A new preprint featuring hundreds of Viking Age genomes has appeared at
bioRxiv [
LINK]. Titled
Population genomics of the Viking world, it looks like a solid effort overall, although I'm skeptical about its conclusions. I might elaborate on that in the comments below, but I'll have a lot more to say on the topic if and when I get to check out the ancient genomes with my own tools. Details about the new samples, including their Y-chromosome haplogroup assignments, are available
here. Below is the abstract, emphasis is mine:
The Viking maritime expansion from Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) marks one of the swiftest and most far-flung cultural transformations in global history. During this time (c. 750 to 1050 CE), the Vikings reached most of western Eurasia, Greenland, and North America, and left a cultural legacy that persists till today. To understand the genetic structure and influence of the Viking expansion, we sequenced the genomes of 442 ancient humans from across Europe and Greenland ranging from the Bronze Age (c. 2400 BC) to the early Modern period (c. 1600 CE), with particular emphasis on the Viking Age. We find that the period preceding the Viking Age was accompanied by foreign gene flow into Scandinavia from the south and east: spreading from Denmark and eastern Sweden to the rest of Scandinavia. Despite the close linguistic similarities of modern Scandinavian languages, we observe genetic structure within Scandinavia, suggesting that regional population differences were already present 1,000 years ago. We find evidence for a majority of Danish Viking presence in England, Swedish Viking presence in the Baltic, and Norwegian Viking presence in Ireland, Iceland, and Greenland. Additionally, we see substantial foreign European ancestry entering Scandinavia during the Viking Age. We also find that several of the members of the only archaeologically well-attested Viking expedition were close family members. By comparing Viking Scandinavian genomes with present-day Scandinavian genomes, we find that pigmentation-associated loci have undergone strong population differentiation during the last millennia. Finally, we are able to trace the allele frequency dynamics of positively selected loci with unprecedented detail, including the lactase persistence allele and various alleles associated with the immune response. We conclude that the Viking diaspora was characterized by substantial foreign engagement: distinct Viking populations influenced the genomic makeup of different regions of Europe, while Scandinavia also experienced increased contact with the rest of the continent.
Margaryan et al.,
Population genomics of the Viking world,
bioRxiv, posted July 17, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/703405
See also...
They came, they saw, and they mixed
Who were the people of the Nordic Bronze Age?
Asiatic East Germanics
251 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 251 of 251Still the TRB core can be related to GAC in an ancestral manner, so I still fail to see a language shift for the latter, but rather one language or language group being spoken by both.
Since Germanic lacks a Basque substrate, they can be deleted as language givers for SW BB/Basques too.
@Gaska
Although I agree with you on some things, but raging against the migration theory from an ideological standpoint like this reminds me of Indian nationalists. Also you overstate the impact of archeogenetic interpretations on the public sentiment about immigration or on the actions of politicians.
From the genetic side: as Zardos pointed out the term "Yamnaya related ancestry" is coined for a reason. Experts are aware that Yamnaya proper itself is problematic as direct ancestor. But this won't change the fact there was a very real spread of ancestry that can be well modelled with Yamnaya as a stand-in. However the genome-wide ancestry represented by the Yamnaya samples already existed before Yamnaya and probably had a wider range by the time of Yamnaya proper. An example for that is Sredny Stog II. This sample pre-dates Yamnaya proper (arguably pre-dates even the main predecessor Repin) and it is essentially EHG + CHG + ANF (or one could say a somewhat more CHG-rich Khvalynsk variant + ANF) with zero WHG. And it is R1a1a1. So we have this important Y-DNA in a sample with zero Central-European (let alone more western) genom-wide ancestry.
The other side of the problem that a huge region in Eastern Europe is completely un-sampled from the relevant period.
GAC might have spoken one of the languages current in the TRB zone
As to whether this was the substrate for Vasconic or not- I doubt it. Why would BB males adopt the language of some rustic TRB group? Seems no social compulsion to do so
More likely, however, post-BB groups in Bavaria might have adopted the languages spoken around Central Europe at the dawn of the Bronze Age
@zardos
1.You are right, that for a mass migration to radically change the genetical composition of Europe, even one generation is enough, but you forget that then, two other circumstances that are also incompatible, are necessary.
One- That the European population was very scarce, and therefore there was an immense (for the time) uninhabited territory, that was populated for newcomers.
Or- That there was a massive conquest-
Neither of these two circumstances can be seen in European archeology, then we can only think of small migrations of groups related to Yamnaya (which by the way only reached the Hungarian plains) that obviously would not have enough strength to change the genetic pool of the rest of Europe. The safest thing is even that its autosomal composition is diluted as sugar in coffee after a few generations.
