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 1001 – 1200 of 1260 Newer› Newest»@claravallensis, Can you share the link where is this Ustavo DNA from Romania available online. Hopefully it is in the format where its autosomes can be looked at.
Yep I think BB & CWC are different- different steppe origins; different MN inputs
@Samuel Andrews
The accession number is in the paper, ENA link is https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB32751 , don't know about more manageable formats yet
I don't think Davidski can do anything when it is in that format.
That's a Harvard paper, so the genotype data will be available when it's published in a journal, which is likely to be very soon.
@Davidski
Since the date is not defined there at all and even the culture is not written, it should be noted that Glavanesti Vechi does not belong to Usatovo culture, it is not in the list of burials Budzhak culture-variant, although like there are burials of the pit type. It doesn't belong to Cucuteni-Tripolye either, absolutely. It should be noted that there was a contact between CWC and Budzhak culture through this region, Budzhak culture borrowed a lot from CWC.
Contradiction:
old europe said...
It seems they have found a R1aZ-93
claravallensis said...
From the BAM he seems derived maybe for R-Z645, wasn't able to obtain calls further down.
@Archi
I didn't claim that this sample from Romania was associated with the Usatovo culture or that it belonged to R1a-Z93.
I said that there were samples from Ukraine and Bulgaria associated with the Usatovo culture that belonged to R1a-Z93.
@ Davidski
Can you convert those BAMs into genotypes with a proper pipeline?
Unfortunately no. I have a laptop that can handle large datasets and some smaller raw files for less than three months and I haven't even try to build any proper pipeline yet.
Anyway, Pocrovca2 is missing from ENA, so it's better to wait for the genotyped data from the authors.
I11954 is derived for AM01870 (6 reads) without any contradicting ancestral calls, so yeah it's another Z93.
What about I11952/I11953 from Slovakia? Is that a Unetice sample?
Glăvăneşti is out in NE Romania. Could be Usatavo. Cant find any publications on it, but its near other known Usatavo sites. That's the good thing about dating samples, new things come up
@ Davidski
It's described in "A grave with a cup of Proto Únětice Culture from Blatné", but this publication seems to be not available on-line.
Glăvăneşti Vechi is not Usatavo, it is written quite definitely. There are burials related to the specific culture of kurgan burials with ochre in which were buried the proto-Europeoids, it turns out that they could not be mixed with the local population at all if you think of them as the ancestors of CWC.
@claravallensis @Arza ....
BLAT_33 I11952/I11953 is a male. What's his haplogroup read?
@ Archi
BLAT_33 is R1a-Z283
Arza said...
BLAT_33 is R1a-Z283
Is that from these BAM files being read now?
@ Archi
Yes, it's from one of the two BAM files (ERR3929386).
Arza said...
@ Archi
Yes, it's from one of the two BAM files (ERR3929386).
Thank you.
So it looks like we have two new Early Bronze Age R1a samples from just west of the steppe:
- R1a-Z93 GLAV_14 from northeastern Romania, dating to 3,500-3,000 BCE and probably associated with the Usatovo culture
- R1a-Z283 BLAT_33 from Slovakia, dating to 2200-2000 BCE and probably associated with the early stage of the Unetice culture
Can't wait to get the genotype data for GLAV_14. That should be very informative about the genetic structure of the R1a-Z93 Usatovo samples from Ukraine and Bulgaria.
For 2000 BC, the Z283 looks decidedly under-researched. It would be great if we could get to the M458 or even the L260
The really interesting thing is that R1a-Z93 obviously had a strong presence in the eastern Balkans during the Bronze Age, but not in Corded Ware.
And then it suddenly appeared on the border between Eastern Europe, Central Asia and West Siberia in Potapovka and Sintashta.
@Davidski
"- R1a-Z93 GLAV_14 from northeastern Romania, dating to 3,500-3,000 BCE and probably associated with the Usatovo culture"
Everywhere it says there's no Usatovo. It is not associated. So there's nothing to suggest it.
There are burials of the Babino culture and kurgan burials with ochre of proto -Europeoids came from North Pontic region.
https://archive.org/details/gimbutas_m_bronze_age_cultures_in_central_and_eastern_europe/page/n183/mode/2up
https://www.academia.edu/37447309/Svetlana_Ivanova_Gennadiy_N._Toschev._LATE_ENEOLITHIC_AND_BRONZE_AGE_PROLOGUE_PONTIC_SOCIETIES._FOREST-STEPPE_MIDDLE_DNIESTER_AND_PRUT_DRAINAGE_BASINS_IN_THE_4TH_3RD-2ND_MILLENNIUM_BC_A_HISTORY_OF_INVESTIGATIONS
Haas N, Maximilian K. 1958. Anthropological study of the human bones from graves with ochre from Glăvăneștii Vechi, Corlăteni and Stoicani Cetățuie.
https://i.ibb.co/nLnGnm2/image.png
"- R1a-Z283 BLAT_33 from Slovakia, dating to 2200-2000 BCE and probably associated with the early stage of the Unetice culture"
Proto Unetice is not an early Unetice. It's basically more CWC.
In Bulgaria, kurgan burials with ochre were common, but the connection with Usatovo is rather an exception.
@Davidski
Still Sintashta and Sredny Stog seem to prefer GAC over CT/Balkan EEF and rather show direct mtdna links with GAC. Maybe this is an artifact of Balkan EEF +some WHG-shifted HG ancestry which looks GAC/TRB-like but all Z93 samples of which i am ware yet prefer GAC. Maybe this new Z93 sample will be different and show more balkan EEF admixture bu i think he will rather Yamnaya or Sintashta-like.
@Coldmountains
"Still Sintashta and Sredny Stog seem to prefer GAC over CT/Balkan EEF and rather show direct mtdna links with GAC. Maybe this is an artifact of Balkan EEF +some WHG-shifted HG ancestry which looks GAC/TRB-like but all Z93 samples of which i am ware yet prefer GAC. Maybe this new Z93 sample will be different and show more balkan EEF admixture bu i think he will rather Yamnaya or Sintashta-like."
Correction:
Still Sintashta and Alexabdria to prefer TRB over CT/Balkan EEF and rather show direct mtdna links with TRB. Maybe this is an artifact of Balkan EEF +some WHG-shifted HG ancestry which looks TRB-like but all Z93 samples of which i am ware yet prefer TRB. Maybe this new Z93 sample will be different and show more balkan EEF admixture bu i think he will rather Yamnaya or Sintashta-like.
That sample of Glavanesti is important for several reasons
1-Makes Alexandria's sample totally irrelevant confirming in my opinion its erroneous dating.
2-It also makes Yamnaya culture totally irrelevant in its relationship with R1a,
3-Explains a R1a movement towards the west long before the CWC
4-Definitely unlink R1a from R1b-L51 in its "hypothetical" westward movement within the CWC
5-It will be interesting to hear the opinions from linguistic experts about the linguistic implications of R1a in Romania (3.500-3.000 BC)
6-It will be interesting to know the autosomal composition of this individual, because it will help to understand the expansion of the famous steppe signal in mainland Europe
I will say, Sredny Stog I6561 is strengly close to later Srubanya. He also prefers GAC by the way when all farmers are offered. I can understand why Archi is suspecious he isn't actually Sredny Stog.
@Coldmountains
Your inferences are probably correct, but perhaps only in the context of the currently available samples.
The area between the Carpathian Mountains and the Black Sea is a mystery at the moment. We don't have a clue what sorts of populations were living there from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, but it's likely that a lot of the important action took place there.
@Gaska
That sample of Glavanesti is important for several reasons.
Well, it's not important to Northern and Eastern Europe, because it belongs to R1a-Z93.
poz81, the Yamnaya-like Corded Ware sample from Poland is a lot more important for Northwestern Europe, and I'm guessing that eastern Unetice samples like BLAT_33 are a lot more important for Eastern Europe.
And by the way, R1b-L51 is definitely present in Yamnaya-like early Corded Ware samples, much like poz81, so you'll have to deal with that sooner or later.
after 5000 years north europeans still have more proto indo european admixture that jews have of ancient israelites .
pretty amazing ,lets see how the last chapters end to start building a serious narrative of our history .
@ Sam
“ I will say, Sredny Stog I6561 is strengly close to later Srubanya. He also prefers GAC by the way when all farmers are offered. I can understand why Archi is suspecious he isn't actually Sredny Stog.”
Neither you nor Archie have a clue what you’re talking about
Rob said...
Neither you nor Archie have a clue what you’re talking about
You have no idea what you're talking about, because you never understand anything. It's a fact.
@Davidski
"R1b-L51 is definitely present in Yamnaya-like early Corded Ware samples"
I doubt it.
@Gaska
„5-It will be interesting to hear the opinions from linguistic experts about the linguistic implications of R1a in Romania (3.500-3.000 BC)”
Yes, it may be very interesting. If it is true that R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z283 were separated so early it would probably mean that Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians separated 2000 years before Hittites were noticed in Anatolia. A lot of books about IE languages, religions and cultures will have to be rewritten.
Came on David, what is left of the famous migrations linked to the Yamnaya culture?
If R1a-Z93 is in Romania in 3,500 BC, what prevents R1b-L51 from also being in the Balkans or in the Baltic on those dates? Absolutely nothing-R1a and R1b have totally different trajectories and it makes no sense to link them as you are doing, but if you were right then with more reasons we can find L51 in the IV millennium in any Central European culture because it would have moved alongside its "brother" R1a-Why they would have waited to move only through the CWC? This makes no sense.
All people who know the CWC can see that it is a mixture of female steppe markers and Central Europan markers (GAC, but also from others neolithic cultures and markers from WHgs incorporated into Central European cultures). Exogamy is essential to understand the genetic and cultural dispersion of CWC in Europe. But the CWC also recruited men and it could be that some R1b-L51 appeared. This would only mean that L51 was already there when the CWC arrived. Nothing else, forget to link this lineage to the steppes unless you have conclusive evidence to do so.
@East Pole- Yeah, the lingüistic controversy will be very interesting
@Gaska
I6561 is unlikely from a much later period because in the time of Sintahsta/Srubnaya his Y3+ clade was already super rare or absent in East Europe. He is Y3+ what means that people related to him migrated eastwards and brought L657 to South Asia. I rather think that Usatovo and western Sredny Stog will have a lot of Z2124 which pushed out Y3+/L657+ eastwards.
Another interesting fact is that the rare Y40+ clade,which is parallel to Z2124 and Y3, was found im Europe among modern day Italians and Bulgarians together with Z2124 but not together with Y3. Y3 was only found among Ukrainians and one sample from Brazil. So i have the feeling that the Z93 in Romania and Bularia will be more related to Z2124 and Y40
Davidski said:
The area between the Carpathian Mountains and the Black Sea is a mystery at the moment. We don't have a clue what sorts of populations were living there from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, but it's likely that a lot of the important action took place there.
This sentence is the equivalent of this ( since you are talking about the time frame of pre PIE and PIE, neolithic to Bronze Age) :
PIE is a result of a mating network between Middle neolithic EEF and steppe eneolithic folks ( Dneper Don foragers)
It is time to wave the white flag.....
Since hammer head bone pins and Yersinia Pestis overlap in time.
1]It would be nice to see a dated map with Yamnanya hammer head bone pins [that have also been found in 2 Corded Ware grave offerings]?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251121679_Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_bronze_age_bone_pins_from_Eurasian_steppe
"They marked the period of the Yamnaya culture formation. Then Yamnaya population produced hammer-headed pins which became very popular in other cultural environments and spread very quickly across the Steppe and the Caucasus during 2900–2650 cal BC. But according to radiocarbon dating bone pins almost disappeared after 2600 cal BC."
1}RISE436 - Tiefbrunn - 2868-2580 BC-RISE436 = 15686890 REF->ALT (T->C); # of mutations in tree = 1 (weighted = 35); ['CTS4509', 'M687'] <<< Positive
2}Gyvakarai1(Lithunania)4571-4422BP+/-
Bone pin found in Germany:http://www.museum-digital.de/san/index.php?t=objekt&oges=11152. Also, an illustration of the bone pin found in Germany is in the book ANCIENT EUROPE A SURVEY (Piggott) page 84. Page 85 has a map of the distribution of Hammer-headed bone pins & derivative forms found in Europe.
