search this blog

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Ancient DNA vs Ex Oriente Lux


In recent years you may have read academic papers, books and press articles claiming that the Early Bronze Age Yamnaya culture of the Pontic-Caspian steppe was founded by migrants from the Caucasus, Mesopotamia or even Central Asia.

Of course, none of this is true.

The Yamnaya herders and closely related groups, such as the people associated with the Corded Ware culture, expanded from the steppe between the Black and Caspian seas, and, thanks to ancient DNA, it's now certain that they were overwhelmingly derived from a population that had existed in this region since at least the mid-5th millennium BCE (see here).

So rather than being culturally advanced colonists from some Near Eastern civilization, the ancestors of the Yamnaya herders were a relatively primitive local people who still largely relied on hunting and fishing for their subsistence. They also sometimes buried their dead with flint blades and adzes, but hardly ever with metal objects, despite living in the Eneolithic epoch or the Copper Age.

As far as I know, this group doesn't have a specific name. But in recent scientific literature it's referred to as Eneolithic steppe, so let's use that.

It's not yet clear how the Yamnaya people became pastoralists. Some scholars believe that they were basically an offshoot of the cattle herding Maykop culture of the North Caucasus. However, the obvious problem with this idea is that the Yamnaya and Maykop populations probably didn't share any recent ancestry. In fact, ancient DNA shows that the former wasn't derived from the latter in any important or even discernible way (see here).

On the other hand, Yamnaya samples do harbor a subtle signal of recent gene flow from the west that appears to be most closely associated with Middle to Late Neolithic European agropastoralists (see here). Therefore, it's possible that herding was adopted by the ancestors of the Yamnaya people as a result of their sporadic contacts with populations living on the western edge of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Eneolithic steppe is currently represented by just three samples in the ancient DNA record, and all of these individuals are from sites on the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe (two from Progress 2 and one from Vonyuchka 1).

As a result, it might be tempting to argue that cultural, if not genetic, impulses from the Caucasus did play an important role in the formation of the Yamnaya and related peoples. However, it's important to note that the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe was the southern periphery of Eneolithic steppe territory.

Below is a map of Eneolithic steppe burial sites featured in recent scientific literature. It's based on data from Gresky et al. 2016, a paper that focused on a specific and complex type of cranial surgery or trepanation often practiced by groups associated with this archeological culture (see here).


Incredibly, one of the skeletons from Vertoletnoe pole has been radiocarbon dated to the mid-6th millennium BCE. My suspicion, however, is that this result was blown out by the so called reservoir effect (see here). In any case, the academic consensus seems to be that the roots of Eneolithic steppe should be sought in the Lower Don region, rather than in the Caucasus foothills (see page 36 here).

Considering that nine Eneolithic steppe skulls from the Lower Don were analyzed by Gresky et al., I'd say it's only a matter of time before we see the publication of genome-wide data for at least of couple of these samples. Indeed, the paper's lead author is from the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, which is currently involved in a major archaeogenetic project on the ancient Caucasus and surrounds. Unfortunately, the study is scheduled to be completed in about four years (see here).

But whatever happens, the story of Eneolithic steppe deserves to be investigated in as much detail as possible, because it obviously had a profound impact on Europe and its people.

In my estimation, at least a third of the ancestry of present-day Northern Europeans, all the way from Ireland to the Ural Mountains in Russia, is ultimately derived from Eneolithic steppe groups. It's also possible that R1a-M417 and R1b-L51, the two most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroups in European males today, derive from a couple of Eneolithic steppe founders. If so, that's a very impressive effort for such an obscure archeological culture from what is generally regarded as a peripheral part of Europe.

See also...


1,260 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   601 – 800 of 1260   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

@Rob
"Clown, there is only calBC, no uncal BC.
''You're an uneducated stupid who can't even read.''
Its funny that an onion -farmer with the eloquence of a 3 year old teaches people here science"

Shame brainless, there is no marking uncal BC, uncalibrated is simple BC.
Again for tutu: BC = BP - 1950, calBC = calBP - 1950, calBC != BC != calBP != BP.
A shameful сlown who can't read, you didn't even realize that my commentary is for that table. You're just a troll with the only purpose in your life is to cheat. Here absolutely everyone sees that you are uneducated, a troll, a liar, dilettante unable to read and understand scientific texts.

Matt said...

New paper on emergence of human adapted salmonella tied to emergence food production - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1106-9

Lists following ancient samples (from which the salmonella samples were extracted):

Sample Site Country Date (cal yr bp) Mapped rds Endog. DNA (%) Coverage Ref Covered (%)

--------------------------------------------------------
MUR009 Murzikhinsky II Russia 6,500–6,350 783,054 2.8 8.8 88.9
MUR019 Murzikhinsky II Russia 6,490–6,320 1,405,983 7.8 16.5 90.1
IV3002 Ipatovo 3 Russia 5,580–5,080 761,643 8.9 7.0 88.9
OBP001 Oberbipp Switzerland 5,320–5,070 138,083 0.5 1.2 59.3
IKI003 Ikiztepe Turkey 5,290–5,050 840,560 2.7 8.3 90.0
SUA004 Su Asedazzu Italy 4,300–4,010 2,517,870 11.5 24.0 93.2
MK3001 Marinskaja 3 Russia 2,990–2,870 79,534 0.8 0.7 37.8
ETR001 Chiusi Italy 1,810–1,620 1,977,148 24.5 17.8 93.7

--------------

"During the past 8,000 yr, the Neolithic lifestyle spread across western Eurasia and adapted to regionally different conditions. We investigated differences in human subsistence practices and genomic ancestry of ancient S. enterica-positive individuals using both archaeological information and human ancient DNA (see also Supplementary Note 1). The oldest burial site, Murzikhinsky II in western Russia with two 6,500-yr-old individuals (MUR009 and MUR019), is archaeologically assigned to the local Eneolithic, a transitional period dominated by a foraging economy that relied on hunting, with first evidence for the adoption of pastoralism.

In addition, genomic ancestry components of MUR009 and the mitochondrial DNA from MUR019 resemble those of previously sequenced eastern European foragers (Supplementary Table 1 and Extended Data Figs. 1 and 2). In contrast, the 5,500-yr-old individuals IV3002 (southern Russia) and IKI003 (Turkey) were from a regional Bronze Age culture that primarily practised a pastoralist economy linked to the use of domesticated sheep, goat and cattle.

The other individuals, from the Neolithic (OBP001) in Switzerland, the Bronze Age (SUA004) in Sardinia, the Iron Age (MK3001) in Russia and the late Roman Empire (ETR001) in Italy, were associated with archaeological evidence for an agropastoralist economy (Supplementary Note 1). Ancient human DNA analysis for these individuals (except OBP001, with insufficient recoverable DNA) infers genomic compositions consistent with (agro-)pastoralist economies based on previously published populations with similar ancestries (Supplementary Note 1 and Extended Data Figs. 1 and 2)"


More at the link. I've not fully read it yet.

gamerz_J said...

A bit out of topic perhaps but since the Sardinian paper was brought up:

Can someone help me understand what the authors mean by "Though as we show below, forms of N. African ancestry were already likely present in the eastern Mediterranean components"

How valid would it be to consider these modern populations as donors to Sardinians?

Furthermore, they say all modern Southern European populations have this North African component including French, Tuscans and Greeks. Not that it is not to be expected but interested if alternative models could also explain the affinity.

Gaska said...

@Sam Andrews said-This R1b P312 rich site from Sicily is interesting. Because it was bviously was a group of Bell Beaker people who sailed to Sicily from somewhere in mainland Europe. It's very likely they spoke Indo European, because it's very likely Bell beaker spoke Indo European. End of story.

@John Thomas said...No no no. Don't get Gaska started!

I'm sorry John Thomas but I have no choice but to participate in this conversation. It's pathetic how people try to deny reality. Those cases in Sicily are Df27-Z195 (in fact they are the oldest in Europe) and can only be modeled with Iberian BBs. Anyone who has read Fernandes' paper has known this for a year, however Sam still wondering what region of Europe they come from- Ha HA HA HA- If you understood some archeology you could quickly check the types of pottery with which the skeletons are associated, that is Ciempozuelos style-

The funniest thing is to say that they probably spoke IE, taking into account that until a few months ago, everyone was convinced about the origin of IE and R1bL51 / P312 in the Yamnaya culture, it is not surprising that some stubborn people still insist on demonstrating that steppe origin-

Now they do not even agree on the origin, the age and the composition of CHG, it will be a pleasure to see how they continue to make a fool of themselves

Matt said...

Ancestry fig from salmonella paper: https://imgur.com/a/R4Teeji
No apparent significant surprises.

Samuel Andrews said...

Only Sicily and Spain/Portugal has North African ancestry. It ranges from 5-10%. Some locations in Southern Italy have a few percent. No other Southern Europeans have North African ancestry.

What Sicily & Spain have, is almost for sure from Muslim Moors from the Middle Ages. There is not an old history of North African ancestry in Southern Europe.

The Carthage Phoecians didn't leave a big impact on the general population. There are examples from ancient a few Chalcolithic North African immigrants, but no real migration from North Africa to Southern Europe which left a lasting imprint.

Samuel Andrews said...

@gamerz_J,

And, actually North Africans have more (Neolithic) European ancestry than any Europeans have North African ancestry. They have about 30%.

But, overall throughout history the Mediterranean sea has been a barrier to gene-flow between Africa and Europe.

end said...

samuel andrews
i doubt it in the last paper show clearly how by the time of the roman empire rome cluster with the levant , i think a big part of that was that the mayority of the cartaginians still alive were slaved and slowly mixed with the romans in the following centuries

Anonymous said...