2 You are also right that geneticists have always mentioned the obvious link (perhaps 75%) between CWC and Yamnaya- This obviously means, that only a steppe migration and a small mix with women (and even men, from Neolithic cultures)-25% would be able to produce that genetic change. But I remind you, that for that you need to find R1a in the Yamnaya culture, and obviously for the moment it seems that it will not occur, that is, sooner or later they will have to rectify- Or they increase the period of time that Yamnaya (or steppe, or Sredny Stog, or Khavlisnk )signal entered mainland europe (5,000-3,000 BC) or at the moment they will always be in a dead end. After all, we now know that the old famous autosomal ghost composition CHG existed in the steppes long before the Yamnaya culture.
3-Reich exposes his theories and opinions, which are very respectable but I sincerely believe that he is overrated by the International Scientific Community. He has been wrong many times and will continue to do so, because he is as human as all of us.
4 - The inconsistency and lack of coherent explanations due to lack of scientific evidence (that is, the absence of R1a and R1b-L51) in the Yamnaya culture, makes anyone have their doubts about the successive explanations they offer us. The only thing left is the famous steppe ancestry and I think that it is time for these gentlemen to explain to us
A-How many, which and to which cultures belong the samples that have been used to determine that autosomal component, and if they think that these samples are enough to reach those conclusions without any doubt
B-What exactly are the genetic components identified as strangers to the rest of Europe that have been considered as determinants to establish that significant genetic change. And I expressly refer to the CHG that we now also know was present even in the Greek Neolithic without the need for steppe migrations (could it be that this steppe signal could be reproduced in other territories without the need for genetic relationship with the steppes?
I believe that the time has come to even doubt the ability to establish genetic differences between WHG, EEF, SHG. EHG CHG in the prehistoric European population.
5- It is also very interesting to see how some of the guardians of Kurganist orthodoxy have modified their positions to hide P312 and even L51 in one of the subcultures of the CWc (specifically the SGC), based on arguments that I think are not very scientific. If that were so, L51 along with R1a would have to appear in the Yamnaya culture, because Reich has also always been very strict in saying that R1b-M269/L51/P312 is the link between the steppes and western Europe because it is the big culprit of the expansion of the Yamnaya signal.
6-Finally, the theory that the BBc derives from the CWC for us is a joke, although it is true that we are already accustomed to suffering such manipulations.
I sincerely believe that a great debate is needed about the steppe signal and the way it spread throughout Europe, we cannot take everything for granted.
Early Baltic Corded Ware looks something like 90% Yamnaya.
It's only after a few hundred years that the level of Yamnaya ancestry in the Baltic Corded Ware goes down to around 70%.
@Drago “More likely, however, post-BB groups in Bavaria might have adopted the languages spoken around Central Europe at the dawn of the Bronze Age”
And what’s their incentive to do so?
@Gaska: Forget about Yamnaya completely, delete it from the equation and whats the difference?
You still get an at least similar population from East of the Carpathians which expanded with CWC over much of Europe and with an related branch hijacking BBC to spread Yamnaya related ancestry.
Even if you would be able to prove the Yamnaya to be a rather unimportant sideshow of the CWC success story, you dont change the fundamentals.
And that are a lot of "ifs" already!
Like I like to stress every time: Regular burials are easier to find than signs for war and mass killings.That little was found proves or disproves exactly nothing. Even of modern battlefields you have more issues than with regular graves.
What matters are the results and if male lineages being largely replaced in a region, together with a cultural tradition, in short time by newcomers which colonise a region, then violence and war are the most likely explanation.
And a lower population density made it just easier to conquer. Hunters and gatherers can hide, pastoralists less so, but they can. Farmers however are the weakest. If they lose ground, even if they could flee initially, they will starve to death without a stable environment.
So a lot of the farmer females might have even begged to be taken by the conquerors, if not forced initially already, to be taken by the winners.
Farmers can only persist if they can defend their land or being tolerated by the conquerors. They cant hide for too long in larger numbers.
Not even in the context of LN/EBA Europe. A lot of farmer groups were strong enough for surviving the initial conquest in areas not preferred by CW people.
But they were not the IE speakers and their paternal lineages were largely replaced.
And most important for your argument; They lacked Yamnaya related ancestry before CWC.
@Slumberry said- "as Zardos pointed out the term "Yamnaya related ancestry" is coined for a reason. Experts are aware that Yamnaya proper itself is problematic as direct ancestor"
Then, you are giving me the reason, the lack of R1a and R1b-L51 in the Yamnaya culture has forced them to change their initial positions- Yamnaya related ancestry? Related to what culture, or with what people?. Scientifically this is a vague and inappropriate term, that not only does it not help to clarify things but complicates them even more. That is, they first defend a direct migration from Yamnaya (3,300-2,600 BC) and now talk about Yamnaya related. Does it seem logical to you? Wouldn't it have been more prudent to wait to analyze the genetic pool of the Yamnaya culture carefully and thoroughly?