Also maybe overlap the chronological phylogeny between Yamnaya/Afanasievo/Vucedol and Corded Ware strains of Yersinia Pestis,for example Gen72 Vucedol R1b-Z2103 and Gyvakarai R1a.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317095227_The_Stone_Age_Plague_1000_years_of_Persistence_in_Eurasia
https://indo-european.eu/2018/12/spread-of-y-pestis-earlier-than-previously-thought-may-have-caused-neolithic-decline/
@Archi & Gaska
I see you still don't understand why L51 is common in Western Europe and why Corded Ware samples usually belong to typically western R1a subclades.
Well you will sooner or later. LOL
Based on all the data: linguistic, archaeological, anthropological, special proximity of the Sintashtinians to the TRB, I always assumed that the Aryans originated from the territory of the Czech Republic/Slovakia/North Hungary from CWC. It is possible that the local CWC originated from the local culture of kurgan burials with ochre, but in any case they were not mixed with Cucuteni-Tripolie, which means that they were the westernmost Tisza group of this culture.
Coldmountains said...
" I6561 is unlikely from a much later period because in the time of Sintahsta/Srubnaya his Y3+ clade was already super rare or absent in East Europe."
It's you fantasies. You can't know that. Why do you only have Sintashta and Srubnaya cultures? There were other earlier cultures also: Abashevo, Potapovka, Pokrovka, Babino, Volsk-Lbishche, etc., they are all post-CWC.
One interesting change of label in newest G25 sheet, CWC_CZE_o:I7272 to CZE_En - presumably Eneolithic?
Archaeological context from Olalde 2018 was: "I7272/Grave 23: 2900–2500 BCE. Right-sided crouched burial, head towards the west. Sex: orientation – M, anthropology – ?, DNA – M. Age: infant (4 - 6 years). Grave goods: vessel (small beaker), pelvis of cattle 107,111,112" (AmtDB: ychr_hg I2a2a2).
Pretty cut and dry Corded Ware burial right?
Another change HRV_Vucedol:I3499 to HRV_EBA. Archaeological context from Mathieson 2018 was: "A 25-30 year old male, found in S-N orientation with the head oriented to the South. The body was in a contracted position lying on its belly / left side. The skeleton exhibits a well healed ante-mortem depression fracture on the posterior part of his left parietal bone. He also has mild, healed ectocranial porosity on the parietals and occipital bone, healed cribra orbitalia on his superior orbits, and mild, healed periostitis on the right tibia and fibula." (AmtDB: ychr_hg - R1b1a1a2a2)
These relabels by Reich's lab I am reluctant to use without explanation.
If the authors think they've mis-described archaeological context, then they should be publishing on it in some form, even as an addendum on their original publication, not just quietly relabeling data with no real explanation. Particularly since these are outliers that are important to the interpretations of how cultures formed and interacted.
Also these samples seem to have gone missing in action from latest datasheet: https://pastebin.com/aiKQSuwd (annoying as some are actually important and interesting, e.g. Potapovka and Sintashta sample).
Davidski said Archi & Gaska-I see you still don't understand why L51 is common in Western Europe and why Corded Ware samples usually belong to typically western R1a subclades. Well you will sooner or later. LOL
The resulting phylogenetic tree demonstrates that haplogroup R-L23 splits into two main branches, R-L51 and R-GG400. The former includes West Europeans, while the latter comprises exclusively representatives of East European populations. Both branches are of similar age: around 6 thousand years. The migrations of the eastern branch of this lineage are sufficiently demonstrated by the appearance of Z2103 in Hungary, Poland, Vucedol and Italy (Iron Age). That is all. There has never been R1b-L51 in the steppes, and all attempts to prove otherwise have failed miserably.
I don't know what Archi thought about the origin of L51/P312, but I am clear why this lineage is the most common in Central and Western Europe, it was simply at home when the CWC arrived. What would happen if any case of L51 appeared in the CWC? would you try to convince me that it has its origin in the Yamnaya, Repin, SStog, Khvalynsk culture?-There are dozens of samples analyzed and nobody has found anything. It may be that these eastern migrations of the CWC and Z2103 serve to explain the dispersion of IE during the chalcolithic and Bronze Age in mainland Europe. You could find Z2103 or even R1b-V1636 in the CWC, but forget about relating L51 to the steppes and related cultures.
Regarding the sample-Romania, it is obviously not important for the genetics of Western Europe, it is only important to finish showing that the population movements during the European Chalcolithic were much more complex than they intended to make us believe with the "massive migration theory". And it also serves to understand that there were genetic and cultural movements in both directions and that no lineage is excluded from being able to participate in them at any time.
In other words, sooner or later everyone will understand why there is NO R1a on the BBC and why there is NO P312 in the steppes
@Matt
I did a relative/quality control scan recently and dumped a few samples. That's probably the reason why those individuals are now missing.
In regards to the re-labeling of some of the pop codes, I think this issue will work itself out in due time.
For instance, I have a feeling that the Czech CWC outlier is going to fit very well into a forthcoming Czech_En cluster.
@Gaska @Davidski
I already wrote that the R1b-L51 came from Eastern Europe, but not with the CWC, but completely separately. They came to Western Europe (from Italy to the Netherlands), along the border with the CWC, and became the BBC. They spread over the sea and rivers. In the North, R1b-U106 appeared and spread along the Baltic sea to the East, as a result, it was assimilated by the CWC and was part of The Nordic Bronze Culture. In the South, R1b-P312 emerged which was assimilated in the Moravia area by the CWC into the Czapel of the BBC and CWC merger groups. From it came the Illyrians, and later in Hallstatt, the Celts.
@Archi
Nice fantasy there. You should write a novel.
Archi Eastern Europe is very large. Even if r1b-L51 appeared in any Neolithic culture of the Baltic Countries, the Balkans, Russia, Hungary or Romania, it would be considered an Eastern marker, and obviously anything can happen.
So what do you think? Are you also a supporter of an origin in the steppes? If that were true, the path that R1b-L51 would have followed is the least important. What does it matter if it reached mainland Europe with the CWC or by an alternative path? The important thing is its origin and that so far is a mystery to all of us.
My opinion is that an Eastern origin does not make sense, first evidently because it has not appeared in any steppe culture, but then because it makes no sense to think that of all the male steppe markers only L51 reach Western Europe. What happened to R1a-M417, Q, J, Z2103, V1636 and other eastern markers? Everyone stayed there and only L51 learned to navigate ?.
It is a matter of common sense
@Davidski
Someone has told me that Volosovo's famous M269 are very late (around/after 3,000 BC). It is true?
@Gaska
Here's a paper about those samples...
In the Late Neolithic, just after 4000 calBC, the transition to the Volosovo culture takes place and this continues to develop into the Early Metal Age.
https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/40.6
@Davidski
This is not a fantasy, it is the result of an analysis of facts. Do you fantasize about when you write contrary to the archaeological data of the application. About the fact that Bell Beakers is a completely different population from CWC and by origin and in general, always wrote everything, but the opposite is written only by you, so I do not fantasize anything, just the opposite, you fantasize. Our constructions are supported by the haplogroup tree, not only history, archeology, anthropology, aDNA.
R-L51 PF6414 * PF6535 * CTS10373/PF6537/FGC39+1 SNPs formed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybp
id:ERS257000ITA [IT-CA]i
R-L52 P310/S129/PF6546 * YSC0001249/CTS10353/S1175 * L52/PF6541/A19949+3 SNPs
R-L52*
id:YF66329FRA [FR-11]i
R-L151 L11/S127/PF6539 * YSC0000191/PF6543/S1159 * PF5856+1 SNPs formed 0 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybp
R-P312P312/S116/PF6547/MF52579 * Z1904/CTS12684/PF6548formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp
R-U106 M9404 * M405/S21/U106formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybp
R-Z2118 Z2118/PF7589 * Z2113 * Z2112+5 SNPs formed 5700 ybp, TMRCA 5100 ybp
id:YF03838TUR [TR-34]i
By North we must understand the North-East, by South we must understand the South-West.
Copper Bell Beaker Germany Osterhofen-Altenmarkt [RISE563 / I4144] 2572-2512 calBCE (3955±35 BP, Poz-84553) M R1b1a1a2a1a2 [P312 / PF6547 / S116]
Copper Bell Beaker Germany Quedlinburg VII [I0806 / QLB 28] Frequently rode horses. 2431-2150 calBCE (3824±25 BP, MAMS-22820) M R1b1a1a2a1a2 [P312]
Copper Corded Ware/Battle Axe/Nordic LN Sweden Lilla Beddinge 56 [RISE98] 2275-2032 calBCE (3736±32 BP, OxA-28987) M R1b1a1a2a1a1
M405 / S21/ U106
@Gaska
There were two separate migrations from Eastern Europe: one R1b-L51 the other R1a-M198. The details and times are still unknown, but this was in the Late Eneolithic.
@David, I guess fair enough if some look low quality to you. Welzin_BA_o1 looked a bit wrong to me for'ex. You still do get the same qualitative picture for the most part - e.g. Potapovka I7670 is pretty like I0418, and I1028 is pretty like I0941 (LDA analysis with focus on Sintashta and Potapovka and with / without samples - https://imgur.com/a/yNMZSmL). It kind of firms up the picture but I suppose you don't totally see different things.
On a tangent to the subject of where EEF related ancestry comes from in different populations, a quick comparison of Vahaduo fits for Sintashta and some CW and Beakers using the triple of earliest Baltic+Poland Corded Ware samples (poz81, I4629 Plinkaigalis242) and Yamnaya_Samara: https://imgur.com/a/7Saqe7H
It seems that using CW_Baltic+Poland_early is preferred to Yamnaya_S, and also increases ancestry in regional Beaker populations from regional farmers, rather than everything just taking Globular Amphora Poland.
Also seems that using the full set of Globular Amphora Poland samples, not just the four previously on G25 from Olalde+Mathieson, decreases the degree to which everything just takes Globular Amphora Poland, as those old four look to be more related to western european farmers than is the case for this larger set.
I wonder if this would be mirrored in formal stats?
@Davidski
Thank you,
@ Davidski
Does Early Volosovo have any connection to the Eneolithic Steppe population of the Lower Don ?
Glăvăneşti Vechi grave with ochre
You see, exact dating is very important there, because the dating of 3500-3000 BC is taken from the ceiling, it is abstract for all burials of this type. Here, Romanian archaeologists measured the burials of this culture and they turned out to be from 3100 to 2475 BC (possible extract to 3300), and as they found out, the early burials are very different from the later ones.
Frînculeasa, A., Preda, B., & Heyd, V. (2015). Pit-Graves, Yamnaya and Kurgans along the Lower Danube: Disentangling IVth and IIIrd Millennium BC Burial Customs, Equipment and Chronology.
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/prhz.2015.90.issue-1-2/pz-2015-0002/pz-2015-0002.xml
Although they did not specifically measure Glăvăneşti Vechi, they did measure neighboring similar ones. I advise you to pay attention to the similarity with CWC. So it can generally be a pred-CWC offshoot with subsequent influence, or even a direct CWC migration. So we must wait for radiocarbon date and a specific description of the grave.
@Samuel Andrews
What do you know about H1b5? Also GAC/TRB related like H1b2 in Gac?
I see four examples in my spreadsheets: Two in Denmark, two in Eastern Europe (Poland, Russia).
It probably is derived from GAC. There's also a H1b in Tryypilla Vertbra cave 4000 BC which I can't make sense of.
@ Archi
“ So it can generally be a pred-CWC offshoot with subsequent influence, or even a direct CWC migration.”
Cwc migration to the Danube delta 33/3100 BC ?
Rubbish
@ Clown
''You see, exact dating is very important there, because the dating of 3500-3000 BC is taken from the ceiling, it is abstract for all burials of this type. Here, Romanian archaeologists measured the burials of this culture and they turned out to be from 3100 to 2475 BC (possible extract to 3300), and as they found out, the early burials are very different from the later ones.''
And where is Glavanesti vechi mentioned in that article ?
@Rob Rubbish
You're a loudmouth unable to read any text, CWC influence there after 3000/2900 BC, when the culture changes drastically, there are appeared Corded Ware pottery entirely consistent the Central European and actually a large number of ochre in the burials. You have to shout only and leave completely meaningless messages. You are absolutely not able to read and understand, you are only able to troll.
@ @ CLown
'' CWC influence there after 3000/2900 ''
Rubbish.