Eneolithic part of Murzikhinsky II someone writes that it belongs to the Volosovo culture, but its pottery belong to the Yurtikhovskaya culture, similar to Garino-Bor. The Yurtikhovskaya culture has links with the Baltic territory (amber) and with the Volosovo culture. It is inhabited by hunters-fishermen.

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews

Thank you for the reply! I only recently started learning about human genetics and ancient DNA, I was just going by the ADMIXTURE figure in this paper on Sardinia ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14523-6 )

figure: https://media.springernature.com/full/springer static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-020-14523-6/MediaObjects/41467_2020_14523_Fig4_HTML.png?as=webp

I know ADMIXTURE usually is not to be taken at face value but it seems the authors are doing just that in this paper.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews yes, Cardial Pottery are the source of Southern Europeans’ farmer ancestry, while LBK is a different wave. Maybe that fact explains why the Anatolian population in Spain is different from that found in Germany

AWood said...

@Samuel

I assume the Z196+ of ancient Sicily were the Sicani or Elymians. They presumably came from BA Iberia. Whether or not they spoke IE, I am not sure, but I find the fact that they were absorbed by eastern Mediterraneans such as Greeks and left hardly a trace other than some historical record very fascinating.

AWood said...

^above

My mistake, due to the timeline, the Z196+ guy pretty much has to be Sicani, as the other two major groups arrived considerably later.

Rob said...

Would have expected some Anatolia-BA signal in Nuraghi, but none present. Instead, pretty steady ~ 80% ANF ~ 20% WHG as per middle Neolithic.

The Neolithic Y-DNA is G2a2, I2a2 and I2a1b, so it seems the 'typical Sardinian' I2a1a arrives during Copper - Bronze Age; probably ultimately from western Europe (? west Alpine), via Italy (Remedello refugees ??)
Theres an C1a in Sicily MN.

A possible minor erratum- ''we detected Y haplogroups R1b-V88 and I2-M223 in the majority of the early Sardinian males. Both haplogroups appear earliest in the Balkans among Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and then Neolithic groups and later in EEF Iberians, in which they make up the majority of Y haplogroups, but have not been detected in Neolithic Anatolians or more western WHG individuals''; but M223 has been found in British Mesolithic, Falkenstein hohle, etc

Rob said...

W.r.t to the Harvard study, they continue the problematic miscontextualization of Beaker individuals. They seem to largely imagine Beaker provenance for individuals I14675, I14676, I14677, I14678, I15940, I15941, I15942

Ric Hern said...

@ Matt

Very interesting thanks. Certainly throws some light on when Khvalynsk started to became Pastoralists...

Lvciano said...

Etruscan, Iberian, Basque and Tartessian do not form a family. This means BB people changed language a lot of times. Could very well be that their original Lang. was IE being steppe rich.

Ric Hern said...

It seems to me that the Upper Volga/Kama/Oka region will become very interesting...and the Scepters connected to Suvorovo etc. are still to be considered....Just don't know how Early Volosovo (Date ?) fits into this picture. For me personally the Cattle MtDNA T3 from the West to the East and the early genetic split of Primitive Short tailed Romanov sheep ancestors from other North European Shorttails speaks volumes...the later adoption of domesticates in the Lower Don/Eneolithic Steppe than in Khvalynsk seems to point to a spread of domesticates along the Forest Steppe rather than a Southern Steppe/Black Sea Route towards the Don. This makes me wonder if Horse Domestication took place in the Forest Steppe rather than in the Steppe grassland...

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

Looks like the genomes from 5 of the human samples from the salmonella study are on ENA now:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB35216

Davidski said...

In regards to the samples from that Salmonella paper, IV3002 is one of the Steppe Maykop outliers from Wang et al. 2019.

IKI003, the Bronze Age Anatolian, is brand new and looks interesting, but the sequence is very low coverage.

CrM said...

IKI003 aDNA looks like KAC + Anatolia, so basically like the BA Anatolian samples that we already have.

Davidski said...

The Anatolia BA samples that we already have don't cluster so far to the east with Armenians like this one.

Also, unlike the Armenia EBA samples this Anatolian shows a slither of the pink component in the Admixture analysis. This pink component is also only found in the Steppe Maykop sample and Eastern Euro foragers.

Rob said...

Seems like that Anatolian sample (KI003) is from Ikiztepe 3000 BC.
It's known for its unusual character for Anatolia, in that it shows obvioua links to the NW Black Sea region & East Balkans; but also the south Caucasus, East Anatolian highlands, etc. Like a port on the Sea.

CrM said...

KAC Velikent and Armenia Lchashen also had some Steppe Maykop-like ancestry, it might be connected somehow.

Rob said...

I can’t recall any of the currently published samples from South Caucasus have steppe Majkop
It’s from Progress (4500->) & Catacomb (2400->)
Is it the way they’ve set up the admixture ?

CrM said...

@Rob

I said Steppe Maykop-like. Lchashen and Velikent show affinity to Steppe Maykop/Lola/Kumsay/Mereke/Sintashta/Krasnoyarsk outliers etc. I can't say who contributed to them directly.

Target: ARM_Lchashen_MBA:DA35
Distance: 3.0479% / 0.03047900
54.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
25.2 Levant_ISR_MLBA
15.4 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
3.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
1.6 RUS_Catacomb

Target: ARM_Lchashen_MBA:DA31
Distance: 2.3981% / 0.02398105
55.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
19.8 Levant_ISR_MLBA
17.2 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
7.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Catacomb

Target: Kura-Araxes_RUS_Velikent
Distance: 3.3026% / 0.03302617
88.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
6.0 RUS_Catacomb
5.8 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
0.0 Levant_ISR_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA

gamerz_J said...

@Davidski

I had the impression that Maykop did not contribute much to later populations. Do these results mean that they did instead?

Davidski said...

It's too hard to say at this time with so little relevant data.

Rob said...

@ CrM

Yes you're right. DA31 does show it, at least with G25 data

CrM said...

My guess is that samples from the Martkopi and Trialeti cultures will also have a Steppe Maykop signal like Lchashen.

Anonymous said...

@all

Is it possible to somehow find out the Y- & mt- haprogroups from https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB35216?


gamerz_J said...

@Davidski

Thanks. I just read the main paper, it seems MK3001 is the only one to show East Eurasian-like ancestry which likely is from Maykop.
Have not read the supplemental materials yet though.

PS. You mentioned a pink component found in Eastern Euro foragers before. Which ones do you have in mind?

In this paper it initially seems East Asian but later on becomes Native American like. However it remains East Asian in MK3001.

Davidski said...

Refer to Extended Data Fig. 1b.

gamerz_J said...

@Davidski

Yes, I see the pink one in MK3001 and also shows up (less) in IKI003.

But you also mention that it shows up Eastern Euro foragers and I was just wondering which samples you mean.

Unless you mean MA1/EHG?

Hodo Scariti said...

@ All

I gave a look to the samples from Salmonella paper. I used Tepeean's BAM kit to process the files. Here is the caveat: they are very very very small files.

Then I found these results (I hope someone can check the same files in order to have a counter-part opinion):
IKI003 -> it has got some calls on I level. So, I think it could be I of some sort;
MK3001 -> could be Q1a. It has calls that lead to Q1a level and, probably, Q1a1;
MUR009 -> difficult to say. Safely, it could be CT or even IJK. Not more... it has some calls on E level, like the others, instead. So, I don't think that E is reliable;
OBP001 -> really small and with so few calls that I was persuaded it was a female and not a male... I can't have a single reliable result.

CrM said...

"IKI003 -> it has got some calls on I level. So, I think it could be I of some sort;"

Interesting. Lchashen was also I.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y16419/

Anonymous said...


It is possible that IKI003 Ikiztepe Turkey 5,290–5,050 cal BP is same Neolithic I2c.
Neolithic Turkey Barcın [I1096 / BAR26 / M10-76] 6500-6200 BC M I2c
Neolithic Fikirtepe Turkey Menteşe [I0724/T2 / UP] 6400-500 BC M I

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews and @all

I am reading the Fernandes and there are 2 quite confusing points

1. How accurate is this "documents widespread Africa-to-Europe gene flow in the Chalcolithic" I feel like bit of on overstatement but perhaps wrong.

2. Are Sicilians really 40% North African? I have never seen a paper that suggests that high amount of admixture.

vAsiSTha said...

Does anyone had a good model for anatolia_mlba and eba to test? cant seem to find any good ones.

Samuel Andrews said...

@gamerez_J,
"How accurate is this "documents widespread Africa-to-Europe gene flow in the Chalcolithic" I feel like bit of on overstatement but perhaps wrong."

That is a huge overstatement. Out of something like 200 genomes from ancient Iberia, they found one North African immigrant dating to 3rd millenum BC. They found one North African immigrant from the same time period in Sardinia in this paper.

It is not accurate to then conclude there was widespread gene flow between Africa and Europe in Chalcolithic (3rd millenium BC.)

The 5-10% North African ancestry in Spain, Portugal, Sicily today is from the Middle Ages.

Samuel Andrews said...

True, but they are an exception. North African admix didn't become the norm in Iberia till the Middle ages. My point is, there isn't an ancient history of gene flow between Southern Europe and Northern Africa.

Samuel Andrews said...

Which is what this paper suggested when they say there was lots of gene flow between Southern Europe and North Africa in Chalcolithic.

Matt said...

Such ancestry spread widely across space in the Western Mediterranean in the CA, so literally "wide spread", but did not necessarily spread deeply in the sense of deeply spreading into the ancestry pool on the Med's northern shore.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Matt, They said "widespread geneflow" suggesting admixture with Southern Europeans in the Chalcolithic. When this didn't happen. All we have are two examples of North African immigrants.

Anonymous said...


As you can easily see, MUR009 belongs to Afontova Gora cluster, it's their descendant, and differs from EHG. So it's no surprise that it's Q-F746 like AfontovaGora2.

