

Q-BY61803 arose ~700 years ago in Iberia. Upstream SNP has a coalescence age of ~4,700 years ago, making it plausibly steppe. A component absolutely absent before steppe migrations is West_Siberia_N. With all methods used to check ancestry (qpAdm, qpGraph, F3 statistics and G25 nMonte), steppe ancestry invariably pops up. Also, I asked you about steppe ancestry in Asia.

JuanRivera said...

By the way autosomal DNA is way different than Y-DNA and mtDNA.

JuanRivera said...

Whole H or V aren't steppe markers. Instead, several subclades are. Also, there's W, which is also mostly steppe when it comes to Europe. Somewhat unrelated, but to this day, the steppe hypothesis is the strongest explaination of the origins of IE peoples. And genomes all over the IE range show steppe ancestry from ~12% to ~50% (with the exception of Sardinia, which has only ~5%, and which was only recently IE-ized), plus contribution of some uniparentals.

Andrzejewski said...

MtDNA W is specifically a CHG one, which is part of the Steppe package

JuanRivera said...

I know.

Grey said...

@Phillipe
"Apparently around 5500 BC the Black Sea was a lake (substantially smaller than it is today) and Europe was directly connected to Anatolia, so movement back and forth would have been much easier."

or maybe harder if the connecting terrain at the time was a massive swamp?

Lee said...

@Juan
I am not familiar with nMonte
I will stay with published software from the Reich lab.

A couple of iberian samples can somewhat align with corded ware. Considering the mobile nature of BB and trading, picking up some other ancestry is expected.

Most of iberians and the northern Italians Bb, based on D stat and qpAdm match, match really well with MinoanL. Better than any steppe group.

Lee

Davidski said...

@Lee Albee

You should definitely try using Global25/nMonte with ancient data because it will help you to interpret the data more accurately.

For instance, you claim that...

A couple of Iberian samples can somewhat align with corded ware. Considering the mobile nature of BB and trading, picking up some other ancestry is expected.

In fact, some Iberian Beakers are best modeled with most of their ancestry coming from the Beakers of The Netherlands, and these Dutch Beakers are very closely related to Corded Ware people.

This is of course because there were large scale population movements from the former Corded Ware (Single Grave) territory in the Lower Rhine region to Iberia during the peak of the Bell Beaker period.

Most of iberians and the northern Italians Bb, based on D stat and qpAdm match, match really well with MinoanL. Better than any steppe group.

But this doesn't contradict the fact that significant steppe ancestry was introduced into Iberia and Italy by Bell Beakers.

The pre-Beaker/early Beaker population in Iberia lacked steppe ancestry, so of course they're going to match Minoans better than any steppe group, because Minoans also lack steppe ancestry.

Some Italian Beakers also lack steppe ancestry or have very low levels of it, because they're descendants of various pre-Beaker Italian populations. And some of these pre-Beaker populations, like in Sicily, may have had ancestry from the Aegean region. So again, this is why you're picking up the Minoan affinity.

But Bell Beakers with steppe ancestry eventually dominated the Beaker networks in both Iberia and Italy.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

At that stage, if I understand things correctly, qpAdm tries "nested models". It excludes a population or two from the left pops and checks if the target can be successfully modelled with less populations than originally intended as a protection against overly complicated models.

Line starting with 0000 is the main model, 0001 is a model with the fourth left pop excluded, 0010 third one excluded and so on. And if they are excluded the percentage of admixture should be zero.

Yet in this run qpAdm assigned admix values to all four left pops in 0000, 0001, and 0010 lines. I've never seen such thing in the output and I hoped that other commenters that use qpAdm frequently will say anything, because to me it looks like you have encountered a bug.

Davidski said...

@Arza

I'm not sure what you're talking about, because in all of the models that I posted the algorithm did check alternative models without each of the left pops.

The left pops that are left out are given coefficients of 0.000 or -0.000.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

The left pops that are left out are given coefficients of 0.000 or -0.000.

Not in this one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vyCM4A5TdFj3EdiMs_hVZ0s2JZJqHydS/view

0001 1 15 37.616 0.00102804 0.281 0.047 0.664 0.008
0010 1 15 38.678 0.000715894 -13.019 6.449 -0.266 7.836 infeasible

Davidski said...

@Arza

I'm not seeing anything unusual there.

The model is too complex, so there are several "infeasible" outcomes as the algorithm is checking for the best solution.

If you ignore those lines marked as infeasible you should otherwise see the normal pattern.

For more technical comments about what this means, you need to get in touch with the authors of the software. But they'll probably tell you that this particular model is, just like I said, way too complex and that's why things are sort of screwing up.

PF said...

@Matt
That’s an interesting PCA of Dzudzuana. As you say it looks like it’s capturing more of the non-Basal portion — its position sort of makes sense in light of comments from Lazaridis (2016) that the HG portion of Anatolians is “more western” than WHG. Looking forward to the final paper/genomes finally being released.

Bernar said...

Hi, this is my first message to the group.

Well, I am one of the Spaniards in the group who are Q. My paternal grandparents are all from the south of Spain, from Andalucia (Seville). I have neither Jewish ancestors nor less Native Americans.

I upload my raw dat to Y-Full, and I am isolated in a new clade (Q-BY106206) or Q-BY61803 in FTDNA. My lineage comes from 700 years ago. There is another person in FTDNA with whom I share the same mutations, lives in USA and the acenstors came from Spain or Portugal.

On the other hand my last name (Soldan) is quite rare in Spain, barely 300 people and the main concentration is in Andalucia. You can find this surname in Romania, Moldavia, Germany, Poland and other places in Central Europa I have always believed that my ancestors came from central Europe and emigrated to Spain although I have never been able to prove this.

Haplogroup Q, as you know is extremely rare in Spain, some presence in the south of Portugal, I think; but nothing more.

Any idea of my origin?
Greetings and forgive for my bad English.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 308 of 308   Newer› Newest»