Th CWC expansion started 2700 BC, none of which moved to the Danube delta.
You just an unashamed pathological liar. First you say its Babino, not you're inventing a non-existent CWC migration to the lower Danube.
Get help.
@Rubbish
Th CWC expansion started 2700 BC, none of which moved to the Danube delta.
You just an unashamed pathological liar. First you say its Babino, not you're inventing a non-existent CWC migration to the lower Danube.
Get help.
You're ab unashamed pathological liar, every message you send is a clinical idiot' s lie. Go see a psychiatrist.
Shut that Troll's mouth at last. All his messages are meaningless and useless to anyone, insane and false without exception.
@ clown
Yep nice rebuttal there.
@ Matt
“ Vucedol:I3499 to HRV_EBA.”
Iirc that individual had been killed and deposed off in a ditch
Nobody had bothered to read the supplement, and instead people were jumping up and down saying we have proof about Yamnaya people ruling vucedol; “just like Maria said”. But the elite were in fact a G2a individual
So given his doubtful association to Vucedol, but confirmed chronology, it seems fair enough to simply re-label Him as EBA_HRV (probably a Ymnaya individual from Hungary with a sad fate)
So let’s see if any more samples show are tested from Vucedol; as they undoubtedly did engage in complex interaction with Yamnaya from Hungary, not all of which was necessarily conflictive
@Davidski
Have you seen the Bustan outlier sample? It's an individual that looks like a first or second generation descendant of the first Steppe admixture with an Indus Valley population. Dated 1500BC, it appears to be a migrant from South Asia.
@Aniasi
Can't remember that one, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were back migrations of people from South to Central Asia.
@All
Here are the preliminary coords for the R1a-Z93 sample from northeastern Romania...
Romania_BA:S11955_scaled,0.1161,0.066009,0.039221,0.095608,-0.028928,0.032072,-0.00658,-0.013153,-0.041927,-0.056129,0.004547,0.001649,0.000743,-0.023258,0.026601,0.001591,-0.014864,-0.004941,-0.000251,0.000375,-0.013726,0.012365,0.007148,0.010242,0.002754
Romania_BA:S11955,0.0102,0.0065,0.0104,0.0296,-0.0094,0.0115,-0.0028,-0.0057,-0.0205,-0.0308,0.0028,0.0011,0.0005,-0.0169,0.0196,0.0012,-0.0114,-0.0039,-0.0002,0.0003,-0.011,0.01,0.0058,0.0085,0.0023
Plausible model?
Target: Romania_BA:S11955_scaled
Distance: 2.3227% / 0.02322689
43.6 RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
35.2 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
21.2 ROU_C
This individual definitely has a lot of Western Siberian hunter-gatherer ancestry, but if this is actually from Steppe Maykop I can't say right now.
Keep in mind that one of the Steppe Maykop outliers, SA6013, also belongs to R1a. But adding him to the above model doesn't do anything.
Steppe Maykop the one piece of the puzzle we didn't consider. Ancient DNA always gives suprises.
Here's the best mode I have so far.
@0.0177
Steppe (multiple sources): 43.6
Vonyuckya_Eneolithic: 22%
Botai: 20%
Balkan farmer: 14.6%
Choses Vonyuck and Botai when given Steppe Maykop isn't availble. I bet he literally has Steppe Maykop ancestry not just from a similar population. He's mostly Steppe Maykop+Yamhaya like. Sade to assume his R1a Z93 is from his Yamnaya-like side.
Target: Romania_BA_R1aZ93:S11955_scaled
Distance: 2.2213% / 0.02221323
48.0 SrednyStog_Ukr
32.6 Vonyuchka_Steppe_Eneolithic
18.0 Botai
1.4 Afanasievo
2.8753% / 0.02875331
49.0 SrednyStog_Ukr
36.2 Steppe_Maykop
14.6 Afanasievo
0.2 Botai
@Davidski, I don't think S11955 changes anything. He doesn't mean some Kurgan people had ANE ancestry. He is probably an outlier who had a Steppe Maykop parent or grandparent. I'd say he for sure has Steppe maykop ancestry Because, he seems to need contribution from Piedmont Eneolithic not just Botai. contribution.
@Davidski
It is UZB_Bustan_BA_o2
What is most interesting is that they are exactly on the modern Indian cline, unlike the SPGT samples. It also points to the possibility of an Indo-Aryan presence on both sides of the Hindu Kush.
So let me get this straight, is S11955 associated with Usatovo or not?
Because as I recall Usatovo had contacts with Maykop culture, so it having some Steppe Maykop ancestry makes sense.
@ CrM
Yes that's correct. Some form of contact, perhaps mediated by the Steppe Majkop people in the pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic phase, before they 'disappearead'. I think that Ikiztepe showing that Siberian signal now makes more sense.
@ Sam
I asked you a question ; have you figured out where Romania is ?
@Samuel
Steppe Maykop the one piece of the puzzle we didn't consider. Ancient DNA always gives suprises.
Yep, either that, or this is just a very badly dated Sarmatian or someone similar.
@Juan
Is there Steppe Maykop or Botai ancestry in modern-day Europe?
Nope. It's basically an extinct autosomal clade, even in mixed form.
@ «My opinion is that an Eastern origin does not make sense, first evidently because it has not appeared in any steppe culture, but then because it makes no sense to think that of all the male steppe markers only L51 reach Western Europe. What happened to R1a-M417, Q, J, Z2103, V1636 and other eastern markers? Everyone stayed there and only L51 learned to navigate ?.
It is a matter of common»
But this is not true. Look at YFull: subclades R1a-CTS4385 exclusively North-West Europe, subclades R1a-Y2395 exclusively Scandinavia and North-West Europe, R1a-PF6155 rather Central Europe. R1a-Y3 is apparently almost entirely found in South Asia. And only R1a-Z280 really prevails in Eastern Europe. Although the Eastern European origin of the entire R1a-M417 does not raise any questions. So R1b-L51 is not an exception at all.
@ Aniasi
You wrote that "What is most interesting is that they are exactly on the modern Indian cline, unlike the SPGT samples".
However, Narasimhan et al (2019) Supplement states that: "While the radiocarbon date of this individual places it to 700 years prior to the Swat Proto Historic Grave Complex, the genetic ancestry appears to lie along a cline established by these individuals".
Do you have another source for your claim?
@“ Is there Steppe Maykop or Botai ancestry in modern-day Europe?
Nope. It's basically an extinct autosomal clade, even in mixed form.”
Oddly enough, mtDNA is represented in Finland, as shown by recent mtDNA data from Finland. The Maikop people moved to the steppe Volga region due to aridization, where they joined the Pokrovka culture as a Lola culture, and then they were picked up by the Fino-Ugric migration, which, as part of the Mesh ceramics culture, reached Finland.
@ D and re: "Nope. It's basically an extinct autosomal clade, even in mixed form."
If I'm right Jeong et al did however find something similar or at least ANE-like in the northern Forest Taiga zone.
@Vladimir said-But this is not true. Look at YFull: subclades R1a-CTS4385 exclusively North-West Europe, subclades R1a-Y2395 exclusively Scandinavia and North-West Europe, R1a-PF6155 rather Central Europe. R1a-Y3 is apparently almost entirely found in South Asia. And only R1a-Z280 really prevails in Eastern Europe. Although the Eastern European origin of the entire R1a-M417 does not raise any questions. So R1b-L51 is not an exception at all.
I think you have not understood anything I am saying. I am talking about the chalcolithic
In the case that L51 had eastern origin, of course it would be an exception because only that lineage would have reached Western Europe.If you knew the BBC, you would realize that in the British Isles, France and Spain, we only have L51/P312, I2a, G2a and H2-
Then, what happened to the rest of eastern markers in Yamnaya, Khvalynsk, Repin, Sredni Stog, Maykop?-J, Q, I2a-L699, R1b-V1636. Why didn't they leave the steppes? They did not have the passport in order?. Of those who left, M417 did it with the CWC NOT with the BBC and Z2013 only reached in very small number the eastern domain of the BBC, but these two markers never reached Western Europe.
Then, what kind of migration are we talking about? A selective migration?. Of course there were never massive migrations as Haak explained in 2015.
If the BBC had its origin in Eastern Europe, would it not have to have eastern uniparental markers? What we do have in Western Europe (at least in the British Isles) are female steppe markers which obviously may have been responsible for the expansion of the steppe signal by exogamy
We have been paying too much attention to the steppes for many years, it is time for the Neolithic cultures of France, Italy, Germany and Scandinavia to be thoroughly analyzed.
@ L51 in Italy (Bronze Age-1.300 BC). It may be from the Terramare culture and it is undoubtedly the link between the Northern Italian BBs and the Etruscans and / or Italics. The linguistic question is going to get very complicated in Italy (like in Iberia). Can you guys check his bam file?
"the population of Babino culture carriers was formed on the basis of the population of Eastern cultures of corded ceramics with the participation of collectives whose origin was associated with the territories of the North Caucasus." Craniology of the Babino culture population. A. A. Kazarnizkiy, 2013.
Steppe_Maykop like people had still contributed to populations at the time of Kumsay_EBA, Lola culture, etc.
Probably contributed on a low level to populations of the Caucasus, judging by the Caucasus sequence (looks to me like Caucasus Maykop has contribution from unsampled Near East population and Steppe_Maykop to me, relative to Darkveti_Meshoko, diluting CHG affinity).
But those populations did not really have explosive population growth in subsequent millennia, as not really expanding into a huge new niche. Same issue with probably contributing on a low level to more marginal zones of Sintashta etc. Didn't really contribute to the populations that hit on large population growth opportunities later in time.
To be honest, I'm not really surprised by this unusual result for GLAV_14/I11955.
I may have mentioned this already, but anyway there are a number of yet to be published R1a-Z93 samples dated to the Yamnaya period from the Volga steppes. And apparently most of them show eastern ancestry, maybe something related to Steppe Maykop.
But I haven't seen any radiocarbon dates for any of these samples yet.
@Davidski
"Yep, either that, or this is just a very badly dated Sarmatian or someone similar."
Wouldn't it have a significant amount of East Asian ancestry if it was a Sarmatian?
@CrM
Wouldn't it have a significant amount of East Asian ancestry if it was a Sarmatian?
Yes, that's true. I'm only seeing around 1% East Asian admix and that might just be noise.
Also, the level of farmer ancestry in this sample is somewhat low for a badly dated Srubnaya, Sintashta, Sarmatian etc. individual.
So we're definitely dealing with something unusual here. A radiocarbon date would be really nice!
@Matt
If it did, then would not the WSHG-like signal be visible to later populations in the area?
@Davidski
Since you mention that Steppe_Maykop did not contribute to modern populations, so would it be safe to assume this Romania_BA population also went extinct or at the very least mixed so that the East Asian component was diluted?
I still find it interesting of how they ended up there.
Another interesting look at the problem: "3.Having reached the Carpathian zone, the tribes of the Delakeu-Babino culture came into contact with local settled agricultural cultures of Eneolithic appearance, radically changed their social structure (the transition from matriarchy to Patriarchy) and seriously affected the ways and forms of management, which was reflected in the transition to new technologies of the bronze age, including the spread of new forms of weapons, in the use of a light combat chariot drawn by a pair of horses, etc.
4.All this led to transformations, thanks to which a number of bronze age cultures appeared, such as the Otomani or Fuseshabon cultures, Wittenberg, Serata Monteoru, TEI, and others. the Tribes of these cultures create fortified settlements that resemble in their structure those left by the carriers of the Sintashta culture in the southern Urals and North-Western Kazakhstan."I. Pyslaru (Romania)
The culture of Delacau-Babino and its place among the archaeological cultures of the Carpathian-Danube region and North Pontiki. 2018.
@gamerz_J
I'm not aware of any Steppe Maykop ancestry being present in modern Balkan populations, and R1a-Z93 is very rare in the Balkans nowadays, so it's unlikely that this type of steppe population made a lasting impact in the region.
@Davidski
Thanks. I know you find it in some Eastern European populations so I am wondering if it is related somehow to at least some of the minor East Asian-like ancestry that Russians and Ukrainians have.
@Gaska "... If the BBC had its origin in Eastern Europe, would it not have to have eastern uniparental markers? ..."