It is written about Murzikhinsky II that probably belongs to the Borskaya culture, it already had cattlemen. In general, everything is complicated there, there are three cultures of Garinskaya, Borskaya (previously often united in Garino-Bor culture), Yurtikovskaya, all of them are related and originate from the local Novoilyinskaya culture. Garinskaya, Borskaya and Volosovo are united into Volosovo-Garinskaya community.


Falcon said...

Eneolithic steppe VS Moderns

PCA plot : https://imgur.com/sUp5R4H

Yamnaya steppe VS Moderns

PCA plot : https://imgur.com/wDmEaLH

Corded Ware VS Moderns

PCA plot : https://imgur.com/On0llGQ

Surprisingly, all three cultures closest living population are natives of Volga from Russia.

It's also interesting that majority of Corded Ware samples plots with Mordovians and some with Lithuanians and Ukrainians.

Rob said...

The Russian data from the MPI study is actually from here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305475992_Stable_Isotope_Analysis_of_Neolithic_to_Late_Bronze_Age_Populations_in_the_Samara_Valley

Obviously there were no Afontovan cattlemen
Until eneolithic; main economy was fishing

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
The West Med samples are in European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). Is it too slow too download them from here? Are you waiting for them to be uploaded to the Recih lab?

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB35980

Davidski said...

Yeah, I'm waiting for the genotypes.

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/datasets

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews

Thanks, that was my impression as well. Some contacts probably existed between North Africa and Southern Europe but a recent paper on Iberia also noted (IIRC) that North African ancestry did not really become established until after the Roman Era and during the Middle Ages.

I have noticed estimates vary too, some papers suggest up to 11% North African in Iberia, others less so.

Regarding Sicilians, do you think their N.African ancestry is as reported in the paper?

gamerz_J said...

@SLMD

Could be wrong but do not Mordovians also have some recent East Asian?

Likely the EEF is making the Europeans plot further away in the PCA plot.

Samuel Andrews said...

@gamerz_J
"Regarding Sicilians, do you think their N.African ancestry is as reported in the paper?"

I'm really suprised the paper published 40% North African for Siiclians. They should know this is hugely inaccurate. I see why it caught your attention. The real number is 5% North Afican. The authors should know 40% North African is inconsistent with what is known about Sicily. I'm surprised they published that number.

end said...

SLMD

thanks for the work , finno ugric EHG extra admixture seem to push them to the yamnaya cluster.

here is the proportion of yamnaya/ehg /chg/uran neholitic,barcin n...... admixture around the world

https://imgur.com/a/zw9FLdX

end said...

also looking at your pca of corded ware people form nearly a perfect line with all europeans ,so is probably that all europeans descend ultimely from a more EHG rich proto corded ware population and not from yamnaya

https://imgur.com/a/XxV6jL8

Matt said...

Compared to EHG, the MUR009 sample in the salmonella paper looks in ADMIXTURE to have less Green "CHG/Iran_N" component and less brown (?) component, and then some remaining components which probably represent noise.

(Unfortunately the full K10 ADMIXTURE appears to a different colour scheme, so it is impossible to tell what the some of these components represent).
PCA position is slightly compressed towards present day Europe (EEF/WHG ancestry?) compared to EHG.

Presumably this paper is just showing the samples from each site they have got which are informative for salmonella, and there are better samples at these sites which will be in some other paper.

vAsiSTha said...

The Laziridis Anatolia_EBA samples are 1240k captured, UDG treated and damage restricted, can be modeled as Anatolia_N + kura araxes 50-50 with a high tail prob.

But the Damgaard EBA samples are shotgun captured, non UDG treated, and just give absolutely shit qpAdm results.

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews

Not sure how correct, but Morocco_LN is heavily EEF. Could it be due to the similarity of EEF ancestry in Sicilians and Morocco_LN?
That does not really explain why it does not show up in other samples but just wondering if population structure in the EEF has something to do with it.

PS. I am also confused by the Iran_N a bit? Is it a better fit than CHG?

Anonymous said...


For the especially stubborn, Murzikhinsky II has an Eneolithic site, it was part of a series of similar burial grounds, with virtually no trace of fishing in them. But it was, but in small numbers (recorded in one case). There are bones of pet cattles.

On Admixture it is easy to see that MUR009 = Afontova Gora 3 + WHG and/or EHG, but not pure EHG.

Matt said...

This paper on adna from auditory ossicles which was biorxiv last year (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/654749v1.full.pdf - "Human auditory ossicles as an alternative optimal source of ancient DNA") is now published - https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2020/02/25/gr.260141.119.short?rss=1 - so there may be some new samples at ENA.

I don't think the samples with good 1240K SNPs, if they are the same as the preprint, sound that interesting, that said. See a list here: https://i.imgur.com/CBSerER.png

gamerz_J said...

@Matt

The Yemeni ones look interesting.

Matt said...

Yes, but unfortunately they also have virtually no coverage! So we may have to wait for a future study where they actually got good samples out of other individuals at the same site.

Arza said...

Slovakia Blatné BLAT 33 2200-2000 BCE is R1a-Z283.

Vladimir said...

It is assumed that MUR009 Murzikhinsky II Russia 6,500–6,350 is Q-F746*, i.e. exactly the same as the sample from Afontova gora II. As I understand it, this is the Kama Neolithic culture or the Volga-Kama ringed pottery at the very beginning, i.e. the late Neolithic or Neolithic-eneolite, or the very beginning of the novoilinsky culture. If we assume that the Kama Neolithic is a continuation of the Kama Mesolithic, then in the Mesolithic or late Paleolithic one of the Q1a tribes went West, but apparently the male part of it completely died out. Although, as they say, the most ancient blondes in the world is exactly Afontova gora 2. That is, they passed something of their own to humanity.

EastPole said...

@Arza
„Slovakia Blatné BLAT 33 2200-2000 BCE is R1a-Z283”

Is it Unetice culture?

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "As I understand it"

You're not an archaeologist to assume.
https://www.academia.edu/37554263/%D0%A7%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90.%D0%90._%D0%A8%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%90.%D0%92._%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%A3%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8C%D1%8F.pdf
http://old.kpfu.ru/archeol/murz.htm

Vladimir said...

Quote: "a Significant number of stone tools found in these burial grounds have prototypes in the Kama Neolithic culture, which indicates that the tradition of making stone products was formed on a local Neolithic basis. New technologies in the processing of stone, such as quartzite, and the manufacture of tools on large slabs indicate the origin of the manufacturing economy, as well as indicate the emergence of innovative ideas related to the penetration of newcomers from the South, from the Khvalynsk culture. In the Murzikhin series, the local Neolithic population is contacted by its local sublaponoid component with the European newcomers from the Khvalynsk culture, and the peculiarities of mixing these groups are also noted (Hohlov, 2011. PP. 117, 118). All these facts indicate the appearance of a new population on the territory of Ust-kamya, which has a two-component composition and combines both European and laponoid features."

gamerz_J said...

@Matt

"Yes, but unfortunately they also have virtually no coverage" You are right, I only looked at the sample locations and dates earlier on the chart.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "In the Murzikhin series, the local Neolithic population is contacted by its local sublaponoid component with the European newcomers from the Khvalynsk culture, and the peculiarities of mixing these groups are also noted (Hohlov, 2011. PP. 117, 118)."

You're cheating, there's not a word in the original texts about connections with Khvalynsk culture. You just put your fiction in a quoted text.

It's not a complete, a ruined phone. This is the full text of Khokhlov:

"If we evaluate the characteristics of the Murzikha series from the racial point of view, we can see some difference in morphological appearance of male and female skulls. The male part of the series gravitates towards a distinctly Europoid complex. In terms of characteristics, the female group is closer to those skulls, which for the epochs of stone and early metal are found more often in the north-east of Europe, and in anthropological literature are known under different names: Ural-Laponoid group, skulls of the "forest Neolithic", "special north", "special north", "special northeast", and "special northeast the Eurasian formation."
However, it is necessary to take into account the fragmentation of male craniums and, accordingly, to be careful in their interpretation. In this connection, it is possible to note unity of skulls of the series So, on sizes of signs the difference between male and female samples is nevertheless insignificant. It may be added that among the male sample there are mainly mosaic features characteristic of the female group, and, conversely, approximately the same pattern is fixed in the female part.
In this connection, one should not be surprised by the morphological similarity of seemingly so far geographically localized groups. It should also be noted that the series Gundorovskaya, Late Volosova and Lyalovskaya Sakhtysha showed a tendency to similarity with female skulls of the Borskaya culture. It's noteworthy that among the named series to Late Volosovo materials were also close to the male skulls of Murzich II's burial ground. The population of the Volosov culture, judging by paleo-anthropological materials, was heterogeneous [Akimova, 1953; Gerasimov, 1955; Alekseeva, 1997]. Skulls close to the laponoid type and at least two europooids - broad face and gracile - were noted in its composition. The gracile Europoid complex is marked on the male skull of the older Volosov burial site and also from Volodar [Gerasimov, 1955]. It is impossible, however, to say that these Europoid variants correspond to the Europoid Murzikha skulls. Revealing of such connections is difficult also in view of the rather pronounced craniological polymorphism, noted earlier for other Eneolithic series of the Volga and Kama regions. Nevertheless, we believe that the carriers of the Volosovo and Borskaya cultures, which had geographically overlapping areas in a certain chronological period, could have some forms of genetic connection with each other. However, it is directly or indirectly confirmed by the data of archeology, seeing the features of Volosovo in monuments of the Borskaya culture.
Summing up, we can say that at the heart of the population that left the burial place of the Borskaya culture of Murzich II, two anthropological components emerge. The first, more distinctly manifested on female turtles, can be associated with one of the Ural variants of the of the northern Eurasian anthropological formation. The second, quite well expressed in the structure of male skulls is apparently linked in its genesis to the Western anthropological with a layer. A number of common morphological features of the structure of male and female skulls from the tombs of the Murzikha burial ground testifies to the process of the still flowing metization between anthropologically different groups."