@Slumberry said-"However the genome-wide ancestry represented by the Yamnaya samples already existed before Yamnaya and probably had a wider range by the time of Yamnaya proper. An example for that is Sredny Stog II. This sample pre-dates Yamnaya proper (arguably pre-dates even the main predecessor Repin) and it is essentially EHG + CHG + ANF (or one could say a somewhat more CHG-rich Khvalynsk variant + ANF) with zero WHG. And it is R1a1a1. So we have this important Y-DNA in a sample with zero Central-European (let alone more western) genom-wide ancestry"
We all know what the period of time in which the culture of SS was developed (approx. 4,500-3,500 BC)-And I agree with you that there, R1a has been found (If I remember well in Alexandria). Since that Yamnaya related ancestry only appears in Central Europe around 3,000 BC, you need to find R1a in the period of time between 4,000 and 3,000 in some place or culture of the steppes. Maybe it's just a matter of time, or maybe geneticists find that signal in mainland europe long before the Yamnaya culture. That could solve the problem of R1a and even the expansion of the IE language by R1a/CWC
You are saying that you are basing all your assumptions on a single sample, don't you think it's risky?
Regarding the absence of WHG in the steppes, I think that is incorrect, because unless I am wrong, all EHGs have a small proportion of WHG. In other words, there is nothing (not even the CHG) that makes Yamnaya culture absolutely different from other Neolithic or Chalcolithic cultures (especially from Eastern Europe-Poland, Hungary, Balkans, Greece)-The only truly significant difference would be the different proportions in the different ancestries. And that my dear friend is very dangerous and risky to establish because the guys that work in that matter have to handle individuals, not peoples or cultures, and each sample can have a very different genetic history.
And if this happens with R1a, what about R1b-L51?, first kidnapped in Yamnaya, then kidnapped in CWC, absolutely related to the expansion of the Yamnaya culture, then with the related Yamnaya ancestry, and this without having found a single Sample of this lineage in the steppes or the CWC. Came on this is not serious. Whenever you want we talk about the kidnapping of the BBc, and all this effort, to try to square a theory that has clearly collapsed
I wonder which had the greater influence on the current European gene pool the Indo Europens or the Scandinavian migrations ( Viking,Norman,Burgundian,Vandal,Goths )
Sorry if that is a dumb question.
@zardos-
Ok we completely forget about Yamnaya culture (which on the other hand means reducing the famous Gimbutas theory to ashes).
Now we have R1a in SS, hidden somewhere in the steppes or in some unknown subculture, waiting for its moment (for more than 1,000 years), to enter the Baltic Countries from 3,000 BC and take the his Yamnaya related ancestry to mainland Europe. It is not important if they colonized uninhabited territories or massacred hunter gatherers or Neolithic farmers because evidently the events could occur just as you have related.
And we also have R1b/L51 also hidden in the CWC waiting for his moment (or his descendants moment) to kidnap the BBC and expand that signal through Western Europe. Do you think that someone can really believe that story without at least 100 questions of inexcusable answer waiting to be answered?
Yes, because its already proven by the data. Now its just about details which wont change the bigger picture.
There is a small chance left for BBC R1b to be local from West of the Carparthians. They could have somehow hijacked a Corded group, like Northern HG did with Neolithics in TRB and GAC.
This is an option, but even that wont change the fundamentals. But to me L51 and BB is not completely solved by now.
Funnily, even if of local Western origin, for Iberia it changes little, because it would still be an invasion by people from the North with Yamnaya related ancestry.
The term is clear by the way, because that ancestry component is distinctive.
Also, we are not to forget about Yamnaya culture. It had an impact, like Iberian BB. Its like it is in science and war: Some people invent something, but they lack something else for the breakthrough. Then come some other people, see the invention, apply it in a better way and have a huge success.
Its the same with Yamnaya and CWC. Whether they are father-son, brothers or just cousins must be solved in Eastern Europe.