If people came out of Africa, shouldn't they have an African A marker? Did "A" have passports that weren't in order? Why aren't they everywhere in the world?
Each population has its own haplogroup spectrum, migrating populations, not territories. Otherwise, words like Eastern Europe can be replaced by Eurasia, and then wonder where the BBC's typical Eurasian haplogroup O has gone.
@gamerz_J
R1a-Z93 is very rare in Eastern Europe, even in Russia and Ukraine, and the subclades that are present there are often relatively basal, rather than derived from Asian lineages.
So you're probably referring to Siberian ancestry, which is associated with Uralic languages and Y-haplogroup N.
@Vladimir
Kazarnitsky here only speculates about the later participation of the population of Lola culture in the Babino culture, which he connects by origin partially with the cis-Caucasus. He has no proof of this, but he is just very fond of the Caucasus, so he is always looking for connections in it. He has only proved that the Babinians are no different from the Fatyanovians, and has nothing to do with Yamnians or Catacombnians.
http://s015.radikal.ru/i333/1608/2b/b5300d22a901.png
9 ia Babino, 2-5 are Fatyanovo
Target: Romania_BA:S11955
Distance: 1.4570% / 0.01456993
50.2 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
22.4 Yamnaya_UKR
10.6 DEU_LBK_N
10.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.8 Corded_Ware_DEU
1.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.0 AUT_LBK_N
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
0.0 Corded_Ware_CZE
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU_o
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL_early
0.0 DEU_Baalberge_MN
0.0 DEU_Blatterhohle_MN
0.0 DEU_Esperstedt_MN
0.0 HUN_Baden_LCA
0.0 HUN_Balaton_Lasinja_CA
0.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0.0 POL_TRB
0.0 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 UKR_Trypillia
0.0 UKR_Trypillia_En
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_BGR
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Karagash
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o
Target: Romania_BA:S11955
Distance: 2.1268% / 0.02126809
43.2 Corded_Ware_POL_early
19.2 Corded_Ware_DEU
16.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
12.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic
6.6 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
1.8 DEU_LBK_N
0.0 AUT_LBK_N
0.0 Corded_Ware_CZE
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU_o
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL
0.0 DEU_Baalberge_MN
0.0 DEU_Blatterhohle_MN
0.0 DEU_Esperstedt_MN
0.0 HUN_Baden_LCA
0.0 HUN_Balaton_Lasinja_CA
0.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0.0 POL_TRB
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 UKR_Trypillia
0.0 UKR_Trypillia_En
0.0 WHG
@Davidski
Ah ok, my bad then, have not read much yet about the subclades.
I am aware of the spread of Uralic languages with Siberian ancestry, it's that you also get some kind of low East Asian ancestry in places like the Balkans and pars of Eastern Europe without having much if any Yhaplogroup N, in some papers I have read that is.
Speaking of Uralic languages, do you know why in some qpAdm models you get some kind of East Asian ancestry in other Europeans such as English or French (Lamnidis et al,2018) ? Is that real one or noise/ shared ANE etc?
Davidski said...
" R1a-Z93 is very rare in Eastern Europe, even in Russia and Ukraine"
R-Z93 Z2479/M746/S4582/V3664 * Z93/F992/S202 * FGC77882 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
R-Z93*
id:YF07986ITA [IT-SA]
id:ERS256938ITA [IT-CA]
id:YF68499KWT [KW-KU]new
id:YF67857CHN [CN-64]
R-YP5321 YP5324 * YP5322 * YP5323+1 SNPs
id:YF03036POL [PL-MZ]
R-BY30941 Y174532 * BY30941/Y52775 * BY30940/Y45067+1 SNPs formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 3700 ybp
R-BY30941*
id:YF13583
R-Y56311Y56311formed 3700 ybp, TMRCA 3700 ybpinfo
id:YF63962CHN [CN-51]
id:YF03565POL [PL-LD]
R-Y39884Y42830 * Y43850 * Y39884+4 SNPs formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4200 ybp
R-Y41571Y41713 * Y41571 * Y43109formed 4200 ybp, TMRCA 3600 ybp
R-Y38802Y38802 * Y43392 * Y42744+2 SNPsf ormed 3600 ybp, TMRCA 2900 ybp
id:YF01991RUS
R-YP1506YP1506 * Y81023 * F16428+1 SNPsformed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4000 ybpinfo
R-YP1506*
id:HG03705PAK [PK-PB]
R-YP1505YP1505 * Y71622 * YP1508+14 SNPsformed 4000 ybp, TMRCA 3800 ybpinfo
R-YP1518YP1523 * YP1524 * YP1519+9 SNPs formed 3800 ybp, TMRCA 550 ybp
id:ERS2478501RUS [RU-AL]
id:ERR1019034RUS [RU-AL]
R-YP1451 YP5629/BY25291 * YP1451 * YP1452 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 3300 ybp
R-YP1451*
id:YF68118ESP [ES-S]new
id:YF66738ESP [ES-S]
id:YF14461FRA [FR-08]
id:YF02655ENG
R-BY103189 BY103189 * BY104501 * BY121076+17 SNPs formed 3300 ybp, TMRCA 125 ybp
id:YF65639KWT [KW-KU]
id:YF14737KWT [KW-KU]
R-Y34351 Y35118 * Y34351 * Y34305+2 SNPs formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 3600 ybp
R-Y34351*
id:YF09474SWE [SE-H]
@gamerz_J
Speaking of Uralic languages, do you know why in some qpAdm models you get some kind of East Asian ancestry in other Europeans such as English or French (Lamnidis et al,2018)? Is that real one or noise/shared ANE etc?
I don't have an explanation for this.
Target: Romania_BA:S11955
Distance: 1.1892% / 0.01189220
48.8 RUS_Afanasievo
18.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
13.0 HUN_LBK_MN
12.2 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
8.0 Yamnaya_UKR
0.0 AUT_LBK_N
0.0 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.0 BGR_EBA
0.0 BGR_IA
0.0 BGR_Krepost_N
0.0 BGR_Late_C
0.0 BGR_Middle_C
0.0 BGR_MLBA
0.0 BGR_MP_N
0.0 BGR_N
0.0 BGR_Varna_En2
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
0.0 Corded_Ware_CZE
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU_o
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL_early
0.0 DEU_Baalberge_MN
0.0 DEU_Blatterhohle_MN
0.0 DEU_Esperstedt_MN
0.0 DEU_LBK_N
0.0 HUN_ALPc_I_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_III_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Szakalhat_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Szatmar_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Tiszadob_MN
0.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
0.0 HUN_BA
0.0 HUN_BA_o
0.0 HUN_Baden_LCA
0.0 HUN_Balaton_Lasinja_CA
0.0 HUN_Bu_kk_MN
0.0 HUN_Hunyadihalom_MCHA
0.0 HUN_Koros_N
0.0 HUN_Koros_N_HG
0.0 HUN_LBA
0.0 HUN_LCA
0.0 HUN_Lengyel_LN
0.0 HUN_MA
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad_o2
0.0 HUN_Mako_EBA
0.0 HUN_Prescythian_IA
0.0 HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA
0.0 HUN_Sopot_LN
0.0 HUN_Starcevo_N
0.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0.0 POL_TRB
0.0 ROU_C
0.0 ROU_Iron_Gates_HG
0.0 ROU_Iron_Gates_N
0.0 ROU_Meso
0.0 ROU_N
0.0 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 UKR_Trypillia
0.0 UKR_Trypillia_En
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_BGR
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Karagash
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o
@Davidski
No worries.
But it seems odd being higher in French than English. I might send the author an email about it, mostly out of curiosity.
Target: Romania_BA:S11955
Distance: 1.0140% / 0.01013995
45.8 RUS_Afanasievo
17.8 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA
17.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.6 HUN_LBK_MN
5.4 Scythian_RUS_Urals
5.2 Yamnaya_UKR
2.6 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
0.0 AUT_LBK_N
0.0 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.0 BGR_EBA
0.0 BGR_IA
0.0 BGR_Krepost_N
0.0 BGR_Late_C
0.0 BGR_Middle_C
0.0 BGR_MLBA
0.0 BGR_MP_N
0.0 BGR_N
0.0 BGR_Varna_En2
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
0.0 Corded_Ware_CZE
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU_o
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL_early
0.0 DEU_Baalberge_MN
0.0 DEU_Blatterhohle_MN
0.0 DEU_Esperstedt_MN
0.0 DEU_LBK_N
0.0 HUN_ALPc_I_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_III_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Szakalhat_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Szatmar_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Tiszadob_MN
0.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
0.0 HUN_BA
0.0 HUN_BA_o
0.0 HUN_Baden_LCA
0.0 HUN_Balaton_Lasinja_CA
0.0 HUN_Bu_kk_MN
0.0 HUN_Hunyadihalom_MCHA
0.0 HUN_Koros_N
0.0 HUN_Koros_N_HG
0.0 HUN_LBA
0.0 HUN_LCA
0.0 HUN_Lengyel_LN
0.0 HUN_MA
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad_o2
0.0 HUN_Mako_EBA
0.0 HUN_Prescythian_IA
0.0 HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA
0.0 HUN_Sopot_LN
0.0 HUN_Starcevo_N
0.0 Hun_Tian_Shan
0.0 Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.0 HUN_Tisza_LN
0.0 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA
0.0 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECHA
0.0 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0.0 POL_TRB
0.0 ROU_C
0.0 ROU_Iron_Gates_HG
0.0 ROU_Iron_Gates_N
0.0 ROU_Meso
0.0 ROU_N
0.0 Scythian_HUN
0.0 Scythian_MDA
0.0 Scythian_MDA_o
0.0 Scythian_UKR
0.0 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA
0.0 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 UKR_Trypillia
0.0 UKR_Trypillia_En
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_BGR
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Karagash
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o
Target: Romania_BA:S11955
Distance: 1.1019% / 0.01101877
46.8 RUS_Afanasievo
17.0 Hun_Tian_Shan
14.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
8.4 HUN_LBK_MN
7.8 Yamnaya_UKR
5.4 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
0.0 AUT_LBK_N
0.0 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.0 BGR_EBA
0.0 BGR_IA
0.0 BGR_Krepost_N
0.0 BGR_Late_C
0.0 BGR_Middle_C
0.0 BGR_MLBA
0.0 BGR_MP_N
0.0 BGR_N
0.0 BGR_Varna_En2
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
0.0 Corded_Ware_CZE
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU_o
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL_early
0.0 DEU_Baalberge_MN
0.0 DEU_Blatterhohle_MN
0.0 DEU_Esperstedt_MN
0.0 DEU_LBK_N
0.0 HUN_ALPc_I_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_III_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Szakalhat_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Szatmar_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Tiszadob_MN
0.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
0.0 HUN_BA
0.0 HUN_BA_o
0.0 HUN_Baden_LCA
0.0 HUN_Balaton_Lasinja_CA
0.0 HUN_Bu_kk_MN
0.0 HUN_Hunyadihalom_MCHA
0.0 HUN_Koros_N
0.0 HUN_Koros_N_HG
0.0 HUN_LBA
0.0 HUN_LCA
0.0 HUN_Lengyel_LN
0.0 HUN_MA
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad_o2
0.0 HUN_Mako_EBA
0.0 HUN_Prescythian_IA
0.0 HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA
0.0 HUN_Sopot_LN
0.0 HUN_Starcevo_N
0.0 Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.0 HUN_Tisza_LN
0.0 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA
0.0 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECHA
0.0 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0.0 POL_TRB
0.0 ROU_C
0.0 ROU_Iron_Gates_HG
0.0 ROU_Iron_Gates_N
0.0 ROU_Meso
0.0 ROU_N
0.0 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 UKR_Trypillia
0.0 UKR_Trypillia_En
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_BGR
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Karagash
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o
@Archi, Those are decent fits. Who is this Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke?
@Archi
Are these scaled?
@Samuel Andrews
I met a report that those burials with ochre from Glăvăneşti Vechi, etc. resemble most of all the Andronovians in anthropology.
