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   801 – 1000 of 1260   Newer›   Newest»
Andrzejewski said...

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

No! Nothing to do with Melanesians. Or Denisovans for that matter. The blondism is because Yamnaya and WSH have 50% ANE (75% in EHG, 35% in CHG).

Sredny Stog which has 18% Tripolye Cucuteni might’ve had a slightly higher ratio of blondism, as is evidenced in Corded Ware.

Andrzejewski said...

@gamerz_J “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%)”

Ashkenazi Jews were on average 20%-25% Yamnaya/WSH: a mixture of Khazar conversion to Judaism in the Middle Ages, intermarriage with Slavs, rape during pogroms, etc.

If indeed the formative population of Ashkenazi Jews was from Israelite men marrying Italian women, then they could’ve picked up Yamnaya ancestry through the wives as well.

Plus, the biblical Israelites had a lot of (in Samaritans 28%) of Anatolia Neolithic because of intermarriage with Hittites, Jebusites and other descendants of Kura Araxes and Anatolia Bronze Age.

Davidski said...

@gamerz_J

You need to get in touch with the lead author of the preprint and ask him that question.

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

Ashkenazi Jews were on average 20%-25% Yamnaya/WSH: a mixture of Khazar conversion to Judaism in the Middle Ages, intermarriage with Slavs, rape during pogroms, etc.

Nonsense.

Ric Hern said...

Regarding the Blondism. If there was a contribution from North of Sredny Stog as has been suggested (Early Volosovo), would it not be wise to wait for those results before going on a wild goose chase in the South ?

We already see excessive Blondness around the 55 degrees latitude in Modern Populations and in Afantova Gora. So currently the best option for European Blondness origins is between the Baltic and Lake Baikal.

Remember there were women also present in this area...Heheheeh.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Andre, The Khazar origin for European Jews is false. BecThey have no Central Asian ancestry. At this point no one can say anything definitive about what kind of gentile European admixture they have. Or when, they acquired, how they acquired, etc, etc. All we know is they are roughly 50% Israeli, 50% European.

Samuel Andrews said...

Interesting note in ancient Italy DNA.......

Eneolithic Central Italy (Rome) is basically identical to Remedello_BA who lived in northern tip of Italy. Also the two of them, clearly have a direct relationship to ancient Sardinia. They are modelled well as 60-70% ancient Sardinian. Their fits go down when Sardinian isn't included.

I2a-M26 was found in Remedello_BA. Turns out its I2a-M26 probably is the same I2a-M26 in modern Sardinians as many have suggested. But, ancient Sardinia isn't part Remedello-BA, Remeddlo-BA looks to be part Sardinian.

Samuel Andrews said...

Also, Bronze age Sicily has a good amount of this Remedello_BA like ancestry. So, this kind of ancestry, which mostly like Sardinians, was widespread in Chalcolithic Italy. It's the main kind of farmer ancestry in Iron age Italic tribes.

Samuel Andrews said...

I know my way around the G25 PCA. If you want proof Balkan Farmers & Iberian farmers were two different populations then compare.....

ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N:RMPR6 (Y DNA R1b V88 btw) to the rest of ITA_Grotta_Contienza_N

RMPR6 is 100% Iberian-like. While the rest, of them are 100% Balkan. They both were early farmers in 6th millenoum BC, in the same location in Italy, but using DNA we can see they come from two different populations.

old europe said...



@ samuel andrews


I do not get what you exactly mean...

are you saying that early italian farmers were balkan like while copper age italian farmers were more iberian ( cardial like)
I always tought all the italian farmers were cardial ( hence sardinian and iberian like )

Samuel Andrews said...

You read me correctly.

Most Neolithic Italian farmers samples so far are Balkan-like. One set of samples I'd say is mixed. One set of samples is 100% Balkan-like. Neolithic Sicily was almost 100% Balkan-like. And only one sample, an outlier, in Central Italy is 100% Iberian.

Copper age Central-North Italy mostly Sardinian/Iberian-like. Bronze age Sicily is mostly balkan-like with significant mainland Sardinian-like admixture.

I'd say, the Early Neolithic Central Italy samples we have so far are not the direct ancestors of Copper age Central Italy samples. Even though all European farmers were closely related, we can break down specific relationships in this way.

old europe said...


sam and rob

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European-middle-neolithic-en.svg

If you look at this map it shows clearly that Italy was the hotspot of cardial/impressed ware. So in Italy in the early neolithic there was a complete decoupling between genetics and culture? Genetically greek/balkan like but with a cardial cultural package? then nearly total replecement from the west?

I do not buy that

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob, Italy CA had only 13% WHG. Their affinity to Ibeira, but more so to Sardinia, is from their Anatolian ancestry not WHG. Ancient Sardinia also has only about 15% WHg but has this "Iberian" affinity.

Samuel Andrews said...

There being two different Anatolian farmer populations who came to Europe is consistent with mtDNA. It's why, Danube/Barcin N1a1a is so rare in Europe today and why "Iberian"-derived H1 is so common.

Rob said...

Later neolithic / Copper age Italians are pulled toward Iberia MN & Chalcolithic, & France MN, rather than Early Neolithic Iberia. So it must relate to the patterns/ source of WHG introgression which occurred in the west Med / West Europe as the Neolithic progressed; perhaps a funneling in of WHG which is from central Europe (senso lato) and is non-El Miron rich, non -Iron Gates like
So doesn't really have to do with the Cardial period, which as we all know, expanded from east to west.

Samuel Andrews said...

@old europe, You're right it doesn't make sense. But, ancient DNA doesn't lie. Maybe sometimes pots=/=people and sometimes pots=people. SOme Cardiel were Iberian like, some weren't. The Cardiel genomes in Croatia were not Iberian like.

This is the main Grotta Contienza group. All from the same site, dating 5400 BC in Central Italy. They're closet to Balkans Early Neolithic.

ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N 0
Balkans_N 0.011963174
LBK_EN 0.01815837
LBK_EN_Austria 0.019673842
Barcin_N 0.01980728
Czech_EBA:I7197_o1 0.020532505
Starcevo_Hungary_EN 0.020607993
Greece_N 0.024591573

This is a sample buried in the same location but in a different site dating 200 years later. You can see he is quite different. He's closest to British Neolithic, Western European Late Neolithic in general.

He belonged to Y DNA R1b V88, which has been found in Neolithic Spain and was common in ancient Sardinia. So, he's definitly from a different population than the other Early Neolithic Italians who lived in the exact same location only 200 years earlier.

ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N_o:RMPR6
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N:RMPR6 0
England_N 0.023836072
Baalberge_DEU_MN:I0560 0.027871454
Scotland_N 0.02901671
France_MLN 0.029335938
Portugal_LNCA 0.029607776
Ireland_MN 0.030122278

Matt said...

Seems fair. On meta-PCA to tease out affinities of neolithic farmers, the centroid of the ITA_*_CA (Monte_San_Biago, Grotta_Continenza) and Remedello_BA samples looks reasonably intermediate Iberia_N and SE Europe. That is not the case for the two ITA_*_N sequences (Grotta_Continenza, Ripabianca_di_Monterado), which sit more in the same position as contemporary SE Europe.

Probably multi-directional small scale bidirectional exchanges ongoing through pre-history explain this.

PCA possibly have some biases to modern preservation of early farmer ancestry being strongest in Iberia (Basques, Iberia in general) and Sardinia though.

F-statistics might form a good source of further distinction, as these easily find at least suggestive close affinities between GAC_Ukraine and GAC_Poland, the British+Irish Isles N group, the Beaker group as a whole, etc which are not always that readily apparent in G25 or other PCA. (G25 and PCA do a good job of "cleaning out" artefactual biases to outgroups that crop up in direct f3 data, but can lose some direct resolution.)

Samuel Andrews said...

Here's closest distances for Early Neolithic samples from a different site in Central Italy. Once again, he has Balkan affinities.

ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N
ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N 0
ITA_Sicily_MN 0.02097642
TDLN 0.025131045
Balkans_ChL 0.026751644
LBK_EN 0.028328692
Balaton_Lasinja_CA 0.028582197


Closest to Sicily MN which is interesting. But, Sicily_MN also looks like he is from the Balkans.

Rob said...

Although it can miss subtleties, a PCA shows that Cardial-Neolithic Iberia lays off the cline on which Later Neolithic Italy, Remedello lie on. They instead are pulled toward a west-central European WHG-rich metapopulation.

@ Sam

''There being two different Anatolian farmer populations who came to Europe is consistent with mtDNA. It's why, Danube/Barcin N1a1a is so rare in Europe today and why "Iberian"-derived H1 is so common.'

I think ultimately they came from the same source , its just that groups like Barcin & LBK are pioneer groups with reduced diversity & large mtDNA N1-founder effets. Essentially, they were isolated & extinct groups
It almost becomes a theoretical archaeological exercise to define what 'difference' is.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews “I know my way around the G25 PCA. If you want proof Balkan Farmers & Iberian farmers were two different populations then compare.....”

Is that because Balkan farmers and LBK took the land route whereas Iberian ones were Cardial Neolithic who took the maritime one?

Arza said...

Downloadable genotypes of present-day and ancient DNA data (compiled from published papers)
*** V42.4: New data release: March 1 2020 ***


4545 I6561 I6561 Mos70, Skeleton 5, 88 tooth 2018 MathiesonNature2018 Pinhasi, Ron 5960 4045-3974 calBCE (5215±20 BP, PSUAMS-2832) Ukraine_Eneolithic_SredniStog_o4 Alexandria Ukraine 49.54067778 37.69799444 1240K 1 1.422231 738261 M R1a1a1 438 H2a1a [0.997,1.000] 0.028 0.421 2374 0.003413 2.311805925 [0.001,0.006] half S6561.E1.L1 QUESTIONABLE (damage=0.028)

594 ANI163 ANI163 VAR158 tooth 2018 MathiesonNature2018 Krause, Johannes 6577 4711-4542 calBCE [4711-4550 calBCE (5787±30 BP, OxA-13688), 4667-4542 calBCE (5755±24 BP, OxA-13688)] Bulgaria_Varna_C_contam Varna Bulgaria 43.2131 27.8644 1240K .. 0.598 410005 F .. .. H7a1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. half .. QUESTIONABLE_CRITICAL (literature, but data were later found to lack characteristic ancient DNA damage raising the possibility that contamination explains why this individual appears to be an ancestry outlier; a subset of the co-authors of Mathieson et al. 2018 are actively looking into this and will publish corrected information after the issues are fully understood)

Anonymous said...

@Arza @all

Ukraine_Eneolithic_SredniStog_o4 Alexandria QUESTIONABLE (damage=0.028)

1. This grave is not Sredniy Stog.
2. It has nothing in common with other graves from Alexandria.
3. Telegin stated that it is the latest of all burials in Alexandria.
4. It does not have any Eneolithic attributes, it is possible that it is not Eneolithic even.
5. Probably the radiocarbon date was determined with an error.
6. It is likely that the sample was contaminated by any researcher from the USSR.


claravallensis said...

From v42.4.1240K.ind:
RISE595.SG F Montenegro_LBA.SG
RISE596.SG F Montenegro_IA.SG
seem quite interesting, they aren't in G25

Anonymous said...


1292 I4110 I4110 Mos57, Grave73, 263 tooth 2018 MathiesonNature2018 Pinhasi, Ron 5456 3634-3377 calBCE (4725В±25 BP, UCIAMS-186349) Ukraine_Eneolithic_SredniStog Dereivka I Ukraine

This is just ridiculous - Dereivka I 3634-3377 calBCE is not SredniStog(((

Arza said...

@ claravallensis

These are old samples which doesn't have enough SNPs to be in G25.

@ Archi

7. It's marked as a genetic outlier - "_o4", so unpublished Sredni Stog samples are completely different.

claravallensis said...

At first sight as far as I can tell, maybe I'm wrong, seems like there are many new interesting or yet unpublished/unavailable samples, lots of mesolithic ones, megalithic, Tartessian, some new bronze age Iberians.

