Y-chromosome haplogroup N is strongly associated with Uralic-speaking populations. That's probably because it was a salient feature of the gene pool of the earliest Uralic speakers, and it went with them as they migrated across northern Eurasia. However, some of its younger subclades appear to have spread with the speakers of Indo-European and Turkic languages.
For instance, N-Y10931 seems to be a marker of the Rurikids, a Varangian dynasty that, according to most sources, ruled the Kievan Rus in what are now Russia and Ukraine. And the Kievan Rus was a lose medieval political federation in which Slavic, Finnic (west Uralic) and Germanic languages were probably spoken. The latest on the genetic genealogy of the Rurikids was presented a couple of days ago at the
Centenary of Human Population Genetics conference in Moscow, and there's an abstract of the talk available
here (download the PDF and scroll down to page 84).
I'm not aware of any Rurikids among the thousands of ancients in my dataset, or even of any samples belonging to N-Y10931. But I do have the genome of someone who belongs to N-Y4339, which, as per the abstract linked to above, is proximally ancestral to N-Y10931. Not only does this person come from Viking Age Scandinavia, but he was buried in a crouched position typical of Slavic funerary customs of the time.
The individual in question is vik_84001. His genome was published recently along with a paper on the population structure of the Swedish town of Sigtuna way back when it was a Viking stronghold (see
here). This is where his Y-chromosome sequence, labeled ERS2540883, is positioned on the YFull Y-chromosome phylogenetic tree. Click on the image to go to YFull.
However, the result is likely to be compromised to some extent by missing data. If so, it's possible that vik_84001 does indeed belong to N-Y10931 and ought to be sitting near or even among that cluster of Russian samples (Rurik descendants?) at the bottom of the page.
In any case, vik_84001 seems to be the closest individual in the ancient DNA record to a Rurikid. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) below is based on my
Global25 data. It features 18 other Viking Age individuals from Sigtuna alongside vik_84001 (look for the black dots). The relevant datasheet is available
here. Interestingly, despite his eastern Y-haplogroup, vik_84001 is one of the few Sigtuna ancients who clusters strongly with present-day Swedes.
But here's what happens when I model his ancestry proportions with the
Global25/nMonte method using a wide range of reference populations from Northern and Eastern Europe. The Swedes in this model are the same as those in the PCA.
vik_84001
Swedish,84.6
Ingrian,9.2
Russian_Tver,6.2
Belarusian,0
Estonian,0
Finnish,0
Finnish_East,0
Karelian,0
Latvian,0
Mordovian,0
Russian_Kostroma,0
Russian_Kursk,0
Russian_Orel,0
Russian_Pinega,0
Russian_Smolensk,0
Russian_Voronez,0
Ukrainian,0
Vepsian,0
[1] "distance%=2.3778"
Yep, despite his position in the PCA, vik_84001 shows a strong signal of ancestry related to the present-day populations of northwestern Russia. I'm not sure what this means exactly, but it's certainly fascinating stuff. And, by the way, I usually wouldn't use so many similar reference populations in a single Global25/nMonte model because of the problem of "overfitting", but in some cases it's OK to do so if the nMonte algorithm has enough recent genetic drift to latch onto.
See also...
More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
Fresh off the sledge
Uralic-specific genome-wide ancestry did make a signifcant impact in the East Baltic
It was always going to be this way
Conan the Barbarian probably belonged to Y-haplogroup R1a
219 comments:
1 – 200 of 219 Newer› Newest»Any other interesting abstracts in this PDF?
https://yadi.sk/i/mm41BA9GTJv-Bw
Ingrians are basically South Karelians and Rus Tver is a mixture of local Russians and Karelian immigrants of the 17th Century. According to Srkz of Russian Mollgen the IBD connections of the sample look like this (first 5 in the list):
Karelian 66,38
Swedish 65,49
Estonian 64,04
Finnish-West 63,38
Finnish-East 63,04
So, besides being clearly Swedish the sample for some reason apparently has some kind of a connection to Uralic speakers (Karelians or later Karelians?) of the Ladoga area. According to Nazarenko, a Russian archeologists (in "Priladoshkaja Chud'", if I recall it right), the rivers connecting Ladoga to Upper Volga area are in some places marked by a mixture of Scandinavian kurgan burials and Houses of Death. It may or may not be related to the autosomal result.
Quoting Pierre Zalloua:
"We show that the
expansion out of Africa to the Neolithic Iran region is most closely aligned with an expansion through
the Arabian Peninsula, and that the path through the Levant was a distinct expansion, through the Sinai
rather than the Gates of Tears, with little alignment with the evolution in the Arabian Peninsula genetics. We further suggest that the Levant differentiated from Arabia and Yemen before exiting Africa.
The Neolithic Anatolian and Natufian populations appear to be the basal populations for the Neolithic
Levant. F4 statistic results show some levels of correlation between Iran and the Levant suggesting
that the Neolithic Levant was subsequently admixed with the Neolithic Iranian population yielding the
modern Levant."
An interesting prospective: it explains why Levant_N and Anatolia_N are distinct but close populations on the PCA and why Neolithic Farmers and Biblical Semites have had lots of genes in common. I'm surprised however that Arabian peninsula dwellers have less in common with their fellow (Western) Semitic speakers than with Iran_N. Quick question: didn't Iran_N (if indeed a related group to CHG) admix with both Levant_N and Anatolia_N before ANF spread to Europe?
Allesando Raveane: " Italian genomes captured several ancient signatures, including
a non-steppe related substantial ancestry contribution ultimately from the Caucasus."
That's what I suspected all along: that post-Minoan Greeks plus some Italians (Etruscans?) bear a significant non-Steppe CHG component.
Pavel Flegontov:
"We also detected gene flows correlating with signals
of linguistic relatedness in the following pairs of peoples and language families: Chukotko-Kamchatkan
and Nivkh, Burusho and Yeniseian, Na-Dene and Yeniseian."
Burusho and Yeniseian - Burusho are rich in WSHG. Could it be that the Botai descendants (overwhelming majority of 90% ANE) were somewhat displaced by Sintashta and moved to Northern India? (Yeniseian are >90% ANE too).
@Davidski "However, I do have the genome of someone who belongs to N-Y4339, which, as per the abstract linked to above, is proximally ancestral to N-Y10931. Not only does this person come from Viking Age Scandinavia, but he was buried in a crouched position typical of Slavic funerary customs of the time."
If I recall correctly, Yamnaya were buried in an EXACT manner. Was it termed "the supine position"? If so, then we have an attested continuity in funerary manners on the Steppe.
I was wondering as well why the Rurikids who came from Sweden would have a decidedly Finno-Ugric Y-DNA marker for months.
This one:
https://ibb.co/CVSCm16
1. Kurgans
2. Houses of Death
G25 models with just ancient sources are worse for this sample when it comes to distances. However the sources themselves are less surprising:
"distance%=3.598"
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_84001
SWE_IA,81.2
Baltic_EST_BA,9.6
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2,9.2
RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov,0
RUS_Mezhovskaya,0
RUS_Ust_Ida_EBA,0
With a N1c1 early Tarand sample added
"distance%=3.4244"
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_84001
SWE_IA,79.4
Baltic_EST_IA:0LS10,17
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2,3.6
Baltic_EST_BA,0
RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov,0
RUS_Mezhovskaya,0
RUS_Ust_Ida_EBA,0
Traces of Steppe Maykop ancestry?
Gurianov Vladimir:
"The presence of the haplogroup Q in the North Caucasian populations has long been recorded in a number of studies. Thus,
in the article Balanovsky et al., 2011, a 1525 samples was published, including 21 samples identified as belonging to the haplogroup Q.
Due to the low frequencies of representation in these populations, the haplogroup Q did not fall into the focus of researchers.
At the same time, the identification of individual subclades of the haplogroup Q and the comprehensive analysis of these data,
taking into account the historical, geographical and anthropological context, is important not only for genealogical purposes, but
also for clarifying the ethnogenesis features of the peoples of the North Caucasus and their individual subethnic groups.
In the course of the study, the affiliation to individual subclades of the largest clusters of Q haplogroup in Chechens (Q-Y4055)
and in Balkarians (Q-BZ640) was identified. For these purposes, data from open research projects implemented within the framework of “civil science” for genealogical and local history purposes were used. These data (57 samples) were analyzed taking into
account known studies in the field of population genetics of the North Caucasus, as well as studies of paleo DNA."
Zhaneta: "The Ubykh gene pool was studied for the first time. Unique sample (N = 36) mainly included DNA of the Turkish Ubykh representatives. The analysis based on a wide panel of Y-chromosome markers (59 SNP and 17 STR markers) revealed two main
Y-haplogroups: G2 (75% of the gene pool), which is characteristic for the Abkhaz-Adyg peoples, and R1a (19% of the Ubykh gene
pool)."
__________________________
Uniparental markers confirm that at least on their paternal side Northwest Caucasus language speakers may have been EEF/ANF rather than CHG. Could it be that NWC language family came from Anatolia, just like the one of LBK?
There seems to be a lot of linguists from Moscow school of linguistics on that conference. Which is not surprizing. Also, the Khazar abstract(page 48) looks suspicious. Let's hope it'a good work and not Elhaik's BS.
Volkov Vladimir hits the nail on the head by confirming the historical and literary accounts: "A separate issue for consideration is the genetic origin of the whole group of Rurikid N-Y10931, i.e. connection to a common
ancestor of this group with certain geographic regions. The genetic lineage of N-Y10931 is derived from the subclade N-Y4339,
and distrubition of this subclade is primarily found in Sweden (52%) followed by Finland (14%) Russia (10%), Britain (10%) with a
smaller frequency in Norway (5%) and Ukraine (5%).
The phylogenetic tree convincingly shows that the origin of the lineage N-Y4339 is in the territory of Sweden, and that the closest to Rurikid are the representatives of the lineage N-Y85136, whose ancestors lived in the Uppsala region of Sweden.
In general, the genetic data indicates that the most likely region of residence of the closest paternal ancestors of Rurik to be in
the territory of Sweden.
Thus, the genetic data fully confirms the historical accounts of the early Russian chronicles about the Scandinavian origin of
Rurik."
_______________________
Except for the curiosity that essentially this N1C1 subclade is quite an outlier in Sweden and other Germanic countries. Could it be that Rurik's (="Yuri" in Russian?) has an Iron Age Siberian ancestry?
I would highly recommend: Korennaya Alla -
"The role of genetics in the study of the history of Indo-Europeans since the Paleolithic" (p. 75/90)
@Andrzejewski
I would highly recommend: Korennaya Alla - "The role of genetics in the study of the history of Indo-Europeans since the Paleolithic" (p. 75/90)
Looks like nonsense.
You should be more discerning and try to understand and even analyze the data that are available, otherwise you'll be easily duped.
IIRC there was a sample from this study that looked even more "Finnic" than 84001. Some later samples from Sigtuna seem to be recent migrants of differing origin.
This small amount of Finnic admixture and N-L550 lineages in the Viking age could be a remnant of the Tarand graves people in eastern Sweden during the IA, not nessacarily more recent migrants from Finland.
This type of Finnic admixture would be then be diluted more in historical times.
@Anthony Hanken
This type of Finnic admixture would be then be diluted more in historical times.
vik_84001 also has some East Slavic admix, and appears to have been buried according to Slavic customs of the time.
@Davidski
Yes, it seems pretty strange that there was aparently a meltinging pot of cultures and genes in Viking age Malaren.
Rurik was born before 84001 and N-Y4339 as a whole seems rooted in Sweden.
My guess would be that the eastern European trade networks the Swedish Viking were known for led to an infleunce on their own culture and genes back home.
I'd guess that N-Y4339 came to Sweden in late Bronze Age, with textile ceramics and Akozino type of axes and it first lived in some of those apparently West Uralic type of fortified settlements which have been found in the neighborhood of lake Mälaren. There are not many of them there, but they do seem to exist. The Finnic vibe in the Viking Age samples of Sigtuna may then be explained by the oldest layer of Rus' state, in the areas next to lake Ladoga, related to places such as Staraya Ladoga. Scandinavians BTW did not live next to local Uralic speakers just there. There for instance was a Scandinavian settlement next to old Meryan centre Sarskoe Gorodische, near Rostov in Volga area and archeological material connecting the Meryan area especially to Åland islands in Baltic Sea have been found in Viking Age burials.
P. 24: Martine Robbeets, The genetic profile of Northeast Asia and its archaeolinguistic signature:
" the geneticists in our team have carried out whole genome analyses of 55 ancient northern Chinese individuals covering the Yellow, West Liao and Amur River regions between 5 500 BC and AD 300. They find that the so-called "Amur" gene pool, which represents the genetic profile of prehistoric hunter-gatherers between Baikal and Russian Far East before 5 500 BC, continued in the West Liao and Amur River regions between 5 500 BC and AD 300, with increasing genetic influence of Yellow River populations in West Liao River populations, over time and with the intensification of farming.
The aim of this paper is to examine to what extent these recent advances in ancient genomes align with archaeological and linguistic findings indicating agriculture-driven spread of the Transeurasian language languages in this region. To this end, we will combine evidence for the spread and intensification of millet agriculture in North East Asia with linguistic reconstruction. Situating proto-Transeurasian, the most recent common ancestor Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic and Japonic languages in the West Liao River Basin around 4700 BC (Robbeets & Bouckaert 2018; Robbeets (in press)), we will examine possible traces of ancient contact between proto-Transeurasian and its proto-Sino-Tibetan neighbor, the language ancestral to Chinese, Tibetan, Burmese situated in the Yellow River Region around 4500 BC (Sagart et al. 2019: 5200 BC, Zhang et al. 2019: 3 900 years BC)."
Seems that at least some linguistic bomelands become better identified in time and space, in this case the Transeurasian homeland. Note that the date of ca. 4700 BC relates to the MRCA of Altaic and Korean-Japonic. In a recent paper by the same author, the Mongolic-Turkic split has been dated to ca. 1.800 BC.
Further reading (the latter with brief discussion of aDNA evidence):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326856477_Bayesian_phylolinguistics_reveals_the_internal_structure_of_the_Transeurasian_family
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309762969_Robbeets_Martine_2015_Proto-Transeurasian_where_and_when_Man_in_India_95_921-946
Makes me wonder whether Botai people spoke a now extinct early branch of Transeurasian, or another East Asian language (Yenissean-related?)"
@FrankN
Botai probably spoke an ANE (not "East Asia") language but we don't know if it's close to Yeniseian. The latter is almost pure ANE while Botai is similar to Okunevo and American Indians because it is an admixture of both Ancient North Eurasians and East Asians.
From what I've read it seems like west of Baikal was populated by ANE (MA1) 25,000 years ago and Transbaikal was more related to East Asian populations. Somehow MA1-like population crossed to the other side and admixed with Ulchis-like population (they are a Tungusic population with an identical East Asian component to Native Americans but with no ANE trace). The admixed population became the Botai, Okunevo and other ANE + East Asian admixtures but with various degrees of ancestries. A few years later these Mal'ta Boy + Ulchi admixture became the Beringians and crossed into America to further undergo genetic drift while at the same time populations like Botail and Okunevo in Asia were decimated by Sintashta and Andronovo, respectively.