Target: Romania_BA:S11955
Distance: 0.5530% / 0.00553042
47.8 RUS_Afanasievo
10.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
9.6 HUN_LBK_MN
8.6 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
5.8 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
5.4 Yamnaya_UKR
5.2 Scythian_MDA
5.0 Scythian_RUS_Urals
2.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.0 AUT_LBK_N
0.0 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.0 BGR_EBA
0.0 BGR_IA
0.0 BGR_Krepost_N
0.0 BGR_Late_C
0.0 BGR_Middle_C
0.0 BGR_MLBA
0.0 BGR_MP_N
0.0 BGR_N
0.0 BGR_Varna_En2
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
0.0 Corded_Ware_CZE
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU_o
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL_early
0.0 DEU_Baalberge_MN
0.0 DEU_Blatterhohle_MN
0.0 DEU_Esperstedt_MN
0.0 DEU_LBK_N
0.0 HUN_ALPc_I_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_III_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Szakalhat_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Szatmar_MN
0.0 HUN_ALPc_Tiszadob_MN
0.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
0.0 HUN_BA
0.0 HUN_BA_o
0.0 HUN_Baden_LCA
0.0 HUN_Balaton_Lasinja_CA
0.0 HUN_Bu_kk_MN
0.0 HUN_Hunyadihalom_MCHA
0.0 HUN_Koros_N
0.0 HUN_Koros_N_HG
0.0 HUN_LBA
0.0 HUN_LCA
0.0 HUN_Lengyel_LN
0.0 HUN_MA
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.0 HUN_MA_Szolad_o2
0.0 HUN_Mako_EBA
0.0 HUN_Prescythian_IA
0.0 HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA
0.0 HUN_Sopot_LN
0.0 HUN_Starcevo_N
0.0 Hun_Tian_Shan
0.0 Hun_Tian_Shan_o
0.0 HUN_Tisza_LN
0.0 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA
0.0 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECHA
0.0 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0.0 POL_TRB
0.0 ROU_C
0.0 ROU_Iron_Gates_HG
0.0 ROU_Iron_Gates_N
0.0 ROU_Meso
0.0 ROU_N
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA
0.0 Scythian_HUN
0.0 Scythian_MDA_o
0.0 Scythian_UKR
0.0 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA
0.0 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 UKR_Trypillia
0.0 UKR_Trypillia_En
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_BGR
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Karagash
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o
We don't know at all which part of Eastern Europe CWC came from, how they had their path. Therefore, if Glăvăneşti Vechi is not any Cimmerian or Scythian and is not a representative of the eastern Babino culture (that cemetery is where the people of Babino culture were buried), it could mean that CWC came from the easternmost part of Eastern Europe closer to the Urals and Siberia.
@gamerz_J, on the subject of low level Asian admix when modelling present day, it seems to me a lot of authors seem to be shying away from modelling present day samples with ancient capture / shotgun samples using qpAdm.
One reason why this might be is that there seems to be a bit of attraction in f stats etc of ancient for other ancient and of modern modern for other modern samples*, so it seems like you may get models for moderns just "topping up" with any applicable modern sample to fit them.
So I would be very wary about models that find African / East Eurasian admix unless they're using ancient capture African and Asian samples, of which we've got quite a few now (Tianyuan, Devil's Gate, Lapita, etc).
Underlining though, this is low level so does not endanger their main findings, but I think models mixing ancient and modern are a bit risky.
*This isn't totally equal for all ancient samples though - some samples captured by other groups that Harvard have slightly different patterns.
Since afanasievo is roughly synchronous with Glăvăneşti Vechi (if the dates 3500-3000 are correct), they simply had a common ancestor, and probably only recently. Which means that R1a-M417, or maybe even R1a-M198, mixed with R1b-L23 somewhere around 5000 BC in the Khvalynsk -Sredniy Stog culture. I have a general suspicion that CHG brought R1a-M417, who lived just in the places where vonuchka and Progress-2 were investigated. This would explain the presence of R1A-YP1272 along with J1 on Oleniy Ostrov in Karelia.
@Vladimir “I have a general suspicion that CHG brought R1a-M417, who lived just in the places where vonuchka and Progress-2 were investigated.“
If CHG are the ones who brought M417, then they are the ones who brought Indo-European languages too
@ Davidski
Is Early Volosovo a descendant of Eneolithic Steppe ? If so then was there a migration up the Don or the Volga rivers ?
@JuanRivera.
Mesolithic Ukraine has R1a too.
Yes, but the Neolithic of Ukraine R1a-YP4141. It is logical that they were there in the Mesolithic.
@Vladimir “I have a general suspicion that CHG brought R1a-M417, who lived just in the places where vonuchka and Progress-2 were investigated.“
All R1a were EHG, Khvalynsk's R1a is EHG. Where and when they got CHG remains unknown, but they got it no later than the Eneolithic. So your suspicions are unfounded.
EHG is north-east European component closest to WSHG at Paleolithic time, as Indo-European closest to Uralic (in Siberia).
@Vladimir said...
"Yes, but the Neolithic of Ukraine R1a-YP4141. It is logical that they were there in the Mesolithic."
This is illogical, since the Mesolithic population in Ukraine has disappeared, in the Neolithic there lives a completely different population, which disappears in the Eneolithic.
R1a in Ukraine in the Neolithic there are none at all, just someone launched an erroneous information.
Ukraine_HG1.SG I1819 StPet12, site 9, collection 6462, individual 25 petrous 2017 JonesCurrentBiology2017 .. 10643 8825-8561 calBCE (9420V±50 BP, Poz-81128) Ukraine_Mesolithic_dup.I1819.SG Vasil'evka Ukraine 47.434167 35.276389 Shotgun .. 0.16 176341 M R1a
Ukraine_N1.SG I1378 StPet2, collection 6204, individual 1 petrous 2017 JonesCurrentBiology2017 .. 7250 5400-5200 BCE [based on being son of I1732 at 5364-5213 calBCE (6300B±40 BP, Poz-81130); note that the sample has a direct date of 4519-4343 calBCE (Poz-83446) from Jones et al.2019 but it is possible that the 14C lab mixed up the sample] Ukraine_N_son.I1732.SG Vovnigi Ukraine 48.133333 35.083333 Shotgun .. 0.162 176464 M I2a2a1b1
If R1b M269 only spread from the Baltic during the formation of Early Volosovo then basically they had nothing directly to do with CHG populations...
@natsunoame
"And this is a good opportunity for you to explain why they don't speak IE language with their abundance of R1a!"
This is a good opportunity to provide from you with a gramophone record in which language R1a speak, do not return without it!
@natsunoame "well, we can exclude IE for sure"
Only your texts are excluded all without exception, because they are all wrong without exception for sure.
@Tagramos
R1a cannot be from CHG because CHG men had a "vow of the haplogroup", which meant that they could only accept in their tribe someone who is either J or G, in fact they ridiculed their proto-Abazin R1a neighbors for being weak and feminine. I can give source.“
And, apparently, for this reason, when the autosomal composition of the steppe population is 50% EHG and 50% CHG, there are no male haplogroups J and G in it at all.
@Tagramos
"Long-distance breeding, look it up. CHG used their vital reproductive energy to impregnate EHG wombs without their identities being known to the mothers, this was done to avoid paying future alimonies and also to maximize the number of offspring, but this came at a cost, cost being that the haplogroup was not inherited from the father, but from the mother's father. Was it a questionable move that my CHG ancestors made? Yes, but I argue in my book "Astral Conversations with Djghouba the Satsurblian" that CHG did not intend to spread their Y-DNA, but just their superior genome, which is why the steppe populations had so much CHG DNA but so little CHG Y-DNA. In fact,"
The delirium of a crazy failure is so shameful that the unsub doesn't understand what he's writing. Subjects who don't understand the words they write shouldn't be allowed to speak at all. The unsub should see a psychiatrist. That's a fact.
@JuanRivera,
"Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke has its closest fit with Afanasievo rather than other Yamnaya."
@Archi,
"Target: Romania_BA:S11955
Distance: 0.5530% / 0.00553042
47.8 RUS_Afanasievo'
I've noticed Early Corded Ware and LNBA Europe are closer to Afanasievo than to Yamnaya. And also that Yamnaya is closer to other Yamnaya than to Afanasievo. It is interesting that 3500-3000 BC R1a Z93 also favors Afanasievo. This might be real not coincidence.
@Matt
Much thanks, yeah it makes sense that there is something like that going on there. They seem to avoid using very ancient samples for qpAdm though, I think the only one I saw with Tianyuan for example was Lazaridis, 2018. (granted I have not read that many yet, possible I missed earlier ones)
@JuanRivera
I know the Reich lab is working on some from Soqotra, most likely other places too (except the Italian one Davidski and others already mentioned)
@JuanRivera, I've noticed that too. Afanasievo has slightly more CHG (Piedmont Eneolithic) than yamnaya.
I have once again verified that attribution graves with ochre by the Eneolithic without specifying a particular culture means nothing. There are similar burials in nearby Yampil graves, and what we see
grave 1/1B Eneolithic Ki-16674: 3680 ± 90 BP (human bone)
grave 1/5C Babyno Ki -16677: 4170±90 BP; Ki -16893: 4130±35 BP; Poz-38530: 3430±35 BP (human bones)
The Middle Bronze Age of the Babino culture is older than the so-called Eneolithic!
Is Romania_BA:S11955 C14 dated? It'd be disappointing if he turns out to be a Scythian. But, I don't he is. His Central Asian admix matches Steppe Maykop, not the kind which existed in Scythians.
The date for this sample appears to be an archeological/stratigraphic one, because it's just listed as 3,500-3000 BCE, as opposed to calBCE.
C14 dates are always labeled with the cal prefix.
Well it seems straight up WSHG is preferred to Steppe Majkop
Romania_BA:S11955_scaled
RUS_Progress_En 62.4%
RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960 17.3%
UKR_GAC 12.9%
BGR_Late_C 7.3%
POL_Globular_Amphora 0.1%
UKR_N 0%
UKR_Trypillia_En 0%
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En 0%
RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya 0%
RUS_Khvalynsk_En 0%
POL_TRB 0%
RUS_Steppe_Maykop 0%
Have you guys seen the new KAZ_Kumsay_EBA samples. They come from updated Narashimian paper.
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2019_Science_NarasimhanPatterson_CentralSouthAsia_Supplement.pdf
They come from West Kazakhstan, 3000 BC, are almost identical genetically to Steppe Maykop. This brings up lots of questions.
I bet they are Steppe Maykop people who were pushed out of Europe by Yamnaya expansions. Maybe, they decided to go back to their homeland in Central Asia. Probably because, they still had connections to Central Asia while they temporally lived in Southern Russia. Or possibly, people like Steppe Maykop with Yamnaya-like ancestry had been living in Central Asia for thousands of years?
One way or another they are the same ethnic group as Steppe Maykop. There's no other ways to explain the similarities.
@Samuel
Have you guys seen the new KAZ_Kumsay_EBA samples.
Here...
A note on Steppe Maykop
huh. I didn't know you made a post about them. How long have they been in G25 PCA sheet? Because this is the first time I've noticed them.
Since the new Central/South Asian ancient dataset was released last year.
@Davidski
"C14 dates are always labeled with the cal prefix."
Only calibrated C14 dates are indicated with the cal prefix; uncalibrated C14 dates are not indicated by it.
@Samuel Andrews
" I bet they are Steppe Maykop people who were pushed out of Europe by Yamnaya expansions. Maybe,"
Rather different they are those who came to Steppe Maykop, the original Q population.
@Archi
Yeah, but in all ancient DNA papers like this Harvard preprint the main C14 dates are always calibrated so they have the cal prefix.
It still requires some sort of “back-migration” of the Siberian component
Here are the preliminary G25 coords for the R1a proto-Unetice individual from Slovakia.
Slovakia_EBA:S11953_scaled,0.127482,0.116786,0.065242,0.070737,0.027697,0.023706,-0.00047,0.002308,-0.006136,-0.021322,-0.000162,0.000899,0.000446,-0.013349,0.017508,0.020551,0.017732,-0.003041,-0.007165,0.007879,-0.005865,0.003215,-0.001849,0.002892,0.001796
Slovakia_EBA:S11953,0.0112,0.0115,0.0173,0.0219,0.009,0.0085,-0.0002,0.001,-0.003,-0.0117,-0.0001,0.0006,0.0003,-0.0097,0.0129,0.0155,0.0136,-0.0024,-0.0057,0.0063,-0.0047,0.0026,-0.0015,0.0024,0.0015
No surprises...