Arza said...

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


And he's back as Ukraine_EBA:

6646 I5884_published I5884 Mos44, Grave 68, 294 tooth 2018 MathiesonNature2018 Pinhasi, Ron 4743 2890-2696 calBCE (4195±20 BP, PSUAMS-2828) Ukraine_EBA_published Dereivka I Ukraine 48.91422 33.76493 1240K 1 1.139 597090 M R1b1a1a2a2 .. U5a2b 0.999 0.086 .. .. 0.006996 1.770660938 [0.000,0.015] half S5884.E1.L1 PASS (literature)

BTW "_published" distinguishes a published sample for a still-unpublished higher quality version)

Arza said...

991 RISE568.SG I5026 RISE568, F0525, A01623, gr. 16 tooth 2015 AllentoftNature2015 .. 1200 600-900 CE Czech_EarlySlav.SG Brandysek Czech Republic 50.19 14.158 Shotgun 1 0.053 60816 F .. .. H44a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. minus RISE568 PASS (literature)

What's the point of keeping it secret since years?

@ Davidski

Can you ask them for the capture data of RISE568?

Matt said...

SredniStog_o4 indicates that I6561 is one of at least four autosomal outliers to a main Sredni Stog set. Presumably they have sufficient to identify that this sample is classified as an outlier?

I don't know about contamination from a Russian researcher, as I6561 clusters with Steppe_MLBA and shows no specific shared drift with present day Eastern European populations which is quite distinctive.

Regardless, it seems like it would be more solid and sound to use whatever their main cluster is.

Some of the Varna samples were questionable as potentially sharing drift with present-day Eastern European samples in a not very clearly explainable way I think...

I5884 being labelled as Ukraine_EBA maybe makes more sense, since IRC he does actually postdate some Yamnaya_Ukraine samples. But if the autosomal composition is still similar with a lack of any Steppe/Piedmont_En, that will be interesting. Maybe quality enrichment will make that issue disappear.

Anonymous said...

Matt said...
"SredniStog_o4 indicates that I6561 is one of at least four autosomal outliers to a main Sredni Stog set."

This outlier even archeologically, no doubt it can not even theoretically belong to the Sredniy Stog culture, the burial most similar to the Abashevo culture.

"I don't know about contamination from a Russian researcher"
You can't know about any contamination from any researchers, it was more than half a century ago.

Arza said...

Old:
SZ1.SG SZ1 SZ1 petrous .. .. Shotgun AmorimNatureCommunications2018 3950 3000-1000 BCE Hungary_BA.SG Szólád Hungary 46.28333333 17.85 M J1b R1a1a1b2a 0.33614 13.32 1181117 half All PASS (literature) -0.000225 -0.076397333 0.33614 0.1111 J1b 1 2018

New:
5752 SZ1.SG SZ1 SZ1 petrous 2018 AmorimNatureCommunications2018 AmorimNatureCommunications2018 1250 600-800 CE Hungary_AvarPeriod.SG Szólád Hungary 46.28333333 17.85 Shotgun .. 9.279219 1181117 M R1a1a1b2a .. J1b .. .. .. .. -0.000225 -0.076397333 [0,0.006] half .. PASS (literature)

epoch said...

@Arza

So ANI163 could be contaminated? Then there is only Smyadovo I2181 which shows very old Steppe admixture in the Balkans. That one is Y-DNA R/mtDNA HV15 in the Mathieson 2018 excel sheet.

Davidski said...

@Archi

You're hopeless. If I6561 had any significant contamination from a present-day Russian it would be very easy to pick up in its autosomal structure.

It would make no difference whether that contamination was old or recent. It would be easy to pick up either way.

This sample has 0% Russian ancestry.

Anonymous said...

@ Davidski

You're hopeless. significant contamination from a present-day Russian

What does Russian have to do with it? It could have been anyone from ex-USSR territory. And not significant.


Matt said...

Looks like Reich lab have merged in the megalithic samples from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/were-europe-s-megalithic-societies-patrilineal. (Sweden_Megalithic, Ireland_Megalithic, etc.)

Davidski said...

@All

It'll take me a day or so to update my dataset and the Global25 datasheets with these new samples.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski, Thanks for always quickly updating ancient DNA to G25 PCA.

A said...

@ Matt

"Looks like Reich lab have merged in the megalithic samples from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/were-europe-s-megalithic-societies-patrilineal. (Sweden_Megalithic, Ireland_Megalithic, etc.)"

The megalithic culture had a european hunter-gatherer origin, right?

Matt said...

Coverage of a new paper, milk use on the Eurasian Steppe and touching on domestication of horses on via protein analysis, links:

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-year-old-protein-importance-dairying-eastern.html

https://www.thehour.com/news/article/Humans-domesticated-horses-new-tech-could-15099497.php

@A, I think Reich argued paternally and perhaps this was so in some talk, whether or not this is right, though autosomally we know they are 25:75 Barcin:EuroHG, and what archaeologists think of it I don't really know for sure.

Rob said...

For ex the Sherrat's got the origin of Megalithic soceities bang on, back in 1990

''The spread of farming to Europe took two forms. In the Balkans and central Europe, the
'west Asiatic package' was imported wholesale, with cereal farming (horticulture),
livestock keeping, pottery, and villages of substantial houses.
Around the margins of the area occupied by immigrant farmers in central Europe, a
more complex set of interactions between incoming and native groups took place,
associated with the transfer not just of the more easily transmissible features such as
pottery and livestock, but of cereal cultivation as well...The spread of cereal cultivation was associated, not with substantial timber villages, but with what can be considered as their monumental surrogates: mounds and megaliths. This pattern should thus be seen as the first stage in the transformation of indigenous foragers into indigenous farmers; and monumental tombs appear to have been an essential element in that transformation.''

https://www.jstor.org/stable/124873?seq=1

Their take on PIE wasn't too bad either

A said...

@Matt

"they are 25:75 Barcin:EuroHG"

But exclusively EuroHG paternally... indicates the EuroHG took Barcin women.

Matt said...

@arza, interestingly SZ1 doesn't look too much like the other two "Avar" samples, and looks more like Scythian_MDA. Seems to have some tilt towards Sarmatians/Scythians, and no significant Baltic related drift. LDA to try and visualize affinities: https://imgur.com/a/BpQiWyb (Aqua: SZ1, Blue: 2x Avars, Crimson: Hungarian BA samples).

TLT said...

@Andrzejewski

>35% in CHG

According to Lararidis 2018, there is 22.2% ANE in CHG, not 35%.

TLT said...

Furthermore Lazaridis 2018's paper gives Karelia HG 62.8% ANE. So it adds up to 56% (x0.628) + 33% (0.222) = ~42.5%. Significant, but not really 50% on average.

gamerz_J said...

@Andrzejewski

I know it has nothing to do with Melanesians, but I was just trying to understand what is @DJ's opinion, which seems to be that AG3 had the blond allele because of its East Eurasian admixture.


@Davidski

I will try to get in touch with him, was just wondering if you had any thoughts on it.

gamerz_J said...

@Andrzejewski

Based on my limited knowledge I do not think the Khazar hypothesis is valid.

But I said Jews based on the comments on the pre-print where Davidski (rightfully imo) pointed out that their NAF cluster does not make sense to be so high in modern-day Poland.

I just can not understand how they got that, even for Southern Europe (its like 20% in the ancient Balkans) Use of geographic data misleading perhaps?

Matt said...

Quick demonstration: Just to expand on this point from my comment yesterday:

F-statistics might form a good source of further distinction, as these easily find at least suggestive close affinities between GAC_Ukraine and GAC_Poland, the British+Irish Isles N group, the Beaker group as a whole, etc which are not always that readily apparent in G25 or other PCA.

An f3 outgroup stats model of true Beaker Britain, plotted against best fitting proportions of Yamnaya_Samara+Neolithic Source (GAC_P and Scot_N models): https://imgur.com/a/M6ikyiS

The Y residual against model shows populations that show the most and least excess of shared f3 outgroup drift in the true population against the model

The true Beaker Britain population shares excesses of drift which tend to be specifically and most intensely for other Beaker populations and Beaker in the British Isles. These are very low level signals but are apparently there. f3 statistics can have this signal.

If we're looking for close shared signals, while the G25 PCA shows a lot and we are used to using it a lot, looking to the f2/f3/f4 etc can still be useful, particularly if we use differences of models for ground truth to sift deeper from shallower relatedness, and check for systematic patterns with lots of samples. Esp. with high coverage f stats, which should sift out lots of error and super-slight contamination/damage, with luck.

(Yamnaya_Samara is the best Yamnaya for this, trying all of them. Best correlations. Also note I've doubled up representation of the GAC_Ukraine in the above to make it a "fair comparison" with Scotland_N, with equal numbers of close neolithic relative populations, 2 for GAC_P and 2 for Scotland_N. This probably wouldn't be necessary with lots more GAC / TRB populations in the set of stats I'm using, but it doesn't have that. Final note is that proportions in f3 model have to 3% higher in Yamnaya for Scotland_N than GAC_Poland, possibly reflecting very low level admixture between GAC+Yamnaya or some shared ancestor of the two).

(Above is an filtered set of ancients to be easier to read and get rid of some dubious maybe spurious results, but an unfiltered set shows the same patterns, with the largest magnitude of excess sharing the same: https://imgur.com/a/ZULb8O0).

epoch said...

@Matt

"25:75 Barcin:EuroHG"

You mean "75:25 Barcin:EuroHG"? The only thing close to three quarters of EuroHG I can think of were Blätterhöhle fishermen.

Matt said...

Yeah, typo.

EastPole said...

“Dairy pastoralism sustained eastern Eurasian steppe populations for 5,000 years”

“Our results demonstrate the oldest known evidence of dairy consumption in Mongolia and the eastern Eurasian steppe (circa 3000–2500 bc), in the form of Early Bronze Age Afanasievo- and Chemurchek-associated individuals in both central and western Mongolia (Table 1). Previous ancient DNA analysis of one of the individuals at Shatar Chuluu showing ruminant dairy proteins (AT-26) was shown to have a non-local mitochondrial haplogroup consistent with western steppe herder populations37, supporting the interpretation of individuals associated with the Afanasievo culture as migrants from eastern Europe via the Russian Altai and a probable vector for the initial introduction of domestic animals into Mongolia.”

“We find evidence of milk proteins in the earliest directly dated individual in our sample set, AT-26 (3316–2918 cal bc; 2σ range) at the Afanasievo burials of Shatar Chuluu, the earliest known mounded burial features associated with pastoral economies in the territory of Mongolia.”

“human migrations associated with the expansion of the Afanasievo culture present a viable candidate for the initial introduction of dairy and domestic livestock into eastern Eurasia.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1120-y

Samuel Andrews said...

@EastPole, Thanks for sharing that. Whether, lactose persistence genes, big dairy diet was introduced by IEs is interesting.

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews

Speaking of Romans, is there any validity to the claims that they were more closely related to Iranians/ Near Easterners than other Europeans? (Central, Western and Southeastern ones I mean)

I might be wrong but I am noticing a trend of perhaps (over)connecting Southern Europe to the Middle East and North Africa in some papers.

Samuel Andrews said...

@gamerz_j,

Modern historians are almost always going to overrate any kind of non-European influence on Europe in history because of political bias. So, they're definitly going to do that at least a little bit with ancient Roman DNA.

They are right, Italy/Rome was very connected to the Middle East in Roman era. Most Imperial-era samples from the city of Rome, 50bc-50ad, are mostly Middle Eastern in ancestry. Lots of immigrants from the Middle East came to Rome.

But, it's important to mention, but they won't mention, is that this doesn't mean Roman civilization was founded or shaped by Middle Eastern immigrants. Ancient DNA from the Latin tribes, the people who founded the city of Rome, were 100% European and similar to modern Northern Italians.