And Baikal HG started moving west at the expense of ANE groups.
From my second link above:
"Population-based comparisons of mitochondrial DNA find a maternal connection between Mainland Japanese and other Trans-Eurasian populations, especially in the subhaplogroup D4 & D5c, the subhalogroups M8a, C, and Z and the Haplogroup M10 (Kivisild et al. 2002, Tanaka et al. 2004, Gokcumen et al 2008: 286, Dulik et al. 2012). (..)
The Y-chromosonal haplogroup N1 is particularly frequent in the Altai region and to a lesser extent in Manchuria and Korea and marginally in Mainland Japanese, while it is absent in Ainu and Ryukyan. This seems to be a haplogroup that connects the Trans-Eurasian populations (Hammer et al. 2006, Rootsi et al. 2007)."
Could the perceived similarities between Uralic and Altaic (according to academic consensus reflecting language contact rather than a genetic relationship) have to do with DNA N1 finding its way into Uralics?
@Andrzejewski
Yeniseians (Kets) are less related to ANE than Botai and Okunevo, not more. This is also true for populations like Xiongnu for whom an Yeniseian linguistic affiliation has been proposed.
@FrankN
Could the perceived similarities between Uralic and Altaic (according to academic consensus reflecting language contact rather than a genetic relationship) have to do with DNA N1 finding its way into Uralics?
You appear to have an exceedingly piss poor understanding of the structure of N1.
@Shaikorth "Yeniseians (Kets) are less related to ANE than Botai and Okunevo, not more. This is also true for populations like Xiongnu for whom an Yeniseian linguistic affiliation has been proposed."
Would you classify the Botai and Okunevo as particularly close genetically to American Indians (sans the genetic drift, of course)?
@Andrzejewski
Okunevo and Okunevo-like eastern steppe samples like Sholpan perhaps, Botai is much more ANE and a bit WHG-related so it's about as close to northern and eastern Europeans as to Amerindians in terms of haplotype sharing.
Related to "Altaic", Agdzhoyan et al abstract:
"Here we studied the Y-chromosomal and genome-wide autosomal composition of most Altaic speaking populations (including Tungusic, Turkic, and Mongolic language groups) and compared with the detailed lexicostatistic distance matrix and tree. As the haplogroup C accounts for lion’s share of the Y-chromosomal pool of these populations, we sequenced one hundred Y-chromosomes, identified 23 subbranch-es, and genotyped the branch-defined markers in 1,500 samples from across Central Asia. For each branch we constructed the frequency distribution map, calculated its age, and estimated the homeland.This resulted in a comprehensive picture of haplogroup C expansions in space and time. There were two core areas of expansions: eastern and western, with the eastern expansions started a few centuries earlier. This population history drawn from the Y-chromosomes virtually coincides – both in space and time - with the population history reconstructed from the language data.
There was rapid and massive population movement from eastern steppe/Amur basin in 1st millennium AD. This expansion could be divided into two periods:- Tungusic expansion started earlier and included limited assimilation of the substratum groups of Amur basin; - Turkic expansion started later and resulted in spread of languages rather than genes. aDNA hints that initial expansion includes genes, followed by resurgence of the West Eurasian/Uralic ancestry;- on the contrast, Mongolic expansion was demic, spreading Mongolic languages along with genes, with minimal assimilation. Comparing the linguistic and genome-wide distances (Mantel test) confirmed these conclusions, indicating nice correlation for Mongolic speakers, moderate correlation for Tungusic, and negligible correlation for the Turkic speaking populations."
From Flegontov et al:
"We have applied this approach for building a complex graph uniting major Asian lineages. Surprisingly, nearly all those lineages were found on the Bronze and Iron Age steppe, including Tibetan- and Jomon-related sources. We also found a combination of ancestry sources correlating with the Tungusic and Mongolic speakers and detected in ancient Turks. Another ancestry source correlates with Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic speakers. These results support a minority view on the deepest split in the Altaic language macrofamily. We also detected gene flows correlating with signals of linguistic relatedness in the following pairs of peoples and language families: Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Nivkh, Burusho and Yeniseian, Na-Dene and Yeniseian."
Earlier studies have implied relatedness similarity between Ulchi and Jomon so the Tungusic-Japonic signal might be affected by. Koreans weren't that Jomon-related though, we'll see.
@Davidski
Very interesting abstracts.
Luckily these were accessible.
The second last post needed to have an account in the University of Huddersfield Repository.
I tried to create an account but it rejected my effort.
Since the thesis was only available for members of the Repository of the University (for the rest the thesis will be available in 2021!!!) how did you manage to download it?
I am talking about this thesis:
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/34890/
Any help please?
@ Transeurasian
First of all, you should have a look at Carmin et al phylogenetic tree: Supplemental Figures.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/bin/supp_25_4_459__index.html
The age of the expansive branch (C2b1a2a-M77) that spread the Tungusic languages, but probably not only limited to them, is only between 1,735 and 4,030 years according to Karmin et al. The other branch with a deeper age seems to be related to the expansion of the Chukchi-Kamchatkan languages, and in particular to the history of the Koryaks. C2b1a2-M48 is a young Bronze Age branch and it cannot be connected with the Chinese Neolithic (4700 -2900 BC).
Older branches of C2b speak a big variety of paleo-Siberian languages:
71.2% of Nivkhs ((37/52) C3*(xC3c, C3d), Vladimir N. Kharkov))
61.3% of Udegey ((19/31) C3*(xC3c, C3d), Vladimir N. Kharkov)
48% of Koryaks (C3*(xC3c, C3d))
27.3% of Yukaghirs (3/11) (C3*-M217(xM407, M48))
16% of Cheyenne (C-P39)
15.2% of Chukchi (7/46) (C3*(xC3c, C3d) (Vladimir N. Kharkov))
15% of Apache (C-P39)
9.3% of Eskimo (C3)
7.7% of Yukaghirs (1/13) (C-M217(xM48))
5.3% of Sakha Evenks (3/57) (C3*-M217(xM407, M48))
3.1% of Evenks (C3*)
2.2% of Yakuts (C3*) or 3.0% of Yakuts (2/66) (C3*-M217(xM407, M48))
1.5% of Dolgans (1/67) (C3*-M217(xM407, M48))
Tungusic speakers have the lowest percentages of C2b1a2a-(xM77).
This leaves only yDNA N as a Transeurasian marker. However, the Chinese Neolithic N haplotypes did not expand but instead declined. The frequency of N in Korea is 23/506 and 4/157 in Japan, and these figures are only in part N1b-Z4762. Tungusic, Turkic and Mongolic populations carry yDNA N, but they are not N(xN1a, N1c) as the Neolithic Chinese N. Instead, the closest ancestors of their N lines have been found in the Neolithic Baikal, and these Baikal Neolithic samples (7000-5000) are older than Chinese Neolithic samples (5000-6500).
Therefore, there is no yDNA basis for a Transeurasian language family rooted in the Chinese Neolithic.
@Davidski
“And the Kievan Rus was a lose medieval political federation in which Slavic, Finnic (west Uralic) and Germanic languages were probably spoken.”
As a matter of fact when I look at the PCA I don’t see any Germanic influence on Russians or Ukrainians. Quite the opposite. Not only autosomal but also Y-DNA doesn’t show Germanic influence on Eastern Slavs.
So this is a proof that the legend of the "Normannic" (i.e. Norse, rather than Slavic) origin of the Rus is just a BS.
Strong presence of R1a-M458 in the area supports Wendish theory of Rus:
https://i.postimg.cc/66dh4tkC/rurik.png
@EastPole
How many genealogically confirmed descendants of the Rurikids in Russia belong to R1a-M458?
And how do you explain the fact that many of them belong to this clade of N?
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y4339/
most people accept the Swedish origin of the Rus, apart from a few hardliners from Russia.
Tracing their stronghold, we see them moving from east Baltic through the east European river systems to make contat with the Khazars. A faction then made Kiev their stronghold, assimilated with local Slavs, and the rest is history. Norse -style chamber graves are visible along this course. Of course, aDNA from the Kievan Rus will help clarify the details
Dave: "You appear to have an exceedingly piss poor understanding of the structure of N1."
My understanding is that "Japonic-Chinese" N1a1a2-Y23747 has an YFull TMRCA of ca. 6500 ybp, which corresponds neatly to the TMRCA between Korean-Japonic and Altaian that Robeets/Bouckaert 2018 (link above) date to ca. 4700 BC.
Tungusic-specific N1a1a1a1b1-M1993/M1982 formed around 2400 ybp, which aligns well with the Robeets/Bouckaert 2018 dating of the split of Proto-Tungusic into separate languages around 500 BC.
Finally, there is the Uralic, but also Tartaric N1a1a1a1a-L1026/L392 with a TRMCA of 4900 yBP. It includes N-B202 (formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 2600 ybp, 2 attestations from Chukotskaya), and N-F4205 with attestations from Inner Mongolia, Buryatia, Kazakhstan, Usbekistan and Turkey, TMRCA 2500 ybp. Both are apparently Altaic lines.
There is furthermore N1a1a1a1a1c (N3a6 in Illumäe 2016) that seems to be exclusive to Tungusic speakers, especially Nanai (Nenets). I couldn't connect it to the yFull nomenclature. Robeets/Bouckaert 2018 date the split of Tungusic from Proto-Altaic to around 3.000 BC, which corresponds to the age of N3a6 estimated in Illumäe 2016.
That leaves us with "Uralic" N1a1a1a1a1a-VL29, formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 3600 ybp, and N1a1a1a1a2-Z1936TMRCA, formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4300 ybp. The latter also includes N1a1a1a1a2a1c-Y13850, formed 4300 ybp, TMRCA 4200 ybp, so far only attested from Tartarstan, Bashkortistan, Kazakhstan, and the Khanty- Mansi Okrug. Here, the Altaic (Turkic) connection becomes quite obvious IMO.
The bulk of Finnic (Fennoscandian) ancestry belongs to N1a1a1a1a2a-Z1925, formed 3300 ybp, TMRCA 3100 ybp. As to linguistic dating, Robeets/Bouckaert 2018 have Mongolic and Turkic separating around 2000 BC, and proto-Turkic branching off into separate sub-families from ca. 700 BC onwards.
There are certainly some things I don't yet understand fully, especially the way Fennoscandian yDNA N comes to be made up by both N1a1a1a1a1a-VL29 (including N-Y10931 from the thread opener), and N1a1a1a1a2a-Z1925, given that the former appears to be linked to Tungusic and Mongolian, while the latter connects to proto-Turkic (Tartar-Bashkir) line. I'll certainly appreciate if you improve my "piss poor understanding" in this respect.
Illumäe 2016 still stated "N3a3’6 has high frequencies in the patrilineal pools of populations belonging to the Altaic, Uralic, several Indo-European, and Chukotko-Kamchatkan language families. There is no generally agreed, time-resolved linguistic tree that unites these linguistic phyla." I feel that Robeets/Bouckaert 2018 have in the meantime been providing such a tree, with pretty good matches between genetic and linguistic split dates.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-TAT/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5005449/
@FrankN
Y13850 almost certainly represents an Ugric marker that is present in Tatars and Bashkirs due to their local substrates. It's found in modern Hungarians and Chechnya too, but not in eastern Turkic speakers.
The Nanai branch is actually a subclade of CTS10760 and not found in Evens or Evenks, hence likely a local founder effect considering where the rest of the CTS10760 clades are. B202 and F4205 are N-Y6058-subclades with recent MRCA's, likely some more specific founder effects too.
@ Transeurasian
There may indeed be a connection between Uralic and Altaic languages in the form of N(xF2905) but the connection with the Chinese Neolithic is very flimsy.
In Northeast China, N-TAT first appears in Dashanqian (https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-13-216).
Dashanqian, Upper Xiajiadian Culture, 3000 YBP, 1 C, 3 N1c, 1 N, 2 O3-M117, 2 O3-M324
This is what Wikipedia tells us: “The Upper Xiajiadian culture produced inferior ceramic artifacts compared to those of the Lower Xiajiadian culture, although this was compensated by their superior bronze, bone and stone artifacts. The culture is well known for its bronze objects, producing bronze daggers, axes, chisels, arrowheads, knives and helmets. Upper Xiajiadian bronzes were decorated with animal and natural motifs, which suggest possible Scythian affinities and indicate continued cultural contact and exchange across the Eurasian steppes. Upper Xiajiadian culture shows evidence of a drastic shift in lifestyle compared to that of the Lower Xiajiadian culture. The Upper Xiajiadian culture placed less emphasis on permanent structures, preferring to reoccupy Lower Xiajiadian structures or reuse Lower Xiajiadian stones for building Upper Xiajiadian structures. The horse became important to the culture, as evidenced by the remains of horses and horse paraphernalia found at Upper Xiajiadian sites.
I emphasize the words “Scythian affinities” and “horses and horse paraphernalia”. However, this happened only c. 1000 BC and it has nothing to do with Chinese Neolithic.
The Nanai branch could indeed be introduced with Upper Xiajiadian culture.
Even if some Neolithic N1a1a2-Y23747 made its way to Japan early, Yayoi period started only c. 1000 BC which should have sparked the development of the Japonic language, and it is hard to imagine that there was a lot of N among the Yayoi as the frequency of N in Japan is 4/157, and it could for the most part precede the Yayoi period and go to the Jomon times.
Old Korean was spoken in Korea from fourth to tenth centuries CE. I know very little about the Korean language, but according to Wikipedia ”Some linguists had proposed that Old Korean may have been one of the now discredited Altaic languages, although this claim has been controversial and is not accepted by modern linguists.[2] Another theory says that Old Korean is related to the Japonic languages.[3] A lesser known and controversial hypothese propose a relation to the Dravidian languages (see Dravido-Korean).[4]”. In any case, the frequency of N in Koreans, 23/506, does not support a very significant contribution.
I remind you that N1a1a1a1b1-M1993/M1982 is the Yakut line and Yakuts are Turkic speakers, and this line was recently detected in ancient Hungarians which means that the line is older in Hungarians than in Sakha Yakuts who moved to Sakha only during the Middle Ages.
Kris: You may be correct in your scepticism about a NE Chinese homeland of Transeurasian.
From another abstract (p. 39, emphasis is mine):
Elena Lukyanova: Genomic structure of Russian Far East populations
"To study the remarkable genetic structure of the Russian Far East in more detail, we sampled Aleuts, Chukchi, Evenks, Evens, Itelmens, Kamchadals, Koryaks, Nanais, Negidals, Nivkhs, Orochi, Udegeis, Ulchi, and Yakuts. These groups represent the geographic and linguistic diversity of the region where Tungusic, Turkic, Chukotko-Kamchatka, Eskimo-Aleut, and isolated languages are spoken. We genotyped two hundred samples using Illumina microarrays on up to 4 million SNPs. This dataset revealed three highly differentiated genetic clusters - populations from the Amur basin, Beringia, and East Siberia. The genetic differentiation between these clusters is very high (equal to the FST between West Europeans and South Asians).