Distance to: Slovakia_EBA:S11953_scaled
0.03210004 POL_Chlopice_Vesele_Culture
0.03252147 RUS_Poltavka_o
0.03283675 Bell_Beaker_FRA
0.03294162 CZE_EBA
0.03320468 SWE_Battle_Axe
0.03348367 DNK_MN_B
0.03365988 Corded_Ware_POL
0.03447984 Scythian_MDA_o
0.03458129 DEU_Unetice_EBA
0.03465657 Bell_Beaker_NLD
Distance to: Slovakia_EBA:S11953
0.01826280 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1053
0.01924084 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1089
0.02090478 Corded_Ware_CZE:I6695
0.02136773 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA:kzb007
0.02140023 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA:I0430
0.02162429 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1024
0.02229529 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1011
0.02382688 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA:kzb001
0.02399000 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1065
0.02428415 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7280
0.02464508 Corded_Ware_Baltic:Plinkaigalis241
0.02615435 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1086
0.02706991 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0984
0.02718823 Corded_Ware_POL:N49
0.02748709 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA:kzb009
0.02762988 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA:I0234
0.02799107 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1019
0.02817162 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7209
0.02919675 Corded_Ware_POL:N47
0.02937737 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA:I0431
0.02977734 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0989
0.02998866 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1029
0.03003731 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7279
0.03021970 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1082
0.03022913 Corded_Ware_Baltic:Kunila2
0.03088284 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4:I6561
0.03113439 POL_Unetice_EBA:RISE154
0.03117836 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA:mur003
0.03126484 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1088
0.03136383 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1055
0.03142308 Corded_Ware_CZE:I6696
0.03142451 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1022
0.03154663 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0986
0.03194542 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1027
0.03232615 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1064
0.03244380 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA:kzb006
0.03258497 Corded_Ware_POL:N45
0.03304769 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0987
0.03332402 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7207
0.03336091 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1062
0.03360937 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7208
0.03378520 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA:I0358
0.03408035 Corded_Ware_DEU:I0103
0.03425230 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1018
0.03537358 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1061
0.03567632 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp
0.03590028 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA:kzb002
0.03642527 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1060
....100
Only Sintashta, Corded_Ware(_CZE), Srubnaya first
No Unetice, Afanasievo, Yamnaya, etc. in closest
Distance to: Slovakia_EBA:S11953
0.02133073 RUS_Poltavka_o:I0432
I0432 is not belong to the Poltavka culture, it is belong to the post-CWC Volsk-Lbische culture, these conquerors were often buried in the Poltavka graves when they destroyed the Poltavka people.
@Davidski
The Sintashta culture is MLBA, but the Andronovo and Srubnaya cultures are LBA.
David, what percentage of variance does each PC explain in vahaduo Global 25 PCA? PC1 is always Slavic but PC2 looks more Uralic than Slavic for some Unetice samples:
https://i.postimg.cc/fT3t5XY5/screenshot-78.png
@Davidski, I compared European Iranian samples to Romania_BA_R1aZ93:S11955. I don't think S11955 is a misdated Scythian.
The Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians all score Andronovo/Sintashta. Romania_BA scores Afanasievo. Romania_BA scores lots of Piedmont_Eneolithic, the Euro Iranians don't. The Euro Iranians score lots of Okenuvo, S11955.
Romania_BA's attraction to Piedmont_Eneolithic is good evidence it has Steppe Maykop ancestry.
*correction Romania_BA scores CWC_Pol_Early not Afanasievo.
@All
Preliminary G25 coords for one of the "transitional" foragers from the recent Key et al. paper about early Salmonella...
,PC1,PC2,PC3,PC4,PC5,PC6,PC7,PC8,PC9,PC10,PC11,PC12,PC13,PC14,PC15,PC16,PC17,PC18,PC19,PC20,PC21,PC22,PC23,PC24,PC25
Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic:MUR009_scaled,0.121791,0.055854,0.130107,0.190248,-0.005847,0.051595,-0.018331,-0.015692,-0.003681,-0.077997,0.008769,-0.002847,0.028097,-0.036883,0.030809,0.02201,-0.026729,-0.009882,-0.008925,0.025387,-0.007612,0.015951,-0.001602,-0.00723,-0.009819
,PC1,PC2,PC3,PC4,PC5,PC6,PC7,PC8,PC9,PC10,PC11,PC12,PC13,PC14,PC15,PC16,PC17,PC18,PC19,PC20,PC21,PC22,PC23,PC24,PC25
Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic:MUR009,0.0107,0.0055,0.0345,0.0589,-0.0019,0.0185,-0.0078,-0.0068,-0.0018,-0.0428,0.0054,-0.0019,0.0189,-0.0268,0.0227,0.0166,-0.0205,-0.0078,-0.0071,0.0203,-0.0061,0.0129,-0.0013,-0.006,-0.0082
Target: Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic:MUR009_scaled
Distance: 3.6720% / 0.03672034
90.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
6.6 RUS_Progress_En
3.4 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
@Archi Distance to: Slovakia_EBA:S11953
I understand correctly that only this sample is from the eneolite SS I6561?
So, no Siberian even in the form of WSHG in these samples from Tatarstan?
The MUR009 sample looks south shifted relative to Karelia_HG, but no more than Samara_HG. It may be a little bit more shifted towards some Yamnaya peaking drift dimension: https://imgur.com/a/o4kYDkW
Vladimir said...
"I understand correctly that only this sample is from the eneolite SS I6561?"
No, this sample is not from the Eneolithic. This sample is from Abashevo, don 't doubt it.
MUR009 has a very large distance from everyone, so vahuduo does not find a solution for it, it gives very large distances. Here's the best solution:
Target: Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic:MUR009
Distance: 2.1295% / 0.02129453
36.2 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
31.0 UKR_N
30.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
1.4 UKR_N_o
0.8 RUS_Ust_Belaya
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Meso
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Narva
0.0 Baltic_LVA_HG
0.0 GEO_CHG
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 RUS_Kolyma_Meso
0.0 RUS_MA1
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 RUS_Ust_Ishim
0.0 RUS_Yana_UP
0.0 UKR_Meso
0.0 WHG
Adding Khvalynsk
arget: Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic:MUR009
Distance: 2.0692% / 0.02069217
34.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
24.0 UKR_N
20.6 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
18.8 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
2.4 RUS_Ust_Belaya
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Meso
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Narva
0.0 Baltic_LVA_HG
0.0 GEO_CHG
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 RUS_Kolyma_Meso
0.0 RUS_MA1
0.0 RUS_Progress_En
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 RUS_Ust_Ishim
0.0 RUS_Yana_UP
0.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En1
0.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
0.0 UKR_Meso
0.0 UKR_N_o
0.0 WHG
In general, MUR009 had three sources: the north-local EHG, the Siberian WSHG, and one associated with the Ukrainian Neolithic.
@Davidski
Not Sosonivoy, it is incorrect. But Sosnoviy! Sosnoviy Ostrov in Tomsk.
@Archi
Target: Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic:MUR009
Distance: 2.4300% / 0.02429993
50.4 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
36.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
13.0 RUS_Progress_En
0.00 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.00 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
0.00 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.00 RUS_Ust_Belaya
0.00 UKR_N
Distance to: Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic:MUR009
0.02723215 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
0.02944888 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.03620563 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.05629316 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
0.06452589 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.06670384 RUS_Progress_En
0.07407677 UKR_N
0.10243303 RUS_Ust_Belaya
@Davidski
Progress_En is a bug, there are Sosnoviy & Tyumen, Botai, UKR_N is better. Distance 0.02069219 is better the 0.02429993.
Distance to: Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic:MUR009
0.02723215 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Sidelkino
0.02809448 RUS_Karelia_HG:I0061
0.03544080 RUS_Samara_HG:I0124
0.03576227 RUS_Karelia_HG:UzOO77
0.03576758 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0122
0.03845062 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0433
0.04388576 UKR_Meso:I1763
0.04449416 RUS_Karelia_HG:I0211
0.04944815 UKR_Meso:I1819
0.05011217 UKR_Meso:I1733
0.05629316 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG:I5766
0.05751861 RUS_MA1:MA1
0.05872146 KAZ_Botai:BOT15
0.06433094 RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
0.06442344 KAZ_Botai:BOT2016
0.06452589 RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960
0.06783546 KAZ_Botai:BOT14
0.06807408 UKR_N:I5870
0.06979212 UKR_N:I3717
0.06981304 UKR_N:I5892
0.07053481 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001
0.07189826 UKR_N:I1732
0.07343358 UKR_N:I1734
0.07386258 UKR_N:I5883
0.07437526 UKR_N:I5875
0.07451564 UKR_N:I4111
0.07464791 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3
0.07492937 UKR_Meso:I5876
apparently, the results of this sample Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic:MUR009 give an understanding of the origin of the Ust-Kama culture (late Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic Volga-Kama region). Both this specimen and Sidelkino are anthropologically related to the Ural (laponoid) race. The population of Ust-Kam culture moved North under the pressure of southern cultures (Sredniy Stog-Khvalynsk). Apparently this is the first inhabitants of the East European Russia (in Russian - loper, Finnish - Saami). Volosovo culture has two subcultures: Volga-Kama variant and Volga-Oka variant. In the Volga-Kama variant, these people were about. Volosovo Volga-Oka was created under the great influence of Valdai culture, which is very close to Narva culture. As I understand it, this is a post of Swiderskiy culture (kultura świderska). Laponoids (haplogroup Q apparently) just somewhere in the Moscow region encountered post Swiderskiy tribes (apparently haplogroup I) and went North, where they became Saami
@Vladimir
"Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic Apparently this is the first inhabitants of the East European Russia (in Russian - loper, Finnish - Saami)."
LOL
"Both this specimen and Sidelkino are anthropologically related to the Ural (laponoid) race."
LOL, not the Ural race , that 's just nonsense, but a special North Eurasian formation of the European race.
"Laponoids (haplogroup Q apparently) just somewhere in the Moscow region encountered post Swiderskiy tribes (apparently haplogroup I) and went North, where they became Saami"
LOL
@Carlos,
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-protohistoric-swat-valley-indo.html
Davidski pointed out that the SPGT samples were not actually on the cline, and their Ydna profile does not resemble modern South Asian (E1b etc)
@Archi, Your fit is better than David's. There is Progress_EN in your fit though. He scores 19% Khvalnsky, Khvalnsky is 34% Progress_EN, Progress_EN is 45% CHG.
@ Aniasi
OK, anyway this individual Bustan_BA_o2 is attributed to have lived around 700 years prior to SPGT people by Michael Frachetti in Narasimhan et al. 2019 Supplementary Material (page 134), this would be around 1900 BCE as SPGT begins around 1200 BCE, and we can infer his Steppe ancestry arrived to South Asia earlier, maybe around 2000 BCE. But strangely this Supplement mentions only c. 1500 BCE (in page 271) for his presence as an outlier in Bustan. I feel something wrong happens with C14 datings interpretation for these kind of samples.
He includes Progress En so the compensatory need for WSHG
His other models were anachronistic too- having Scythians in Bronze Age Romania
@Carlos Aramayo
Bustan_BA_o2 doesn't have any Steppe ancestry, it has a large Ust'-Ishim/ANE component. R2 arrived in Uzbekistan/Iran>India from Siberia.
@ Archi
Narasimhan et al (2019) Supplement (page 271): "In particular, ancient individuals from northern Pakistan and an outlier individual from Bustan [Bustan_BA_o2] with a date of c. 3500 BP appear on another cline that we call the Steppe Cline".
To kind of repeat, on PCA, MUR009 is as close to Samara_HG as one member of Iron_Gates_HG is to another member of Iron_Gates_HG, or one Barcin farmer to another, or Tyumen_HG to Sosonivoy_HG. Question the actual utility of trying to break its ancestry down into other populations? Seems to me more useful just to treat it as another "EHG", maybe with some slight connections to other populations in the way that other populations show that (or maybe that's just PCA bias), but nothing major.
@Carlos Aramayo
Yup, their analyses don't really need to be trusted at all , since they replaced EHG with WSHG, CHG with Iran. So this is seeming to them, they just can't physically distinguish Europe from Siberia, the Steppe from ANE.