The Etruscans who are seen as the ancestor to Roman civilization, their DNA is also 100% European, similar to Northern Italians as well. Closely related to early Romans. So, I mean it doesn't seem Roman civilizations' roots were in the Middle East.

What happened is once Rome conquered the Near East in 100bc-0ad, lots of people from the Middle East immigrated into Rome and Italy. To say, the new subjects of Rome were the ones who created it doesn't make sense.

But, obviously, Near Eastern influence was big once Rome once the Near East became apart of its empire. Historians already knew this. The cultures there were rich, they influenced the Roman world a lot. You will hear them often say the Roman empire had lots of "Hellnistic/Greek" influence. This "Hellnistic" influence came largely from the Near East. The Near East was apart of the "Hellenistic" world, because it had been ruled by Greeks for three centuries before Rome. The Near East back then spoke Greek as a lingua franca.

We can see looking at DNA, the Middle Eastern immigrants into Rome mostly came from Asia Minor/Turkey where people spoke Greek and they would be counted as Greek/Hellensitic by historians.

Davidski said...

OK, the following samples have been updated in or added to the Global25 datasheets.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pJnJXp2H5G0uSdOEtn-EfyZuphGyXYKk

Same links as always...

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

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews

I am aware of the Roman paper, and its one that I had in mind when I asked the question.
Do you think possible that Italians outside of Rome were also more European? They were probably the reason why later samples become more European again in that paper along with possible Germanic influences.

Btw, I was thinking about this North African cluster from the Racimo paper I cited earlier. Perhaps unlikely but do you recall Lazaridis,2018 on the Caucasus?
He suggested that Taforalt contributed ancestry to Natufians instead of Natufians giving ancestry to Taforalt ( van der Loosdrecht et al, 2018) and I have seen some qpGraph models around suggesting IBM-related ancestry even in Iran_N.

Would be interested in your thoughts about this.

Angantyr said...

@Davidski

These two samples are from Scotland and the Orkneys respectively:

SWE_Megalithic:bal004
SWE_Megalithic:lai001

Samuel Andrews said...

@gamerz_J, "Do you think possible that Italians outside of Rome were also more European? They were probably the reason why later samples become more European again in that paper along with possible Germanic influences."

I agree with you, that it's because of local Italians moving 'back' into the city of Rome. Because, the runs I've done, say the new European ancestry was Italian, similar to modern Northern Italians, not from all over Europe. Not from Germany, Spain, Illyria, France etc.

"He suggested that Taforalt contributed ancestry to Natufians instead of Natufians giving ancestry to Taforalt ( van der Loosdrecht et al, 2018) and I have seen some qpGraph models around suggesting IBM-related ancestry even in Iran_N."

I don't know about that. Other people here have opinons about it. Taforalt and Natufian's Y DNA E1b1b's closest relative is West African E1b1a. Which would suggest E1b1 has deep roots in Africa, which would suggest Natufian has North African ancestry. Ultimatly Y DNA E is of Eurasian origin, after going to Africa, I guess it came back to Eurasia.

Ric Hern said...

@ Eastpole + Samuel

Yes. Cow MtDNA Haplogroup T3 became dominant in Europe very early and was also dominant in Northern China out of MtDNA Haplogroups T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5. MtDNA Haplogroup T2 arrived later in Northern China.

The same for Haplogroups A and B in Sheep which was dominant in Europe early on out of Haplogroups A, B, C, D and E. This basically points me towards Europe as the place from which the first Cattle and Sheep spread to Northern China.

Davidski said...

@Angantyr

These two samples are from Scotland and the Orkneys respectively:

SWE_Megalithic:bal004
SWE_Megalithic:lai001


Thanks, fixed.

Samuel Andrews said...

The new Globular Amphora and Swedish neolithic samples, confirm Funnel beaker & Globular Amphora were mostly of Western European origin. Other than themselves they are closest to British Neolithic and French Neolithic.

@Andre, So, this means the farmer ancestry in Polish, NorthEastern Europeans is more related to Iberian farmers than to LBK. Hence, why mtDNA H1 is common in Northeastern Europe and in Sardinia (and almost everywhere else in Europe). It's strange that Finns have the highest H1 frequency, even though they have the least farmer ancestry in Europe.

Ric Hern said...

I wonder if the later arrival of Cattle MtDNA Haplogroups T2 and I, and Sheep MtDNA Haplogroup C in Northern China basically show how significant Geneflow Barrier South Central Asia was ?

T2 was dominant in Iran...so my prediction is that the Bos Taurus cattle depicted in the Indus Valley Civilisation will be dominantly MtDNA Haplogroup
T2....

Rob said...

@ Sam

'The new Globular Amphora and Swedish neolithic samples, confirm Funnel beaker & Globular Amphora were mostly of Western European origin. Other than themselves they are closest to British Neolithic and French Neolithic.''

Be carful with categorical statements, because

(1) French Neolithic has 'old LBK' ancestry
(2) TRB is a heterogenoeus group, some with more LBK some less. (whilst GAC is more uniformly 'western')
(3) their Y-DNA lineages are not from 'western Europe'

Arza said...

@ JuanRivera

GAC only:

Target: UKR_N_o:I3719
Distance: 10.4162% / 0.10416178
100.0 POL_Globular_Amphora

All ancients:

Target: UKR_N_o:I3719
Distance: 1.2972% / 0.01297196
22.2 HUN_Starcevo_N
17.8 HRV_Cardial_N
14.0 DEU_LBK_N
11.8 HRV_Sopot_MN
10.2 HUN_Lengyel_LN
9.6 HUN_Vinca_MN
6.2 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
4.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
1.6 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
1.0 DEU_Karsdorf_LN
0.8 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
0.6 AUT_LBK_N
0.2 PER_Laramate_900BP

Pro-tip: instead of guessing start with a full spreadsheet in sources.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@gamerz_J
"Speaking of Romans, is there any validity to the claims that they were more closely related to Iranians/ Near Easterners than other Europeans? (Central, Western and Southeastern ones I mean)"

If you're talking about native Central Italian Romans (i.e., first language Latin speakers indigenous to the area for at least several generations), then their affinities depend on the period. Iron Age Romans were definitely more closely related to Europeans of all stripes than they were to any Near Easterners (B.N.: they were perhaps slightly closer to Lebanese than Finns). That changes by the Imperial period. The vast majority of Central Italians we have on file from that era (and we have a shit ton) are East Mediterranean. It is very unlikely to me that these are recent immigrants. There are too many of them and they are everywhere, including Tuscany (Chiusi) and Marche (Civitanova). Later they show up at Collegno in Piedmont. Outright Near Eastern people disappear from Central Italy by Late Antiquity but the East Meds remain very strong. This is probably because most of the common people in Central Italy had this profile. East Meds are more similar to CERTAIN Near Easterners than to CERTAIN Europeans. Just like modern Greek islanders, Southern Italians, and Western Jews, these Romans would have been more similar to Lebanese, Assyrians, and Armenians than to English, Swedes, or Poles. Their relationship to Arabians is about equal to their similarity to Northern Europeans, and they are more related to Northern Europeans than to North Africans.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob, CWC_POL_early:poz81 has a distance of 0.0326 from Yamnaya_Samara. Very close. They're basically identical.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews it’s funny that you mentioned Finns and ancestry components. Because this is what the authors of the Italic/Siberian study said:

“Their data suggest that the Siberian ancestry reached the coasts of the Baltic Sea no later than the mid-first millennium BC -- around the time of the diversification of west Uralic/Finnic languages. It also indicates an influx of people from regions with strong Western hunter-gatherer characteristics in the Bronze Age, including many traits we now associate with modern Northern Europeans, like pale skins, blue eyes, and lactose tolerance.

"The Bronze Age individuals from the Eastern Baltic show an increase in hunter-gatherer ancestry compared to Late Neolithic people and also in the frequency of light eyes, hair, and skin and lactose tolerance," Tambets says, noting that those characteristics continue amongst present-day Northern Europeans.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190509142612.htm

BUT...are they sure that they are talking about Western HG instead of Yamnaya/WSH/Corded Ware BA people ?


Andrzejewski said...

Finns have one of the highest rates of WSH ancestry and they’re not even Indo-European speakers! The authors of the 2019 quoting about how following the Bronze Age the frequency of alleles and phenotypes for blond hair, fair skin and blue or green eyes markedly increased were confusing Yamnaya or CWC with WHG. It highlighted how both foragers and farmers may have had the potential for decreased pigmentation in Finns (and probably others!), notwithstanding the fact that before the BA let alone the Eneolithic the population was much swarthy.

Andrzejewski said...

And the increase in WHG component was due to Yamnaya assimilating WHG-rich EEF tribes on its march to conquer Europe

Davidski said...

At least genetically, poz81 is Yamnaya, so there must have been a population like Yamnaya with loads of R1a-M417. I'm guessing somewhere in the Lower Don/Volga area.

Vladimir said...

Poz81 this CTS4385. Judging by the modern distribution, these are probably the distant ancestors of the angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians, who moved from Jutland to the British Isles at the beginning of our era

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski 

How does Early Volosovo or a Mesolithic Population from the same area fit into this whole picture of PIE from the Lower Volga/Don scenario ? You mentioned earlier that R1b M269 is from the Forest > Forest Steppe > Sredny Stog > Yamnaya and Corded Ware. Is this still the case ?

Samuel Andrews said...

Tests I've done, poz81 has a higher EHG/UkraineHG compared to CHG than Yamnaya does. His EEF percentage is almost identical to Yamnaya though, very slightly more than Yamnaya, his main difference seems to be EHG/CHG ratio.

Arza said...

@ Samuel Andrews

You have it backwards.

Target: RUS_Afanasievo
Distance: 2.0572% / 0.02057190
64.2 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81
35.8 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 2.0836% / 0.02083630
69.2 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81
30.8 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001

Samuel Andrews said...

2.2292"

CWC_POL_early:poz81

Afanasievo,74
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,17.4
Villabruna,3.9
Scotland_Neolithic_Megalithic,1.9
Ukraine_Meso excluding outliers,1.7
Poland_HG:N22,1.1

91.4% 'Steppe', 7% HG, 1.9% EF.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

"At least genetically, poz81 is Yamnaya, so there must have been a population like Yamnaya with loads of R1a-M417. I'm guessing somewhere in the Lower Don/Volga area."

Indeed. It's great, isn't it? These early Corded Ware samples are very interesting and I hope we get more soon. I believe some here have speculated that something like later Corded Ware formed in the steppe very early on, but based on these samples, early Corded Ware was fully Yamnaya-like and the high degree of EEF admixture seen in later Corded samples happened after the fact. Opinions?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Michalis, IMO, Corded Ware acquired almost all of its farmer ancestry in Poland and Ukraine, and almost all from Globular Amphora.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

I also wonder if the physical anthropology supports continuity. Does anyone know if early Corded Ware samples show morphological similarities to Yamnaya? Or were they already skewed in the direction of classic Corded type skeletons we've all seen in the plates? At least we know Poz81 had the classic EMBA steppe pigmentation (dark hair, eyes, intermediate skin). It's obvious at this point how fast things can change (e.g., the classic Beaker skulls, the meteoric rise in light pigmentation and lactase persistence in Northern Europe), but it's still neat to see the physical anthropology line up with the genetics.

Arza said...

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 1.0692% / 0.01069235
32.8 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
23.2 RUS_Vonyuchka_En
19.6 Corded_Ware_DEU
14.6 RUS_Progress_En
9.8 RUS_Khvalynsk_En

Target: RUS_Afanasievo
Distance: 1.4114% / 0.01411419
33.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
32.6 RUS_Progress_En
14.4 Corded_Ware_DEU
11.6 RUS_Vonyuchka_En
7.6 Corded_Ware_POL_early
0.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En

Yamnaya cluster is just a western steppe population mixed with Piedmont-Khvalynsk-Volosovo cline.

Rob said...