The tripartite genetic structure has been stable for at least a few millennia. This was directly demonstrated for the Amur cluster by the time transect in the same region spanning from 7 ky BP (Devil’s gate, Boisman culture) to 4 ky BP (Yankovsky culture) and to modern groups.
East Siberians are genetically intermediate between Beringian and Amur basin groups, and also received gene flow from the Neolithic South Siberia. The Beringian populations are genetically very distinct compared to all other Eurasian groups and have a local genetic root at least as deep as the date of Paleo-Eskimo expansion.
The Amur basin groups exhibit higher genetic similarity to Mesolithic Jomon samples from Japan than other modern groups, and likely contributed ancestry to the Jomon."
IOW: The "Amur gene pool" Robeets e.a. suspect as Transeurasian origin is likely related to Jomon (->Ainu?). In fact, Robeets/Bouckaert 2018 Fig.8 points towards a second, indipendent and very ancient contributor to Japonic-Korean that could plausibly relate to assimilated Jomon populations.
I wonder what they mean by "Neolithic South Siberia" influencing on East Siberians. Might well be the Kitoi Culture from Lake Baikal that has provided the earliest yDNA N so far…
I hope we will soon get more NE Asian aDNA to better understand when the South Siberian gene flow occured.
Shaikorth: "Y13850 almost certainly represents an Ugric marker that is present in Tatars and Bashkirs due to their local substrates."
But note Herodotus' description of the Argippaeans that are generally believed to represent Turkics or Mongolians in the S. Urals: "As far as the country of these Scythians the whole land which has been described is level plain and has a deep soil; but after this point it is stony and rugged. Then when one has passed through a great extent of this rugged country, there dwell in the skirts of lofty mountains men who are said to be all bald-headed from their birth, male and female equally, and who have flat noses and large chins and speak a language of their own."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argippaeans
As such, Turkics may have been present in Bashkortistan since the IA, replacing and/or admixing with proto-Uralics (Mezhovskaya Culture). We'll need more LBA/IA aDNA from that area to figure out when and from where Y13850 arrived there (pre-Mezhovskaya-Srubna/Sintashta apparently didn't have it).
There was this tweet from the ISBA conference.
https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/1042427030455967746
Apparently we have Neolithic
(7430-7320 ybp) N1b1 from Northeast China. This is likely N-M178 but possibly N-CTS582 depending on the nomenclature being used.
@FrankN,
As the wiki says that description could refer to Altai. Southern Urals weren't separated from Scythian lands by deserts or dry steppes in Herodotus' time, we could in fact argue Southern Urals were a part of Scythian/Sarmatian lands. We also know the Sarmatians from Southern Urals were quite similar to Mezhovskaya but very distinct from Bashkirs who in any case have a medieval ethnogenesis.
@Anthony Hanken
One possibility: https://www.yfull.com/arch-4.10/tree/N-Y23747/
There's about 55 samples sequenced for the coming Altaic paper which probably uses regular nomenclature.
@Davidski
"And how do you explain the fact that many of them belong to this clade of N?"
There was a discussion about how could this happen, as soon as the results were published. N-Y4339 line goes back to Vladimir II Monomakh. Vladimir Monomakh’s grandmother were the Swedish princess Ingigerd, the daughter of the king Olof Skötkonung. Before marriage for Yaroslav the Wise, in 1015, after Olaf II of Norway assumed the throne as King of Norway, he proposed a royal marriage alliance. In 1016, noblemen of both countries tried to arrange a marriage between King Olaf and Princess Ingegerd. Olof Skötkonung agreed at first but later he reneged. In Eymund’s Saga: "for King Olaf was held in high
respect by all men of honour while he was in Russia, though by
no one more than Earl Rognvald and Queen Ingigerd, between
whom there was a secret love affair". Other sagas also speak about love of Ingegerd to Olof. In 1027, in alliance with Sweden, Olaf attacked Denmark, but was defeated and in 1028 was forced to flee to Sweden and then further to Russia, to Novgorod to Ingigerd. A few months after Olaf left, Ingigerd gave birth to a son, Vsevolod, the descendants of which have N-Y4339.
The earliest tested Rurikid so far, Yaroslav Osmomysl (1135 – 1187) was…E1b-V13
Shaikorth: With "Sarmatians from Southern Urals" you probably mean chy001, chy002, Late Sarmatian, 55 - 220 CE. They are from Tamar-Bulak, S. Orenburg, 110m a.s.l., which I wouldn't really call "Southern Urals", at best piedmont, and date to some 700 years after Herodotus.
Current annual precipitation there is 328 mm, which still qualifies as Steppe climate, albeit the Ryn Desert (which travellers from the Lower Volga to the S. Urals have to cross) isn't too far away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryn_Desert
Available paleoclimatic records, a.o. from Kurgan soils in neighbouring Akbulak district, indicate a hot and dry climate during the early IA (possibly drier than today). Only after ca. 500 BC, it became somewhat more humid.
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/11174/PhD_thesis_Bostonalieva.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
The early IA population of the Altai is now (e.g. Mallory) believed to be represented by Herodotus' Issedones. E.D. Phillip's (1955) location attempts seem to be outdated. South Siberian "Scythian" cemetaries have provided archeological evidence of de-fleshing of deceased as described as the Issedones' practice by Herodotus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issedones
@FrankN
There's no sign of Y-hg N on the western steppe in the Iron Age in any of the ancient data, despite clear links between the populations there and those from around the Altai.
One notable difference from the present is the absence of hg N, nowadays widespread in the Volga-Uralic region and West Siberia as well as among Mongols and Altaians [165-167]; however, this result is consistent with the absence of hg N among Bronze Age and Eneolithic males from the Steppe [168]. In context of their claimed Altaian homeland it is interesting to note that one Scy_Ukr and the single Sar_Cau sample belong to the Q1c-L332 lineage which is a sub-clade of hg Q1c-L330 that today has peak frequency of 68% in Western Mongolians [169] and occurs at 17% in South Altaians [170] while being very rare (<1%) in East European populations and absent elsewhere (https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L330/).
Conan the Barbarian probably belonged to Y-haplogroup R1a
@Draft Dozen
The earliest tested Rurikid so far, Yaroslav Osmomysl (1135 – 1187) was…E1b-V13
Sounds like PCR contamination. Let's wait for some capture/shotgun sequences that can be validated.
@FrankN
Sarmatians from Temyasovo, Bashkorstan, are just like those from Cherniy Yar.
Dave: "There's no sign of Y-hg N on the western steppe in the Iron Age in any of the ancient data"
Exactly! So - where did N1a1a1a1a2a1c-Y13850 hide when his cousin N1a1a1a1a1c (N3a6) was already on the way towards becoming one of the main paternal lines among East Siberian Nanai? And how could CTS10760 and VL29 acquire dominance in Balto-Finnic populations, given that they both are younger than the estimated age of Proto-Uralic, and apparently weren't involved in Uralic - IndoAryan vocabulary exchange. Recent (late IA) founder effects everywhere, but why?
The riddle is far from being solved….
"Uralic" N1 seems to be yet another example, after "Semitic" J1, "IE" R1b (plus Fulani/ Chadic R1b-V88), and Austronesian (Polynesian), that expansion of paternal markers does not neccessarily correspond to linguistic expansion, at least not from the outset. Sometimes, yDNA haplogroups apppear to have jumped on a train that already moved. In that sense, my above comment on N1 as a possible vector of Transeurasian (Altaic) influence on Uralic was possibly somewhat premature ..
@FrankN
N wasn't really hiding.
It was basically confined to the forest and tundra zones north of the steppe, and it eventually expanded with various language groups from these regions during the metal ages, and mostly with the Uralics.
Dave - sounds like a reasonable working hypothesis. Let's wait for aDNA from the regions in question to come in.
What I still wonder about is what made N so late so successful. For Nanai, it might be clan-based structures, maybe also metalurgy. But in the E. Baltics (including Lithuania/ Latvia and also EC Sweden), metalurgy is certainly no explanation, and advanced agriculture probably neither. Control over trade routes (Caspian Sea<->Volga<->Onega Lake<->Baltic/ White Sea)? Which would take us back to your thread opener, namely the Varangian perusal of this and the Dvina-Dniepr route, their at least catalysing function in establishing the Kiev Rus, and Rurikid N1 of apparently Swedish origin ...
Ideally they should do ancient DNA of Rurikovich remains, lots of them. Unfortunately due to financial/political/religious/nonsense reasons it will take a looot of time.
@ Frank
Altaic convergence was triggered during the Iron Age (c. 1000 BC ->) by the Eurasian steppe cultures with horses, wagons and metallurgy. The "Altaic" N clades are part of this development and the core area for their expansion could be in Western Siberia north of Kazakhstan.
Have a look at this paper about Koguryo language spoken in Korea (37 BCE – 668 CE): http://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/KOREAN/Beckwith_Koguryo_The%20language%20of%20Japans%20Continental%20Relatives.pdf
”In 1987, Kôno Rokurô published a brilliant study in which he demonstrates that the linguistic data on the kingdom of Paekche unequivocally supports the indication of the Chinese historical sources that there were two national languages in Paekche. One was the intrusive Puyo-Paekche royal language related to Koguryo, the other the local language related to the Han languages (Kôno 1987), and thus to Silla Korean (Kôno 1987).
Most linguists specializing in the ”Altaic” languages define it as consisting of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic families of languages. To this group, it has also been argued, the Japanese-Koguryoic (“Puyo”) and Korean languages belong by convergence (Kiyose 1998). This theory is much stronger theoretically than the Altaic divergence theory (q.v. Chapter 8) since it is demonstrable that the lexical foundations of the Altaic divergence theory are in fact loanwords — the residue of convergence.
Japanese culture is related to the culture of the Central and South China coast and also the recent linguistic arguments that Old Japanese (like modern Japanese and Middle Korean) is a heavily monosyllablic language with phonemic pitch accents (Sakakura 1993) and should accordingly be lumped together typologically with the languages of South China and Southeast Asia (Kiyose 1997, Janhunen 1997), particularly with certain Tibeto-Burman languages (Beckwith 2002b)."
Since the Neolithic, N males inhabited from north of the Yellow river, to the Liao and Amur rivers. They spoke a proto-Tungus-Nivkh language until the early Bronze Age, when C2 males from western Mongolia or in that general area invaded the eastern Steppe with new horse riding innovations. The proto-Turko-Mongol language then converges with the proto-Tungus to create an “Altaic” adstrate, with proto-Korean as an offshoot near the modern Tungus branch. Then finally in the Iron Age Q males from much further west appear along with some Steppe related tribes to create a large confederacy known as the Xiongnu or eastern Huns. They speak early forms of various languages: Uralic,Tocharian, Iranic, Yenisenian, and a proto form of Turkic. The early Mongols drive them out and as they flee west they end up absorbing a lot of Scythian tribes.
Not an expert, but there is evidence to support intermarraige of noble families from Finnic and Scandinavian lands during the Viking Age. Provided he was noble/ a warrior, it is definitely possible his Y DNA comes from there.
@Davidski
Do you know where in Thailand the Thai samples in Global 25 spreadsheet are from? Im guessing the samples are from either Central Thailand, Western Thailand near Myanmar or Southern Thailand?
Also do you know where in Burma (like region or city) the Burmese samples are from? Also are they Bamar or other ethnicities like Mon or Rakhine? They have less Western Eurasian admixture than the Thais are despite bordering South Asia.
Asking this as the Thais seem to have the most West Eurasian ancestry out of all the SE Asians on the Global 25 spreadsheet. They seem to be Western Eurasian genetically even more than the Burmese:
Comparing the Thai with the Burmese and Cambodian
I use Tajik Yagnobi as the proxy for their West Eurasian ancestry.
Thai: they have around 9% West Eurasian which is the highest among SE Asian populations.
"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 1.3769,
"Dai": 70,
"LAO_LN_BA": 12.5,
"Tajik_Yagnobi": 9.17,
"Simulated_AASI": 8.33,
Burmese: They are more geographically more closer to South Asia than Thais but have less West Eurasian ancestry (only around 7%)
"sample": "Burmese:Average",
"fit": 1.5261,
"Naxi": 65.83,
"LAO_LN_BA": 18.33,
"Simulated_AASI": 9.17,
"Tajik_Yagnobi": 6.67,
Cambodian: they have around 4% West Eurasian ancestry here (using Tajik Yagnobi as proxy for source of admix)
"sample": "Cambodian:Average",
"fit": 1.5174,
"Dai": 55.83,
"LAO_LN_BA": 35.83,
"Simulated_AASI": 4.17,
"Tajik_Yagnobi": 4.17,
So I am wondering where in Thailand (like province or city) the Thai samples in Global 25 spreadsheet are from because they seem pretty Western Eurasian admixed for SE Asians? Also where in Myanmar (region or city) the Burmese samples are from?
Your answers would be greatly appreciated!
@Ramber
I don't have any details about these samples. But the Thai samples are from Harvard's Human Origins dataset...
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/downloadable-genotypes-worlds-published-ancient-dna-data
And the Burmese samples are from this paper...
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/28/2/1013/1220271
@Davidski
Thank you for your answers! I will check them out. Another question I want to ask: are the Batak samples on Global 25 from Indonesia or Philippines?
Out of topic, can you download some more Bonda, Juang, Khonda Dora, Gadaba samples into the Global 25 spreadsheet? I feel there is not enough samples for them.
Also can you download some Khasi and Kharia samples into Global K25 spreadsheet please? I notice there are these groups on Global 10 spreadsheet but not on Global 25.
I will greatly appreciated your help!
@Ramber
The Batak samples are from this paper...
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19792
You'll find more info about the dataset used in that paper here...
http://evolbio.ut.ee/CGgenomes.html
And the Global10 and Global25 are based on different markers, so if there are samples in the Global10 that are missing in the Global25, then that probably means they weren't compatible enough with the Global25 dataset.
Ramber: WE ancestry is probably hiding within the Naxi and the Tajik also have East Asian mixture. I think that’s making it look like Thais are more WE than Burmese.
I find it interesting how many of these medieval polities had atypical origins. Viking Rus ruled over by a Finn. Anglo Saxon Wessex ruled over by a Celtic dynasty. Weren't the Plantagenets a weird haplogroup like G?
Rian: You may add Frankish Samo as first Bohemian king.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samo
I suppose it was often easier for tribal leaders to aggree on an outsider than electing one of their own. Lithuania-Poland was especially (in-)famous in this respect, a/o electing Anjous, Wasas, Wettinians..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Polish_monarchs
I can't wait for @Davidski to publish his Tocharian blog entry :)
Curious about the Yukaghirs and their relations to the Uralic macrolanguage groups. There is some words that are similar but linguists so far have ruled out it being an integral part of the family. Can it be that Yukaghirs are an admixture of Tungus-like/ANE-like population with Samoyeds?