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA_o2:I11520
Distance: 4.3304% / 0.04330427
40.4 RUS_Ust_Ishim
21.4 RUS_MA1
17.0 GEO_CHG
10.6 RUS_Progress_En
9.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
1.0 RUS_Lokomotiv_N
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Meso
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Narva
0.0 Baltic_LVA_HG
0.0 KAZ_Botai
0.0 Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.0 RUS_Kolyma_Meso
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
0.0 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 RUS_Ust_Belaya
0.0 RUS_Yana_UP
0.0 Slovakia_EBA
0.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En1
0.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
0.0 UKR_Meso
0.0 UKR_N
0.0 UKR_N_o
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
@aniasi said
"Have you seen the Bustan outlier sample? It's an individual that looks like a first or second generation descendant of the first Steppe admixture with an Indus Valley population. Dated 1500BC, it appears to be a migrant from South Asia."
This is one of the lowest steppe samples in the SPGT cluster, leaving aside the 7-8 extremely low steppe samples which i dont call SPGT but rather SPGT_natives or SPGT_lowsteppe. theother 78 samples I call SPGT.
1600-1500bc is aroud the time that the steppe ancestry started entering NW india, so it is one of the earliest samples of that kind. The reason for this conclusion is the extreme lack of steppe ancestry in all of BMAC till 1500bce, barring a couple of outliers.
@carlos
The 700 figure is wrong or misinterpreted, the carbon dating matches the context. Bustan is the youngest BMAC site, and 1900bce date there would be an outlier for the layer. the 700yrs must be calculated from average SPGT date of 900bce ish.
@archi said
"Bustan_BA_o2 doesn't have any Steppe ancestry, it has a large Ust'-Ishim/ANE component. R2 arrived in Uzbekistan/Iran>India from Siberia."
you are wrong as usual, i have the qpAdm result for that sample, it indeed has steppe ancestry from a site along the IAMC. the eastern steppe has wshg + east siberian (from okunevo most likely) on top of sintashta ancestry, so thats why you seeing that extra ANE component.
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA_o2:I11520
Distance: 1.8715% / 0.01871480
84.8 Swat_lowsteppe
8.2 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
7.0 KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LBA
Swat_lowsteppe =
I12446,I12460,I12470,I12472,I5399,I12134,I12981
@fAsiSTha are wrong as usual
You have never written a word of truth in your life, everything you write is always wrong as little child. You can't do anything, Okunevo is not there at all, and UstIshim & ANE is not from Afanasievo. So don't keep out with your lies.
@Archi
Kindly stop peddling inane theories which have modeling distance of 4%. Wheres the Onge in your model? lol
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA_o2:I11520
Distance: 2.1664% / 0.02166399
75.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
17.0 KAZ_Zevakinskiy_MLBA
7.6 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
Here, a model using indus periphery samples. Zevakinskiy MLBA has the same ancestry as Zevakinskiy LBA. Its dated to 1609-1443bce. Zev LBA is dated 1300-1000bce.
Dali_MLBA 3 samples dated 1800-1300bce.
Both these labels are Sintashta_mlba + wshg/botai + east siberian eshg. zevakinskiy shifted much more towards wshg+eshg than Dali
@fAsiSTha
LOL. You are deeply not clever, I did not try to find the exact model, I just built a model that allowed to find who was the ancestor: Steppe or Siberian. The aim was to differentiate the European ancestry from the Siberian (North Asian) ancestry.
@ vAsiSTha,
You wrote: "...the 700yrs must be calculated from average SPGT date of 900bce..."
Taking into account one of the datings mentioned in Narasimhan et al. for SPGT: 1200 to 800 BCE, the average date around 900 BCE seems too low, actually it would be 1000 BCE, to which adding 700 years we would have 1700 BCE as the time of Bustan_BA_o2.
If we take into account the "other" dating shared by Narasimhan et al. for SPGT: 1400 to 800 BCE, the average would be 1100 BCE, and adding 700 we would have 1800 BCE as the time of Bustan sample.
But of course, the best way to solve the question would be to have the accurate calibrated Radiocarbon dating of the sample.
KAZ_Zevakinskiy & KAZ_Dali themselves are mixed with the local pre-Andronian population, so with their help you can not understand anything, especially since they are synchronous UZB_Bustan_BA_o2.
@carlos
https://www.brownpundits.com/2020/03/06/a-north-indian-in-uzbekistan-at-1550-b-c/
@Davidski
What are you seeing?
@ Aniasi,
Thanks for the accurate reference (on Bustan_BA_o2) that is located also in Supplement, page 134:
Date of 1613-1509 calBCE (3280±20 BP, PSUAMS-4605). Genetically male.
@Archi
This Bustan outlier has some Androvan input but not much does not look like a migrant from Indie but some mixed local who had an Indien Nord parent, a trader who took a local wife?
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA_o2:I11520
Distance: 1.3466% / 0.01346592
50.2 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
21.2 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA
19.4 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_BA
7.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
1.4 Ami
parent
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA_o2:I11520
Distance: 1.0391% / 0.01039114
51.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
28.2 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA
11.0 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
5.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
3.8 KAZ_Kipchak
@Kouros
You understand that all these KAZ populations are already mixed, and to understand how is no longer possible.
Compare
Distance to: UZB_Bustan_BA_o2:I11520
0.06190275 RUS_Yana_UP:Yana1
0.06292345 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0987
0.06302960 RUS_Ust_Ishim:Ust_Ishim
0.06380204 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1053
0.06414148 RUS_Yana_UP:Yana2
0.06462314 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1065
0.06506089 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0989
0.06509854 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1027
0.06557530 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1089
0.06621125 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1022
0.06629374 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1061
0.06632111 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1063
0.06638577 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0984
0.06645517 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1011
0.06677005 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1086
0.06735718 Slovakia_EBA:S11953
0.06742136 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1055
0.06767245 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1024
0.06826427 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1018
0.06841959 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1012
0.06910977 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1088
0.06954653 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1090
0.06955041 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2:I1057
0.07046261 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1082
0.07081038 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1029
0.07098303 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I7480
...VERY BIG LIST OTHERs
Eneolithic!
Distance to: UZB_Bustan_En:I11028 3331-2972 calBCE (4445±25 BP, PSUAMS-4780)
0.08323899 RUS_Afanasievo:I10564
0.08405373 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0987
0.08422601 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1022
0.08466197 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0989
0.08541481 RUS_Afanasievo:I2071
0.08590768 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1061
0.08665454 RUS_Afanasievo:I11752
0.08691082 RUS_Afanasievo:I3388
0.08692215 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I7489
0.08734409 RUS_Afanasievo:I5270
0.08770057 RUS_Afanasievo:I3950
0.08779351 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1063
0.08780689 RUS_Afanasievo:I5269
0.08793208 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1053
...VERY BIG LIST OTHERs
Not outliers!
Distance to: UZB_Bustan_BA:I11026
0.06663055 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1063
0.06956206 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0987
0.07300699 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0989
0.07370882 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1022
0.07512117 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0943
0.07518231 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1090
0.07564390 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1086
0.07634055 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1061
0.07646032 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1012
0.07664346 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1027
0.07690533 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1018
0.07743675 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0984
0.07748581 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I7480
0.07759033 RUS_Afanasievo:I11112
0.07820064 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1082
...VERY BIG LIST OTHERs
Distance to: UZB_Bustan_BA:I11027
0.06923901 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0987
0.07046637 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1063
0.07058598 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0989
0.07162130 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1022
0.07192997 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1061
0.07446409 RUS_Afanasievo:I10564
0.07473634 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1053
0.07474691 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1086
0.07500087 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1065
0.07562354 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1090
0.07579156 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1027
0.07598579 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1089
...VERY BIG LIST OTHERs
etc.
Sintashta & Afanasievo have not got Ust_Ishim & Yana.
About Ami. When Ami is included as a source Sintashta also has 0-4% Ami. This is an indicator of East Eurasian impurity.
@Archi
As I am (obviously) new to this, can you please explain what you mean by "East Eurasian impurity" ?
@Archi what you posted is not pertinent to the point I was making, also what is meant by "impurity"
@Kouros
"This Bustan outlier has some Androvan input"
I repeat again, this is not even necessarily an Andronovo contribution, it is rather a pre-Andronovo contribution, it is there everywhere and at everyone, I would not call it a steppe contribution. Specifically, this one is about this sample - it has a clear Siberian component, which distinguishes it from the rest. From anthropology, it is known that in ancient times, veddoids lived in these places, so this particular man could come not from India, but be a representative of the population from Siberia that replaced the veddoids before the arrival of farmers from Iran.
@Aniasi
I can confirm that this individual has Indus Valley/Periphery and Sintashta related ancestries.
UZB_Bustan_BA_o2
IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I11456 0.817±0.032
KAZ_Botai 0.033±0.024
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.150±0.031
chisq 11.622
tail prob 0.476524
Full output
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA_o2
Distance: 2.9943% / 0.02994269
78.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
16.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
4.8 KAZ_Botai
So sometime after 2,000 BCE the descendants of migrants from the steppe may have mixed with the descendants of migrants from the Indus Valley somewhere in Central Asia or eastern Iran.
Alternatively, the descendants of migrants from the steppe mixed with a late Indus Valley population in South Asia, and then one or more of their descendants migrated to Central Asia.
Take your pick for now. One day we might have enough data to work it out.
@Kouros
When this preprint is published I guess.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/654749v1
@Juan
The Ikiztepe sample from the Salmonella paper doesn't have enough data for the Global25.
All of SPGT has Siberian components - wshg/botai and some east Siberian. Bustan outlier isn't special.
@carlos
Bustan_Ba_02 already has a radiocarbon date of around 1550bce.
Also, bulk of SPGT samples (63 out of 85) are contextually dated 1000-800bce by the archaeologists. so avg. age is 900bce.
What didn't NArashmin get a bunch of 1500-2000 BC genomes across Pakistan and India? they ddi a poor job trying to find evidence of Aryan invasion. They tell the media and act in their paper as if the SPGT are informative about Steppe migrations into India.
They draw lines on maps of Steppe migrations into India acting like they discovered it and know everything about it. When in reality the SPGT genomes tell us nothing.
SGPT are no more helpful than modern South Asian genomes for understaing Bronze age Steppe migrations into SOuth Asia. They are super close modern Punjabi. Makes me wonder if SGPT were simply Iron age Punjabi.
I guess it is normal for reseachers to exgaerate how much they know, have discovered. Anyways, I'm suprisied no one here has critisied the Harvard lab for blowing out of proporition how much their ancient DNA has discovered about Indian history. They have sequenced almost no ancient DNA from India/Pakistan.
The great discovery about South Asia the Narashmin paper made was Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3. One genome of a South Asian person dating late 3rd millenum BC.
And he isn't even from South Asia. He is an immigrant from South Asia in Central Asia who they accidently picked up.
Narashmin 2019 paper is about "Southcentral Asia" but really it is about Central Asia. Yet, all they talk about is South Asian genetics.
They don't have enough ancient DNA from South Asia to say much about the population history there including the Steppe migrations into South Asia. They make a huge mistake equivlating the Steppe migrations into South Asia & Europe. "Paralle histories"-bull shit.
@ vAsiSTha,
Yes, Bustan_BA_o2 bears a date of (1613 - 1509 cal BCE) or what is the same (1561 +/- 52 cal BCE). On the other hand, archaeologist Frachetti seems to have calculated the average as you did. It´s interesting to know SPGT´s bulk individuals belong to 1000 - 800 BCE, earlier these people had been labelled as Gandhara Grave Culture since at least 1400 BCE. Anyway, recent work by Italian Archaeological Mission in Swat places these people since 1700 BCE in the region, not based on human bones but on other archaeological remains.
@All
Preliminary G25 coords for Pocrovca3 from the recent Immel et al. paper...