Ric Hern: "Universal ? What do you mean by it ? Especially Water and Fire ? "
Check out the ASJP database for the meaning "water" (https://asjp.clld.org/parameters/75). Filtering for "w" produces 989 entries. Some examples ("3" represents a Schwa, "7" the Ain [IPA: ʕ]):
Proto Agaw: aqw~
Proto Algic: kw~a
Proto Austronesian: wai
Proto Austro-Thai: qw~ahar
Proto Heiban (Niger-Congo): aw
Proto-Highland East Cushitic: wa7a
Proto Huevan: ewe
PIE: akwa
Proto Iroquoian: awe*7
Proto Salishan: uqw~
Proto Tacanan: uwi
Proto Tibeto Burman: twi
Proto Uralic: wete
Ainu (various dialects): waka
Akara (Pama-Nyungan): kw~aty~a [similar forms in various other PN languages]
Akebu (Niger-Congo, from Togo): 5wE
Amele (Trans-New Guinea): w3
Amharic: w3ha (note also Arabic oued "water course")
Ami (W. Daly, N. Australia): wuta
Balanta (Niger-Congo, from Senegal): wada
Birri CAR (Nilo-Saharan): wu
Boikin (Sepic, PNG): ngw
Bumthangkha (ST-Bodic): khwe
Cholon (isolate from Peru, extinct): kw~ot
You may check out the remaining ca. 970 entries for yourself.
"Fire" is discussed by Pagel e.a.. Here, the situation is a bit more complicated due to various semantic shifts ("heat", "light", "sun", "spark", "burnt/ ashes" etc.). Nevertheless, PIE *pe-war may a/o be related to:
Proto Ainu: apE
Proto Austronesian: api
Proto Bantu: pea
Proto Hlai: api
Proto Kadai: pui
Proto Tucanoan: peka
Proto Wintun (Penutian, California): ph~o
Atemple (TNG): pai
Ayoreo (Zamocan, Paraguay): pioi
Bobawa (Halmaheran): ipi
Burushaki: ph~u
Chimariko (Hokan): a7pu
Comanche: koto-pu
Dumpu (TNG): pe
Gulai (Sudanic): poro
Gadames (Berber): ofa
Hone (Niger-Congo, N. Nigeria): py~iru
Jemez (Kiowa Tanoan): pE7E
Even if some of the above are chance correspondences (though the Pacific cluster looks extremely regular and solid) - such a widespread root can't be used for any interference on the origin and relations of PIE.
“Ancient Genomes Reveal Yamnaya-Related Ancestry and a Potential Sourceof Indo-European Speakers in Iron Age Tianshan”
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30771-7?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982219307717%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
“Here, we report first genome-wide data of 10 ancient individuals from northeastern Xinjiang. They are dated to around 2,200 years ago and were found at the Iron Age Shirenzigou site.”
2xR1b1a1a2 found
“Our findings furthermore support a Yamnaya-related origin for the now extinct Tocharian languages in the Tarim Basin, in southern Xinjiang.”
If it is true then maybe Yamnaya was PIE homeland.
@zardos
I would not define as details, the fact of not having found R1a and R1b in Yamnaya, but I could accept it (in relation to R1a), because of the obvious archeological similarity of CWC with the steppes
Regarding R1b-L51/BBC, it is good to hear that it is a subject that at the moment is not completely solved, and that you understand that there is a small possibility that he is native to the west of the Carpathians.
I think that this "small" chance is because you (and most supporters of the Kurgan theory), give much greater importance to autosomal DNA than to uniparental markers, anthropology and archaeology, because if you consider those factors (including something that I consider very important such as exogamy and female migrations) L51's chances of being native to western Europe increase exponentially.
And regarding Iberia, believe me that there is no problem in accepting that R1bL51/P312 has its origin in the north of the Pyrenees, in fact I have always defended its origin in the Franco-Cantabrian region and as you know "Franco" means French-France, which is obviously not my country. What is a problem, is to accept the exclusive connection of R1b-P312 with the Yamnaya ancestry, because there are not enough arguments to accept it-
1-Antiquity of P312 in Iberia (actually, 2.434 BC)
2-Women (before, 2.500 BC) who apparently have that signal and yet their markers are typical of the Iberian Neolithic.
There are hundreds of deposits left to analyze between 3,000 and 2,500 BC and anything can still happen.
So the Tocharian speakers were R1b and the Saka were R1a1, correct?
Ric, Ebizur: The parallels between Bantu metsi and Japanese mizu "water" are intriguing, and have inspired me to another search of the ASJP database, this time on the root "to drink". Here are the results:
Proto Algic: mEn
Proto Austronesian: mimah (Proto Malayo-Polynesian minum, Ami minanum)
Proto Aymara: uma
Proto Jicaque: m37
Proto Maiduan (Penutian): moho
Proto Mandekan: min
Proto Ongamo-Maa (Nilotic): mat
Proto Sino-Tibetan: am
Abar (Bantoid, Nigeria/Cameroon): mu (dto. Yoruba)
Aguaruna (Jivaroan): umu
Alladian (NC-Kwa, Ivory Coast): mi [similar in other Kwa languages]
Amarakaeri (isolate, Peru): mai7
Anor (Lower Sepic, PNG): ami [similar in other Lower Sepic languages]
Asmat Central (TNG): mu
Atakapa (isolate, Gulf of Mexico): em
Bakairi (Cariban): men3
Bari Sudan (Nilotic): moTu
Biblical Hebrew: gama7 (from Kartvelian, see below?)