There are no words about connection with Khavalynsk, like your quoted.

vAsiSTha said...

fernandes genotypes are out on reich website

Vladimir said...

There are more than once, here's another quote. "however, the greatest proximity to the murzikhin burials is observed among the burials of the Khvalynsky I Eneolithic burial ground, where both compression effects on the bones and skeletons that have fallen on their sides are found. In addition, there are also collective burials, which combined sitting and lying on their backs with bent legs buried»

Anonymous said...

Vladimir said...
"There are more than once"

Don't lie, there's not a word in Khokhlov's text about the origin of the anthropology of the Murzikh population from the Khvalyskn culture, you just took and pasted your lies into a quotation from A.A. Chizhevsky, A.V. Shipilov 2018 to deceive everyone.

The archeological parallels are quite different, but they have nothing to do with anthropology. There are many archeological parallels, and the source does not say a word about the influence of Khvalyn culture on the Murzikh burial ground, on the contrary, directly writes: "Burials in a sitting position are known on the monuments of the Volga-Ural Eneolithic (more details: Chizhevsky, 2008)", so the influence could have gone in any direction, and the presence of Q1a in Khvalynsk burial ground indicates that this influence was rather from the neighboring population of the Borskay-like cultures on Khvalynsk.

To insert your fictions into a quote from an authoritative source is just an outright lie of a liar.

Samuel Andrews said...

fernandes genotypes are out on reich website

Anonymous said...


Murzikha II

https://i.ibb.co/BfnzWQ4/image.png

As you can see, the male population of Murzikha II is closest to Volosovo in general and quite far from Khvalynsk burial grounds.

Samuel Andrews said...

@gamer_z,
"PS. I am also confused by the Iran_N a bit? Is it a better fit than CHG?"

Sicilians are a mix between Southern European and Near Eastern pops who mixed with each other during the Iron age, probably during the Roman empire. Some of their Near Easter ancestry arrived earlier, like in Bronze age, but but most is 'recent.'

Iran_N_Ganji, from Neolithic Iran, is a bad reference for Sicilians' Near Eastern ancestry. CHG is a bad reference too.

The reason is Sicilian's Near Eastern ancestors had Iran_N ancestry, they also had CHG ancestry, but they also had ancestry from several other sources.

Bronze age genomes from Near East would be a better reference. But not from one location, because Sicilians' Near Eastern ancestry is from all over the Near East.

Samuel Andrews said...

@gamerz_J, Now that the ancient West med genomes are published, will be added to public G25 PCA, you'll see posters at this blog create much more accurate models for the ancient genomes than what was in the paper.

Davidski said...

@All

The following pops have been added to or updated in the Global25 datasheets.

Iberia_Formentera_MBA
Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
Iberia_Menorca_LBA
ITA_Sardinia_C
ITA_Sardinia_IA
ITA_Sardinia_Late_Antiquity
ITA_Sardinia_N
ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic
ITA_Sicily_EBA
ITA_Sicily_LBA
ITA_Sicily_MBA
ITA_Sicily_MN

Same links as always...

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html

Please let me know if you spot any errors.

vAsiSTha said...

qpAdm

Sicily_MBA = 60-65% Sicily_EBA + 30-35% Minoan_lassithi tailprob around 0.35

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski, Can you make a seperate thread for discussing West Med ancient genomes?

Davidski said...

We've already discussed this topic last year...

Ancient island hopping in the western Mediterranean (Fernandes et al. 2019 preprint)

I'll publish a new blog post this weekend, but it'll probably be something about EBA Anatolia, Steppe Maykop and Salmonella rather than anything to do with the western Med.

Samuel Andrews said...

The discussion last year didn't go anywhere because we couldn't see how the ancient DNA looks in G25 PCA. There's a lot of new stuff to talk about. First Phoecian Colony genomes, first ancient DNA from Sicily, Y DNA replacement but population continuity in Sardinia.

Plus, there's a lot the Authors don't cover in the paper or got wrong. They overrated Mediterranean migrations. The Steppe admix in EBA Sicily was short lived, didn't survive into the Late Bronze age (LBA, MBA, Sicily has almost no Steppe ancestry).

It can't be referred to in the same way as Steppe Bronze age migrations in other parts of Europe. But, expert ancient DNA papers probably will make this mistake.

The lack of legitimate Steppe ancestry in MBA, LBA Siicly suggests IE languages hadn't arrived there yet. May have arrived in the Iron age. Which is another important detail the paper didn't cover. Or was Latin the first IE language in Sicily? A lot to discuss.

Davidski said...

@Samuel

There's a new paper coming with more ancient DNA from all over Italy. As far as I know, it's from Harvard.

So we'll have another opportunity to discuss the results from Sicily plus a lot more.

zardos said...

@Sam: ", Y DNA replacement but population continuity in Sardinia."

Did you read the new papers? That's not true, there was no population continuity, but a lower level replacement.
I think part of this is due already heavily mixed continental immigration, so that even with a strong impact on the Island the inhabitants are still overwhelmingly ANE and WHG. But the Y-DNA had an autosomal impact too. That's part of why I think you have to look carefully at every wave coming,like the 1st mill. BC I was talking about before, even if I was wrong about one haplogroup.

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews (But any feedback welcome)

"The reason is Sicilian's Near Eastern ancestors had Iran_N ancestry, they also had CHG ancestry, but they also had ancestry from several other sources."

I am still confused about what makes Iran_N different from CHG and why do most ancient DNA papers about Southern Europe use Iran_N instead of CHG. Were there major migrations from the Zagros area to the Near East that also impacted ancient S Europe?

"Bronze age genomes from Near East would be a better reference. But not from one location, because Sicilians' Near Eastern ancestry is from all over the Near East."

You mean Anatolia and Levant or also further south?

Matt said...

Few meta-PCA using Global_25 and data for Sardinian_N, LCA, Nuragic and some selected other populations:

https://imgur.com/a/GM5Ujtp

Iberia_EN related drift seems present in Sardinians.

Not noticed before, but seems the samples that seem particularly to form the base of the Iberia_EN's unique trajectory in G25 are particularly (in decreasing order; with y-dna; mtdna): I0410 - R1b-V88, T2c1d; I2199 - female, H1; I0413 - female, V;

Samuel Andrews said...

@zardos,
"Did you read the new papers? That's not true, there was no population continuity, but a lower level replacement."

The papers ancestry estimates for modern populations is inaccurate. Sardinians are more like 70% derived from ancient Sardinians.

claravallensis said...

Though R1b-V88 and I-M223 were predominant, two of the major lineages of modern Sardinians, I-M26 and G-L91 were nevertheless reported, so even if there was certainly some Y DNA shift too, some continuity is there too.

Vladimir said...

@ Matt. “ Compared to EHG, the MUR009 sample in the salmonella paper looks in ADMIXTURE to have less Green "CHG/Iran_N" component and less brown (?) component, and then some remaining components which probably represent noise.”
And do not tell me how it was possible to determine the share of CHG (Neolithic) in Afontova gora 3 (Paleolithic)???

Matt said...

Components in standard ADMIXTURE analyses don't always cohere to which populations are ancestral. Sometimes a population/sample can end up modelled as a compromise of two or more populations which are partially descendants / share a common ancestor, if it yields a more efficient K model of the dataset to do so.

There is an adaptation of ADMIXTURE that is specific about time to avoid this issue, DYSTRUCT, but it is recent and I do not think it will be widely used due to prohibitive run-time constraints.

CHG is not really neolithic though, exactly. Satsurblia cave sample 11.4 YBP (wiki: 13.3YBP), Afontova-Gora-3 sample 14.7 YBP.

vAsiSTha said...

@gamerz said
I am still confused about what makes Iran_N different from CHG and why do most ancient DNA papers about Southern Europe use Iran_N instead of CHG. Were there major migrations from the Zagros area to the Near East that also impacted ancient S Europe?

IranN is diff from CHG. CHG shares more alleles with EHG and qpAdm or qpWave can easily figure out if ChG is missing from the model by keeping it in the right pops. Difference can be seen on PCA plots as well.

Pure chg stopped existing post kotias sample. We have no sample post 7kbce in which CHG is the sole Iran component.

Vladimir said...

@Matt. thanks. Clearly. but this is still an assumption

gamerz_J said...

@VAsiSTHa

Thanks, I know they are different in qpAdm and of the PCA separation, etc what I was wondering about is what drives that difference. Based on your reply it would seem that CHG shares more alleles with EHG and Iran_N does not.

Which ancestries do you think would best characterize Iran_N? I have seen multiple models

"Pure chg stopped existing post kotias sample. We have no sample post 7kbce in which CHG is the sole Iran component."
But is that Iran_N specifically or another related component?

gamerz_J said...

@end

Really neat chart but was just wondering, by Karelia_EHG do you mean the sample from 7000 years ago?

Andrzejewski said...

@All “am still confused about what makes Iran_N different from CHG and why do most ancient DNA papers about Southern Europe use Iran_N instead of CHG. Were there major migrations from the Zagros area to the Near East that also impacted ancient S Europe?

IranN is diff from CHG. CHG shares more alleles with EHG and qpAdm or qpWave can easily figure out if ChG is missing from the model by keeping it in the right pops. Difference can be seen on PCA plots as well.

Pure chg stopped existing post kotias sample. We have no sample post 7kbce in which CHG is the sole Iran component.”

The main difference between CHG and Iran_ is that the former is 66% Dzudzuana, 1/3 ANE/EHG while Iran_N is evenly split 1:1 Dzudzuana: ANE/EHG

Anonymous said...