@Ryan
I find it interesting how many of these medieval polities had atypical origins. Viking Rus ruled over by a Finn.
I'm not sure if Rurik can be called a Finn and the Rurikids a Finnic dynasty.
Note that N-Y4339 is by far most common in Sweden, so it might be derived from a Proto-Finnic lineage that moved into Scandinavia during the Iron Age, and quickly became associated with rather typical Scandinavian/Germanic populations.
By the way, does anyone when the results of Piast study will be published?
@Davidski,
I checked the Batak samples and they are from the Philippines rather than Indonesia. But on Poi's Global nmonte runner, they are still labelled as being from Indonesia. Maybe I will have to notify him on that.
Thank you for the explanation!
Also where do you got the Malay and Mongolian (not Mongola) samples from?
@Ramber
If you put the population and individual codes into Google search you should be able to find the sources for most of the samples.
@ D and re:"Note that N-Y4339 is by far most common in Sweden, so it might be derived from a Proto-Finnic lineage that moved into Scandinavia during the Iron Age, and quickly became associated with rather typical Scandinavian/Germanic populations."
This is indeed the most economical explanation, including also late Bronze Age and fex taking into account the clear presence of Scandinavians in places such as Staraya Ladoga.
Autosomal profile is key in such cases. If lineage entered many generations ago, they were fully integrated in most instances.
What about I1 in Russia, concentrated in some regions, legacy of the Varangians?
@Leron: Hmm I don't think the Naxi has WE ancestry. They are rather isolated in the mountains of Yunnan and Sichuan which is pretty far from South Asia and SE Asia to get WE influence. But you are right that the Tajik Yagnobi do have East Asian ancestry.
So I tried a new model here: this time using Yi instead of the Naxi for the Tibeto-Burman proxy of the Burmese. Yi are another Tibeto-Burman group from Southern China. I also don't think they have Western ancestry. Also Iranian Lor which be used this time as a proxy for their West Eurasian ancestry (is Iranian Lor geneitically 100% Western or do they have tiny amounts of AASI ancestry?)
This time I add the average Malay as well: I did not make models for other SE Asians like the Pinos (Luzon, Vizayan), Vietnamese, Murut, Dusun etc because they don't have any Western Eurasian.
The Burmese are still around 7% West Eurasian (do the Iranian Lor have tiny amounts of AASI or are they 100% Western?)
"sample": "Burmese:Average",
"fit": 1.4199,
"Yi": 68.33,
"LAO_LN_BA": 15,
"Simulated_AASI": 10,
"Iranian_Mazandarani": 6.67,
Thai: they are still around 9% West Eurasian which is a bit more than the Burmese.
"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 1.6814,
"Dai": 70.83,
"LAO_LN_BA": 13.33,
"Iranian_Mazandarani": 9.17,
"Simulated_AASI": 6.67,
The fit improved slightly when Han is added into the mix: (There were historical migrations into Siam/Thailand from Southern China in large numbers. A lot of Chinese intermarried with the locals to the point that as many as 40% of Thais could have a partial Chinese ancestor in their bloodline)
This time the Western Eurasian in Thai average decrease from 9 to 8%.
"sample": "Test1:Thai",
"fit": 1.2433,
"Dai": 40.83,
"LAO_LN_BA": 25.83,
"Han": 18.33,
"Iranian_Mazandarani": 8.33,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 6.67,
Cambodian: this time their West Eurasian decreases from 4 to 3%
"sample": "Cambodian:Average",
"fit": 1.6315,
"Dai": 55.83,
"LAO_LN_BA": 36.67,
"Simulated_AASI": 4.17,
"Iranian_Mazandarani": 3.33,
Malay: they are around 5-6% West Eurasian here.
"sample": "Malay:Average",
"fit": 1.5848,
"Malaysia_LN": 55,
"Igorot": 33.33,
"Iranian_Mazandarani": 5.83,
"Simulated_AASI": 5.83,
What do you think? Where in Thailand and Burma do you think the samples come from? Please let me know if Iranian Lor have any AASI so I can find another Western Eurasian proxy source.
@Ramber
Do Laotians have any West Eurasian? Curious where exactly WE ancestry ends in Southeast Asia.
@Cy Tolliver
Unfortunately, there are no Laotians in Global 25 spreadsheets. But there are Dai, a Tai-Kradai population from Yunnan who are fairly related to the Lao, and they seem to have literally none or very close to zero WE admix. Therefore, I am assuming the Laotians will either do not have any or score close to zero (lower than the amounts in Cambodians) West Eurasian.
Actually I also have seen Laotian results on Gedmatch and they do not have or barely any WE admix. However, they have minor South Asian but it seems to be rather AASI-like/negrito-related affinity rather than actual Indian ancestry (which they would also have WE if that is the case).
I think WE ancestry ends in parts of NE Thailand close to the border with Laos. Because there is literally zero West Eurasian admix in Vietnam. The exception are among some groups like the Khmers/Cambodians and the Chams, both culturally Indianized ethnicities who have small amount of West Eurasian ancestry and individuals with recent French/Euro ancestry, of course.
Also I have saw some gedmatch results [likely] of individuals from Northern parts of Thailand (former Lanna Kingdom) who are also genetically closely related to the Dai, and they seem to have zero or barely any WE ancestry as well except minor South Asian which is likely AASI/Negrito related than actual Indian admix (which would also include Western gene flow)
Sigtuna was founded by the king Olof Skötkonung, probably in an effort to gain a more solid power base in then upper Sweden (Uppland province and surroundings). From what we know from historical and archeological records, the city (more a village really) was founded as a political, economical, and cultural center. At such a place, it is expected to find people from all around. One of them could e.g. have been a political or business representative from the Rus state. Maybe the one you have found, Davidski.
According to some sources, the tribes invited persons from Rus in Sweden to become their rulers. Rus is likely what is now called Roslagen, the coastal area west of Sigtuna. The name refers to teams of rowmen. In old times it was called Roðen, pretty close to Ruthenia, the latinized name of Rus.
From Roslagen it is an easy day's sailing to Åland, and then you have Finland further east through the sheltering archipelago. So Roslagen and Åland/Finland were likely in close connection. BTW: the Finnish name of Sweden is Ruotsi.
So I have no trouble imagining that people in Roslagen had some ancestry from Finland, and that they went from Roslagen to Kiev, and that one of their descendants then returned some day to Sigtuna.
If I am not entirely mistaken, I believe that's a scenario that fits your genetic findings, Davidski.
Ramber: The Naxi had ancestors from the Qiangic tribes near the Hexi/Gansu corridor, and that area was always susceptible to admixture from the West. The Taiwan aborigines or the She group in China would have virtually no Western contribution.
@Leron
What do you of think of using the Yi, another Tibeto-Burman group from Southern China, instead of Naxi?
I can try modelling with the Taiwanese Aborigines or She group instead, but I think the distance fits for the Burmese model would be terrible especially with the Taiwanese Aborigines who are genetically rather isolated from other East Asians. From most of my attempted modelling of the Burmese, they always need a Tibeto-Burman related population as a source for their East Asian ancestry in order to get great fits.
My bad. I actually meant to use Iranian Mazandarani as the proxy for the Western admixture but ends up writing Iranian Lor instead. I will have to delete my post. Do you know if Iranian Mazandarani have any AASI ancestry or are they 100% Western?
Nevermind, I will just add the models using Iranian Lor as the proxy for Western admixture into these SE Asian pops as well.
Ramber: Yunnan is the world largest tin producer today, and should sooner or later have become involved in tin trade across the Indian Ocean. I suspect sooner (BA), since Yunnan bronzes appeared quite early and apparently w/o N. Chinese influence, suggesting innovation flow from India, maybe even Mesopotamia, instead.
I suggest you first run a basal model, something like Natufian/AASI Ghost/Iran_Neo/Han/Papuan (also Hoabinhan, in case it is included in G25), and take it from there.
Because of the Madagascar connection, I would especially for Batak, but probably also for Malaysians, also test for East African traces. Amerindians may be considered, even though but the sweet potato probably reached Insular SEA via Polynesians, w/o direct invovement of Amerindians.
@David - "Note that N-Y4339 is by far most common in Sweden, so it might be derived from a Proto-Finnic lineage that moved into Scandinavia during the Iron Age, and quickly became associated with rather typical Scandinavian/Germanic populations."
Fair point.
@FrankN
Thanks. Never know about this stuff before. So innovation flow from India could also imply gene flow from Indians which evenetually lead to also Western admixture in Yunnan?
That's an interesting suggestion. But who should I run a basal model for? SE Asians?
I never heard of the Madagascar connection before. Can you further expand on that information? Also the Batak in Global 25 are actually from Philippines
rather than Indonesia, thus I wonder would East African genetic traces make it that far there?
Ramber: I'd suggest you try Tujia, who aren't that far from Tibeto-Burman (although not part of that group) and absorbed much less Western mixture compared to T-B groups that can have a little more Indian and/or Central Asian influence.
@Leron
Here is my attempt using Tujia. The fit is not that decent.
"sample": "Burmese:Average",
"fit": 3.3832,
"Tujia": 69.17,
"Simulated_AASI": 14.17,
"LAO_LN_BA": 10,
"Iranian_Mazandarani": 6.67,
Another attempt with Tujia. This time with Abkhasian instead of Iranian Mazandarani. The distance is still not well.
However, the West Eurasian in Burmese increases to 7.5-8% this time.
"sample": "Burmese:Average",
"fit": 3.3428,
"Tujia": 68.33,
"Simulated_AASI": 12.5,
"LAO_LN_BA": 11.67,
"Abkhasian": 7.5,
What do you think? The fit is not great compare to using Tibeto-Burmans.
Ramber: "So innovation flow from India could also imply gene flow from Indians which evenetually lead to also Western admixture in Yunnan?"
Yep. And not only there. Here is some reads on BA/IA Indian influence on Thailand:
https://www.academia.edu/8576891/Metallurgy_in_Southeast_Asia
https://www.academia.edu/2215113/Ban_Don_Ta_Phet_and_Khao_Sam_Kaeo_the_earliest_Indian_contacts_re-assessed
"But who should I run a basal model for? SE Asians?"
Everyone in Question - modern Thai, Burmese etc., as well as your Sources (Naxi, Dai, Iran_something etc.).
For the basal models, don't worry about the fits, everything below 5 is still ok. They essentially serve to understand the basic structure, to select the most appropriate sources for proximate modelling, and have a reference framework for interpreting proximate results.
I never heard of the Madagascar connection before. Really not? Madagascar was settled by Indonesians during the Middle Ages, maybe already by the 3rd cAD. Malagasy is an Austronesian language of the East Barito branch, otherwise spoken in Borneo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malagasy_people
Trans-Indian Ocean contacts commenced even further, as evidenced by Banana phytolits from Cameroon dated to ca. 500 BC.
"An AAB similar to African Plantains has been discovered under traditional cultivation by Negrito tribes in the Philippines (44). Another AAB subgroup, Laknau, with analogous morphology and genetic similarity has been documented in the Philippines’ vicinity. These findings suggest a probable origin for the African Plantains in the Eastern contact area between the Philippines and NG, possibly around the Celebes Sea (45).
https://www.pnas.org/content/108/28/11311
[Note in the above paper also appearance of Bananas in Pakistan ca. 2000 BC, with Indian names borrowed from a Phillipine (substrate) root. Exchange went both ways.]
Upon reading the WP Malagasy article, I realised that this is yet another case of yDNA replacement (in this case by Africans [Bantu-related] but continuity of the maternal language.
"In a recent island-wide survey the male-only Y chromosomes of African origin are more common than those of East Asian origin (70.7 vs. 20.7%). However the mtDNA lineages, passed down from mother to child, are the opposite (42.4 African origin vs. 50.1% East Asian origin)."
[Well, might have been expected - we know the same happened across Polynesia.]
Ramber: The Abkhasian and Iranian population appear to be too distinct from the particular WEA source to the Burmese. Indian populations would be too ASI mixed, so something like the Balochi, Pakistani, and even the ancient Namazga (BMAC).
Leron: We are probably dealing with more than one WEA source. Bhuddism obviously arrived from India, as did Indonesian Hinduism. Malay has borrowed various words from Tamil (e.g. kota "city"), and Indic (e.g. garam "salt", c.f. Engl. grain [of salt]).
From the early medieval on, we need to reckon with Arabic influence also beyond islamicised Malaysia/ Indonesia, and Sri Lanka's Muslim community. Later came Europeans ..
Bronzes from SEA differ widely in isotopic composition, suggesting multiple origins of ores/ founders/ final product traders. Alternatively of, or in addition to Indian origins, N. Chinese influence or even direct migration of metalworkers from the Altai is still being considered. And, while it is generally accepted that Bronze making entered China from the Altai, it is still unclear whether Sintashta or preceding cultures, possibly linked to the Seima-Turbinon phenomenon, were responsible.
Last but not least, speaking about the Altai: If Denisovans made it there from/ through SEA, theoretically ANE could also have moved in the opposite direction.
Bottom line: SEA is seriously understudied as concerns aDNA.
Ramber: I appreciate your efforts, they are something I had planned to do myself for a long time buth hadn't yet found the time for. I'd be happy to keep updated about your modelling results.
@Ramber, I think it would probably make more sense to run Burmese with the Oakaie site LNBA sample. That's gone from the latest G25 sheet*, but the scaled values are: https://pastebin.com/66QDQsvT (I don't have unscaled value to hand as I don't bother with them generally). Should be a better proxy for Naxi / Yi.
*Presumably because it is gone from the latest dataset Davidski is working from. I'm not sure why this is, since it was already published, unless there is now some concern about its archaeological designation? That would be irritating if so, as seemed to suggest to us something interesting about the spread of Tibeto-Burman languages.
In my opinion it is rather vague to pick one male haplogroup or clade and convert it to an autosomal consequence, but it can be done. Davidski, I don't know if those results make sense in any historical perspective, but I wonder what it means that vik-84001, living in Sweden, shows some western and some eastern admixtures. I would be much more impressed if we have similar sample(s) from Kiev or Novgorod.
@M. Myllylä
In my opinion it is rather vague to pick one male haplogroup or clade and convert it to an autosomal consequence, but it can be done.
Huh?
- buried in a Viking town
- buried according to Slavic customs
- belongs to N-Y4339 (which is immediately ancestral to the "Russian" N-Y10931)
and last but not least...