@ Sam

''CWC_POL_early:poz81 has a distance of 0.0326 from Yamnaya_Samara. Very close. They're basically identical.''

Okay. How's that related to th GAC / TRB issue ?

EastPole said...

Vahaduo Global 25 Views should be updated, there are differences between old samples and new samples (e.g. beteen old RUS_Progress_En:PG2001 and new RUS_Progress_En:PG2001):

https://i.postimg.cc/nhJ3nGL9/screenshot-76.png

Rob said...

@ Davidski

''At least genetically, poz81 is Yamnaya, so there must have been a population like Yamnaya with loads of R1a-M417. I'm guessing somewhere in the Lower Don/Volga area.''

The question is how does Sintashta become EEF rich. The link goes back to Abashevo, Fatyanovo, etc
But there is no GAC or CT groups east of the Dnieper

gamerz_J said...

@Samuel Andrews

"I don't know about that. Other people here have opinons about it."
Well, I am just trying to think of possible scenarios for this North African ancestry that paper observed. There is a huge debate I understand about where E comes from, I am not sure if it is Eurasian. There is D0 in Africa after all so perhaps the split was there.

On the other hand, would it be possible for Natufians to give ancestry to Taforalt and in turn for Taforalt to give ancestry to Sub Saharan populations? Or it went the other way around but got diluted in the process?

That ancient Rome paper treats IBM and Yoruba almost as the same components though.

Samuel Andrews said...

poz81, Corded Ware, 2880–2630 BC, Obłaczkowo Poland.
Mass burial, Globular Amphora, 2880–2776 BC, Koszyce Poland.

In 2800 Bc, two worlds collided in Poland (Central Europe). I'd say this is where most of the farmer-Steppe admixture happened. In Poland and Germany.

Together they can explain the ancestry Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Sintashta.

CWC_DEU: 77.2% CWC, 22.8% GAC. @0.022
CWC_Czech: 66% CWC, 34% GAC. @0.017
CWC_Sweden: 63% CWC, 37% GAC. @0.021
Sintashta: 73% CWC, 27% GAC. @0.0208.
Beaker Netherlands: 63% CWC, 37% GAC. @0.019.


They lived in different parts of Poland, about 200 miles away from each other. Nonetheless it's pretty awesome they lived in the same place, at the same time, and together we use them to explain the genetic variation for Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Sintashta.

gamerz_J said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos

"The vast majority of Central Italians we have on file from that era (and we have a shit ton) are East Mediterranean. It is very unlikely to me that these are recent immigrants"

I have seen people suggest that they were not just East Mediterranean but more closely related to Iranians that Europeans. This is what confuses me but I can not test any genomes for myself to see.

"Just like modern Greek islanders, Southern Italians, and Western Jews, these Romans would have been more similar to Lebanese, Assyrians, and Armenians than to English, Swedes, or Poles. Their relationship to Arabians is about equal to their similarity to Northern Europeans, and they are more related to Northern Europeans than to North Africans."

But Greeks (including ancient samples after Myceneans IIRC) do show steppe ancestry along with Romans, do they not? They would not be closer to Swedes than Lebanese perhaps but I do no think they would be as related to Arabians (which samples do you have in mind?) as to English.

Because if that was the case, how come this European ancestry rebounded after the empire?


PS. Do you have any thoughts on the Taforalt-Natufian connection?



gamerz_J said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos

Sorry for another question but you say "Greek islanders" instead of just Greeks.
Is there a difference between mainland Greeks and Greek islanders? If so, is it the steppe component?

EastPole said...

@Rob
“The question is how does Sintashta become EEF rich. The link goes back to Abashevo, Fatyanovo, etc
But there is no GAC or CT groups east of the Dnieper”

Maybe this happened:

https://i.postimg.cc/bN41w8HB/CWC-expansion.jpg

Vladimir said...

It is unlikely that the population of Z2124 Sintashta has ever been in Poland. Apparently this mixing occurred in 3500-3000 years BC in areas where there is no DNA data yet, this is the North-East of Ukraine, Belarus, the center of the European part of Russia

Wise dragon said...


@gamerz_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."

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

You have to read the Sardinian paper with caution. They use Morocco Late Neolithic( MAR_LN) that is a poorer fitting source population. Since Morocco, Late Neolithic isn‘t the best choice it elevates/inflates the North African component in the admixture test. Therefore Sicilians score large amounts of MAR_LN and can be modeled around 50% MAR_LN. Keep in mind Morroco Neolithic has half of the Anatolian Neo-like ancestry. So the modeling from the study is misleading for Morocco_LN. The use of MAR_LN also misrepresents the percentages for Anatolian or EEF in Sardinians and Sicilians. Furthermore, the North copper- age North African gene flow into Europe was at best sporadic, not widespread and it was most likely short-lived.

"Speaking of Romans, is there any validity to the claims that they were more closely related to Iranians/ Near Easterners than other Europeans? (Central, Western and Southeastern ones I mean)".



The original or native Romans were European. However in imperial times when going by this Roman paper people that cluster Southern of them were numerically dominant in Rome and surroundings.









Samuel Andrews said...

@Vladimir, It sounds far fetched to say Sintashta came out of Central Europe. But, in G25 PCA, Sintashta choses Globular Amphora as its farmer ancestor by a large margin. Also, if you look at Sintashta's mtDNA you direct, recent links to Globular Amphora as well as to Bell Beaker. Which is more evidence.

EastPole said...

@Vladimir

“It is unlikely that the population of Z2124 Sintashta has ever been in Poland. Apparently this mixing occurred in 3500-3000 years BC in areas where there is no DNA data yet, this is the North-East of Ukraine, Belarus, the center of the European part of Russia”

Oldest CWC comes from Poland and there were migrations of CWC from Poland east:

“Corded ware, Fatyanovo and abashevo Culture sites on the Flood-plain of the Moskva river”
“The rim of pot No 2 has parallel horizontal cord imprints with short loops below. There are no parallels for this decoration in the pottery from FatyanovoBalanovo culture graves (amongst a sample of about 1000 known vessels).

More profitable to my mind is to look for analogies amongst the cord and epicorded ceramic cultures of the Baltic coast, Belarus and South Poland, where analogies are plentiful. The loops are typical in decoration styles of late cord ceramic cultures of South Poland and West Ukraine (Bunyatyan and Pozikhovskyin 2011; Kadrow and Machnik 1997). Sometimes similar loops are found in the Rzucewo culture of the Baltic coast (Kilian 1955; Rimantienë 1989; Zal’cman, 2010).
The rims of pots No 3 and №4 have horizontal bands with small pits, and a decorative wave above the band made with the same instrument as the pits. There are many analogies amongst the Rzucewo culture, for example, at the Nida settlement (Rimantienë 1989). These analogies also apply to the decoration of pot No 6.”

http://rcin.org.pl/Content/54752/WA308_74904_P244_Corded-ware-Fatyanov_I.pdf

Wise dragon said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos


Sorry I disagree with you, not all tested imperial Romans were locals, natives especially not those who cluster with Syrians, Lebanese or Jews. People like 850 who was Mycenaean- like may represent some native groups who also lived in Central Italy but definitely not all local tribes. When you read Juvenal, Tacitus or Cicero you would know that they didn‘t consider these Eastern Meds, Hellenized Anatolians, Syrians or Jews who lived in Rome as real Romans but as foreigners. So we have to take into consideration that many of the tested imperial Romans in that study were migrants, merchants, slaves, etc. who settled in Rome that was the center of the empire. These people were not necessarily very recent migrants, though. Besides Rome wouldn‘t be the only place in history where the natives got outnumbered due to the massive influx of migrants.

Vladimir said...

@Samuel Andrews We do not yet have data from a large area of Northern Ukraine, Belarus, and the center of Russia. I think when such data will appear it will be obvious that Sitnashta originated from Abashevo and / or Babino, and they originated from Konstantinovka culture, and it is from Sredniy Stog

Vladimir said...

@EastPole, There is such a hypothesis, but it is only a hypothesis ... there are other hypotheses

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@gamerz_J
"I have seen people suggest that they were not just East Mediterranean but more closely related to Iranians that Europeans. This is what confuses me but I can not test any genomes for myself to see."

There aren't any Iranians among the Roman samples. The closest you get is an individual that MIGHT be Mesopotamian. As far as the samples more being more closely related to Iranians than Europeans, that depends on which Roman samples you're talking about and which modern Europeans you're comparing them to. Europeans are not a genetic monolith and never have been; WHGs were different from EHGs, EEFs were different from Eneolithic steppe people, and Cretans are different from Irish. The same holds for variation in West Asia. The East Med Roman samples are closest to other Southern Europeans. They might be closer to Iranians than to certain Northern Europeans, but who really cares? The takeaway is that they were very distinct from both. The same applies to the Bronze Age and classical Greeks.

"But Greeks (including ancient samples after Myceneans IIRC) do show steppe ancestry along with Romans, do they not?"

So what? So do Iranians and plenty of other Near Easterners.

"Because if that was the case, how come this European ancestry rebounded after the empire?"

The East Med element remained in place. I theorize the shift you're talking about to be the result of immigration into Central Italy from barbarian strongholds in Northern Italy. I think Northern Italy was an Italic IA-like reservoir for much of Imperial Roman history. Northern barbarians came in, mixed with the Northern Italians, and then this mixed group moved south and diluted a predominantly East Med Central Italy to levels now seen in Tuscany, Marche, and Lazio. It's not exactly gospel, but that's what I think happened.

"PS. Do you have any thoughts on the Taforalt-Natufian connection?"

No, I'm waiting for the Dzudzuana paper.

"Sorry for another question but you say "Greek islanders" instead of just Greeks.
Is there a difference between mainland Greeks and Greek islanders? If so, is it the steppe component?"

It's not as simple as that. Greek islanders actually have about twice as much Yamnaya ancestry as ancient Greeks (at least Mycenaeans and Emporiotes). Mainland Greeks have a lot of medieval Slavic admixture which is why their steppe is higher. Aegean Greeks have only a little Slavic but significantly more post-Neolithic West Asian admixture. My father is Aegean Greek, my mother Northern European. Coincidentally I end up plotting near mainland Greeks. That should give you a good idea of how big the differences are.

gamerz_J said...

A bit off topic but this https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-020-0218-z was just published Sociocultural insights from the study of ancient genomes by Racimo et al (2020).

Rob said...

@ Vladimir

I think it’s unlikely that the steppe / MNF admixture which characterises Andronovo etc will come from Russia
Moreover; some of your suggestions are odd. Sintashta from Babino ?? The latter is too young
Konstantinovka also unlikely.

gamerz_J said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos

Thanks for the reply.

"Europeans are not a genetic monolith and never have been" Of course they are not, I did not mean to imply that. But differentiation across much of Europe and West Eurasia is low, especially when compared to say Africa or South Asia.

"The East Med Roman samples are closest to other Southern Europeans. They might be closer to Iranians than to certain Northern Europeans, but who really cares? "

I am not talking about Northern Europeans but as I mentioned western and southern ones. For native Romans to be closer to Greeks than Swedes is common sense but for them to be closer to Iranians than say French is imo wrong. But it is an argument I have often come across, same with ancient Greeks. Still, if it turns out to be the case then that's also fine with me, facts are facts.

"So what? So do Iranians and plenty of other Near Easterners." My bad, you are correct. However, Greeks and Italians share other components with each other and other Europeans not shared with some Near Easterners and Iranian populations, do they not?

"I theorize the shift you're talking about to be the result of immigration into Central Italy from barbarian strongholds in Northern Italy"

Could be but I still am skeptical of a scenario of total population replacement of native Romans.

"Greek islanders actually have about twice as much Yamnaya ancestry as ancient Greeks (at least Mycenaeans and Emporiotes"

Do you have an estimate of their Yamnaya ancestry?

" West Asian admixture" A mix of Anatolian farmer with CHG and Levant or something else?


"That should give you a good idea of how big the differences are."