Vladimir "but this is still an assumption"

ADMIXTURE in situation with common components cannot identify the source of common components, so it can dock common components to some component to fit into a given K, and very randomly. This green in EHG, Afontova Gora, MA1 (>20 millennium BC) in this case run of ADMIXTURE has nothing to do with CHG, it's a common element that they got from the ancient North Euroasians. Part of it is from EHG to CHG. In other ADMIXTURE launches there is no green component, instead CHG is divided, that is correct result.

Vladimir said...

@Archi. Thanks. If so, it is seriously misleading, because it is called in the chart CHG.

zardos said...

@Sam: I know, but about 30 percent, probably more, is not nothing, so its a fairly big chunk of autosomal ancestry coming with the Y-DNA. There is a significant portion of local Neolithic patrilineages too, so its not such a big gap between autosomals and uniparentals, especially if adding the regional variation within the island, like described in the recent and older papers.
Sardinia sticks out because of its relative continuity, but there was a massive influx without total Y-DNA replacement. Since those coming in were already heavily Southern European/Neolithic admixed, the absolute majority of Sardinian ancestry derives from ANE. But about 1/3 of ancestral replacement is fairly big. Its just because of so many recent even larger replacements this could be seen as continuity. In Sardinia the conquerors which brought steppe lineages were just not "pure steppe", not even predominantely so, but local Italians after a long period of mixture, that's the real difference.
I wouldn't call that continuity though, because if the steppe people replaced Northern EHG foragers, that was no real continuity neither, even if they had EHG ancestry themselves.

vAsiSTha said...

This is how Laziridis models IranN & CHG. The diff seems to be that Iran N has more African, less dzudzuana than CHG, for whatever its worth.

Iran_N = Mbuti Onge AG3 Dzudzuana 0.097 0.109 0.218 0.577
pvalue 0.129

CHG = Mbuti Tianyuan AG3 Dzudzuana 0.054 0.081 0.222 0.64
pvalue 0.685

gamerz_J said...

@Andrzejewski

Do you know why in his paper Lazaridis seemed to equate ANE with ENA?

He also modeled Iran_N as 11% Onge or something, which I have been told in earlier threads here is preferred over Tianyuan and that Tianyuan is preferred over ANE (unless I mis-understood, there is much I need to learn yet).

gamerz_J said...

@vAsiSTha

Doubt it is African as in Mbuti or Yoruba. More likely deep ancestry (BE/ANA?) as Lazaridis also implied.

gamerz_J said...

@vAsiSTha

Right, and I am guessing Tianyuan/Onge mean deep East Asian ancestry.

But Mbuti is also for Basal Eurasian Lazaridis says, not just African. Unless BE is African but I think many papers contradict that.

vAsiSTha said...

@gamerz yes, it is not to be taken literally. qpAdm does not differentiate between ancient & modern populations if there has been no admixture in between and theyre just drifted pops.
Tianyuan/onge are standins for eastern non africans ENA. Mbuti for "deep ancestry".

vAsiSTha said...

Laziridis calls it "deep ancestry"

"Mbuti occupies a symmetrical phylogenetic position to all Eurasians populations—splitting off before the differentiation of western Eurasians, eastern non-Africans, and Ust’Ishim6,12,19 from each other—and can thus be used to quantify such ancestry12."

gamerz_J said...

@vAsiSTHa

And if I may ask then, what do you find a good model for Iran_N/CHG?

Reason I am asking is that I have seen many models about them and they seem to be relatively "mysterious" populations, in part due to not having that many samples I would guess.
This Iranian/CHG ancestry is present across parts of West Eurasia and South Asia but it seems certain it is not a single population.

Rob said...

@ Zardos

“ the absolute majority of Sardinian ancestry derives from ANE”

ANF . You keep saying ANE )

Rob said...

@ Davidski

''
There's a new paper coming with more ancient DNA from all over Italy. As far as I know, it's from Harvard.''

Oh good. More cherry picked samples and lies from a bunch of mutants & American-based degenerates

vAsiSTha said...

look at the alternate working model for CHG

CHG = Mbuti Onge AG3 Dzudzuana 0.018 0.078 0.218 0.686
tailprob 0.176
Iran_N = Mbuti Onge AG3 Dzudzuana 0.097 0.109 0.218 0.577
pvalue 0.129

all i know is that iranN has more deep ancestry and less dzudzuana than CHG, and that the south asian iran component split earlier than IranN and even Hotu cave.

for modeling later pops, it is best to use later sources like hajji firuz, steppe eneolithic, kura araxes, turan, seh_gabi_C etc so that we dont get stuck in the CHG/Iran confusion.

zardos said...

Thanks Rob, my bad, no ANE of course :D
Btw, aren't you to harsh with the American research. Where would we be with ancient DNA without them? Definitely not better off.

Rob said...

@ Arza

I’ve already pointed out Harvard’s dishonesty
And you have no authority or position to question me. I’d suggest you continue analysing Y DNA calls from BAMs instead of playing the lawyer

Andrzejewski said...

Are we forgetting that with EHG’s ANE proportion of 75% and CHG’s 35%, Yamnaya was 50% ANE. Moreover, many sources quotes that they inherited AG3’s KITIG’s for blondism. So I guess both EHG and CHG might’ve possessed the derived allele for blond hair.

Arza said...

@ EastPole

It seems that this sample is not attributed to any culture but in the grave inventory a cup described as belonging to the Protounetice was found. Anyway IIRC it's the 5th R1a linked one way or another to the Unetice culture. Beyond any doubts more will come.

Anonymous said...

@Arza

What is IIRC?

Andrzejewski said...

New study regarding CTC:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/849422v1.full

And, Steppe interactions already contributed up to 20% of their aDNA 6,000 years ago

Davidski said...

@All

For the record I've not seen any evidence of scientists from Harvard fudging results or withholding samples.

The ancient DNA papers that we've seen from the Harvard and other labs could have been better in some ways, especially in hindsight, but that's stating the obvious I think.

The major problem in my opinion is that lots of ancient samples that are relevant to past papers, and potentially could be used to overturn some of the conclusions in these papers, are sitting for many months waiting to be published or even revealed to the general public.

But if anyone here actually has evidence of impropriety, then surely there's something more useful that you can do with it rather than just post about its alleged existence in the comment section of a blog.

So from now on I'll be deleting any comments with such accusations.

Anonymous said...

@Arza "it's the 5th R1a linked one way or another to the Unetice culture."

In Unetice there is only 4 samples of R haplogroup, 2 of them are R1b.

Bronze Proto-Unetice? Czech Republic Moravská Nová Ves, gr. 27 [I5037 / RISE579, F0579] 2300–1900 BCE M R
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví, Grave 97 [I7203] 2200–1700 BCE M R1

Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví, Grave 59 [I7196] 2200–1700 BCE M R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví, Grave 94 [I7202] 2200–1700 BCE M R1b1a1a2a1a2

Bronze Corded Ware/ Proto-Unetice Poland Leki Male [RISE431] 2286-2048 calBCE (3762±27 BP, OxA-27967) M K(xLT) probability R1a1a1

Which other R1a of Unetice?


Arza said...

@ Archi
"If I Remember Correctly"

For other four see my previous comment on this topic.

Anonymous said...

@Arza

Bronze Unetice Poland Polwica [RISE145] 2188-1958 BC Female


Singh said...

@Andrzejewski

Earliest known blond hair allele is from Afontonva Gora 3 (14k ybp) Siberia and SHG (8kybp) from Motala, but neither EHG and CHG samples so far carried blond hair alleles but it could have been in Baltic/Narva culture like in SHG. We don't see blond hair alelle in western eurasia before AG3 and SHG, it's also not found in paleolithic Europe.

Which makes me think KITIG blondism allele or it's ancestral allele is from Asia, since both Afontonva Gora 3 and SHG had Asian admixture, and SHG also had Asian EDAR alleles.

These blonde Southeast Asians (Laos) and native Australians provide good examples https://imgur.com/a/Mpo80jP

Asian blond hair allele was previously associated with TYRP1 allele but new study found TYRP1 allele is not associated with blond hair in Southeast Asia or Australians, it's a still a mystery how blond hair emerged in these regions.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajhb.22795

Arza said...

Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví, Grave 97 [I7203] 2200–1700 BCE M R1

Huh.

P~ or K2b2~ CTS9604
R M764
R1 CTS2565
R1a1~ CTS5437
R1a1a~ F3194
R1a1a1~ PF7530
R1a1a1b2~ AM01870 negative
R1a1a1b2a1~ AM00483

So Blatné is the 6th R1a.

Anonymous said...

@Arza

Again

Bronze Unetice Poland Polwica [RISE145] 2188-1958 BC is Female


Arza said...

@ Archi

From the Reich Lab data-sheet:

RISE145.SG RISE145 grave 1603 tooth RISE145 1 Shotgun AllentoftNature2015 4023 2188-1958 calBCE (3677±31 BP, UB-16564) Poland_Unetice_EBA.SG Polwica Poland 50.913 17.177 M

It has 113 SNPs matching Yleaf tree.

Anonymous said...

@Arza

See Allentoft et al. (2015), Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, Suplementary Table 8

RISE145 54,8 1.5 ( 0.8 , 2.7) 1,9 NA F

Arza said...

@ Archi
Check supplementary Table 1. Anthropologically it was a male.

Also RISE210 Nordic_BA is anthr. M, genetically F in Allentoft, but it's a male with Y-DNA I in the Reich Lab data-sheet.

They are redoing genotyping with the newest methods and software, hence the difference.

Rob said...

@ Davidski

''For the record I've not seen any evidence of scientists from Harvard fudging results or withholding samples.''