- clusters with Swedes but shows admixture from the east
So this is the next best thing to an ancient Rurikid genome from Kiev or Novgorod, and will probably turn out to be a very important reference sample in this area of study.
https://i.postimg.cc/c4GSJyYb/Screen-Hunter-2763-Jun-05-10-41.jpg
https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/domaci/2831966-v-hrobe-pod-svatovitskou-rotundou-neni-knize-borivoj-reporteri-ct-zjistovali-kdo-tam?fbclid=IwAR2C1lkk73VCznmxout7rGpPsV6rjfMKcW469gntOYTSshi_XZ90dfjjrEQ
R1b1a2a1a2c1b1b1a3a1 - BY451 (under R-S5982)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S5982/
Just checked all 16 Han samples in the G25, and all of them score something plus Nganassan, although of course some do better versus each other, e.g. Han North 1289 and Han North 1291 versus 1290, but 1290 wins versus 1287 and 1288. Han 775, 777, 779, 782, 783, B3 seem to do better than the remaining 774, 776, 780, Outlier 781, but 780 mostly wins versus 776, O781.
Tested were Finnish, Finnish East, Karelian, Ingrian, Estonian, Russian Kostroma, Russian Smolensk. Reference populations besides Han and Han North individuals were Anatolia Barcin, Beaker England, Beaker Netherlands, Corded Ware Baltic, Corded Ware DEU, and obviously Nganassan.
Thus there must be Yellow River admixture, one would think Yangshao with certainty, and possibly as late as Yangshao. The Xueshan culture which featured N1c-TAT was Yangshao influenced, and Y-DNA N has also been found in one Yangshao site on the Yellow River itself, but I don't have the name for that.
@Davidski,
- buried according to Slavic customs
This is certainly something to notice. According to F3 statistics of the original study he was closest present-day Latvians. This doesn't convince me, because f3 usually gives very high results for Balts, despite of the European group they are compared. More convincing is that the same f3 statistics shows that he was closer Finns than Russians.
The original PCA placed him very near Norwegians and Icelanders, as well as my admixture tests. According my tests he was to the west from Sweden. This is interesting because Iron Age Swedes look more eastern than they are today. So the later Finnish migration to Sweden is more than fully compensated by later German influence.
One of the greatest thing geneticists can do now is to open Iron age graves to give us a statistic look to the Migration Period.
@M. Myllylä "- buried according to Slavic customs"
Which resembles a typical Yamnaya burial with the "crouched" position and the red ochre painting. Does it imply a continuity in that area?
@Andrzejewski,
I really don't know what it means in that time span. My first idea about Slavic burials in Sweden is that Slavic merchants lived there. Sigtuna was a public trading centre where people from all neighboring countries met making business, selling salt, fur, jewellery etc.
@M. Myllylä "This is interesting because Iron Age Swedes look more eastern than they are today."
Can you expand and elaborate on that? This is the first time I practically hear about it...
@All, Sikora 2018 is published in Nature - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1279-z
The Yana samples should be released now, this means.
No. There was a Finnish migration during the IA into parts of Sweden, granted, and like @Davidski has just said, some became a founding lineage of the Viking Rurikid Germanic dynasty. Varangs were invited by Eastern Slavs and Finno-Ugric tribes to rule over them but they were likely no more than 5% of the constituent population, so they assimilated rather quickly, just as their blood relative the Normans did in Normandy around the same time. Linguistically, religiously, customs-wise, law-wise and in any other realm conceivable (except for military organizations, I suppose), these Varangs were completely Slavicized (just like the ruling elite Bulgars got swallowed by the Southern Slavs living in Bulgaria). Oleg's son Vladimir already bears a Slavic name. My reference to the "Slavic" burial customs indicates a continuity from the Proto-Indo-Europeans themselves.(Or may it be that it came indirectly via the Scytho-Sarmatians, heirs of Sintashta).
Relating to the subject of Beringia, Flegontov et al Palaeo-Eskimo paper and aDNA data published too: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1251-y#data-availability
@myself and everyone
Using Nenets in place of Nganassan slightly improves the fits and gives more sensible percentages (e.g. Finnish East at ~8% East Asian).
Han North China works for all Han but all Han work individually irrespective of geography.
The East Asian in Han is clearly different from that in Samoyedics, which resembles Evenks, however which is driving the equation remains uncertain, especially considering the N/NO Shamanka & related Baikal HGs are way far out due to drift or other admixture.
Remember that these West Uralics above score Buryat too, even together with Han and Samoyedic.
Finally, replace Russian Smolensk (small % East Asian) with Mordovian. The Mordovians score 4.17% Han in addition to their Samoyedic!
So both Yana males were basal P1 lineages, with mtDNA of U2'3'4'7'8'9. In the Supplements, Extended Data Figure 3.F, there's a pair of Admixture graphs, one of which shows a 22% admixture branch from an East Eurasian source into Yana_UP, the rest of their ancestry being apparently solidly West Eurasian. I believe Y-DNA P (xQ,R) only exists in scattered remnants in insular Southeast Asia, and I was always skeptical that it originated there and then marched all the back west to Siberia, however I believe there's also a basal P* lineage reported in a 2,000 year old Andamanese sample? So is it pretty fair at this point to infer a very early East Eurasian P* population admixing with an early West Eurasian mtDNA U people leading to the ethnogenesis of these Yana folk?
@Cy Tolliver
I believe there's also a basal P* lineage reported in a 2,000 year old Andamanese sample?
It's not really basal, it just has a lot of missing data.
So, can we say that R1 is ultimately east Eurasian?
@Davidski
Good to know. Are we even sure it's P at all, and not some kind of K2?
@Gabriel
So, can we say that R1 is ultimately east Eurasian?
Yeah, and ultimately, ultimately (x infinity) it's African or something.
Also, do any Russians show signal of Germanic ancestry?
Russians generally don't show any obvious Germanic ancestry, unless they have fairly recent (Russian Empire era) German, Swedish and/or western Finnish ancestry, which is possible for various reasons.
For instance, Dutch and German Mennonites migrated to Poland during the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s, and then many of them moved to Russia soon after, sometimes mixing with Russians and leaving descendants there.
Decent numbers of Swedish and Finnish POWs and other prisoners were also forcibly settled deep in Russia after various wars, especially in Siberia, and many of them eventually mixed with Russians.
As they appear to lack any Yellow River admixture, my obvious best guess is the Samoyedics are late arrivals, via the Sayans, from the (Xinglongwa derived) Hongshan sphere, quite possibly direct from the core. The authors of the Transeurasian business claim extended continuity in the Liao-Amur region (after first claiming the populations' transitional nature, whatever they meant by it). Western Uralics should be Xinglongwa-related plus a solid percentage of Yangshao in origin.
Hongshan would be related to pro-Tungusic. The Yellow River Sinitic speakers never reach north beyond the Ordos desert. The Samoyeds belong to a much older strata than these two. They occupy the region right after the initial wave of populations heading to the New World.
M. Myllylä said...
@Andrzejewski
"M. Myllylä "This is interesting because Iron Age Swedes look more eastern than they are today."
Can you expand and elaborate on that? This is the first time I practically hear about it...
Speaking about present-day Swedes and all studies using them in comparisons we have to remember that during centuries of the Swedish regime in Finland tens of thousands of Finnish people moved to Sweden. Solely in Stockholm they formed around 20% of the population during the mercantilism. Then again after the WW2 maybe 100000, probably more, Finns moved to Sweden. On the other hand German surnames grew in number and became common during and after the Reformation as well as earlier during the Hanseatic time. It looks like still during the Iron Age they resembled pretty much more Balts than today, maybe excluding Scania. But I still leave doors somewhat open because Swedish researchers still tend to practice some kind of genetic eugenics.
Gabriel, Davidski: Don't forget the Volga, Bessarabia and Crimea Germans that Catherine the Great called in as colonisers. Especially the Volga Germans were quite numerous. In 1941, over half a million were resettled to Siberia and N. Kazakhstan. These German colonisers maintained their linguistic and cultural identity, but presumably also intermixed with surrounding populations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Germans
I don't know about the origin of the Volga Germans. Bessarabia Germans mainly came from NE Germany (Holstein/ Mecklenburg), and from Swabia.
Otherwise, of course, there is Kaliningrad Oblast as the northern half of East Prussia.
Volga Germans were mostly of Mennonite stock.
The topic is well covered here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germans_in_Russia,_Ukraine_and_the_Soviet_Union
Some highlights:
- Moscow's German Quarter (Немецкая слобода, or Nemetskaya sloboda) established in the early 16th century,
- 1682: 18.000 "Nemtsy" in Moscow,
- 1.8 million Germans in the 1897 Census (including Black Sea and Caucasus Germans)
@Matt
I seem to remember that you were defending this guy's theories not long ago. I hope you're ashamed of yourself. :)
https://indo-european.eu/the-willerslev-kristiansen-indo-european-corded-ware-theory-doesnt-hold-water/
Expect some major shakeups to things as we understand them
The entire chronology of Russian west needs redline ; elahanka, Khvalynsk etc
. We’re taking about 1000s years worth of reservoir effect unaccounted for
@ Dragos
Are you trying to suggest that Khvalynsk is younger than e.g. Yamnaya?
Dragos: That's exaggerated. I0124, Samara HG, Russian Mesolithic is known to have had a strong acquatic dietary component, and is likely to be a couple of centuries younger than originally assumed. Later, pastoralist samples from the area (Yamnaya etc.) consumed far less acquatic food and are reasonably dated.
Over the last years, Russian archeologists have in addition to human samples and pottery (the latter was often shell-tempered and as such equally subject to reservoir effects) also AMS-dated a number of ungulate bones, which are hardly affected by reservoir effects. I have discussed chronological aspects of Elshanka etc. here:
https://adnaera.com/2019/01/11/how-did-chg-get-into-steppe_emba-part-2-the-pottery-neolithic/
For Khvalynsk, and the preceding (Pre-)Caspian culture, ungulate bone datings are available. They point towards the (Pre-)Caspian culture having introduced sheep and goat herding to the Lower Volga around 4900 BC. Because of reservoir effects, Anthony has already revised his Khvalynsk chronology downwards and now assumes a start around 4500 BC. This looks reasonable, also in relation to dates from the E. Elbrus piedmont (Nalcik cemetary, Progress etc.) that may be regarded as Khvalynsk-related by common roots in the (Pre-)Caspian culture.
It's about time we start to learn the real story behind early-BMAC/CHG/Iran related populations contribution to the north, such as the steppe.
I really don't know where the mentioned 1000 years of reservoir effect comes from. As far as I understand it the reservoir effect at plus/minus that age only accounts for 200 to 300 years at most....
@FrankN "For Khvalynsk, and the preceding (Pre-)Caspian culture, ungulate bone datings are available. They point towards the (Pre-)Caspian culture having introduced sheep and goat herding to the Lower Volga around 4900 BC. Because of reservoir effects, Anthony has already revised his Khvalynsk chronology downwards and now assumes a start around 4500 BC. This looks reasonable, also in relation to dates from the E. Elbrus piedmont (Nalcik cemetary, Progress etc.) that may be regarded as Khvalynsk-related by common roots in the (Pre-)Caspian culture."
So what you're essentially saying is that a South Caspian (Iran Chalcolithic, CHG?) is responsible from the switch from fish eating Samara HG into Khvalynsk? Are you implying then that PIE came from South of the Caspian?
@Davidski, damn, how recently even was anything I ever said about Quiles? Early 2018 or something? I can't say I feel ashamed about whatever mild comment it was that I made which I forget :) (seems pretty emo and histrionic to think that these are debates where anyone should feel shame about anything really).
To be honest, I'll admit I didn't really catch Quiles R1a as non-IE vs R1b as IE obsession on first glance on his blog, just as I wouldn't pick up the reverse in others; it's not really a salient issue that I care about a lot, and on my first impression it was pretty small potatoes compared to his almost boring level of orthodoxy on otherwise supporting the steppe hypothesis.
I don't think much of his attempts to assign CW and R1a to Uralic until some postulated R1b-IE elite dominance effect takes place, and there's not a lot of support for his attempts to resurrect Indo-Uralic, and so on... but... early proto-IE (pre-split) and Uralic interaction is fairly mainstream for lexical borrowing/sharing, so I still don't think it's necessarily proven that parts of the CW horizon weren't Uralic speaking quite early on.
What is becoming more and more fun is the relationship between CHG, WHG and EHG
Sikora (2.019)- EHG-(Malta-44.5%, CHG-21.1% and WHG 34.4%).
Sikora (2.019)- Malta R*(Yana-74%, CHG-32 %)
And there is still to add to the models the Anatolian hunter gatherers that contributed to the formation of the Anatolian Farmers (and therefore to the early European farmers), and that by the way have the same male uniparental marker as many WHG.
Someone is going to have to explain to the International Scientific Community very carefully what the hell the famous steppe ancestry is, where it came from (Samara, Khvalynsk, Sredny-Stog, Repin, Yamnaya, all of them?) what components make it exactly in each of these cultures, how and when it enter mainland Europe, which are exactly the autosomal components characteristic of steppe ancestry that are not present in the rest of Europe (EHG ?, CHG ?, ANE?), or if the only thing that matters to demonstrate steppe migrations are the different proportions of these autosomal markers in the rest of Europe
Obviously part of the origin of R * can be explained thanks to Yana, that is not the problem, but what is the origin of CHG in Mal'ta?
At first everyone talked about the Yamnaya ancestry, then we all talk about steppe ancestry without knowing exactly what cultures/populations/individuals we refer to, or are used to check the autosomal components, now, it turns out that we have CHG in the Paleolithic of Siberia linked in a certain percentage to R*, with which we should suppose that all the descendants of R* including R1b and R1a have to have to a greater extent not only ANE but CHG because Mal'ta boy also has this component- And nevertheless the geneticists are capable to accurately specify the Yamnaya/Steppe/Siberian ancestry component that had R1b-P312 in the chalcolithic 20,000 years later, and that, after affirming that all the R1b of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic in mainland Europe lack that famous steppe signal. Everything is wonderful and I'm glad that you all understand this whole thing perfectly. Every day I understand less
@Matt
So I still don't think it's necessarily proven that parts of the CW horizon weren't Uralic speaking quite early on.
Which parts and why?
@ Frank
Your views are noted
However, based on prevailing work, elshanka is up to 1500 years too old; therefore it’s status alleged “earliest pottery culture” is highly dubious
The offset in steppe eneolithic is c. 300-600 years.
Once we get to Yamnaya; reservoir effect is minimal, as there is a major shift to pastoralism and terrestrial meat cf fish
Whislt we’re at it; @ Gaska you (& couple of your BB blog buddies) will need to accept that the earliest BB in Tagus estuary is more along the lines of 24/2300 BC- half a millennium than originally claimed
@Dragos
I'm not interested in any of your empty opinions. Post with substance or go somewhere else.