So not much gene flow mainland-islands?

gamerz_J said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos

Sorry, forgot. I do not mean Iranian immigrants but rather the high Iranian-related ancestry the authors observed in many of the imperial samples.

Or CHG, I have not seen which one fits best.

gamerz_J said...

@Wise dragon

Thanks for the answer.

Yes you are right, Morocco_LN is high in Anatolian-related ancestry. There seems to be a paper last year that touched upon that by Serra-Vidal et al. But if that is the case, why did they use Morocco_LN then?

re: Romans
What you say makes sense to me, and perhaps if more genomes come out from Roman Italy we will see more European-like samples.
As you mentioned before, the question of the social status of the samples in that ancient Rome paper is interesting, I am not sure it is clear.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@Wise_dragon
"Sorry I disagree with you, not all tested imperial Romans were locals, natives especially not those who cluster with Syrians, Lebanese or Jews."

I was clearly talking about the Romans that clustered with Southern Italians and Aegean Greeks, not the outright Near Easterners. You didn't pick up on that?

"When you read Juvenal, Tacitus or Cicero you would know that they didn‘t consider these Eastern Meds, Hellenized Anatolians, Syrians or Jews who lived in Rome as real Romans but as foreigners."

Right, we should defer to the anti-Hellenic/Oriental prejudice of various historic personalities when deciding these matters. Maybe Juvenal would like to give his alphabet, pantheon, architecture, etc. back to those degenerate Easterners.

It would be nice to know what Juvenal looked like genetically. I'll bet you he wouldn't have clustered with Etruscans.

"So we have to take into consideration that many of the tested imperial Romans in that study were migrants, merchants, slaves, etc. who settled in Rome that was the center of the empire. These people were not necessarily very recent migrants, though. Besides Rome wouldn‘t be the only place in history where the natives got outnumbered due to the massive influx of migrants."

I'm not talking about the obvious foreigners. I'm talking about the people who cluster near Southern Italians. Note there isn't a single Italic IA-like sample in the whole Imperial set, which is composed of 48 samples from across Lazio and beyond. By contrast, there are TWENTY FOUR East Med samples in the set. That doesn't give you pause? If you pulled samples from a place like New York city where 37% of people are foreign-born, you would still expect at least ONE of the people you sampled to be local. Come on.

Vladimir said...

@Rob/ If everything was clear, then this conversation would not have happened. That's why I'm talking about the period 3500-3000 BC. The territory of the North, East of Ukraine, Belarus, and the Central part of European Russia. What can these archaeological cultures be?.. let's see when we get the aDNA data. There are many different cultures: Konstantinovka culture is very suitable. Maria Gimbutas spoke about the middle Dnieper culture. Also Volosovo. And there are a lot of questions about Fatyanovo, in particular, where it went without a trace. I don't insist, because I'm not an expert. But everything has to have logic. If the CWC is Yamnaiy plus EEF plus EHG, while the Yamnaiy is the black sea-Caspian steppe, and the CWC is Poland or Scandinavia, and because there is no other reliable established route, it is logical that the route went through the North of Ukraine, Belarus or the center of Russia, well, maybe even the West of Ukraine. Well, they didn't fly from the steppe to Poland by plane.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "it will be obvious that Sitnashta originated from Abashevo and / or Babino, and they originated from Konstantinovka culture"

That's a lie, archaeologists don't even have hypotheses like that. These cultures have not taken place from Konstantinovsky culture, do not invent and do not spread your fictions.
Certainly Sintashtinians and Babinians unambiguously from Central Europe CWC it is perfectly visible as on their genetics, autosomes, mitoDNA, and on archeology. Fatyanovo and Abashevo are also from the Central European CWC, this is definitely archeology has always said this, but so far there is no data on their genetics.

You don't know - don't write, Sintashta doesn't come from Babino at all, and it doesn't come from Abashevo either, but it has very close connections with last.

Rob said...

@ Vladimir
Yes I’m aware that Abashevo etc were in the forest zone; as everyone is
I thought the discussion is where it began. So it would have to be somewhere close to groups like GAC or CT
As for K; it is one of the steppe eneolithic groups which showed notable Majkop imports; so my guess is it would have people like Ukraine ozera outlier- steppe / Majkop mixtures (but not “steppe Majkop” )

Vladimir said...

@Archie/ There are hypotheses and the main one is the hypothesis of Maria Gimbutas. You don't know any more than I do, so don 't be nervous.

@Rob/
And I agree with you, by the way. I have already said on this forum that my main suspects are post- Tripoli culture. There are a huge number of them . Davidski here called Usatovo, perhaps. But this is the southern part of Tripoli. And post- Tripoli cultures were all around the perimeter from Usatovo in the South to Sofia culture in the area of Kiev and the extreme North- East of Ukraine. This is exactly what you need: next to CT and GAC. But when it was reported that R1b-M269 and R1a are in Volosovo, I expanded my circle of suspected cultures to include the center of Russia.

Rob said...

Yes, we cant wait for these mysterious central Russian samples

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "There are hypotheses and the main one is the hypothesis of Maria Gimbutas."

Don't cheat, you 're outright cheating. Gimbutas did not write anything about this , and could not write because in her time they did not know about the existence of the Sintashta culture. She didn't write anything about these cultures because she didn't deal with these issues at all, she just didn 't know them. So you're just cheating to pass off your personal fantasy as the opinion of some archaeologist.

Anonymous said...


Usatovo is not a post-Tripolye culture, the times of this mistake are long gone, it is after Tripolye culture, definitely a steppe culture that captured part of the female Tripolye population.

Vladimir said...

@Archie/ Gimbutas believed that the source of the CWC was the middle Dnieper culture. Geographically, this is just the North of Ukraine and Belarus. As for Sintashta culture, you take it out of the Central European CWC, assuming that from there the CWC began to spread to the East and eventually spread to Sintashta culture. And if we proceed from the concept of Gimbutas, that the CWC was originally born on the middle Dnieper, then, accordingly, it reached Sintashta not from Central Europe, but from the middle Dnieper.

Usatovo post Tripolye culture, read any textbook. Even more than that, it is called the Trypillya stage CII Culture.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "There are hypotheses and the main one is the hypothesis of Maria Gimbutas."

Don't cheat, you 're outright cheating. Gimbutas did not write anything about this , and could not write because in her time they did not know about the existence of the Sintashta culture. She didn't write anything about these cultures because she didn't deal with these issues at all, she just didn 't know them. She naturally knew about the Abashevo culture and clearly wrote that it comes from the early Fatyanovo culture, more precisely, that the burial rites of the dead are identical (moreover, they have identical axes). So you're just cheating to pass off your personal fantasy as the opinion of some archaeologist.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir
"Gimbutas believed that the source of the CWC was the middle Dnieper culture. Geographically, this is just the North of Ukraine and Belarus. And if we proceed from the concept of Gimbutas, that the CWC was originally born on the middle Dnieper, then, accordingly, it reached Sintashta not from Central Europe, but from the middle Dnieper."

She didn't think so! You're just cheating because you don't know anything. She thought CWC was a purely old Central European population, a purely Central European culture that was Indo-Europeanized by the purely cultural influence of either Yamnaya or the BBC or the GAC.

She has not a word about the origin of anyone from the Konstantinovka culture that you attribute to her. She didn't write anything about these cultures because she didn't deal with these issues at all, she just didn 't know them. She naturally knew about the Abashevo culture and clearly wrote that it comes from the early Fatyanovo culture, more precisely, that the burial rites of the dead are identical (moreover, they have identical axes).


"Usatovo post Tripolye culture, read any textbook. Even more than that, it is called the Trypillya stage CII Culture."

Read the textbooks yourself. It's a longstanding, outdated mistake. It has already been proved since the 80-90s that this culture was not Tripolye, but profane people like you still use outdated information.

Wise dragon said...


@Michalis Moriopoulos


Well, I said that some Romans that were Mycenaean/Aegean Greek-like could be natives but not all or most of them. According to some leaked information, the indigenous central Italian tribes like the Umbrians, Sabines, and even the Samnites were genetically speaking Iron- Age Italics.

Besides, when you go to Paris in certain areas you almost never see a native French but almost exclusively French people of North African and West African descent. I think ancient Rome would be similar to Paris, New York or London where people of certain origin concentrated in particular areas of Rome. Besides Italic Romans in the late Republic and especially in imperial times usually performed the cremation of their dead. Hence that would also explain why almost no Italic IA-like remains were excavated in imperial Rome since they were most likely cremated.

Correct me if I‘m wrong but there was 1 Italic IA-like sample (or 2 samples) in imperial Rome. However, when most native imperial Romans were Aegean-Greek or Mycenaean Greek-like why didn't Juvenal, Cicero, Tacitus consider them as theirs but as the others?

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@Wise dragon

I believe those Italic Central and Southern Italians you refer to were also replaced by Magna Graecian-descended people.

And sorry, but hypothesizing that the IA Italic-like Imperials were all cremated is just not a convincing explanation. Inhumation was less common than cremation but it was still practiced, especially during the latter days of the Empire. We should have found a few examples of Italic IA people at the very least. There aren't ANY examples of this profile in the Imperial set at all. There is an Iberian, a probable Gaul, and maybe a mixed Italic IA-Anatolian type person, but no examples of early Etruscan/Latin-like people anywhere. I'm not saying they were totally wiped out, but the evidence of being swamped by East Med people is just too strong at this point. The leaked PCA from the upcoming Reich study looks like it promises more of the same. Denying this just comes off as excuse-making by people who don't want to believe it.

And these East Med Central Italians would still have been first-language Latin speakers, not Greek-speaking like their putative Magna Graecian ancestors. The "Greeks" referred to by the personas you mentioned were probably indeed mostly Hellenized Near Eastern people.

Vladimir said...

@Archie/ That's far to go here even in this work it is said about two hypotheses

Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia
Morten E. Allentoft1* :
“cannot formally test whether the Sintashta derives directly from an eastward migration of Corded Ware peoples or if they share common ancestry with an earlier steppe population”

Anonymous said...

Vladimir said...
"That's far to go here even in this work it is said about two hypotheses

“cannot formally test whether the Sintashta derives directly from an eastward migration of Corded Ware peoples or if they share common ancestry with an earlier steppe population”"


Don't talk nonsense, Allentoft et al, Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, was written in 2015, a lot of time has passed and a lot of new data. You specifically cite outdated works on all issues and you specifically rip quotes because you're comfortable, and he directly wrote "Although we" now(2015) and further "the presence of European Neolithic farmer ancestry in both the Corded Ware and the Sintashta, with the absence of Neolithic farmer ancestry in the past Yamnaya, would suggest the former being more probable"

Vladimir said...

@Archie/ There is no new data that irrefutably confirms one of the versions. They will be when the early samples of Abashevo are examined

Vladimir said...

@archie/ Obviously, Sintashta can't fully match Yanmaiy, if only because then it would be Z2103. It is clear that Sintashta through Abashevo received the Neolithic contribution of those territories of the forest and forest-steppe of the center of Russia, where it passed. So the argument in favor of the version that the Neolithic component of Sintashta came from Central Europe is not convincing. This component could be obtained anywhere from Kiev to the Baltic, including the Moscow region

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir
"There is no new data that irrefutably confirms one of the versions. They will be when the early samples of Abashevo are examined"

It is true. That Sintashtinians not local it is a proven fact, you just don't know, you just don't know anything on genetics and archeology. Abashevo is not necessary here at all. For Babino already was proved that they are aliens from Central Europe. For Sintashta, this has been proven since 2015 and this is a fact.

Vladimir said...

Who proved this about Babino?

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "So the argument in favor of the version that the Neolithic component of Sintashta came from Central Europe is not convincing. This component could be obtained anywhere from Kiev to the Baltic, including the Moscow region"

There's no such arguments in nature, it's just your personal fiction. You're making something up and you're just delusional, against you is all the archaeologists without exception, all the anthropologists without exception, all the geneticists without exception. You have invented something and any facts are not convincing to you by definition, "if facts contradict your fiction, the worse for facts", because you are always wrong.