That's your opinion; and not a very attentive one at that
But Harvard keep miscontextualising BB samples; just as they misrepresented CWC in Haak 2015. I dont know why but they do, probably because they are dishonest.
And look at this crap they pass off for the steppe history. Apparently Sintasthta comes from Yamnaya.

So whlst you're all whining about irrelvanceis such as whether CHG should be called Iran or not, or whether there is 2 or 4% north African in Sicily, nobody is noticing that theyre completely butchering the big questions that actually matter

vAsiSTha said...

Where does sintashta come from if not Yamnaya?

Vladimir said...

@Rob. You are a prisoner of academic dogma. In Russia, by the way, there are also many such historians, usually at a respectable age, who categorically do not accept the latest data from geneticists.

Rob said...

@ Vlad
I have no dogma because I have no predetermined prescription
You don’t understand what i don’t and do accept; so don’t speak on my behalf

Samuel Andrews said...

@vAsiSTha, Sredny Stog. Oldest R1a Z93 is in Sredny Stog. Yamnaya is R1b Z2103, not the direct ancestor of Sintashta.

vAsiSTha said...

Many are considering that sredny stog sample as a possible outlier which has been misdated, it is very close to sintashta anyway.

Even if it isnt an outlier, how did it form? what are its proximal sources?

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

What does "many" mean and who exactly? Anyone worth listening to?

Can you look at the radiocarbon date for this sample and point out to us why it's wrong?

vAsiSTha said...

Iian mathieson on Sep 15 2019

"I don't know how you would do it formally, but certainly if the ancestry is an outlier, it probably makes it more likely that the date is wrong."

https://twitter.com/mathiesoniain/status/1172964728651558914?s=20

Samuel Andrews said...

No Sredny Stog genomes have been published other than I1651. So, we can't say he is an outlier .

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Mathieson says if the ancestry is an outlier. But outlier compared to what? All of the Eneolithic samples from Ukraine are outliers in that they don't form a coherent cluster together, but they all have a lot of Euro farmer ancestry.

The main difference between I6561 and the rest is that this individual has a lot more Eneolithic steppe ancestry. Duh.

By the way, I've been told that there's a correction coming to the Fernandes et al. paper in regards to the qpAdm models in it. But I don't know what it'll say.

Matt said...

Samples labelled Ukraine_En in West Eurasia PCA are pretty variable (https://i.imgur.com/EwLF1ji.png), none can pass for an MLBA / Corded Ware sample as I6561 does, but on the other hand it's not implausible that such mixes could exist at this time. Surely they must be able to obtain *some* more data from samples clearly dated and assigned to this culture for us to compare to?

Davidski said...

They already do have more data from Sredny Stog, as well as from related groups like Usatovo. As we all know, the Usatovo samples are also R1a and Z93+.

By the way, here's a qpAdm model for I6561...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OhGe65uQjF6gBNB2WdVTOm4yI_zQpE-m

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews

I1651 is No Sredny Stog and this burial is outlier in the Alexandria cemetery.


old europe said...


That is the other Ukraine Eneolithic sample. Could be a R1bL-51?



sample": "Ukraine_Eneolithic:I4110",

"fit": 3.9582,

"Ukraine_N": 37.5,
"Globular_Amphora_Poland": 36.67,
"Progress_Eneolithic": 25.83,
"Khvalynsk_Eneolithic": 0,

Anonymous said...

@old europe

"That is the other Ukraine Eneolithic sample. Could be a R1bL-51?
sample": "Ukraine_Eneolithic:I4110","

It's a women. She has not origin from the Steppe, rather she has ancestry in Tripolye or other Neolithic Central European.



old europe said...



@archie

ok I did not know she was a female.

I wonder if the Usatovo samples would come out as having the same autosomal profile of Eneolithic ukraine ones.

Anonymous said...

@old europe "I wonder if the Usatovo samples would come out as having the same autosomal profile of Eneolithic ukraine ones."

Almost unbelievably, these Eneolithic burials from Dereivka I are random, they do not belong to the main Eneolithic cultures, in fact they are archaeological outliers.

vAsiSTha said...

yeah the model bul_C + Steppe_eneolithic + Ukraine_N works for I6561, but wheres the R1a in those 3 sources?

doesnt it run into the same problem?

Henrique Paes said...

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara is genetically 'southeast' of RUS_Karelia_HG precisely because it has the Caucasian mixture that 'RUS_Karelia_HG' does not have.

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 6.1119% / 0.06111888
54.4 RUS_Karelia_HG
34.6 GEO_CHG
8.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
2.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes

Wishful thinking.

But of course Yamnaya doesn't have any Kura-Araxes or other Caucasus ancestry. Look at my model and its statistical fit compared to yours.

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 3.1948% / 0.03194780
82.8 RUS_Progress_En
11.2 UKR_N
6.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

There's R1a in Ukraine Mesolithic, Khvalynsk and probably also Steppe Maykop.

So there will be R1a in many more Eneolithic steppe samples from around the Black Sea.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

Do you know why Ukraine_Eneolithic:I5884 (R-Z2105) has been removed from the Reich Lab dataset?

vAsiSTha said...

I dont understand. From the 3 sources in your model

Ukr_N - 0 r1a in 23 samples
Bulgaria - 0 R1a in 13 samples from neolithic to EBA

So that leaves us with R1a from steppe_eneolithic. its an undersampled culture, but then theres 0 R1a in Wang paper.

Henrique Paes said...

@Davidski

1: Statistically, the difference between my model and yours is quite small.

2: In your model, the Caucasian elements only do not appear because they are already embedded in 'RUS_Progress_En'

This is what is behind 'RUS_Progress_En'

Target: RUS_Progress_En: PG2001
Distance: 5.1660% / 0.05165986
46.8 GEO_CHG
46.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
4.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
3.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps

You choose conveniently to compare Samara with 'RUS_Progress_En' because you know they are very similar genetically (almost identical) and the convenient comparison hides that it really is there.

You can only get 'closer' models because it conveniently compares virtually identical populations.




Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes

Target Distance GEO_CHG Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps:ARM002-003 0.05786834 52.0 48.0
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps:ARM001 0.06278238 53.4 46.6
Average 0.06032536 52.7 47.3

Target Distance GEO_CHG RUS_Karelia_HG
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps:ARM001 0.06669360 74.0 26.0
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps:ARM002-003 0.06316618 74.0 26.0
Average 0.06492989 74.0 26.0

Target Distance GEO_CHG
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps:ARM001 0.07941971 100.0
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps:ARM002-003 0.07646372 100.0
Average 0.07794171 100.0

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes

The distance in my model is about half of the distance in your model! That's significant.

And no, Progress_En was a steppe population. Take a look at this.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LX5_QnHA8tE/WzLe-8bQ3vI/AAAAAAAAG7o/HduY0wnObvc9O5Ce-B2g8VN1tfLxML1gQCLcBGAs/s1600/Wang_etal_Fig_1.jpg

vAsiSTha said...

@henrique, plz try to get the distance % below 2-3%. anything above 4% is not great.

Henrique Paes said...

I don't understand why they argue if I'm saying obvious things.

Do you want to see what I'm trying to say even more obviously?

Go to (https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#WestEurasia)

And place the coordinates to:

RUS_Karelia_HG: I0211

GEO_CHG: KK1

RUS_Progress_En: PG2001

KAZ_Molaly_LBA

You will see that the populations of the eneolytic steppe are almost halfway between 'RUS_Karelia_HG' and 'GEO_CHG'. If there was no Caucasian mix, what would justify such a different position in relation to RUS_Karelia_HG?

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

What don't you understand? That R1a is present in Mesolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe makes it 100% certain that it will appear in many more Eneolithic samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe?

How hard is that to understand?

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes

All humans are related if we go back far enough. And so what?

Your claim is that Yamnaya had recent ancestry from the Caucasus, which is obviously false.

Yamnaya had Caucasus-related ancestry from a much older steppe population like Progress_En.

Do you now finally understand where you're going wrong?

Henrique Paes said...

@vAsiSTha

Who determined this limit? Its limit does not make sense unless the comparison is involving practically identical populations (which is useless for tracking Caucasian ancestry)

An example of why the limit you ask for doesn't make sense. We know that Spaniards have ancestors of Anatolian farmers, but if you compare directly the distance will seem great, but we know that they are obviously related ancestral populations.

arget: Spanish_Catalunya_Central:CAR048
Distance: 16.5424% / 0.16542403
100.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N

To ask for comparisons with a maximum of 4% of distance is to hide fundamental ancestral data.

Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes
"
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 6.1119% / 0.06111888
54.4 RUS_Karelia_HG
34.6 GEO_CHG
8.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
2.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N"

Those models is better yours.
Target Distance GEO_CHG RUS_Karelia_HG
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0357 0.03725209 36.6 63.4
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0231 0.03745404 36.6 63.4
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0370 0.04528215 40.0 60.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0429 0.04336350 34.6 65.4
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0438 0.04064214 39.4 60.6
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0439 0.04669928 36.6 63.4
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0443 0.04415842 39.4 60.6
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0444 0.04318867 30.6 69.4
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I7489 0.04682190 42.0 58.0
Average 0.04276247 37.3 62.7

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes

Who determined this limit?

There's no limit, but adding certain reference samples has an obvious positive effect on models.

My model has a 50% better fit than your model and in my model the algorithm totally ignores Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps.

So the obvious conclusion is that there's no point in using Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps in any models for Yamnaya.

Henrique Paes said...

@Davidski

You repeatedly contradicted yourself.

'Your claim is that Yamnaya had recent ancestry from the Caucasus, which is obviously false.'

'Yamnaya had Caucasus-related ancestry from a much older steppe population like Progress_En.'

Contradictory? This is just playing with words when you say you are not a Caucasian ancestor, just 'Caucasus-related'

When did I say that Caucasian ancestry would be very recent? I did not go into the temporal merit, I just stated that it is there and strong.