Bosavi (TNG): maya
Burushaki: mEn, min
Bwile (Bantoid, E. Congo): mina
Chechen: mala
Chuwabu (Bantoid, Mozambique): mua
Cuica (isolate, Venezuela): meu
East Greenlandic: imiq (dto. in Inuit)
Evenki: imi, Nanai, Hezhe: omi, Manchu: Emi
Georgian: sma, Mingrelian: suma
Heyo (Torricelli, PNG): ma
Huachipaeri (isolate, Peru): mahe
Ingush: mala
Kaki Ae (isolate, PNG): mua
Katu Eastern (Austroasiatic): om
Kombai (TNG): mi
Korean: masi
Kosare (isolate, W. Papua): miEmEnE
Lendu (C. Sudanic): mb~u
Mochica (Chimuan, Peru): man
Moksha (Uralic): siman
Noocksack (Salishan): hoc3man
Tirma (Sudanic, W. Ethiopia): ma
Turkmen: iCmek, Uygur: iCmak
Vlach (Romance): midu
W. Armenian: x3me (from Georgian?)
Apparently another paleo-root..
@Andrzejewski
“So the Tocharian speakers were R1b and the Saka were R1a1, correct?”
We don’t know it yet. It is only a speculation IMO.
But if it is true and R1b Tocharians came from eastern Yamnaya and Afanasievo then what is the source of Slavic influence on Tocharian?
https://i.postimg.cc/FFcmV1Kq/screenshot-507.png
https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781512801200/9781512801200-007/9781512801200-007.xml
Maybe it was Andronovo?
@EastPole “But if it is true and R1b Tocharians came from eastern Yamnaya and Afanasievo then what is the source of Slavic influence on Tocharian?“
I’m Polish but why would be any Slavic influences on Tocharian?
What do you think about the theory regarding the Sarmatian origins of the Poles?
@ FrankN
Tswana word for "to drink" = Nwa.
Zulu word for "to drink" = Puza.
The "M" thing seems more like some Afro-Asiatic influence from the North and East...
@Samuel Andrews
"The paper used Levant Chalcolithic as their NEar East reference. Bad choice. It is obvious from modern DNA that East Africans' Eurasian ancestry is almost 100% Natufian-like."
How are you able to discern this? Through your own G25 modeling?
@Cy Tolliver,
"How are you able to discern this? Through your own G25 modeling?"
Also mtDNA. U6a, R0a2, M1a1, J2a2, N1b, N1a1a, HV1 are the most frequent Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups in East Africa. All appear to derive from Natufian or Ibermausian (M1, U6).
This 2017 study got lots of mtDNA from ancient Egypt....
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694#supplementary-information
It is key for understanding Middle Eastern mtDNA. Its mtDNA akin to the Eurasian mtDNA of East Africa.
Ancient Egyptians had as much Natufian ancestry as modern Saudi Arabians. Yet still it seems, Eurasian ancestors of East Africans were more Natufian-like than Egyptians or Arabians. This could be because they were an Egyptian-like pop admixed with a very basal North African pop like Ibermausian (mtDNA U6, M1).
@Juan Rivera (a.o.): "Turns out that the Afanasievo hypothesis for the Tocharians wasn't at least completely wrong after all."
No. First of all, the samples were from Dzungharia, which apparently lacks any attestation of Tocharian. To learn more about the genesis of Tocharian, we need Tarim Basin samples from the first half of the 1st mBC, which appears to be the mainstream dating for Proto-Tocharian. Otherwise, the reported lack of ANF/EEF ancestry in those Dzungharian samples is noteworthy. However, we don't have a clear idea yet about when ANF ancestry made it into Central Asia (BMAC). Could well have been as late as the MBA (Namazga III).
I personally feel that it was unwise for the study authors to specify Iran_N as outgroup in their qpAdmin analyses, given that the Central Asian Neolithic almost certainly originated from Iran, more specifically the S. Caspian and the Alborz foothills (Sang-e-Chakmak). While the main text focuses on Yamnaya as origin of steppe-like ancestry, the supplementary tables show that Bustan_IA can't be ruled out as ancestral to some of these Dzungharian individuals.
This whole stuff requires review/ a qualified second opinion, once the aDNA is out and has been digested. I trust in our host here, Dave, to do exactly that.
Well, we know that Tarim Basin Mummies couldn’t be Tocharian because of the R1a1. So probably Andronovo or Saka. Or maybe even Cimmerians or Sarmarians
Sam,
In your G25 modeling, is there a significant preference for Natufian over Levant Neolithic? My understanding is that Levant Neo is essentially Natufian plus some Anatolian Neolithic - do contemporary East Africans show any excess affinity with Anatolian Neolithic pops? If no, that would seemingly imply a more Natufian source for their Eurasian side.