The Neolithic component simple was not in this region never before coming here CWC (Fatianovo, ...) from west.

A said...

Archi

"It is true. That Sintashtinians not local it is a proven fact, you just don't know, you just don't know anything on genetics and archeology. Abashevo is not necessary here at all. For Babino already was proved that they are aliens from Central Europe. For Sintashta, this has been proven since 2015 and this is a fact."

What's the proof?

Vladimir said...

@Archie/ There are no unambiguous arguments, either archaeological or other. Don't pass off your wishes as an axiom. Only a full-scale study of the ancient DNA of Ukraine North of Dereivka (The entire zone of contact between the steppe and Tripoli from Moldova to the Western regions of Russia), Belarus and Central Russia can put an end to this dispute. Then maybe something will clear up, but for now I have common sense and logic on my side.

Vladimir said...

@Archie/ And The Culture Of The Upper Volga? Do you know its components? And Volosovo? And the fact that, according to Davidsky, there is an I2 in Volosovo, does not indicate that there may be a European Neolithic in the center of Russia?

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "now I have common sense and logic on my side."

Do you have common sense and logic? You mock us, you have no common sense or logic, you have only mistakes without exception, you just always make only mistakes. it is fact.

"I2 in Volosovo, does not indicate that there may be a European Neolithic in the center of Russia?"

European Neolithic = I2 - hahahaha, you have no logic nor common sense nor knowledge.


Vladimir said...

@Archie/ On the basis of the svider culture, the Butovo and Kund culture was formed. The formation of the Butovo culture did not take place on the territory of the Volga-Oka basin, as evidenced by the absence of svider monuments here.
According to other data, the Butovo culture was formed on the basis of the ressetian culture. Most of the characteristics that make up a classic ensemble Butovo, in the material culture of the indigenous population of the Volga-Oka interfluve suggests that later Svidersky population (type Smacka XIV, Tikhonov 1), once the territory of the Volga-Oka basin, was found, and probably came into contact with native local reshetinskiy culture that existed here in the late Palaeolithic - early Mesolithic, where a new culture and received the bulk of their characteristics. This is the only way to explain the similarity in the technique of primary and secondary treatments and the similarity in typology observed between the Butovo and ressetian cultures.

Anonymous said...

Vladimir said...
" On the basis of the svider culture, the Butovo and Kund culture was formed. ..."

What does this text about Mesolithic cultures have to do with it? You have absolutely no idea about these cultures, you don't even know their names, otherwise you wouldn't have written about these cultures that have nothing to do with the Neolithic.

Vladimir said...

In short, the Mesolithic Butovo culture may have components similar to the Mesolithic Kunda culture, and the Neolithic Upper Volga culture formed on the basis of the Butovo culture may have similar components to the Neolithic Narva culture formed on the basis of the Kunda culture

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "In short, the Upper Volga culture can have components similar to the Kunda culture (Zvejnieki)"

Do you even know what you're writing?

First: Kunda is not a Neolithic culture, it is Mesolithic, and has nothing to do with Neolithic farmers.

Second: the Upper Volga culture has nothing to do with the Farming Neolithic, it only refers to the Pottery Neolithic, which came from the East from beyond the Urals. There are two definitions of the Neolithic: the new Western as a producing farm of farmers, and the old as a stone industry with a ceramic industry. In Eastern Europe, the farmer's Neolithic comes from the Balkans, and the Pottery Neolithic comes earlier from beyond the Urals.

Third: there is not a single tested sample from the Upper Volga culture, so you are just making it up.
Why do you always write your fantasies and pass them off as certain facts, I are already tired you of refuting, you are just a disgrace and you do not have common sense.

gamerz_J said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos @Wise dragon

The native Italians going extinct still seems to me a bit extreme a scenario. Can you link the PCA from the upcoming Reich study?

I suppose one can look at the haplogroups before and after the empire to check if the resurgence of Central European ancestry is due to northern incursions or native Italic populations repopulating Rome. Then again maybe not if too similar.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir

You do not pay any attention to what is written everywhere about of the European Neolithic (Early ) Farmers (ENF/EEF) component, and Anatolian Neolithic Farmers (ANF) component, you just do not notice the word farmer, so you do not understand anything, you have a complete mess in your head.

gamerz_J said...

@Wise Dragon

From which paper is your information on the ancestry of Italic groups?

gamerz_J said...

@Archi

Are not EEF descendant from ANF with extra WHG?

Anonymous said...

@gamerz_J "Are not EEF descendant from ANF with extra WHG?"

Yes, they are.

Vladimir said...

Genesis and cultural relations of the upper Volga culture: the question of the Genesis of culture can be considered from several positions. The most common version is that the upper Volga culture is considered to be genetically related to the Butovo Mesolithic (Krainov, Khotinsky 1977: 63; Zhilin 1994; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999). According to A. N. Sorokin, there is a significant chronological gap between the disappearance of the Butovo culture and the appearance of the upper Volga culture. For this reason, he links the origin of the latter to several late Mesolithic archaeological cultures in the region. (Sorokin 1991: 36; 1992). V. M. Lozovsky adheres to the same opinion and believes that the late Mesolithic of the Upper Volga region is represented not only by the Butovo culture. Studies of the materials of the zamostye II settlement have shown that its late Mesolithic flint industry is closer to the inventory of Mesolithic sites of the Kunda-Veretye cultures. However, for stone products from the upper Volga layer of the settlement of Okaemovo 18, the characteristic features of the Butovo culture are traced (Lozovsky 2003: 19). N. A. Tsvetkova Early Neolithic of the Upper Volga region: some results of the study, Russian archaeological Yearbook, 2011 . So there is no question of any Ural

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "So there is no question of any Ural"

You're always the wrong dilettante, you can't understand a word in the texts you reads. Pottery Neolithic comes from the Urals from Elshanskaya culture, it is the Pottery industry itself. So don't write judgments that you don't understand. You've already proved to everyone that you understand absolutely nothing in the topics you write about.

Your mistake is that the Upper Volga culture is Neolithic farmers are complete delusional.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@gamerzJ
"The native Italians going extinct still seems to me a bit extreme a scenario. Can you link the PCA from the upcoming Reich study?"

Put it this way: something has to explain the ethnogenesis of the Southern Italian genetic profile, right? We have good reason to believe that pre-Roman era Italics from Southern Italy were similar to their cousins further north. But modern Southern Italians do not cluster with IA Latins or Etruscans. They are instead very similar to Aegean Greeks. So there was a massively consequential population replacement in Southern Italy either way. I don't see why the same demographic process that produced Southern Italians could not have been at play in Central Italy.

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

I'm not aware of any farmer ancestry in the Volosovo samples.

All of their Y-HGs and mt-HGs are typical of Eastern Euro hunter-gatherers. Also, there's no Z93 or even M417 in these samples.

Matt said...

Samples which are new and those which appear to be different: https://pastebin.com/fP7VVqCb (some may not be new to latest previous datasheet, just to my last version)

Closest samples to poz81 (Pol_CW_early), I5884 (UKR_EBA), Piedmont_En: https://imgur.com/a/5k7npn0

Some quick reprocessed PCA on some of these samples: https://imgur.com/a/cWPWS2g

I5884 maintains its character of a position consistent with having any not much Piedmont_En related ancestry (<5%). Early Corded Ware Poland sample is pretty close to the early CWC from Baltic, and Yamnaya.

Looks like the new Globular Amphora Poland samples are a little further away from NW Europe Middle Neolithic, and more like Globular Amphora Ukraine. May not be as good a proxy for contributor of ancestry to some Beaker populations.

Fits of early CWC Poland and I5884: https://imgur.com/a/tYc3P5u . I5884 doesn't really need Piedmont_En ancestry.

gamerz_J said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos

"Put it this way: something has to explain the ethnogenesis of the Southern Italian genetic profile, right?"

Yes and I do think your hypothesis neatly explains how Southern Italians came to be.

The reasons I think the same process did not take place in central Italy is that modern-day Central Italians are not that southern shifted (IIRC) and there is a resurgence of more central European ancestry in late antiquity. I find it unlikely it can all be explained by Lombards or Goths given that Iron Age Italic tribes match that profile.


PS. However, are you sure Iron Age southern Italians were that similar to the tribes inhabiting Latium? I have seen models where Mycenean-like ancestry works for them but not for more northern populations. Southern Italy was (and still to an extent is) part of the Greek cultural sphere (Magna Grecia) so the people were always more related to Greeks than say Etruscans imo.


Davidski said...

@gamerz_J

I've seen the PCA in question based on the ancient samples from the new Rome ancient DNA paper.

Samnites/Sanniti are basically identical to the Umbri and other early Italic groups from across the Italian peninsula.

They will plot in and around the main Italic/Etruscan cluster in this PCA. I'm not aware of any southern shifted outliers among them.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yhhscx11pqk/XfoG7Go-XJI/AAAAAAAAIoE/HYPcE05X2BoP00s-cHY7pF4yindrqjhHgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/ITA_Iron_Age_PCA.png

Samuel Andrews said...

Does anyone have ideas who in archeaology is the direct ancestor of Corded Ware? It isn't Yamnaya, so who is it? Sredny Stog is too old, because it ended in 3500 BC. Who in 3000 BC, on the Steppe, would be Corded Ware's direct ancestor?

Does Middle Dnieper culture date to 3200 BC?

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews "Does anyone have ideas who in archeaology is the direct ancestor of Corded Ware? It isn't Yamnaya, so who is it? Sredny Stog is too old, because it ended in 3500 BC. Who in 3000 BC, on the Steppe, would be Corded Ware's direct ancestor?

Does Middle Dnieper culture date to 3200 BC?"

Like Davidski said, we'll have to wait for more Steppe Eneolithic samples to turn up :)

Ric Hern said...

@ Samuel Andrews

Usatovo Culture...

Ric Hern said...

It seems that some time the Sredny Stog area recieved two different migrations. One from the Lower Don and the other from the North. Or sometime a Migration from the North moved towards the Lower Don and picked up some Eneolithic Steppe and from there into the Sredny Stog area.

However Davidski mentioned earlier that M269 moved like this: Forest, Forest Steppe, Sredny Stog, Yamnaya and Corded Ware.

But this is a little bit confusing because it seems to imply that Sredny Stog was the nexus from which Proto-Yamnaya and Proto-Corded Ware split in different directions with Yamnaya moving East and Corded Ware moving West. If this was the case then either an Eneolithic Steppe population migrated Early into Sredny Stog and another migration came from the North into Sredny Stog with R1b M269. This will mean that Yamnaya had nothing directly to do with Corded Ware and that they only shared common ancestry. Or....? I don't know. Maybe R1b M269 migrated Early into the Lower Don area and mixing with locals and the moved on into Sredny Stog and then some R1b M269 (Ancestors of Yamnaya) moved back East and the Ancestors of L51 kept on moving West....?

Confusing.

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

Does anyone have ideas who in archeaology is the direct ancestor of Corded Ware? It isn't Yamnaya, so who is it? Sredny Stog is too old, because it ended in 3500 BC. Who in 3000 BC, on the Steppe, would be Corded Ware's direct ancestor?

Archeology hasn't been able to solve this puzzle for over a hundred years, so it's now down to ancient DNA.

Obviously, someone has to dig up a couple of poz81-like skeletons on the steppe with R1a-M417, and then at least we'll have a rough idea.

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews "Sredny Stog is too old, because it ended in 3500 BC."

The Sredniy Stog culture is ended in 4200 BC.

"Does Middle Dnieper culture date to 3200 BC?"

No.

Simon_W said...