'My model has half the distance from yours'

Sure, you conveniently compare almost identical populations, but my model still has a large range of proximity given its larger and more revealing range.

'All humans are related if we go back far enough. And so what? '

Of course, everyone is related, but some are more related than others and yes: steppe populations were related to Caucasus populations. As I said before: I never advocated a huge recent migration from the Caucasus to the steppes, but it is a fact that there was a mixture and the populations are related much more closely than some people would like to admit.



Anonymous said...

@@Henrique Paes "All humans are related if we go back far enough. And so what?"

You tell us the obvious things that everyone already knows, that CHG is present in Yamnaya admixture it is known to everyone since 2015! And no one is arguing with it. But Kura-Arax and Iran have nothing to do with Yamnaya admixture, they just are not in them. CHG and Kura-Arax is a big difference, because of Kura-Arax and Iran in Yamnaya models are only getting worse it, the probability (and distances) of them dropping strongly.
That's what everyone's trying to explain to you.


Henrique Paes said...

@Davidski

'My model has a 50% better fit than your model and in my model the algorithm totally ignores Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps.'

Your model is completely useless for the topic at hand.

It would be as if someone asked: Do Iberians have Anatolian ancestors?

And someone answered that 'only irrelevantly' with a 'great model' comparing Portugal and Spain. If you compare very close populations it is obvious that your model will look better, but it is useless for the subject at hand.

Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes


Your model is completely useless for the topic at hand.

@Henrique Paes


Your model is completely useless for the topic at hand.


Henrique Paes said...

RUS_Progress_En: PG2001
Target: RUS_Progress_En: PG2001
Distance: 5.1660% / 0.05165986
46.8 GEO_CHG
46.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
4.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
3.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps

0.05165986 is not a great distance (it exists even among modern and obviously related European populations) 46.8 GEO_CHG at only 0.05165986 is a VERY RELEVANT portion of Caucasian ancestry. His model is only '50% better 'because he shamelessly compares populations too close to overlook oblivities.

My notes make sense with the main scientific articles, but it is clear that everyone prefers to believe what they want.

Rob said...

The eneolithic outliers are highly important. It’s means Yamnaya’ization process*; could be undertaken selectively and partially. The outliers in fact document where the main “steppe people” came from

* uniformization of burial style and posturing; numerically dominated by Z2103; predominantly an eastern expansion but with some movement west; ~ phase 4 in the new kurgan model

Having moved north/ northwest after 3000 BC, early Corded ware, with its paradoxically high steppe / low EEF could be explained by its participation in that process; which earlier to leave groups (proto-Sintashta; Balkan- steppe eneolithic) did not

Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes "is not a great distance"

You don't understand anything about the subject at all. You do not know the topic at all, you are an dilettante who has no idea what you write and what you count and how.

You are wrong about everything, so you ignore my messages because they destroy your delirium.

vAsiSTha said...

@henrique
Progress & Vonyuchka indeed have ancestry from south of caucasus mountains. look up matt & my discussion in the comments

Henrique Paes said...

Western Eurasians as a whole are particularly close, but when it comes to the steppe (especially Yamnaya) there is an even more particular and close relationship between EHG and Caucasians. This close relationship can only be hidden when Yamnaya is purchased with a population as close (practically identical) as RUS_Progress_En or another practically identical population as well. Any model a little wider and outside the 'convenient bubble' demonstrates what I have demonstrated. Facts are facts, the rest are just wordplay and strange identity disputes that don't even make sense in the 21st century

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes & vAsiSTha

Nope, no identity disputes. The situation is clear.

See here.

Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes

Delirium, you didn't show anything, just yelled a lot to cheat.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski How come every model gives Yamnaya much more Progress_EN or Yanuchka_EN (Piedmont) compared to Khvalynsk or Samara, or even to Ukraine HG? Does it infer that the WSH originally came from the foothills of what was later “Steppe Maykop”’s geographic area

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

Like I said, we need Eneolithic samples from between the Lower Don and the North Caucasus.

Ancient DNA vs Ex Oriente Lux

Anonymous said...

@DJ

"Earliest known blond hair allele is from Afontonva Gora 3 (14k ybp) Siberia and SHG (8kybp) from Motala, but neither EHG and CHG samples so far carried blond hair alleles but it could have been in Baltic/Narva culture like in SHG. We don't see blond hair alelle in western eurasia before AG3 and SHG, it's also not found in paleolithic Europe.

Which makes me think KITIG blondism allele or it's ancestral allele is from Asia, since both Afontonva Gora 3 and SHG had Asian admixture, and SHG also had Asian EDAR alleles.

These blonde Southeast Asians (Laos) and native Australians provide good examples https://imgur.com/a/Mpo80jP

Asian blond hair allele was previously associated with TYRP1 allele but new study found TYRP1 allele is not associated with blond hair in Southeast Asia or Australians, it's a still a mystery how blond hair emerged in these regions.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajhb.22795"

This is bullshit. There is no genetic link between blond hair in Europe and blond hair in Australia / New Guinea / Southeast Asia.
The origin of blond hair may even be in Asia, but in the north, and it was introduced in Europe possibly by a population related to ANE.
To suggest that blond hair in Europe originates from a mixture with Southeast Asian populations is worse than to suggest that the physiological effects of the EDAR derived allele arose first in Europe, because SHG ... In this second case at least we know that it is the same allele. But in the case of blond hair, virtually all alleles related to blond hair in Europeans are not responsible for the same effect in populations in Southeast Asia.

Singh said...

@mary

"The origin of blond hair may even be in Asia, but in the north, and it was introduced in Europe possibly by a population related to ANE."

That is exactly what i said : Afontonva Gora 3 is ANE lineage from 14kya. ANE itself is mixture of West and East Eurasian ancestry. AG3 is earliest known sample with KITIG blondism allele.

"blond hair in Europeans are not responsible for the same effect in populations in Southeast Asia."

Origin of Asian blondism is unclear: Previously blondism in Asians was associated with TYRP1 allele, but new study did not find correlation with blondism and TYRP1 allele in Asians. So allele type that leads to blondism in Asians is still unclear.

Blondism and Y-DNA connection : Y-DNA K2b2, M, S, P, P1, P2, P3 carries have blondism in Southeast Asia & Australisia. Y-DNA P/P1 is directly ancestral to R & Q of ANE lineage. We also have P1 in Yana Siberia (again mix of West & East Eurasia like ANE), it has not been checked if Yana carried any blondism allele yet.

This unknown blondism allele carried by Asians could be ancestral allele that lead to KITIG blondism allele of AG3.

Anonymous said...

I doubt it, because if the cause was the Kitgl gene, it would have already been found. The first gene to be tested for a possible correlation between the blond hair phenotype in these populations must have been the Kitlg gene. In turn, blond hair in European populations is not caused solely by the kitlg gene allele, but is associated with several alleles in different genes.
Convergent evolution seems to be a much better explanation for the appearance of the phenotype. Another thing to note is that the great differential of the populations of Southeast Asia / New Guinea / Australia, is the Denisova ancestry. Perhaps these peculiar characteristics, such as the hair pigmentation of the populations of the region originate in the Denisova Man.

Anonymous said...

Do you know the genotype data from Yana's samples is available online? I could check.

Davidski said...

@Mary

https://sid.erda.dk/cgi-sid/ls.py?share_id=HXY5UYsqQU;current_dir=genotypes/1240k;flags=f

Singh said...

@mary

I don't know if such archaic ancestry could have contributed to blondism but ANE does have Denisova ancestry, only MA1/Mal'ta boy was checked for this and he had 1% Denisova but no blondism.

Blondim homogeneoused in Europe with other alleles related to skin/eye color during late Bronze Age leading to modern phenotype, this formed by Middle/late Corded Ware i think. Wilde et al 2015

Andrzejewski said...

@mary @DJ “This is bullshit. There is no genetic link between blond hair in Europe and blond hair in Australia / New Guinea / Southeast Asia.
The origin of blond hair may even be in Asia, but in the north, and it was introduced in Europe possibly by a population related to ANE.
To suggest that blond hair in Europe originates from a mixture with Southeast Asian populations is worse than to suggest that the physiological effects of the EDAR derived allele arose first in Europe, because SHG ... In this second case at least we know that it is the same allele”

Yamnaya was 50% ANE (EHG was 76%, CHG was 35%), so it must’ve carried AG3 mutations for blondism. Hence, all Steppe-related populations like CWC had blondism common and it manifested in Andronovo.

The Reich lab would attempt to distance anything Indo-European from blondism or fair skin became some fascistic racist murderers in 1930s Germany co-opted and distorted facts to make themselves the supposed “master race” and to destroy other nations.

And while I strongly deny any stupid concept of race theory, I’m proud of my deep ancestry, but I believe in science more. And no-one could deny that Afontova Gora descendants tribes carrying R1a and R1b (including Caucasus HG ones) had a strong affinity for developing light hair pigmentation. The fact that EEF tribes like TRB May have had light skin does not detract from the fact that every population with frequency for blond hair had high percentage of ANE: that includes Baltic HG (especially Narva), SHG, Ukraine HG/Neolithic all the way to a Yamnaya, Dnieper Donets, Sredny Stog, CWC, Sintashta and Nordic Bronze Age.

Andrzejewski said...

@DJ “That is exactly what i said : Afontonva Gora 3 is ANE lineage from 14kya. ANE itself is mixture of West and East Eurasian ancestry. AG3 is earliest known sample with KITIG blondism allele.”

ANE was a separate branch, completely distinct and independent from both West- and East- Eurasians: Botai, Kett, Okunevo and American Indians are not only high on ANE but they all have elevated ratios of Ulchi/Devil’s Gate like admixture. Therefore, it wouldn’t be surprised at all should it turn out that both Botai and Okunevo spoke Yenisseyan-related languages.