The truth is that after each new discovery, geneticists are forced to look for ghost populations to explain the discrepancies that are occurring, because nobody is able to explain what CHG does in Siberia during the Paleolithic. I guess everyone will remember when the component that really differentiated the Yamnaya culture from the rest of Europe was the famous ghost component CHG- At first everyone thought it was a typical component of the Yamnaya culture until they discovered it in the steppes at least from the Mesolithic-Three years later we have CHG in the Greek Neolithic, but of course that CHG has nothing to do with ChG from the steppes, that apparently remains "unique and mysterious"
@Juan Rivera said."As for steppe, it's mostly different ratios of components, though at one layer it has West_Siberia_N (which is EHG+ANE+Baikal_N), a component absent in non-steppe Europe before the Bronze Age. Then, Baikal_N (of the Lokomotiv variety) has one possible R1a and distant WHG ancestry (U5a mtDNA) despite being mostly East Asian-like"
If I have not misunderstood you, what now distinguishes "steppe ancestry" is West Siberia-N? Everybody who knows about genetics understands that EHG and ANE can be found throughout Europe since the Paleolithic (even Villabruna has a proportion of Ane), then I understand that the new differentiating component of steppe ancestry is Baikal-N of the Lokomotiv variety? or is still CHG or Iran Neolithic?
For the rest of the mortals, and since the geneticists have not found the steppe signal in Western and Central Europe before the arrival of the CWC, the only steppe culture that can be responsible for the migrations and therefore of the expansion of the IE in Europe is the famous Yamnaya culture- The bad thing is that the uniparental markers of that culture do not coincide neither with those of the CWC nor with those of the BB culture (someone should explain this also to Carlos Quiles), and also those of the CWC do not coincide with those of the BBC, then, or we find R1a and R1b-L51 in Yamnaya, or the Theory of the steppe migrations will become the biggest ridiculous of the 21st century
The Indo-Uralic theory got debunked just by dating. PU only came into mutual contact with Sintashta, a Yamnaya descendant, which is pretty late. Geographically if we take what @Samuel Andrews said into account then PIE arose in Piedmont, just north of the Caucasus and became the source of both Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog. The implications are the the formation of PIE took place far away from the Urals. And lastly, there are basically zero cognates between Uralic and IE sans borrowing from Sintashta into PU.
Sorry your honour- but my point isn’t “ empty”
There’s actually little difference between Carlos, you and Copenhagen
He just has an issue with their emphasis on cwc
My issue with them is that they do t know the basic geography or history of Europe
@Dragos said-"Gaska you (& couple of your BB blog buddies) will need to accept that the earliest BB in Tagus estuary is more along the lines of 24/2300 BC- half a millennium than originally claimed
Don't worry, you've already convinced me, R1b-P312 entered Iberia aprox 2,500 BC and brought with it the BB culture- We will talk with the Spanish and Portuguese archaeologists to recognize their mistakes- I have become a fervent defender of the Kurgan's theory- We can only ask forgiveness from all those who have felt offended by having doubted
@Juan Rivera-"The steppe component appears to be a highly expansionist one, reaching the Atlantic and Iberia in the west, the Baltic and Scandinavia in the north, Anatolia, the Near East, Iran and Central India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives in the south and the Tarim basin, Lake Baikal and Mongolia in the east. In fact, it may have extended as far as the northern Sea of Okhotsk coast and Kamchatka, where the Yana paper describes individuals (Magadan_BA, Ol'skaya) that are mostly similar to Kolyma, with a minor contribution from West Eurasians (according to the supplementary info of the Yana paper; provided that West Eurasian isn't instead all leftover ANE)"
Oh my God
If anywhere, northern Volga, near Urals, in a position to be interacting with pIE such that they could borrow (apparently) the entire pIE pronoun system (without trace of post pIE differentiation), then interact with proto-Indo Iranian such to borrow various other terminology. Different layers of borrowing, taken at face value, require proximity during multiple phases of interaction, before further spread east and west.
This could have happened within the Corded Ware pottery horizon or with material cultures outside it, I don't really know - I'm just saying that it could have; it's not necessarily the case that the borders of that material horizon were also linguistic borders.
"Fatyanovo-Balanovo" maybe, or possibly some autosomally Corded Ware culture like people who are not actually in material culture ascribed to Corded Ware complex.
I understand where @Gaska is coming from because I have been slightly confused myself in regard to the EHG/CHG/ANE etc. @JuanRivera is saying something tat I came to think recently after reading a paper (by Damgaard I think) which postulated the Proto-Indo-Europeans as not descending from EHG mixed with CHG but that all 3 of these populations descended separately from one meta-population (can it be Yana)?
What do you think, @Davidski?
If Piedmont is indeed the “Ur-PIE”, then it could be a source population for both Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog.
I do take issues with what @FrankN wrote earlier today, implying that Khvalynsk and any subsequent “Caspian” civilization was created 6500 years ago by migrants from south of the Caspian; this line of thinking mirrors Reich’s closely but it has no anchor whatsoever in reality
It puts to rest what Haak and Lazaridis said about Yamnays’s makeup of 50:50 East European vis-a-vis Caucasus/Iran/East Asian foragers. I remember seeing a similar conclusion by Damgaard 2018 on the Scandinavian paper, where he asserts that Indo-Europeans, CHG and EHG are all just distinct siblings or offsprings of one population. May it be Yana now?
@Dragos
You're what I would normally refer to in social situations as a dickhead.
Has this ever dawned on you and, if so, are you concerned about it at all?
Matt
There's absolutely no evidence that any part of the Corded Ware horizon was Uralic speaking. So your earlier comment that it's not proven that some parts weren't Uralic speaking was backwards to reality.
In fact, considering the latest genetic evidence relating to Uralic speakers, the chances that any part of the Corded Ware horizon was Uralic speaking are slim.
The only way that you can somehow link Corded Ware to Uralic languages is to say that many post-Corded Ware populations with significant Corded Ware-derived ancestry became Uralic speaking.
But obviously this has nothing to do with Carlos' kooky theories, so using it as an argument to suggest that he's perhaps onto something, like you have done in the past, doesn't make any sense.
These Paleo-Siberian populations speak languages which were assumed to resemble PIE. Now perhaps we know why...
@ Davidski
Yes I heard it amongst the circle of journalists I hang around with in Melbourne
Its good advice. You should take it on board and make some changes.
CHG is Dzudzuana+ANE+ACE, EHG is WHG+CHG+ANE+ACE. Steppe is mostly a mixture of EHG+CHG+WHG, with extra ANE, EEF and West_Siberia_N.
I think I finally understood
Steppe is- Dzudzuana +ANE +ACE+ WHG+ CHG+ANE+ ACE+WHG with extra ANE +EEF + EHG +ANE + Baikal
So we have- Dzudzuana + ANE (4)+ ACE (2)+ WHG (2)+ EEF (1)+ EHG (1)+ Baikal
Fortunately, Spaniards only have 20% of this steppe autosomal component because it looks like an army of viruses
If you were able to tell me the percentages of those components in the different steppe cultures you would become my hero forever
Are you sure there is no easier explanation to explain the theory of Gimbutas? because if we continue like this we will have Martian components
Gaska: Iberian AMS dates are equally suspicious of reservoir effects as the Russian/ S. Ukrainian ones:
a) A strong maritime component in the diet is anything but unlikely, especially in areas like the Tagus estuary that has provided those early BB dates;
b) Hard groundwater may also lead to reservoir effects, in particular in regions with little summer precipitation and consequently human reliance on wells/sources as water supply (even glacier meltoff may be an issue in this respect). For E. Ukraine, the effect has been determined to amount to some 300 years [As such, whenever I read about "burial in a carstic cave", immediately alarm bells start ringing].
For both reasons, a/o the Narva and Erteboelle chronologies had to be considerably corrected downwards, and Russian and Ukrainian archeologists are on a good track doing the same. Unfortunately, Iberia is still lacking behind in this respect, in spite of some suspicious results, e.g. barley grains from an El Argar burial dating some 300 years younger than the corpse they accompanied.
Otherwise, btw, I am often with you, e.g. as concerns spread of Iberian mtDNA into Central Europe during the BB period as mirroring appearance of "steppe" ancestry in Iberia. Alberto has produced G25 runs showing almost 50% SW European (Basque LN/ France MN) ancestry in Rothenschirmbach BB (Elbe-Saale). This clearly wasn't a one-way process, some "beaker folk" from the Rhineland expanding across Europe, but a trade network probably built upon long-distance marital relations. Patriarchic Central Europeans provided the males, matriarchic Iberians the females, and both thought they had made the better deal..
Still, I believe the "pots" themselves originate in Single Grave, and for the arrowheads, a CWC/Single Grave origin seems to be archeological consensus. The "wrist guards", actually blade sharpeners, are most likely Iberian, Palmela Points definitely, and when it comes to metalurgy, Iberia certainly had more to offer than the Lower Rhine. However, here, the daggers come into play that IMO build on Alpine (Remedello, Mondsee) traditions, where metalurgy was also quite developed...
Returning to the West Uralics, it would appear the Samoyedic-like component (probably < Xinglongwa) eventually begins to disintegrate once in small enough amounts while the Yangshao/Yellow River component maintains its structure, so in my models above the Estonians and myself (at one quarter Finnish) are left with 1-2% Han and nothing else. Thus we can assume Samoyedic is altogether closer to West Eurasian, but is that due to its 30-45% ANE admixture or perhaps some dimension of its East Asian?
That I repeat appears to be extremely distant from Han. It took me a number of runs to get it to even accept Baikal HG and as many again before it would finally accept Han, versus only ANE (with that component preferring AG3 versus MA1).
@ Frank
“Palmela Points definitely Iberian”
But then why is the male in Olalde 2019 who is buried with a Palmela point R1b -M268, with steppe-enriched Central European ancestry ?
Why do palemella points only appear c 2500 BC ?
about Iberian mtdna expansion - can you elaborate / enumerate the data ?
@FrankN
You're full of crap.
There's no evidence of any migrations from south of the Caspian into the steppes that would give rise to Khvalynsk, Yamnaya, etc.
Broad MIT, Harvard and Max Planck really wanted this to be true, and went out of their way to try and prove it, but failed miserably.
Thanks for calling it out. I was concerned that we would have to readjust the narrative to a Middle Eastern origin or PIE...
But based on the Yana paper I’m beginning to think that maybe PIE are just a sister group to EHG and CHG. I will link up as soon as I find the article (Damgaard 2018?)
He implied that Khvalynsk emerged circa 4500 BCE when goats and sheep migrated to Khvalynsk and consequently the diet of the inhabitants (Samara HG) shifted from fish (aquatic) to pastoralism. He wants us to assume that people migrated with “pots” (this time “cattle”). But when I called him out on this bogus theory he did not respond or attempt to corroborate it
@JuanRivera When you say “Dzudzuana” do you mean Neolithic Anatolian Farmers?
Do you agree with @Sam Andrews that Piedmont of the source of the oldest PIE? Radiating to Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog from there?
Who do you think were the Bug-Dniester and Dnieper-Donetsk? Ukraine HG?
@Andrzejewski
Do you agree with @Sam Andrews that Piedmont of the source of the oldest PIE? Radiating to Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog from there?
I don't agree with him if that's what he said, because there seems to be some serious substructure in Piedmont Eneolithic, with two of the samples looking significantly more CHG than the third.
This suggests to me that there was another population, already very similar to Yamnaya, well to the north of Piedmont Eneolithic, and it expanded from the north into the Caucasus.
@ Andrzej: "So what you're essentially saying is that a South Caspian (Iran Chalcolithic, CHG?) is responsible from the switch from fish eating Samara HG into Khvalynsk? Are you implying then that PIE came from South of the Caspian?"
Let me answer step by step:
1.) While Anthony 2007 still linked Khvalynsk pastoralism to EEF (CT) influence, it now seems to be consensus among Russian archeologists that Khvalynsk emerged out of the (Pre-)Caspian culture.
2.) The (Pre-)Caspian Culture appeared on the Lower Volga around 4900 BC, and presents a clear break with the preceding Lower Volga Culture - not only because it had domestic sheep and goats, but also for its very different lithic technology, a/o characterised by "leaf-shaped" or "fish-shaped" points/arrowheads. The subsequent spread of these points through Europe, ultimately leading to the Ice Man's dagger or Palmela Points, is well discussed/ documented and was a/o used as a key argument by Gimbutas. We know now that "leaf shaped" points don't automatically mean "steppe" ancestry, see the Ice Man. Still, (Pre-)Caspian and subsequently Khvalynsk as entry and dissemination point of this technology through Chalcolithic Europe remains undisputed.
3.) The (Pre-)Caspian Culture seems to only have been recognised recently - the earliest publications I am aware of date to 2014. Researchers appear to still be puzzled about its origin, alternatively considering the Lower Don or the E. Caspian. Out of question is the Caucasus piedmont and ultimately the S. Caucasus, because
a.) S. Caucasian lithic technologies don't match, and neither the agricultural model, which was pig-centered (especially Colchis and Meshoko);
b.) there are hardly any Neolithic finds from the Caucasus piedmont, in stark contrast to the Mesolithic and Eneolithic, suggesting a temporary substantial de-population between ca. 6.2-4.5 ky BC. Reasons are still unclear. Aside from very low rainfall, Mt. Elbrus appears to have had several eruptions including associated phenomena like earthquakes and valley floodings during that period.
4.) I personally tend towards an E. Caspian origin of the (Pre-)Caspian Culture (Khvalynsk also covered NW Kazakhstan, respective sites haven't yet been AMS-dated), because:
a.) the "no pigs" pastoral model of Pre-Caspian/ Khvalynsk can't reasonably be related to EEF/CT or Caucasia, but was however prevalent in Neolithic Central Asia. Jeitun and Kelteminar also lack attestation of domesticated pigs.
b.) More-less simultaneously with their spread through Europe, "leaf-shaped" points also find their way to W. Siberia and Mongolia, to the IVC and to the Tarim Basin. Their origin is yet unclear, but geographic triangulation points towards Central Asia. Kelteminar, btw, may be ruled out in this respect - asymmetric Kelteminar Points are related to, but clearly distinct from "leaf-shaped" points. However, Kelteminar has yielded a single, and early, "leaf-shaped" find, suggesting they might have originated not too far away from the Kelteminar area.
5. What all this means in relation to the PIE question I am yet uncertain. Essentially
a.) As concerns vocabulary, IE's closest "relatives" appear to be Chukotko-Kamchatkan, especially Nivkh;
b.) Morphologically and phonotactically, PIE clusters with AfroAsiatic, Kartvelian and N. Caucasian;
c.) there is substantial evidence of IE loans in Sumerian, implying IE presence south of the Caucasus during the 3rd mBC.
@FrankN
Read this, try your best to understand it, and then actually think when you post here, because your BS is getting tiresome.
Some myths die hard
@JuanRivera "Bug-Dniester may have been a mixture of Romania_HG and Ukraine_HG"
By "Romania_HG" do you mean Iron Gates?
@ Davidski
Nobody has a crystal ball unfortunately and we can all be stubborn at times
I think its certainly true that there is little evidence to suggest any recent intrusion to the steppe from middle east, apart from that in Majkop & some outliers.
@FrankN "
4.) I personally tend towards an E. Caspian origin of the (Pre-)Caspian Culture (Khvalynsk also covered NW Kazakhstan, respective sites haven't yet been AMS-dated), because:"
So what you are saying in one sentence is that some Middle Eastern ethnogenetic group (or maybe a Botai-like one) is responsible for the extirpation of Samara HG culture with its unique R1b subclades and substituting them with Indo-European-specific R1b subclades?