@gamerz_J

FYI, the distance of the ancient Italic and Roman samples to modern populations can be easily computed using Global25 data/vahaduo. The IA Latin samples are most similar to Catalans, northern Spaniards and, in the case of the Praenestini, to the Southern French. The IA Romans in particular were closest to Spaniards from La Rioja. Etruscans are a different matter, their lower WHG makes them cluster closest to the modern Bergamasque. However, an early (IA) outlier from Ardea resembles Sephardic Jews. And an Etruscan outlier is partly North African. Which shows that there was some geneflow from these areas already during the IA. And an outlier from Praeneste is closest to modern South Italians from Basilicata, followed by Campania and Apulia. He dates to the Roman republic, about 200 BC at the latest. I think it's very likely that he or his parents were from somewhere in Southern Italy and the incorporation of this area into the Roman empire pulled sucked people like him to central Italy. The average of the imperial Roman samples is different, more eastern, and closest to Greek islanders from Kos, followed by Romaniote Jews and Cretans. The reason being no doubt the additional eastern influx in the imperial age.

And BTW not all ancient Romans regarded the Greeks as foreign. As Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote:
"But the most learned of the Roman historians, among whom is Porcius Cato [he means Cato the Elder], who compiled with the greatest care the origins of the Italian cities, Gaius Sempronius [Tuditanus] and a great many others, say that they [the Aborigines of Latium] were Greeks, part of those who once dwelt in Achaia, and that they migrated many generations before the Trojan war."

Obviously they were wrong, as we know thanks to ancient DNA, but it shows that some Romans wanted to be descended from Greeks.

Leron said...

I was always under the impression that Corded Ware came from a mix of late Sredny Stog going into CTC and then expanding back north.


CTC and "Srendy Stog"

Rob said...

Podolian variant of the Budzhak culture

Davidski said...

@Leron

I was always under the impression that Corded Ware came from a mix of late Sredny Stog going into CTC and then expanding back north.

But how does that explain the above discussed poz81?

For background reading, see HERE.

Anonymous said...


It is most likely that the CWC went to the West through northern Ukraine or Belarus, the territory of the Ukrainian GAC, because

Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara = 96.8%
UKR_Globular_Amphora = 3%
WHG = 0.2%
Distance = 0.01473742

POL_Globular_Amphora, UKR_Trypillia, POL_TRB, Anatolia_Barcin_N DEU_Baalberge_MN GEO_CHG IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En RUS_Karelia_HG RUS_Khvalynsk_En RUS_Progress_En, UKR_Meso, UKR_Trypillia_En = 0

Anonymous said...


The analysis shows that the sample from Alexandria I6561, so erroneously called as UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4, is not the ancestor to CWC, but their descendant!!!
I'm getting more and more convinced that it belongs to Abashevo.

Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara = 92.0%
UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4 = 6.8
UKR_Globular_Amphora = 0.6%
WHG = 0.6%

POL_Globular_Amphora, UKR_Trypillia, POL_TRB, Anatolia_Barcin_N DEU_Baalberge_MN GEO_CHG IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En RUS_Karelia_HG RUS_Khvalynsk_En RUS_Progress_En, UKR_Meso, UKR_Trypillia_En = 0
Distance = 0.01467704


UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4:I6561

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara = 37.2%
Corded_Ware_POL_early = 20.2%
RUS_Khvalynsk_En = 15.6
Anatolia_Barcin_N = 16.6%
DEU_Baalberge_MN = 10.4

UKR_Globular_Amphora, POL_Globular_Amphora, WHG, UKR_Trypillia, POL_TRB, GEO_CHG IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En RUS_Karelia_HG, RUS_Progress_En, UKR_Meso, UKR_Trypillia_En = 0
Distance = 0.01600065

No Trypillia...

gamerz_J said...

@Davidski

Much thanks for the info and PCA.

@Simon_W

Thanks, I will try to take a look. I guess the affinity to Spain would be due to the resurgent WHG ancestry combined with similar levels of Steppe and EEF ancestry. The parts of Spain you mention are also where N. African ancestry is the lowest so it makes more likely the continuity scenario to at least some extent.

It is not unlikely to find more outliers in the future, everyone is free to correct me here, but I would bet on more Northern as well as Southern/Eastern-shifted ones.



Davidski said...

@Archi

You know as well as I do that the C14 date for I6561 is unlikely to be off by more than 1,000 years.

If it is off by a 1,000 years then it fits the data from the Usatovo culture-associated burials at Usatovo and Durankulak, where Z93 has also been found.

So it may well turn out that Z93 doesn't have anything to do with Corded Ware, but is associated with a closely related group that moved into the Balkans first and then into Central and South Asia.

Of course this would be in line with the total lack of Z93 in the many Corded Ware and derived samples from Central, Northern and Eastern Europe that have already been published.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski "You know as well as I do that the C14 date for I6561"

It is well known that in the case of an equipment error in the measurement of C14 there may be an error for 2000 years and 3000 years, such erroneous dates are dotted with radiocarbon dating tables, for example, there are dates of the Dnieper-Donetsk culture belonging to 500 BC. Therefore, dates are often double-checked in two or three laboratories.

If it was from Usatovo, there would have to be a Tripolye component, and it's not there at all. There are definitely components from German TRB, and most of all it looks like Czech CWC + local component from Yamnaya & Khvalynsk.


Davidski said...

@Archi

I didn't say that I6561 may have been derived from an Usatovo migration, but rather that both the Usatovo people and I6561 were derived from the same Z93-rich population from around the Sea of Azov.

Can you show me a couple of examples of C14 dates in the anno datasheet here that are clearly off by 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 years?

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/downloadable-genotypes-worlds-published-ancient-dna-data

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

This table has nothing to do with it , we are talking about full C14 tables. Naturally, archaeologists know about these errors, so they write this

"For all but two samples (scy192 and scy197), reliable results were
obtained. The two dates fall in a considerably older period, which is
not possible when the archaeological find context is considered." Krzewinska, M. et al. (2018), Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads.

Although the Polish archaeologists just made a mistake, because the Moldavian archaeologists just clearly gave that these samples do not belong to the Scythians, so the older dates for 2500 years in this case are just right. Therefore, Reich was wrong to specify the wrong dates "450-150 BCE [other dates from similar context]" for them, excluding the correct measured "2863 - 2503 BCE, 2885 - 2632 BCE" ones!

Davidski said...

@Archi

Several Z93 samples from the steppe presumably dating to around 3,500 and 3,000 BCE are being radiocarbon dated now, or they may have already been radiocarbon dated, so let's wait and see what happens with that.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

The fact that the sample from Alexandria is not simple Z93, but much later R1a-Z94-L657-Y4 Z29117 * Y28 * Y8/M648 +1 SNPs formed 4200 ybp, TMRCA 4100 ybp.

I think that all steppe Z93 belong to the Babino culture. This culture has long been studied on mitoDNA, it is obvious that it is now being studied on Y.



Davidski said...

@Archi

You don't know when these mutations formed exactly. No one really does.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

How do not count there, but it was fast enough, there are few mutations at each level of R1a-Z93, so we can not talk about thousands of years.

I just know for sure that Babino is being tested from steppe cultures.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,"So it may well turn out that Z93 doesn't have anything to do with Corded Ware"

Sintashta has Globular Amphora ancestry. So, I'd say it is from Corded Ware.

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

Globular Amphora existed before Corded Ware did and in parts of what is now Ukraine where Corded Ware wasn't present.

Samuel Andrews said...

nMonte fits for Sintashta, Srubnaya using different farmer sources.

#1: Balkans_Chl, Varna, Trypilla, Tisza_N (Hungary), TDLN (Hungary), UkraineHG, SerbiaHG.
Sintashta: @0.0148
Srubnaya: @0.0175

#2: Globular Amphora, Swedish Funnel Beaker, UkraineHG, SerbiaHG.
Sintashta: @0.0128
Srubnaya: @0.0148

Sintashta's preference for Globular Amphora is real.

Samuel Andrews said...

mtDNA H5a1: First appears in Globular Amphora. Later appears in Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, Andronvoo.
mtDNA J1c1b1a: Deep J1c clade only found in ancient DNA in Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Andronovo. How do we explain this link between Bell BEaker & Andronovo without Corded Ware?

Davidski said...

Globular Amphora?

Rob said...

@ Dave

''Globular Amphora existed before Corded Ware did and in parts of what is now Ukraine where Corded Ware wasn't present.''


Meaning ?

Davidski said...

Meaning that not all Bronze Age groups with GAC ancestry necessarily got it from Corded Ware.

Maybe they did, or they didn't. I don't know yet.

Samuel Andrews said...

So you are saying you think Sintashta has GAC ancestry but didn't get it from Corded Ware?

Davidski said...

Maybe they did, or they didn't. I don't know yet.

Rob said...

@ Dave
Yes agree there. I don’t think it’s necessary all from one specific crucible

Anonymous said...


It is quite obvious that Sintashta comes from CWC, it can be seen with the naked eye. It has nothing to do with the GAC, there is more German and Polish TRB influence than the GAC. In general, Sintashta, like CWC, has no significant influence from the GAC.

Sintashta and CWC have EEFs from TRB and LBK, but not from GAC. I do not understand that you are all so obsessed with GAC, even from archaeology and anthropology it was long known that the substrate for CWC were TRB and LBK, but not GAC.

Vladimir said...

If you trust YFull, the sample of Alexandria R1A-Y3 is 2200 BC. What happened in the area of Eastern Ukraine at this time can be roughly understood from the article by Litvinenko R. A. " Babyn culture (multi-roll ceramics) and the problems of the bronze age of the don river basin."
Thus, evaluating the spatial-temporal ratio of monuments of various cultures of the middle-late bronze age of the black Sea - Don region, we can draw the following conclusions. The transformation of the cultures of the late catacomb world led to the creation of qualitatively new formations based on them, which demonstrate, along with the manifestation of regional continuity, a certain general "post-catacomb unity". Although the dynamics of the development and interaction of these cultures are not yet clear in many respects, it is nevertheless possible to try to outline it in general terms. Created in the Severodonetsk-Azov-Dnieper region the Babino culture of the early period existed in parallel with the related middle don final catacomb culture (in our understanding, the post-catacomb culture) and the Voronezh culture. At the next, middle, stage, the tribes of the Babino culture, having advanced in the Eastern and North-Eastern directions, occupied almost the entire right-Bank Lower don, reaching the southern limits of the Middle Don and the Volga. Obviously, in the middle reaches of the Don at this time there was a population of the late stage of the Voronezh culture, and on the Upper don, there may have been carriers of the early don-Volga Abashevo culture, which gradually shifted to the South. Most likely, this promotion should be associated with the reduction of the Voronezh culture area to the Middle Don and the appearance of comparable Voronezh complexes in the ceramic series of settlements on the left bank of the Seversky Donets river. The migration wave of carriers of the Don-Volga Abashevo culture at its later stage was transformed into a Srubnay culture (Pokrovka culture) of the lower reaches of the Seversky Donets, the right bank of the Lower Don and the Don-Donetsk interfluve. Population late stage of the Babino culture shifted to the south and south-west directions on the right bank of the Seversky Donets river, on the coast of the Azov sea and the coast of Dnepr. It is Logical to correlate all these events, the transformation of most of Babino culture, at least within its Eastern region, which is recorded from late middle stage: dilution previously resistant funerary rites, the multi-vector orientation of the dead, the disappearance of pronounced elite complexes. The beginning of this process, sometimes called the gradual transition of Babino culture to Srubnay culture, should be associated with the late influence of the Abashevo culture. But the completion of the addition of the Srubnaya culture of the steppes between the Dnieper and the Don (Berezhnovo-Mayevskaya culture according to V. V. Otroshchenko) was already the result of Pokrovska culture (early Srubnay culture) influence."

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi, "In general, Sintashta, like CWC, has no significant influence from the GAC."

Run this in vahaduo and tell me what they score. This includes essentially every Middle to late Neolithic Europe pop. The Target is literally every LNBA Europe pop. See what farmer LNBA Europe chooses the most.