Yamnaya were 50% ANE, but they looked very Caucasian/White/Europoid. Zero dispensable EA .

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski, Would you say this blog is more so Steppegenes than Eurogenes? Because if you think about Europe in general, the West Med paper is pretty important. I'm not criticizing you, just asking if the Steppe, Indo European origins is the only thing this blog is really interested in.

Ric Hern said...

@ Samuel Andrews

I think David said that there is another paper on its way. This could be even more informative. So why post about something that could be much more clear in the Near Future ?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Ric Hern, There wasn't a lot to talk about with this West Med paper. But, you know if thee was any update on Indo European-related ancient DNA he would make a new post. I'm not saying it's bad, it's his blog, which is supposed to be about what he wants to talk about.

Ric Hern said...

It is kind of frustrating to try and figure out where Proto-Indo-Europeans originated because of the huge distances between the Dnieper and Volga, an area almost as big as the whole Western-and Central Europe combined....and we see how many Cultures and Sub-Cultures were found in that area...

Andrzejewski said...

@Ric Hern “It is kind of frustrating to try and figure out where Proto-Indo-Europeans originated because of the huge distances between the Dnieper and Volga, an area almost as big as the whole Western-and Central Europe combined....and we see how many Cultures and Sub-Cultures were found in that area...”

But can we assume that just because a tribe had a genetic composition of Western Steppe Herders, that they would also speak a para-PIE or para-IE language?

Anonymous said...

@ Samuel Andrews

The Steppe is part of Europe.

Simon_W said...

@ Sam

"The Steppe admix in EBA Sicily was short lived, didn't survive into the Late Bronze age (LBA, MBA, Sicily has almost no Steppe ancestry). (…) The lack of legitimate Steppe ancestry in MBA, LBA Siicly suggests IE languages hadn't arrived there yet. May have arrived in the Iron age. Which is another important detail the paper didn't cover. Or was Latin the first IE language in Sicily?"

I obtained 10% Yamnaya for Sicily_LBA:

distance: 2.9032%

78.4% Barcin_N
10.0% Yamnaya_Samara
5.8% Anatolia_Ovaoren_EBA
5.4% WHG
0.4% Iberomaurusian

Moreover the Sicily_LBA sample is from the extreme west of Sicily. It might be Elymian. Whereas the probably IE Sicels sat in the eastern part. They entered the island during the LBA, coming from mainland Italy.

Singh said...

@Andrzejewski

Eneolithic steppe samples, Yamnaya and Afanasievo samples were not selected for it for some reason, since those samples did not have blond allele, despite ANE admixture, I think because not all ANE samples had blonde hair allele, since MA1/AG1/AG2 did not have blonde hair allele, while AG3 did. So, no uniform selection even among ANE.

In Mesolithic we see blonde allele in SHG & EHG samples, still not uniform. But, later we see uniform selection for it in middle Bronze Age, esp late Corded, early Sintasta, Andronovo all have high frequency of blonde hair alleles, unlike early steppe Yamnaya.

Blondism likely originated within K2b1/K2b2, M, S, P, R & Q lineage. We have unknown blondism allele in M,S,P lineage in Asia/Australasia and downstream of those clads is R & Q (ANE) also with blondism allele. Which suggests there is ancestral mutation for blondism in M,S,P lineage and downstream mutation in R & Q (ANE), likely from Eastern Eurasian side of ANE ancestry, since paleolithic Europe samples did not have it.

gamerz_J said...

@DJ

Since the alleles for blond hair in East Eurasians and European populations do not seem to be the same, why could it not be convergent?

And the East Eurasian part of ANE is old, not sure you can call it East Asian proper.

@Andrzejewski

Perhaps a silly question but I have been wondering why in the initial papers Tianyuan did not share much drift with West Eurasians, even later ones that probably had ANE.

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews

I came across this paper that perplexes me a bit, what do you think about their North African cluster? It is really high in ancient Southern Europe (20% in some places) but at the same time does not localize in Tunisia until recent times.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/826149v1

@Davidski also commented on it I see because the authors had an odd localization of North African ancestry in modern-day Poland.

Anonymous said...

So...
Some SNP's on the 2 Yana indivíduals (Ancient North Siberians):

SLC24A5, rs1426654: All ancestral (Indicates dark skin)
SLC45A2, rs16891982: All ancestral (Indicates dark skin)
KITLG, rs12821256: All ancestral (Indicates no blond)
EDAR, rs3827760: All ancestral (Indicates no thick Asian hair)
IRF4, rs12203592: All ancestral (Indicates no light hair or eyes)
OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832: All ancestral (Indicates brown eyes)

Rob said...

@ Sam

“ the West Med paper is pretty important. “”

I’m looking forward to more data from El Argar
I think they’re the unabated descendants of BB; but recall that FrankN claims that they’ll be migrations from the near east

Singh said...

@gamerz_J

East Eurasian blond hair allele origins is still unclear as the study i posted suggests. Blondism in East Eurasians is confined within upstream lineages of R & Q. Which suggests it mutated within those upstream lineages first and later in R/Q lineages. We'll see when data becomes more clear.

Davidski said...

@DJ

Blondism in East Eurasians is confined within upstream lineages of R & Q. Which suggests it mutated within those upstream lineages first and later in R/Q lineages.

This is either worded very badly or you don't know what you're saying.

Y-haplogroups have nothing to do with pigmentation.

Singh said...

@Davidski

You're right, they don't.

I was saying East Eurasian-related ancestry in ANE likely stems from population who carried K21b1/K2b2 lineage (upstream of R/Q clads) found in Asia. Those upstream clad carriers do have blondism in East Eurasia and downstream R/Q clads represented by ANE also carries blond hair allele along with East Eurasian ancestry, it does not look like coincidence. I'm sure upper paleolithic Eurasia was much more complex than we currently know with limited data.


Samuel Andrews said...

@Simon_W,
"I obtained 10% Yamnaya for Sicily_LBA:

distance: 2.9032%"

When I use more Eneolithic/Late Neolithic sources, Sicily_LBA scores 0% Yamnaya and gets a better fit. These are the best fits I could get.

Yet, when I take Tisza_LN out of this model, Sicily LBA/MBA get signifcantly worse fits and also score 5% Yamnaya. How do we know which one is right? It's confusing.

They definitely may have 5% or less Steppe admix, but not enough to say it was signifcant part of their origins. Maybe formal stats can resolve the question.

1.6695"

ITA_Sicily_LBA

Tisza_LN,54.6
ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic,20.7
Kura-Araxes_Kaps,20.2
Italy_Rome_CA,4.5
Yamnaya_Samara,0
Greece_N,0

Sicily MBA scores 0.4% Yamnaya in the same run.

1.3593"

ITA_Sicily_MBA

Greece_N,31.2
ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic,26.6
Kura-Araxes_Kaps,17.1
Italy_Rome_CA,16.9
Tisza_LN,7.8
Yamnaya_Samara,0.4

Samuel Andrews said...

Sicily bronze age imo is like a Western version of Minoans. They had about as much CHG/IranN as Minoans did. They were like Minoans but with WHG admix.

of Bronze age pops, Minoans are closest to Myceneans and Bronze age Sicily. Interesting.

Minoan_Lasithi
Mycenaean 0.050807777
ITA_Sicily_MBA/LBA 0.056380297

Samuel Andrews said...

My estimation for Sicily Bronze age and Minoans.

Sicily BA: AnatoliaN-74%, Caucasus Eneo-10%, Iran Eneo-5%, EuroHG-10%
Minoan: AnatoliaN-85%, Caucassus Eneo-9.2%, Iran Eneo-4.2%

sicily BA looks like Minoans but with WHG.

@gamer_z, The Near Eastern ancestry in Sicily bronze age is twice as much more CHG than IranN. It is proxied well by Kura-Araxes who lived in the Eneolithic Caucasus mountains. We're not talking about direct or indirect migrations from Iran into Southern Europe. Really it is Caucasus>Anatolia>Southern Europe. The label "Iranian-related" used by the paper really is miss leading.

gamerz_J said...

@DJ

Sorry I am a bit confused. Is your point that blondism in Europeans is due to deep East Eurasian ancestry akin Melanesians?

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews

Thanks once again for the reply and interesting outputs. IIRC Kura-Araxes had just CHG right (I mean when it comes to its Iranian-related)?

So could the reason models show Iran_N in these populations being at least party due to compensating for CHG not being the exact proximal source?

Also, based on your simulations it seems Racimo et al are getting something wrong with the North African cluster.

Samuel Andrews said...

Kura Araxes has about 14% IranN, 34% CHG. Yeah, Racimo is wrong about a North African cluster in Southern Europe. There's no room for speculation, North African ancestry isn't significant in Southern Europe.

It could be Racimo is using modern DNA. With modern DNA, they might be picking up 5-10% North African ancestry in Spain & Sicily, somehow making a cluster with it.

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews

Is there a connection between Kura-Araxes and Maykop?

If you pay attention to his NAF cluster (figure S5) it actually seems not to become prominent in North Africa until recently. Which is odd to me, probably its picking out Near Eastern ancestry or any ancestry not WHG/WSH/EEF.

gamerz_J said...

@Davidski

Sorry for another question but since you seem to have read it, do you know what's the deal with Racimo et al NAF cluster?

It was probably Jewish populations in Poland, do you know why it is so high in parts of Southern Europe (it seems to me even up to 20-30%)

It contradicts ancient DNA papers I have read on the issue.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews “Kura Araxes has about 14% IranN, 34% CHG. Yeah, Racimo is wrong about a North African cluster in Southern Europe. There's no room for speculation, North African ancestry isn't significant in Southern Europe. ”

Kura Araxes had 50% Barcin, right?

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 800 of 1260   Newer› Newest»