To me it is nonsense and a no-starter.
Frank
“While Anthony 2007 still linked Khvalynsk pastoralism to EEF (CT) influence, it now seems to be consensus among Russian archeologists that Khvalynsk emerged out of the (Pre-)Caspian culture.”
How are the 2 mutually exclusive ?
We can have local continuity + exotic adstratum at the same time
At least a Balkan route has evidence; little definitive can be said about the Kelteminar route
And Russian archaeologists plainly see CT influence; as far as Khvalynsk (eg Morgunova)
Anyhow; it’s rather moot: Khvalynsk was still largely fishers and foragers
There’s a whole program of isotope and re-dating going on in Samar’s valley
Looks like there's a Korolev over at ftDNA who's Z1933+ (< Z1936), with the comment that this must be a Tver Karelian line. I'd never made the possible connection that The Chief Designer's family name could mean Karelian. That would be a massive score for N in any event, like whomever (R probably) Werner (von Braun) belongs to.
As far as I can remember Goats and Sheep were mostly Mountain dwellers. And Goat and Sheep remains were hard to distinguish from each other. Never mind the fact that Mouflon existed as far as the Crimea and not just in the Caucasus and Zagros....
@ Andrzejewski
If I understand correctly Steppe Ancestry only points towards the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age population on the Steppe. It should not be confused with ANE which is mostly Upper Paleolithic in origin...
@ Andrzejewski
Maybe we should not forget that Haplogroups G,H,I,J,K were once very close and stemmed from the same Ancestor Haplogroup F. I think there should be more clarification of What Dzudzuana was compared to CHG and when Haplogroup K split from Macro Haplogroup IJK. We already see K2 in Ust Ishim and in Europe between 35 000 and 45 000 years ago...So Ust Ishim should have something in common with Haplogroups I and J which could be this maybe wrongly labled CHG like Paleolithic ancestry....
@FrankN said "Iberian AMS dates are equally suspicious of reservoir effects as the Russian/ S. Ukrainian ones"
Regarding dating and reservoir effects, I have seen that the vast majority of works that are currently published in Spain and Portugal are very professional- I recommend you read these two because they are very interesting
+ Dating by luminescent techniques from tomb 3 and BB pottery- La Pijotilla (Badajoz, Spain) - Carlos P Odriozola.
+Campaniforme: chronology, pottery, and contexts of a long term phenomenon in the Portuguese Douro Basin-Maria de Jesus Sanches and Maria Helena Barbosa (december 2.018)-
The debate on the dates of the BB culture was closed by Joao Cardoso in 2014, even Kurganists like Heyd ended up recognizing the greater antiquity of this culture in the Tagus estuary. However, this still seems to be a minor debate, compared to the origin of L51, the steppe ancestry, the connection of R1b with the IE etc ...
@FrankN-"Otherwise, btw, I am often with you, e.g. as concerns spread of Iberian mtDNA into Central Europe during the BB period as mirroring appearance of "steppe" ancestry in Iberia. Alberto has produced G25 runs showing almost 50% SW European (Basque LN/ France MN) ancestry in Rothenschirmbach BB (Elbe-Saale)"
Regarding the population movements of the BB culture for me it is such an obvious thing, that I am glad that other people have also noticed and that they say it publicly (some people from this world of genetics write to me in private)-And as I said many months ago, Iberian male migrations have also been demonstrated (for example, with the paper of Sicily, where they have found Df27 with Ciempozuelos pottery-It seems obvious no?
The debate is getting more interesting every day
@Dragos said-"But then why is the male in Olalde 2019 who is buried with a Palmela point R1b -M268, with steppe-enriched Central European ancestry ? Why do palemella points only appear c 2500 BC ? about Iberian mtdna expansion - can you elaborate / enumerate the data ?
According to you where Palmela style spearheads originated?
Regarding migrations, we are not going to bore people with more data, time will undoubtedly prove us right-
@Juan Rivera "And then Baikal_N is ~7% ANE, ~10% West_Siberia_N and ~83% Han-like East Asian. And Yamnaya is a mixture of Khvalynsk (which is Piedmont+EHG+West_Siberia_N), Ukraine_Eneolithic (which is Ukraine_HG [which in turn is WHG+EHG+~5% CHG]+WHG-rich EEF+Piedmont) and Piedmont (which is EHG+CHG+ANE+West_Siberia_N [in Progress]). Overall , it's like trying to make an inbred family tree of matryoshka dolls. In short version, skipping almost all layers, Yamnaya is ~35% Dzudzuana+~51% ANE+~14% WHG. Then, samples from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic North Caspian semidesert and southwestern Urals may make things more complex. Short version of Gimbutas' hypothesis: pastoralist peoples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe expanded in all directions (predominantly Europe, Anatolia, Central Asia and Southern Asia"
And Again !!! Oh my God !!!
@Ric Hern "If I understand correctly Steppe Ancestry only points towards the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age population on the Steppe. It should not be confused with ANE which is mostly Upper Paleolithic in origin..."
I think you are confusing me with @JuanRivera or @FrankN. I haven't said anything pertaining to ANE on the Steppe. I just pointed to a recent study in which (Damgaard?) said that CHC and EHG stemmed from the same ancestral population (here perhaps termed "Yana"?) so my guess is that Lazaridis and Haak mistook the Indo-Europeans to be an admixture of both ancestries, whereas in reality maybe "Steppe ancestry" people were none CHG nor EHG but some distinct "Yana-derived" distinct population all by itself.
@Ric Hern "e already see K2 in Ust Ishim and in Europe between 35 000 and 45 000 years ago...So Ust Ishim should have something in common with Haplogroups I and J which could be this maybe wrongly labled CHG like Paleolithic ancestry...."
Doesn't Ust Ishim have more in common with East Asians and Tiuyuan?
Aren't you mixing up Ust Ishim with Kostenki 14 by chance? Kostenki was the one deemed to include all 3 major ancestries of contemporary Europeans/Western Eurasians: foragers (mostly Villabruna cluster style WHG), Dzudzuana-style Anatolian Farmers and Steppe Kurgan IEs.
Davidski,
We have no direct knowledge about the linguistic affilitation of the Corded Ware horizon. Nothing is attested. It was not necessarily homogenous. Uralic speakers seem likely to have been living in the vicinity of the Volga, west of the Urals. Nothing disproves or proves that early Uralic speakers were part of the CW horizon or not.
The only thing which seems likely to be wrong are the suggestions that the proto-Uralic people were autosomally like present day Samoyedic peoples, from North Siberia, some Nganasan like people, and hunting and fishing people who progressively were diluted as they made their way south and west.
Proto-Uralic people (certainly proto-Finno-Ugric people) are more likely to be autosomally similar to the "steppe cluster", living in the forests near the Volga, in early and continuous contact with proto-Indo-European groups, who had accumulated some amount of "NeoSiberian" admixture by the time that they later made their way westwards to Finland and Hungary and displaced Balts, linguistically dominated others, etc. By this time those groups living west of the Urals probably had no more East Asian ancestry than Indo-Iranian groups (Scythian) of their same time and place. Albeit with varying N1c haplogroups on the y side (Scythians seem instead R1b, with no R1a).
NeoSiberian ancestry in Finno-Ugrics is likely to only be a "tracer dye" of their origins in a later migration from the Volga, not the preserved, diluted ancestry of the earliest FU speakers.
The Samoyeds are likely to be an early branch from this group that was *heavily* mixed with "NeoSiberian" ancestry.
When exactly do you believe that I said Quiles was "on to something"? My opinion of Quiles at the moment is that where he is tenable he is repeating the same claims orthdox backers of the steppe hypothesis usually say, and where is invents anything new it is not correct and driven by his own odd ideas about R1a vs R1b (which in turn are driven by online arguments in the 2000s with strange Slavic nationalists, I would suspect). I think this differs from my older opinion in that I did not previously discover he had attempted to invent anything new.
@ Andrzejewski
So K split from IJK and left IJ behind and suddenly there is no Ancestral genetic link between them ?
@Matt "(Scythians seem instead R1b, with no R1a)."
How come? If they are from Andronovo then they MUST be almost all R1a1, not R1b!
At the end of the day Ust Ishim still is the Oldest Sample we have and was K2, so nearest to the IJK source according to Age.
And naturally Ust Ishim will pull Eastwards because M,N,O,P,S which are K descendants are mostly found in the East.
@ JuanRivera
But isn't Oase 1 K2a as well ? So it looks like K2 was very widely distributed and G,J and I hung around the Caucasus and Anatolia much longer. Maybe K2 split up somewhere in Western Siberia or the Altai with the majority migrating Eastwards...?
@ JuanRivera
It doesn't look as if K1 (LT) moved into Europe at all before the Neolithic . So it probably accompanied J and G in Western and South Central Asia for most of its existence. So K2 looks like the Major Migrators.
So K2 looks to me like the proper Eurasians because they were found in Europe as well as deep into Asia. So maybe this was the Crown Eurasians ?
@Matt
“We have no direct knowledge about the linguistic affilitation of the Corded Ware horizon.”
Links between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages and between Corded Ware and Sintashta /Andronovo and leave no doubt about linguistic affiliations of the Corded Ware horizon. Linguists and geneticist agree on it.
“By this time those groups living west of the Urals probably had no more East Asian ancestry than Indo-Iranian groups (Scythian) of their same time and place. Albeit with varying N1c haplogroups on the y side (Scythians seem instead R1b, with no R1a).”
R1b Scythians were not Indo-Iranians. There is no evidence for this. Bashkirs are not even IE.
I am sorry to inform you that Western European nationalists seem to have been wrong and Slavic nationalists probably were right. But still more data will sort it out in the future.
@ EastPole
So Turkic migration into and around the Southern Ural area didn't affect the Bashkirs ? Why do you so desperately want to exclude R1b from the Indo-European question ? You know by this time that both R1a and R1b were found on the Pontic Caspian Steppe during the Mesolithic as well as in Khvalynsk. And we also see some similar MtDNA Haplogroups among Steppe folks with R1a AND R1b. Or did the PIE origins now shift exclusively to Poland ? Why Must it be the One or the Other ?
At the end of the day there are Massive Open Spaces between the Volga River and Poland not explored and sampled yet...
@Gaska @FrankN,
Isn't partly a confusion between 'pots' and 'people'?
1. In Northern NW Europe we see a SGC that evolved into BB and that blended with TRB/GAC heirs. This LN/BA has it's influence in the genotype until today, and can also so be seen in the phenotype.
2. In SW Europe the BB evolved mainly from the 'neolithic famers ancestry'. Cultural influence, pottery ('Maritime Beakers') influenced NW Europe. But not so much in genetical (people) sense. I guess also difficult to disentangle because TRB/GAC were heavily influenced by Neolithic Farmer ancestry....
@Ric Hern
„So Turkic migration into and around the Southern Ural area didn't affect the Bashkirs ? Why do you so desperately want to exclude R1b from the Indo-European question ?”
I am not excluding R1b from the Indo-European question.
I am only opposing including R1b into Indo-Iranian question without any evidence because Matt suggested that Indo-Iranian Scythians were R1b. I don’t think Yamnaya were Indo-Iranians, my opinion is that Indo-Iranians came from Corded Ware and have many links with Balto-Slavs.
Did Matt really claim that Scythians were R1b? That'd be really weird because it's obviously false.
Maybe he was confused by the wrong Y-haplogroup assignments in this paper?
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/10/cimmerians-scythians-and-sarmatians.html
Oops, found it...
Scythians seem instead R1b, with no R1a.
WTF?!
@Matt
You'll find some Scythians with R1a in this paper.
R1a is also the predominant lineage among Cimmerians, Scy_Ukr and ScySar_SU in our data, and present among Scy_Kaz as well.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/conan-barbarian-probably-belonged-to-y.html
Happy now?
And I'd like to see you explain how there's no Indo-European link between Europe and South Asia via Corded Ware. Try not to make a fool of yourself though.
@ EastPole
Okay, yes that sounds reasonable.
There could have been some minority R1bs among Indo-Iranian speakers but yes the Majority looks more R1a.
Dave: I read that post of yours. However, it isn't relevant to the issue in question, as Botai was a 4th mBC phenomenon, while the agricultural (pastoralist) transition on the Lower Volga dates to the early 5th mBC.
I suggest to re-read
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/two-starkly-different-neolithic.html
which actually brought me towards looking closer into the the Pre-Caspian (Prikaspiiskaya) Culture (thx for that info).
Dragos: "How are the 2 [Pre-Caspian and CT] mutually exclusive ?
We can have local continuity + exotic adstratum at the same time."
Because the agricultural systems were completely different: Full neolithic package, including cereal farming and pig-breeding, in CT, vs. a restricted pastoralist model w/o pigs in Pre-Caspian and Khvalynsk. The chronology is another problem - CT only reached the Dniepr around 5,000 BC, at about the same time as the Pre-Caspian culture appeared on the East Bank of the Lower Volga. Finally, there isn't any EEF DNA present in Khvalynsk, in contrast to Sredny Stog II, which did cereal farming and obviously displays CT influence.
As to leaf-shaped points, the innovation flow from Khvalynsk to CT, and not the other way round, was already worked out by Gimbutas.
Andre: "So what you are saying in one sentence is that some Middle Eastern ethnogenetic group (or maybe a Botai-like one) is responsible for the extirpation of Samara HG culture with its unique R1b subclades and substituting them with Indo-European-specific R1b subclades?"
No, I am not saying anything like that. You might want to do some reading on the Russian eneolithic before commenting further. Khvalynsk didn't replace the Samara culture, because it never covered the Samara area. Eponymous Khvalynsk marks the northern end of the culture's extent, which was centered on the Lower Volga and reached as far as the Mangyshlak Peninsula in NW Kazakhstan. Anthony 2007 has good maps on this.
The Samara culture existed in Samara and Orenburg oblasts until ca. 3700 BC.
Some recent findings are reported on p. 72-75 here:
http://conferences.au.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/RadiocarbonAndDiet2017_BookOfAbstracts.pdf
Note the camel bones found in Lebjazhinka III as reported by Kulkova, and the absence of camels from preceding faunal assemblages on the Lower and Middle Volga.
@wuere said-"Isn't partly a confusion between 'pots' and 'people'? In Northern NW Europe we see a SGC that evolved into BB and that blended with TRB/GAC heirs"
Many people think that the old Dutch model is dead a long time ago, but it is very respectable that you think that SGc evolved into BB, I just want to remind you these arguments
"it may have become clear the the Lower Rhine Basin was in fact NOT the place of origin of Bell Beakers, because the delta was the traditional habitat of the Vlaardingen Culture"
It is important to observe that when AOO pottery was introduced existing traditions remained intact, that nothing much seems to have changed not in SGC context, nor in Vlaardingen context.
Personally I don’t believe that there is any evidence to suggest that AOO was earlier than Maritime style, in other words, there is no basis left, for claiming that the origins of either AOO/Maritime Beaker style in the context of the Ducht SGC.