The origins of Afro-Asiatic are very interesting. There's the big debate about whether proto-Afro Asiatic emerged in the Levant or Northeast Africa. And there are also claims that it's an exceptionally old language family, I've read some claim that it's even pre-Neolithic, which seems a little far fetched to me personally.
These samples look like Proto-Xiongnu
@Gaska “And that, without taking into account what many guys (here and in other forums) have said about the leftist political use of European migrations to convince white Europeans, that we are only migrants and that we have to accept the suicidal migration policy of the European Union without questioning. Mixing politics and genetics is BS, but many people who have accepted these theories without questioning have helped spread this anti-white, and anti-western discourse.”
Are you a White Nationalist preaching against the vices of “White Genocide” or are you an anti-Kurganist Basque Nationalist preaching against Gimbutas’ Steppe theory? It’s quite confusing to understand what it is that you are for or against here
N1a1a was a very common Neolithic farmer marker from Anatolia, spread very much within the Cardial Pottery complex and the Cucuteni Tripolye. Likewise, HV1 was one of the most common mtDNA within CT. So they are both Anatolian originally rather than Natufian
@Sam FYI R0 was also common in CT
@Andre
"we know that Tarim Basin Mummies couldn’t be Tocharian because of the R1a1"
We don't *know* anything of the kind.
Cy Tolliver,
East Africans in G25 favor Natufian over all other Near Eastern references including Arabian, ancient Egyptians. But, they definitely do have some recent near Eastern ancestry (because they have some IranN ancestry).
It is interesting you say some have theorized Afro-Asiatic originated in Egypt. I wonder if it was a Natufian-rich pop it originated in. But, there are wholes in this idea. Neolithic Morocco genomes have a big signal of Levant_Neolithic ancestry. This could be when proto-berber languages arrived.
Also, ancient Canaanites don't have a signal of excess-Natufian on top of what Levant_Neolithic gives them.
An important detail about the new East African ancient DNA I forgot to mention is.....Early Pastorals (4,000-3,000ya) have over 70% Near Eastern Y DNA and over 70% African mtDNA.
This means there was sex-bias admixture between Near Eastern Pastoral & East African hunter gatherer populations. Near Eastern male+African female.
The new hybrid populations spoke a Near Eastern language, practiced Near Eastern substance strategy, etc. The mixture between these two ancient peoples was not 100% equal. One group, the pastoral males from the Near East, was dominate.
The exact same thing happened in Europe during the same time period between Eastern European Pastorals (Indo Europeans) & European farmers. One group of invading males was the dominate in the admixture process. They 'stole' the women of the native men.
Arguably there are other examples. One example maybe SHG (EHG women, WHG men).
Hopefully, gender studies scholars are listening.
'Stealing women' from an enemy tribe seems to have been a common way that ancient humans (men) asserted their dominance over each other. It's a genetic trait not a socially constructed trait.
@Samuel Andrews
Stealing women' from an enemy tribe seems to have been a common way that ancient humans (men) asserted their dominance over each other. It's a genetic trait not a socially constructed trait.
Well, I don't think I've seen any evidence that it's a genetic trait and I'm not expecting to.
@Davidski,
Because its impossible to get real evidence a complex behavior trait is genetic. That doesn't mean it isn't. In essentially every species, males compete for females. It'd make sense humans also do it on the group-level. The more 'powerful' group wins females from the weaker group.
An exception to this is Neolithic Europe. The farmers were clearly the better but hunter gatherer Y DNA replaced farmer Y DNA.
But so far Y DNA J in Middle East, Y DNA R1 in Europe, Y DNA E in East Africa, Y DNA N1c in Northeast Europe. All point to more powerful groups stealing women from weaker groups.
Re; Iron Age Shirenzigou site - https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(19)30771-7
Choice of modelling populations ancestor is pretty kookalamanza:
"We continued to use qpAdm [4, 27] to estimate the admixture proportions in the Shirenzigou samples by using different pairs of source populations, such as Yamnaya_Samara, Afanasievo, Srubnaya, Andronovo, BMAC culture (Bustan_BA and Sappali_ Tepe_BA) and Tianshan_Hun as the West Eurasian source and Han, Ulchi, Hezhen, Shamanka_EN as the East Eurasian source.
In all cases, Yamnaya, Afanasievo, or Tianshan_Hun always provide the best model fit for the Shirenzigou individuals, while Srubnaya, Andronovo, Bustan_BA and Sappali_Tepe_BA only work in some cases [3] (Tables 2 and S2; Data S2A). The Yamnaya_Samara or Afanasievo-related ancestry ranges from 20% to 80% in different Shirenzigou individuals, consistent with the scattered distribution on the East-West cline in the PCA (Figure 2)."