,PC1,PC2,PC3,PC4,PC5,PC6,PC7,PC8,PC9,PC10,PC11,PC12,PC13,PC14,PC15,PC16,PC17,PC18,PC19,PC20,PC21,PC22,PC23,PC24,PC25
Moldova_En:Pocrovca3_scaled,0.121791,0.155376,0.023381,-0.033592,0.04924,-0.024263,0.000705,-0.000692,0.029656,0.055946,0.004709,0.010641,-0.024232,-0.002615,-0.019408,-0.00769,0.017211,0.007221,0.005782,-0.002126,-0.000998,0.004204,-0.004807,-0.014942,0.002036
,PC1,PC2,PC3,PC4,PC5,PC6,PC7,PC8,PC9,PC10,PC11,PC12,PC13,PC14,PC15,PC16,PC17,PC18,PC19,PC20,PC21,PC22,PC23,PC24,PC25
Moldova_En:Pocrovca3,0.0107,0.0153,0.0062,-0.0104,0.016,-0.0087,0.0003,-0.0003,0.0145,0.0307,0.0029,0.0071,-0.0163,-0.0019,-0.0143,-0.0058,0.0132,0.0057,0.0046,-0.0017,-0.0008,0.0034,-0.0039,-0.0124,0.0017
Target: Moldova_En:Pocrovca3_scaled
Distance: 2.1770% / 0.02176982
87.2 ROU_C
9.6 RUS_Progress_En
3.2 UKR_N
13% Steppe admix! I guess he means there might not have been a Steppe invasion of Europe, just gradual intermixing overtime. It's frustrating when authors in these DNA papers say baseless things like that just so they can make their papers interesting.
@Davidski
what is ROU_C? It's from Cucuteni?
@Vladimir
Romania_C I4088
Romania_C I4089
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/downloadable-genotypes-worlds-published-ancient-dna-data
@Davidski The Bodrogkeresztúr culture
• I4088 / URZI16
The sample included in the current study belongs to an adult individual discovered in grave no. 16 from 2003. The individual was deposited in crouched position on its left side, oriented East-to-West, and accompanied by six Bodrogkeresztúr pots as funeral inventory.88
• I4089 / URZI48
The sample included in the current study belongs to an adult individual discovered in grave no. 48 from 2014. The individual was also deposited in crouched position on its left side,30 oriented East-to-West, and accompanied by several Bodrogkeresztúr pots as funeral
inventory.
@ Sam
“ 13% Steppe admix! I guess he means there might not have been a Steppe invasion of Europe, just gradual intermixing overtime. It's frustrating when authors in these DNA papers say baseless things like that just so they can make their papers interesting.”
But that’s what actually happened in that region
Yeah, but the paper refereed to Europe as a whole. I understand so far archaeology, ancient DNA say this is what happened in Southeast Europe.
Looks like Gioiello's still around despite the coronavirus storm in northern Italy.
Not saying that's a good or bad thing...
@Samuel
"Narashmin 2019 paper is about "Southcentral Asia" but really it is about Central Asia. Yet, all they talk about is South Asian genetics. "
+ your related points
Many of us here did make the exact same point here and came to the same conclusions when the paper came out and was discussed here.
They also needed to get later Central Asian samples to actually show the context of the mixing of steppe peoples with 'native' central Asians but this important data was missing too.
"They also needed to get later Central Asian samples to actually show the context of the mixing of steppe peoples with 'native' central Asians but this important data was missing too."
That too. Good point.
Well, they did have Kushans and that other paper had the Wusun and plenty of others, so it's no mystery what happened in Central Asia after the steppe expansions into the region.
Yeah, the many Iron age Iranian Central Asian samples they got was very interesting. It was cool they did that. It filled a huge gap. There were many possibilities for what their ancestry was.
@Davidski,"so it's no mystery what happened in Central Asia after the steppe expansions into the region."
Steppe migration into Steppe? Lots of Central Asia is a Steppe. So, how could it recieve migration from the Steppe? This issue is why eventually, someone will have to come up with a different name than Steppe to describe 'Yamnaya', 'Kurgan', 'WSH', etc. people.
Lots of other people lived in the Eurasian Steppe too like Botai. Hopelly, Harvard will stop calling them "Eurasian Steppe" people.
Persia was a very important Iranian civilization separate from the nomads like the Wusun and Kushan you mention. We need to know when and how the settled agriculturalists were (supposedly) Iranianized by the nomads. This should happen in Central Asia (bmac and yaz) as this region was a home of the pre-Achemeanid Iranian Civilization. The paper only told us the 'takeover' had not yet happened at the collapse of the bmac so we need data from yaz and then South and West until we get to the achemeanids giving us a picture of the development of Iranian history from LBA to the Persians
@Kouros
There's at least one big aDNA paper on the way about the Copper/Bronze Age in what is now Moldova, Romania and western Ukraine, and another one about Czechia and Slovakia.
It seems to me that those two R1a samples featured in the preprint were really from those upcoming papers.
@ David, Merci such influential and pivotal genomes deserve a proper paper.I read in your prior comments of other R1a samples with an Eastern ancestry are these from the same forthcoming paper?
@samuel andrews
Narsimhan paper had a lot of samples, tried to do a lot, but failed in all the conclusions. Maybe due to poor effort, maybe due to bias.
The main headline points should have been
1. Minimal steppe ancestry in BMAC/Turan till 1500bce.
2. Upto 20% Steppe ancestry seen in Swat iron age, but no population turnover.
3. Steppe Migration was female mediated, overturning earlier hypothesis of a male mediated migration/invasion.
Concluions Narsimhan got totally wrong:
1. No BMAC ancestry in SPGT: This is blatantly false, E1b ydna also found in SPGT.
2. Steppe LBA has no role to play in migration. This is again false, some east asian + wshg/botai ancestry is required for the SPGT samples.
3. western/central steppe people were those who migrated - False - it was people from eastern steppe who came along the Inner Asian mountain corridor from Altai to Dzhungar plains to HinduKush.
4. Sakas/scythians had no role to play. false - saidu_sharif_H buddhist site can be modeled with Kangju or kazakh_saka outliers. buddhist connection between Taxila and tarim basin is also clear through archaeology, using the IAMC route. Modern indian Pops like Rors definitely have an additional saka source.
5. the modeling of modern indian pops has god awful p values. dont know why it was even attempted.
@ Davidski
Could you post the preliminary G25 coords for this North Italian MBA sample (1,300 BC)?
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/SAMEA6563353
It would be interesting to see how much Steppe admixture he had and if he would be similar to the Italic samples we currently have.
Thank you in advance, I hope in your reply.
@vAsiSTha
Steppe admixture in South Asia was mostly male mediated. There's no doubt about this whatsoever.
A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals
The idea that it was female mediated is idiotic, and based on the lack of understanding that some Y-chromosome founder effects can happen after the fact, especially in isolated, mountainous areas.
@davidski
The paper you linked says this
"Altogether, therefore, the recently refined Y-chromosome tree strongly suggests that R1a is indeed a highly plausible marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of Indo-Aryan speakers into South Asia, although dated aDNA evidence will be needed for a precise estimate of its arrival in various parts of the Subcontinent."
sadly, they could find only 2 out 54 males as R1a in 6 diff locations from swat IA.
Interestingly, there arre 4/10 R1a males in Swat samples post 0CE. Goes well with my hypothesis that R1a in modern India is due to late expansions during mauryan era 400bce-150bce. This is also the possible reason why R1a freq is highest in dravidian speakers.
@kouros there more bmac ancestry in SPGT than sintashta_MLBA like ancestry
@ Juan
“ Catacomb, though, has instead a closer relationship to Pontic-Caspian Yamnaya. That suggests a replacement of Pontic-Caspian Yamnaya by Kazakh Yamnaya/Afanasievo-like people in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, ”
That’s not possible. Afansievo was locally replaced , PC Yamnaya evolved into Catacomb
@Ezio Auditore
Italy_MBA:S18130.E1.L1_scaled,0.121791,0.162485,0.035449,-0.047481,0.064935,-0.020638,0.00188,0.000462,0.044382,0.080184,0.004872,0.018583,-0.026164,-0.00055,-0.014115,-0.015778,-0.008866,0.005954,0.013701,-0.014757,0.007362,0.006554,-0.010969,-0.004579,-0.003592
Italy_MBA:S18130.E1.L1,0.0107,0.016,0.0094,-0.0147,0.0211,-0.0074,0.0008,0.0002,0.0217,0.044,0.003,0.0124,-0.0176,-0.0004,-0.0104,-0.0119,-0.0068,0.0047,0.0109,-0.0118,0.0059,0.0053,-0.0089,-0.0038,-0.003
@JuanRivera
According to archeological data, Catacomb expanded from the North Caucasus steppes. That's probably why its population is so similar to that of Afanasievo.
Poltavka is similar to Afanasievo because it's located near the Urals.
@ Sam
“ Yeah, but the paper refereed to Europe as a whole. I understand so far archaeology, ancient DNA say this is what happened in Southeast Europe”
In Central Europe Europe there was gradual admixture too (2800-2200 BC); with a final result of ~ 50/50 % mix of “ early CWC” with GAC/ Bernberg / late TRB types
But frankly, this is still a work in progress in want of nuanced attention
@ Juan
Kazakh Yamnaya was succeeded by okunevo cluster ( “Kazakh mba”)
So if Catacomb came from there, it should have inflated WSHG, ESHG
@Davidski
You see, you only consider one combination without cutting off other options that may be much more plausible. Simulation is about finding the most plausible variant out of thousands of variants, not about building one single one.
Look, this one model has a better distance, it clearly shows the Siberian component. But it is not connected with Sintashta, the point is that it is connected with Afanasievo, and since this connection is from the Eneolithic, it is most likely a common Central Asian substrate that has entered both Afanasievo and Bustan. Notice, there is not Sintastha, but Sintashta with a large Siberian component, which brings Sintashta closer to this model. The exclusions of Afanasievo and Okunevo do not lead to the appearance of Yamnaya and Sintashta, but more clearly highlight the Siberian origin.
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA_o2:I11520
Distance: 0.8528% / 0.00852837
66.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
13.4 RUS_Afanasievo
6.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
5.4 GEO_CHG
3.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
3.2 RUS_Ust_Belaya
1.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.6 Onge
0.0 Ami
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Meso
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Narva
0.0 Baltic_LVA_HG
0.0 KAZ_Ak_Moustafa_MLBA1
0.0 KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA
0.0 KAZ_Alpamsa_MLBA_Alakul
0.0 KAZ_Botai
0.0 Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.0 RUS_Kolyma_Meso
0.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Lokomotiv_N
0.0 RUS_MA1
0.0 RUS_Okunevo_BA
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.0 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 RUS_Ust_Ishim
0.0 RUS_Yana_UP
0.0 Slovakia_EBA
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: UZB_Bustan_En:I11028
Distance: 4.5292% / 0.04529234
78.2 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
14.2 GEO_CHG
7.6 RUS_Afanasievo
0.0 Ami
0.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Meso
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Narva
0.0 Baltic_LVA_HG
0.0 KAZ_Ak_Moustafa_MLBA1
0.0 KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA
0.0 KAZ_Alpamsa_MLBA_Alakul
0.0 KAZ_Botai
0.0 Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic
0.0 Onge
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.0 RUS_Kolyma_Meso
0.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Lokomotiv_N
0.0 RUS_MA1
0.0 RUS_Okunevo_BA
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.0 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 RUS_Ust_Belaya
0.0 RUS_Ust_Ishim
0.0 RUS_Yana_UP
0.0 Slovakia_EBA
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA:I11026
Distance: 3.2449% / 0.03244896
69.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
11.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N
10.8 RUS_Afanasievo
8.8 GEO_CHG
0.0 Ami
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Meso
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Narva
0.0 Baltic_LVA_HG
0.0 KAZ_Ak_Moustafa_MLBA1
0.0 KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA
0.0 KAZ_Alpamsa_MLBA_Alakul
0.0 KAZ_Botai
0.0 Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic
0.0 Onge
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.0 RUS_Kolyma_Meso
0.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Lokomotiv_N
0.0 RUS_MA1
0.0 RUS_Okunevo_BA
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.0 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 RUS_Ust_Belaya
0.0 RUS_Ust_Ishim
0.0 RUS_Yana_UP
0.0 Slovakia_EBA
0.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En1
0.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA_o2:I11520
Distance: 0.9170% / 0.00917001
66.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
10.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
8.0 GEO_CHG
5.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
4.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
2.6 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
1.6 RUS_Ust_Belaya
1.0 Onge
0.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.4 RUS_Kolyma_Meso
0.0 Ami
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Meso
0.0 Baltic_LTU_Narva
0.0 Baltic_LVA_HG
0.0 KAZ_Ak_Moustafa_MLBA1
0.0 KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA
0.0 KAZ_Alpamsa_MLBA_Alakul
0.0 KAZ_Botai
0.0 Murzikhinsky_Eneolithic
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.0 RUS_Lokomotiv_N
0.0 RUS_MA1
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Post a Comment