Source pops.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DHIy3fUmUxexsGA35hFNZMTlX4WzqIsfQU26qrybe2M/edit?usp=sharing

Target pops.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rHbx9CnxVTOgvCjMUewZlUVZgycu1jd5HhnZ304l8R4/edit?usp=sharing



Samuel Andrews said...

Vahaduo link.
https://vahaduo.github.io/vahaduo/

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews

The fact that you do not know how to model it has been seen for a long time.

Target Distance Corded_Ware_Baltic Corded_Ware_Baltic_early Corded_Ware_CZE Corded_Ware_DEU Corded_Ware_DEU_o Corded_Ware_POL Corded_Ware_POL_early DEU_Baalberge_MN DEU_BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN DEU_Blatterhohle_MN DEU_Karsdorf_LN DEU_LBK_N POL_Globular_Amphora POL_TRB UKR_Globular_Amphora UKR_Meso UKR_Trypillia WHG
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0939 0.00866648 1.2 41.2 28.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 18.6 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0942 0.03337537 0.0 42.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 13.6 16.6 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0984 0.00752977 29.8 10.6 0.0 33.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 6.6 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0986 0.01781049 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 43.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0987 0.01215650 7.0 8.6 44.4 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0989 0.01346635 1.2 3.4 39.4 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 6.6 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1008 0.02009290 0.0 12.6 0.0 81.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1011 0.01325296 2.4 56.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 6.6 15.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1019 0.01836426 0.0 66.8 14.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1022 0.00993239 0.0 19.0 40.6 37.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1024 0.01209807 22.0 35.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1027 0.00890285 0.0 17.4 22.6 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 3.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1029 0.01581781 0.0 67.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1053 0.01090195 3.8 31.0 33.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 12.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1055 0.01596247 21.8 44.8 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1061 0.02169715 0.0 33.2 20.4 35.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1062 0.02273862 0.0 77.2 2.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1063 0.01185622 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.6 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1065 0.01702431 17.2 47.2 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.4
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1084 0.02014712 0.0 27.0 32.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 7.0 0.0 13.8 1.2 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1086 0.01466064 11.2 48.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 7.8 5.0 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1088 0.01972042 0.0 55.8 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1089 0.00942928 1.6 49.0 15.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1090 0.01446467 8.6 4.0 48.2 32.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I7480 0.01705840 0.0 21.4 13.2 12.8 0.0 31.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 4.2 7.2 3.4 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1:I1007 0.07724671 0.0 81.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1:I1017 0.05738994 0.0 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2:I0983 0.03435440 0.0 69.4 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2:I1020 0.02389795 0.0 76.6 5.8 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2:I1057 0.02269716 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3:I1028 0.05157377 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.2 0.0 0.0

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi, So you're not even going to try my model?

Samuel Andrews said...

These are the results you'll get when you model LNBA Europe (Including Andronovo), with every single Neolithic Europe and hunter gatherers pop.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lk4f8BIiX0TY-q_1kKPqAxAc35UriXARI93MGAf40hc/edit?usp=sharing

Every single LNBA North Europe pop, almost scores all of their farmer in Globular AMphora. How is this the case for every single LNBA North Europe pop if they don't have Globular ancestry? How can it be a coincidence?

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews

You do not know how to build models because you do not understand what and how to model to check something.

For some reason, because you decided that I don't know vahaduo, although I brought from it earlier for Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81 and I6561. I'm just using it only for primary simulations, because it contains no probabilities and is suboptimal.

Anonymous said...


The territory of Polish Globular Amphora was partly occupied by CWC already at the end of the CWC, the other part was occupied by the BBC. They were not ancestors of CWC, which perfectly shows absolutely all genetic methods. The fact is that CWCs were mixed with GAC only at the borders. The GAC was extinct without leaving any descendants in any way (unless they were some part of Unetice), all traces of the GAC rather originate from the adjacent territories of TRB and the descendants of LBK, which were simply similar to the GAC.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi, I'm sorry I thought you didn't know vahudou. Obviously you do.

My model isn't influenced from my expectations. I didn't exclude pops because I don't expect them to be scored by LNBA Europe. I included as many pops as possible. I included a lot more farmer refs than you did.

Davidski said...

The new CT paper is out...

Gene-flow from steppe individuals into Cucuteni-Trypillia associated populations indicates long-standing contacts and gradual admixture

Can't see any links to the data though.

Rob said...

The source of MN ancestry in CWC & BB is varied. They mixed with whichever groups they found across northern Europe, selectively & locally variably.
Early CWC would have minor MN ancestry from post-Stog groups; later they acquired MN acnestry locally - GAC, Baalberg, Rhine-Main M.N., etc
Sintashta has heavy post-Stog ancestry as the likely source of its MN admixture.
Of coruse, TRB was not really around when CWC and LBK was certainly gone 2000 years earlier.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi,
mtDNA matches between Globular AMphora and Baltic Bronze age.

Globular_Amphora Kierzkowo H1b1
Globular_Amphora CZU1(Wilde. #2) H1b2
Globular_Amphora Kierzkowo H28a

Bronze age Latvia Kivutkalns42 H28a
Bronze age Latvia Kivutkalns42 H1b1
Bronze age Latvia Kivutkalns42 H1b2

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews

Your models are deeply misleading, they are very small, they are minuscule. You just did not include those populations that were on the territory of the CWC, but included those that were far and later, and have no relation to it. You are absolutely wrong, they are the worst. I have the right models, you have the wrong ones, so the results don 't match the actual ancestors, just because you didn't include them in your models.

Arza said...

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB36650

Samuel Andrews said...

Globular_Amphora Poland H5a1

Corded Ware RISE00 H5a1
Sintashta_MLBA I1061 H5a1
Beaker Czech I7281��� H5a1g
Beaker Germany I5655 H5a1
Beaker Germany I4249 H5a1
Beaker Netherlands I4075 H5a1

Found all of Europe, sometimes in Central Asia as well.

Davidski said...

@Arza

Can you convert those BAMs into genotypes with a proper pipeline?

But I've already sent a request for the genotypes to the authors, so let's wait and see.

Anonymous said...

Samuel Andrews said...
Globular_Amphora Poland H5a1

This is not, H5a1 is not in the GAC at all, it is in Zlota. Do not be ridiculous, these mitohaplogroups are too old to belong to the GAC. In general, how many do not fantasize that GAC played a role, autosomes clearly show that TRB and post-LBK (like Lendiel), possible Balaton played a role. Which is perfectly visible even on mitoDNA.

Anonymous said...

@JuanRivera

Well, what if he's a biased profane and a liar, literally ignorant. He has no idea about the topic in which he writes and has no idea how to compare languages and haplogroups, and this can be done only on the trees of age dividing of languages and haplogroups (as here https://i.ibb.co/tKzfKjx/IE-with-TMRC.png).

"The so-called steppe nomad hypothesis associates the spread of Indo-
European with a Bronze Age expansion of steppe nomads from Eastern Europe or Central
Asia (e.g. Gimbutas 1997; Anthony 2007). It should be emphasized that this approach is archeologically weak"

It's lie.

"The alternate model of Indo-European origins, the early farming dispersal hypothesis,
suggests that this language family evolved in the Middle East and expanded out of the region
roughly nine thousand years ago during the Neolithic. Bellwood supports his model with archeological evidence."

Wishful thinking to cheat.

"The study further
asserts that the R1a-M420 and R1b-M343 mutations are the Y-chromosome relics of this
massive invasion of steppe nomads. The basis of this assertion is not exactly clear."

Dilettante doesn't understand. ufff

"R-M207 variation among Indo-European-speaking population was not shaped by a massive expansion of steppe nomads during the Bronze Age. Rather, the contemporary cross-linguistic distribution of R-M207 mutations in Eurasia and Africa was shaped by demographic processes that began at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum: expansions from Ice Age refugia; the demise of mega-fauna food resources; and population pressure associated with the Neolithic transition."

It's lie.

"The early farming dispersal hypothesis remains a very robust model of Indo-European
prehistory."

It's lie.

"This review of the evolutionary history of R-M207 and its downstream variants
(Sections 1 to 11) demonstrates that palaeogenomic modeling has failed to undermine the hypothesis."

It's lie.

In general, this is another superstition of a biased deceiver, which I didn't read it before rightly.

old europe said...



@all

It seems they have found a R1aZ-93 sample in Glavanesti Vechi ( Eastern Romania) dated from 3500-3000 BC

Anonymous said...

old europe said...
"It seems they have found a R1aZ-93 sample in Glavanesti Vechi ( Eastern Romania)"

Archaeologists write that Glăvăneşti Vechi does not belong to Usatovo time. It has Babino burials.

https://i.ibb.co/2vzxgR4/image.png


EastPole said...

@old europe

“It seems they have found a R1aZ-93 sample in Glavanesti Vechi ( Eastern Romania) dated from 3500-3000 BC”

Who has found R1aZ-93? Could you give us the link?

Vladimir said...

I think it is time to discuss at least two ways of moving the steppe peoples to Europe. The first route is the Poz81 population route (R1a-CTS4385), which does not have a CT. And the second route through CT, confirmed by samples from the work :
Gene flow from individuals of the steppe into the Cucuteni-Trypillia associated populations indicates long-standing contacts and gradual admixture. R1b-L51 must have followed This route, given the striking similarity of their autosomes to the BBC. It remains only to find the route of the R1a-Z645.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "And the second route through CT, confirmed by samples from the work :"

What's all this nonsense? Where did you see some second stream and to where?
There was no second "through" stream shown, there was a "in" stream shown. It didn't show any BBC path, not even a similarity. German BBC and CT is determined by the general similarity with the LBK. As can be easily seen, the BBC has assimilated part of the post-LBK population, just like post-GAC.

Vladimir said...

Before assimilating LBK, the German BBC apparently somehow got to Germany from the steppe. For lack of other options, the option of passing through the North of Moldova and then Slovakia, Austria, and finally southern Germany and Switzerland looks quite logical.

Anonymous said...

Vladimir said...
"Before assimilating LBK, the German BBC apparently somehow got to Germany from the steppe. For lack of other options, the option of passing through the North of Moldova and then Slovakia, Austria, and finally southern Germany and Switzerland looks quite logical."

This is a mistake, the German BBC is part of the BBC, they are not ancestral to the rest of the BBC, the other BBCs have nothing of the LBK (CT), moreover, from the LBK have only part of the German BBC (don't whole). Hence, this is some BBC group that came and assimilated local post-LBKs, and all their similarities with CT are just seeming, because CT is very similar to LBK, which can be clearly seen by the Verteba cave.

Andrzejewski said...

Here’s something that I don’t understand: LBK merged with Erteboelle to form TRB, with increasing rate of WHG introgression because of it. Erteboelle was of mostly WHG derivation with minor Anatolian contribution. Regardless of how TRB has transformed into GAC, who exactly were the Pit Comb PWC culture in Southern Scandinavia that was assimilated into the Steppe dominated- Nordic Bronze Age? If SHG were PWC and they were different from the WHG/EEF Erteboelle that were forming the Funnell Beaker Culture with LBK in Southern Scandinavia, then when and where did the Pit Comb people cone from into Scandinavia?

Davidski said...

@old europe & EastPole

The sample in question is this one from the Sirak et al. preprint:

I11954/GLAV 14, 3500-3000 BCE, Romania Bronze Age, Glăvăneşti, 46.2442 27.3975

Human Auditory Ossicles as an Alternative Optimal Source of Ancient DNA

But, as far as I can see, there's no information in the preprint that this sample belongs to R1a-Z93.

claravallensis said...

From the BAM he seems derived maybe for R-Z645, wasn't able to obtain calls further down.

Davidski said...

The Y-haplogroup assignment makes sense, because there are unpublished samples from western Ukraine and Bulgaria dating to ~3,500 BCE that belong to R1a-Z645(Z93+).

They're associated with the Usatovo culture from the steppe.

«Oldest ‹Older   801 – 1000 of 1260   Newer› Newest»