The supplement shows that Tian Shan Saka work equally well to Hun; not sure why this isn't in the main text. In fact, with Baikal EN and Baikal EBA, they actually usually get higher P fits in general than Yamnaya and Tian Shan Hun...
So why in the heck are you gonna use Tian Shan Hun and Saka as your sole Iron Age Central Asian source? Like, Sarmatians, Scyths, much? If you have samples which are almost contemporary, in the right place....?
Unless it's data quality limitations, very strange choice.
Likewise they connect R1b directly with Afanasievo, but this glosses over - https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457 - "The Iron Age nomads (Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmatians) mostly carried the R1b Y haplogroup, which is characteristic of the Yamnaya of the Russian steppe". And Tian Shan Hun DA81 also shows R1b.
The null hypothesis should really be that these individuals are largely continuous with other Tian Shan populations from the west, which is plausible on the genetic they present.
It's hard to understand why they have gone down the route of this far fetched adventure of linking the Iron Age Shirenzigou site with early Bronze Age Afanasievo rather than Iron Age R1b populations that are actually their contemporaries and who seemingly work as ancestors in qpAdm.
I suspect they've had the same problem the earliest papers on Sarmatians and Scythians had, finding these populations seemingly descended from Yamnaya rather than Andronovo, when this was due to being Andronovo+other admixture (IranN related+ANE related, etc.).
(Visually, using G25 PCA, we wouldn't expect points that are close to Tian Shan Hun to be modeled with Sappali_Tepe and Bustan_BA, but Sarmatians might work - https://imgur.com/a/3MYvtCp).
@Andrzejewski
“I’m Polish but why would be any Slavic influences on Tocharian?”
This is a good question. I suspect there was something Slavic in Corded Ware.
https://i.postimg.cc/4dvb9yfW/screenshot-388.png
“What do you think about the theory regarding the Sarmatian origins of the Poles?”
It is probably a myth. Ask David. Sarmatians from the steppe were probably Turks and had a lot of East Asian component which we do not have.
Interesting comments Matt
@Matt
Likewise they connect R1b directly with Afanasievo, but this glosses over - https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457 - "The Iron Age nomads (Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmatians) mostly carried the R1b Y haplogroup, which is characteristic of the Yamnaya of the Russian steppe".
You may have missed this, but the Y-haplogroup assignments in that paper are often wrong, and most of those samples belong to R1a, just like most Cimmerians, Scythians and Sarmatians.
Here are the updated Y-haplogroup assignments from the relevant BAM files:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bnVJujBs_bQu_dqSVi_dSXUuz9gNIYFX_XlqRrz92mo/htmlview
@Cy Tolliver,
David has added the ancient Kenya samples. They chose Natufian over all other NEar Eastern reference.
The Oldest Pastorlists are about 50% Natufian-like.
5.8293"
Kenya_Early_Pastoral_N
Levant_Natufian,50.4
Ethiopia_4500BP,29.3
Sudanese,18
Levant_BA_North,2.3
Malawi_Chencherere_5200BP,0
Levant_PPN,0
Levant_ChL,0
Levant_BA_South,0
Later Pastorlists are about 30% Natufian-like.
3.2157"
Kenya_Pastoral_N
Masai_Kinyawa,64.9
Levant_Natufian,29.8
Masai,5.3
Modern Ethiopians are as Near Eastern as the earliest Pastorlists in Kenya. However, they score as much Bedouin/Arabian as Natufian.
Early East African pastorals are clearly the main ancestors of modern Afro-Asiatic East Africans.
@Davidski, you're right, I've missed that! Although there are still 3/16 R1b in those assignments, so it's probably feasible to sample a cluster of genuine R1b as well without necessarily a separate patrilineal story from the other Iron Age nomads.
I guess the paper on Shirenzigou should also be checked to await and see how those samples are checked on yfull?
(Shirenzigou paper suggests they have used a hybrid methodology - "Y chromosome haplogroups were examined by aligning a set of positions in the ISOGG (http://isogg.org/) and Y-full (https://www.yfull.com/tree/) databases, in which we only restrict our analysis to reads with base and mapping quality higher than 30. The Y haplogroups were than determined with the most derived SNPs as well as upstream ancestral SNPs"
Krzewińska 2018 gies - "Y chromosome sequences were filtered out from BAM files aligned to the human reference genome 19 (hs37d5) using SAMtools version 0.1.19 (30). The Y chromosome haplogroups were assigned using haplogroup identifying SNPs included in minimal PhyloTreeY (version 30-Nov-2014) (40) and ISOGG Y-DNA haplogroup tree 2017 version 12.29 (International Society of Genetic Genealogy).")