Even though the exact chronological of these Beaker types is still problematic (Beckerman 2015), in general the AOO type marks the cross over to the Bell Beaker type. This is substantiated by the fact that in other regions where the BB tradition has developed, but Single Grave Culture remains absent, the AOO Beaker is present as well. This is the case for the UK and France (Salanova, 2.000, Lemercier, 2.012)-
@Frank
I suggest that you actually make an effort to understand the ancient data that are now available from the Eneolithic Pontic-Caspian steppe and Central Asia.
Here are some points that you might find useful...
- a Yamnaya-like population of foragers was native to the Caspian steppe and didn't migrate there from West Asia or Central Asia during the Eneolithic
- the Botai-like ancestors of Steppe Maykop probably did migrate to the Caspian steppe from Central Asia during the Eneolithic and displaced the Yamnaya-like foragers there, but they weren't related to Khvalynsk
- the Yamnaya-like foragers somehow bounced back, became pastoralists, expanded across the steppe, probably giving rise to Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog II in the process, and also rolled over Steppe Maykop before moving into West Asia and Central Asia
So you see Frank, you've got it all backwards.
@ Frank
The components of what you're saying are factually correct individually, but you're not understanding my point
For ex
'' Because the agricultural systems were completely different: Full neolithic package, including cereal farming and pig-breeding, in CT, vs. a restricted pastoralist model w/o pigs in Pre-Caspian and Khvalynsk.''
Yes I agree, but theyre not completely different (See below).
'' The chronology is another problem - CT only reached the Dniepr around 5,000 BC, at about the same time as the Pre-Caspian culture appeared on the East Bank of the Lower Volga. ''
LOL. So that's a problem, that they match ?
''Finally, there isn't any EEF DNA present in Khvalynsk, in contrast to Sredny Stog II, which did cereal farming and obviously displays CT influence. ''
So what ? Khvalynsk-like admixture is in Varna, & in late Sredni Stog, in EEF & Ukr Hg zones. So Khvalynsk people obviously had linkes with EEF, if not simply by way of their kin.
Khvalynsk is a local development but evolving in absorbing ideas from agricultural neighbours via exchange. They acquired some influences on pottery, metal, some domestic animals exchanged and feasted. It was not a pastoralist culture. Im not sure why ytour mentioning pigs- as I just informed you what the isotopic data shows . Whilst youre critiquing the exchange model, your instead proposing some migration which doesnt have any eivdence for
Dave: "- a Yamnaya-like population of foragers was native to the Caspian steppe and didn't migrate there from West Asia or Central Asia during the Eneolithic."
Native? When and where? Certainly, we all would be glad to see aDNA from pottery-Neolithic Lower Don and Lower Volga. There is some indication that it contained elevated shares of CHG, as the CHG share rises from 3% in Sidelkino to 8% in Samara_HG, and from 4% in the Dniepr Mesolithic to up to 9% in the Dniepr Neolithic. This increase may be plausibly connected to the spread of Lower Volga and Lower Don pottery, which in turn seems to have arrived from the SE Caspian via Kazakhstan in the case of the Lower Volga Neolithic, and via Azerbaijan in the case of the Lower Don. So, some CHG-loaded immigration around 6500 BC, re-settling the Lower Volga after the 6200 BC hiatus, and mixing with Mesolithic Ukrainians. You might call it "native", it was as "native" as EEF were to Central Europe.
The question, however, is how CHG-loaded these populations were. My feeling is that the genetic shift effected on the Dniepr and the Middle Volga is too small to think they already posessed Yamnaya's 50-50 EHG/CHG ratio. Ergo, there should have been another CHG wave coming in during the Eneolithic, and that wave is plausibly related to the Pre-Caspian culture, that obviously replaced, and not just overformed, the preceding Lower Volga culture. Point in case is the substantial CHG increase in Khvalynsk compared to Samara_HG (and mind you, the Khvalynsk aDNA comes from the periphery, i.e. the contact zone between Samara Culture and Khvalynsk.)
Now, some, you maybe included, have been entertaining the idea that such CHG-rich Population could have been native to the Caucasus piedmont. However, in spite of a substantial Mesolithic and Eneolithic archeological record, there isn't any Caucasus Piedmont Neolithic attested aside from Chokh/ Daghestan, and a handful of campsites along the Kuma-Manych route. There is archeological consensus that the previously depopulated piedmont was resettled around 4500 BC, see e.g. discussion of the Nalcik cemetary in Anthony 2007. What is still unclear is who took part in this resettlement. My impression is that we are dealing with for different streams:
1.) A Colchian/ Sioni one creating Meshoko,
2.) An East Caucasian (Armenian) one, evidenced from Obsidian finds and the occurence of piedmont-typical "Pearl-ornamented pottery" in Areni 1,
3.) A Dniepr (pre-Sredny Stog II) one along the Kuban w. influence on Progress II; see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301562063_New_cases_of_trepanations_from_the_5th_to_3rd_millennia_BC_in_Southern_Russia_in_the_context_of_previous_research_Possible_evidence_for_a_ritually_motivated_tradition_of_cranial_surgery
4.) A Lower Volga (Pre-Caspian/ Khvalynsk) one as suggested by Anthony 2007, and IMO now confirmed by Progress/ Vonyushka aDNA as predominant source.
Seriously, I don't understand your obsession with Botai. Botai was a new arrival to E. Kazakhstan, replacing preceding HG cultures and introducing permanent settlements and a pastoralist economy, around 3700 BC. It doesn't have anything to do with the surrounds of the Caspian Sea during the early/mid 5th mBC.
@Gaska the place of origin as such is not so important, as said the initial cultural/pottery push could well be from SW Europe. No problem.
But Vlaardingen (edge South Dutch) is not representative for the Netherlands. The SGC and the BB hotspots are mainly found in the North Dutch area and are overlapping. Than you speak about NW Dutch (above Amsterdam, from the Olalde samples), the Veluwe in the middle of NE Dutch, and Drenthe in the outmost NE Dutch. That are the area's were the SGC and the BB flourished. And these were also the only places were the TRB existed!
The LNBA genetic of the North Dutch is therefore close to the Scandic one, my family fits even nowadays in the Nordic Bronze Age (LNBA) corner.
For the South Dutch is this not so much te case. North Dutch are more LNBA Nordic so TRB/SGC/BB mixtures. You can see it even in the SNP's that have an effect on the phenotype. The North Dutch are taller (Steppe influence) and lighter featured (TRB influence). In depth research has shown that this North (above the Rhine) and South (below the Rhine) difference is the only real significant one in the Dutch context.
IMO this can only be connected between the TRB/SGC/BB blends and hotspots in the North. G25 has shown this is also the case.
@Frank
Can you tell the difference between Botai and Botai-like? Hint: one of them has the "like" suffix after it.
Steppe Maykop was Botai-like and it looks intrusive to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Where from? Central Asia maybe?
The preceding population, the Yamnaya-like foragers, looks native to the steppe. Yes, that's right Frank, not like migrants from Central or West Asia, but native to the steppe.
Why native to the steppe, you might ask? Because they're foragers who basically look like a mixture between EHG and something related to CHG, but they lack Anatolian ancestry, which was all over West Asia at that time already.
It'd be nice if you actually tried to comprehend some of these concepts.
Dragos: The chronology is another problem - CT only reached the Dniepr around 5,000 BC, at about the same time as the Pre-Caspian culture appeared on the East Bank of the Lower Volga.
"LOL. So that's a problem, that they match ?"
Yes, because covering more than 1,500 km between Trypillja S. of Kiev and the Astrakhan area in about a century would represent a hitherto unknown expansion speed. LBK, commonly regarded as "fast mover", expanded by 100-200 km per century. CT must have used airplanes to reach the Volga, because their impact on the Lower Dniepr and the Donetsk basin appears considerably later...
Dave: I don't have an issue with regarding Steppe Maykop as "Botai-like", and it was certainly an intrusive, and apparently also temporary phenomenon from somewhere in the East.
However, I don't understand your concept of "Yamnaya-like foragers". You can't mean Pre-Caspian, Khvalynsk and the later stages of Samara culture, because they all have been shown to posess domesticated sheep, goats, and cows (see the 2017 abstracts I have linked to further above). You also can't mean the Dniepr Neolithic (that btw. posessed domestic animals including pigs, possibly introduced via the Caucasus, c.f. Gronenborn's well known maps on the spread of the Neolithic), and certainy not the Samara_HG. So, which population are you talking about?
"lack Anatolian ancestry, which was all over West Asia at that time already." But probably not yet in Central Asia (Jeitun, Kelteminar). While human aDNA from Neolithic Ceqntral Asia is still missing, we at least have goat aDNA now. It demonstrates that Anatolian/ EEF typical mtDNA A was still absent from Jeitun, where instead mtDNAs B (from the S. Caspian) and B/G (from the Zagros) dominate. Anatolian mtDNA A only appears in Central Asia during the CA.
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10055921/1/Ancient_Goat_Genomics_Resubmission_Combined.pdf
@FrankN " Point in case is the substantial CHG increase in Khvalynsk compared to Samara_HG (and mind you, the Khvalynsk aDNA comes from the periphery, i.e. the contact zone between Samara Culture and Khvalynsk.)"
I was wondering the same thing whether the transformation from Samara into Khvalynsk and the sudden increase in CHG percentage were intertwined or was it just a chance coincidence?
@FrankN
The Wang et al paper showed that in the Eneolithic there was a Yamnaya-like steppe population at the foothills of the Caucasus that was a clean cut mix of EHG and CHG. At that same time frame there already was Anatolian admixture in Iranians and Eneolithic Caucasians. East of that were Botai related peoples. There must have been since they enter the north of the Caucasus plains afterwards.
There seems no other conceivable way than that this clean cut EHG and CHG mix was a remnant form the pre-Eneolithic.
Farmers were in Khvalynsk in the first quarter of IVth millennium. A quote from the Samara Archeological conference held in 2018:
"In the Khvalynsk repositories (1 half IV. BC) anthropological material is more diverse. In addition to the uraloid substrate, the European broad-faced and southern European variants are recorded. R1a1, O1a1, I2a2 are added to the mito T2a1b, H2a1 by the haplogroups.""
The presence of I2a2 and the southern european anthropological type is the proof that the EEF were there.
the presence of the european broad faced ( early on only the uraloid was present) is the smoking gun that the population that arrived at the Volga was mixed farmers/steppe (R1a rich) tribes that formed the Skeyla culture of the Dneper.
@old europe "The presence of I2a2 and the southern european anthropological type is the proof that the EEF were there.
the presence of the european broad faced ( early on only the uraloid was present) is the smoking gun that the population that arrived at the Volga was mixed farmers/steppe (R1a rich) tribes that formed the Skeyla culture of the Dneper."
European Broad Faced were probably remnants of Cro-Magnon, so WHG?
Southern Europeans I agree were EEF, mostly described as 'gracile Mediterranean".
Please clarify what you mean by "early on only the uraloid type was present".
First of all, what is the so-called "Uraloid" type?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/dna-31000-year-old-human-16260530
31,000 year old group of ancient Siberians found...
@Andrzejewski
That is Sikora et al.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/10/y-haplogroup-p1-in-pleistocene-siberia.html
@andrzejewski
european broad faced= dneper -donets foragers ( they were likely the R1a guys )
"early on only the uraloid type was present" means that around 4500BC in Khvalynsk only the uraloid type was present but this is a quote from the Samara Archeological Conference.
Maybe Khvalynsk was formed with the arrivals from the Dneper of mixed farmers/steppe population?
@juanrivera
Here is the full quote:
Translation of Alexey Butin's original 27th Jan 2018 post ...
"Hello. Today the XIV Samara Archaeological Conference was held. The following reports were heard.
Khokhlov A.A. Preliminary results of anthropological and genetic studies of materials of the Volga-Ural period of the Neolithic-Early Bronze Age by an international group of scientists.
In his report Khokhlov A.A. introduced into the scientific revolution yet unpublished data of the Eneolithic burial ground Ekatirinovsky cape, which combines both Mariupol and Hvalyn features, and belongs to 4th quarter of the 5th millennium BC. All samples analyzed were of the uraloid anthropological type, the chromosome of all samples belonged to the haplogroup R1b1a2 (R - P 312 / S 116), and the haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2. Mito to haplogroups U2, U4, U5. In the Khvalynsk repositories (1 half IV. BC) anthropological material is more diverse. In addition to the uraloid substrate, the European broad-faced and southern European variants are recorded. R1a1, O1a1, I2a2 are added to the mito T2a1b, H2a1 by the haplogroups."
As for now R1b P312/ S116 has not been confirmed.
I'm pretty sure none of them were Uraloid, that's for sure ;)
@ Frank_N
When we factor in the reservoir effect of 700 years; then there’s no problem.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/lebyazhinka-burial-ground-middle-volga-region-russia-new-14c-dates-and-the-reservoir-effect/649B51FB774C7819B5CCAA95036CE6D7
Also, the odd cattle or sheep bone doesn’t make the Caspian culture pastoralist (& it even might be from later levels)
These people buried in Volga -Ural basin were fisher-hunters until Yamnaya came along (as per above study, Schulting, etc)
So, there's a basal R1 sample on the R1a project page now on FTDNA.
@JuanRivera
On the surface it seems unlikely that WSHG would be around in pure form in LBA South Siberia. Maybe AG_LBA is an Okunevo survivor?
However, WSHG might have been around a while before Neolithic because EHG's actually seem to be easier to model as WHG+WSHG in qpAdm than as WHG+Afontova_Gora3
For example, Kale did this test with Sidelkino:
Right pops:
Barcin_N, Iran_N, Levant_N, Kotias, MA1, Anzick, ElMiron, GoyetQ116-1, Vestonice16, Kostenki14, Ami, Australian, Ust_Ishim
Sidelkino_EHG as Iron_Gates_HG+West_Siberia_N 0.425 tail prob,
KO1+West_Siberia_N, Latvia_HG+West_Siberia_N, and Loschbour+West_Siberia_N all mid 30s tail prob.
AG3 with or instead of WSHG was worse (0.2x)
Karelia_HG and other later EHG's with those outgroups fit well as Sidelkino+some WHG sample.
Sikora et al. has many alternative qpAdm fits in the supplementary data for most populations - many populations without Kolyma in the figure may actually have it. For AG_LBA Kolyma+Bichon+Barcin_N actually has a slightly better P-value than Devil's Gate+Afanasievo+EHG (although considering what we know of BA migrations in the eastern steppe belt it's likely that AG_LBA has Afanasievo or Andronovo ancestry). Lack of WSHG and Botai complicates the paper's fits the most.
@ Shaikorth
“”Sidelkino_EHG as Iron_Gates_HG+West_Siberia_N ”
However Sidelkino (13 kya) is older than both of the former .
There’s EHG in Iron Gates. Shared ancestry in all 3 will produce nice stats, but is that model telling us something real ?
Post a Comment