Yeah, Yfull is looking at the Shirenzigou samples. But they haven't got back to me yet with the results.
In most of the cases known so far the women were not stolen, but the weaker group smashed. The women were in a lot of cases spared and, one way or another, integrated into the winners group.
Rape in war and female adaptation to dominant males is ubiquitous. Some females individually and cultures as a norm preferred suicide before living with the killers of the relatives, but most did not.
Also they were "used to it" culturally from intraethnic competition. Thats just something not as easy to detect among the same people.
So raping and robbing females in war and females being more socially adaptive as a survival strategy is genetically predisposed.
Since humans are cultural beings, they can act that way or suppress it. But the "normal" tendency is obvious for our species.
Obviously young and attractive women had better chances, while males being killed regardless of age before slavery became a widespread institution.
Why some IE groups mixed instantly and spared most local women,even some men, while others killed them all and just took the land, only their chiefs might have known.
As a tendency, the more developed the conquered society, the more acceptance of the locals. They just put themselves on top in a strictly hierarchical society to enjoy the productive fruits like in Greece and especially India.
The more IE groups were much more egalitarian in comparison. They had no subjugated people to deal with, with most of the foreign males killed.
@Andrei-"Are you a White Nationalist preaching against the vices of “White Genocide” or are you an anti-Kurganist Basque Nationalist preaching against Gimbutas’ Steppe theory? It’s quite confusing to understand what it is that you are for or against here"
It is not so difficult to understand, because I am both, that is Western European that does not agree with the EU immigration policy, and Basque-Spaniard, who simply thinks that Gimbutas theory has been clearly debunked.
You have no idea what a Basque nationalist is, for them, Basques in general represent the purity of Western whites, because we don't have African, Moor, Jew or Slavic blood. Not only are there racists in Poland, England or Germany, there are also in southern Europe. A "pure" Basque should not only speak Euzkera, but have at least the first 8 Basque surnames, and any mixture with other races (including the Poles of course) is considered racial impurity.That ideology has brought 40 years of crimes and murders. Fundamentally, other non-nationalist Basques have died (including some close friends of mine), so when you talk about Basque nationalists make sure you know what you are saying.
Hatred and the feeling of superiority has always caused violence, so sometimes when I see you write some things about southern Europeans, I imagine how you would feel in some areas of the Basque Country when they despised you simply because of your appearance or the language that you use. Even white Poles can be discriminated against by other whites who believe themselves superior.
You will always find other people more racist than you, my friend.
@ Zardos
“They just put themselves on top in a strictly hierarchical society to enjoy the productive fruits like in Greece and especially India.”
This needs to be analysed on a case by case basis
Certainly, the current data doesn’t show such generalisations
. For example the Swat valley data set doesn’t really demonstrate any elite posturing foreign males of the R1a
males ; instead the central figures were women (of course more data might clairify this)
In Greece; The Mycenaean elites rose locally c.1600 BC from a background of relative austerity (after mainland Greece was reinstated into Aegean trade system after the disturbances c. 2200 BC). The shaft graves were developments of family tholoi
It depends on the economic system too, because I mainly spoke of complex societies with a mass of farmers and slaves or slave like lowest classes.
Also, not all IE lineages made it on top and not all non-IE at the bottom.
This is obvious from Greece as well as from India.
The more egalitarian and more IE people like Germanics, Slavs and Balts were clan based pastoralist and small farmers. Thats one of the reasons why Christianity and Roman customs were adopted by their leaders later, because the traditional system was too egalitarian among the free men and a true kingship and state harder to manage.
Law and egalitarian tendencies were present among Greeks and Anatolians too of course, more so than in most other civilisations, but the percentage of free males with full rights was much lower.
Ok ; so you’re referring to the subsequent history of regions where IE was spoken rather than the inception process ; which still remained to be elucidated.
And who has got an answer, or an educated guess, for the question mark of the "italian ancestry" among the Vikings?
"Among the ancient samples, two individuals were derived haplogroups were identified as E1b1b1-M35.1, which are frequently encountered in modern southern Europe, Middle East and North Africa. Interestingly, the individuals carrying these haplogroups had much less Scandinavian ancestry compared to the most samples inferred from haplotype based analysis. A similar pattern was also observed for less frequent haplogroups in our ancient dataset, such as G (n=3), J (n=3) and T (n=2), indicating a possible non-Scandinavian male genetic component in the Viking Age Northern Europe. Interestingly, individuals carrying these haplogroups were from the later Viking Age (10th century and younger), which might indicate some male gene influx into the Viking population during the Viking period."
Post a Comment