search this blog

Wednesday, March 25, 2020

The origins of East Asians (Wang et al. 2020 preprint)


Over at bioRxiv at this LINK. Here's the abstract:

The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood due to a lack of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people. We report genome-wide data from 191 individuals from Mongolia, northern China, Taiwan, the Amur River Basin and Japan dating to 6000 BCE - 1000 CE, many from contexts never previously analyzed with ancient DNA. We also report 383 present-day individuals from 46 groups mostly from the Tibetan Plateau and southern China. We document how 6000-3600 BCE people of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin were from populations that expanded over Northeast Asia, likely dispersing the ancestors of Mongolic and Tungusic languages. In a time transect of 89 Mongolians, we reveal how Yamnaya steppe pastoralist spread from the west by 3300-2900 BCE in association with the Afanasievo culture, although we also document a boy buried in an Afanasievo barrow with ancestry entirely from local Mongolian hunter-gatherers, representing a unique case of someone of entirely non-Yamnaya ancestry interred in this way. The second spread of Yamnaya-derived ancestry came via groups that harbored about a third of their ancestry from European farmers, which nearly completely displaced unmixed Yamnaya-related lineages in Mongolia in the second millennium BCE, but did not replace Afanasievo lineages in western China where Afanasievo ancestry persisted, plausibly acting as the source of the early-splitting Tocharian branch of Indo-European languages. Analyzing 20 Yellow River Basin farmers dating to ~3000 BCE, we document a population that was a plausible vector for the spread of Sino-Tibetan languages both to the Tibetan Plateau and to the central plain where they mixed with southern agriculturalists to form the ancestors of Han Chinese. We show that the individuals in a time transect of 52 ancient Taiwan individuals spanning at least 1400 BCE to 600 CE were consistent with being nearly direct descendants of Yangtze Valley first farmers who likely spread Austronesian, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic languages across Southeast and South Asia and mixing with the people they encountered, contributing to a four-fold reduction of genetic differentiation during the emergence of complex societies. We finally report data from Jomon hunter-gatherers from Japan who harbored one of the earliest splitting branches of East Eurasian variation, and show an affinity among Jomon, Amur River Basin, ancient Taiwan, and Austronesian-speakers, as expected for ancestry if they all had contributions from a Late Pleistocene coastal route migration to East Asia.

Also this part is interesting, but surprisingly naive:

The findings of the original study that reported evidence that the Afanasievo spread was the source of Steppe ancestry in the Iron Age Shirenzigou have been questioned with the proposal of alternative models that use ancient Kazakh Steppe Herders from the site of Botai, Wusun, Saka and ancient Tibetans from the site of Mebrak 15 in present-day Nepal as major sources for Steppe and East Asian-related ancestry [28]. However, when we fit these models with Russia_Afanasievo and Mongolian_East_N added to the outgroups, the proposed models are rejected (P-values between 10 -7 and 10 -2), except in a model involving a single low coverage Saka individual from Kazakhstan as a source (P=0.17, likely reflecting the limited power to reject models with this low coverage). Repeating the modeling using other ancient Nepalese with very similar genetic ancestry to that in Mebrak results in uniformly poor fits (Online Table 5). Thus, ancestry typical of the Afanasievo culture and Mongolian Neolithic contributed to the Shirenzigou individuals, supporting the theory that the Tocharian languages of the Tarim Basin—from the second-oldest-known branch of the Indo-European language family—spread eastward through the migration of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists to the Altai Mountains and Mongolia in the guise of the Afansievo culture, from where they spread further to Xinjiang [5,7,8,27,29,30]. These results are significant for theories of Indo-European language diversification, as they increase the evidence in favor of the hypothesis the branch time of the second-oldest branch in the Indo-European language tree occurred at the end of the fourth millennium BCE [27,29,30].

I'd say the authors are putting too much faith in their qpAdm mixture models. They ought to know that qpAdm has some serious limitations, especially in regards to fine scale ancestry. I would urge them to become better acquainted with the uniparental markers of the Iron Age Shirenzigou samples instead of forcing the ideas that these individuals harbor Afanasievo-derived ancestry and lack Tibetan-related ancestry.

See also...

They mixed up Huns with Tocharians

A surprising twist to the Shirenzigou nomads story

Afanasievo people may well have been proto-Tocharian speakers (Ning et al. 2019)

346 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 346 of 346
vAsiSTha said...

@capra said
"I recall earlier (was reading but too busy to contribute) you were successfully running models with Satsurblia on one side and Kotias on the other to pin down CHG contributions; I wondered, is it possible to do the same with Turan, for instance put Geoksyur En on one side and Bustan En on the other, or something like that?"

I was doing that to try and differentiate between Kotias & Ganj_dareh conribution to the target. Was more comfortable putting satsurblia in right pop & kotias in left as there is 4000 yrs of separation between the two.

In this case what would you like to differentiate? ganj dareh, CHG, WSHG & anatolia_N in right pops do the job of pinpointing turan ancestry quite well.
bustan and geoksyur are both proximal in time as well as space and have similar ancestry, so im not comfortable putting one in right and other in left. another problem with bustan_en is that it is just 1 sample and has 660k snps only.

Anonymous said...


Interesting in https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?19941-A-dynamic-6-000-year-genetic-history-of-Eurasia%92s-Eastern-Steppe&p=656073&viewfull=1#post656073

ULI001 Middle/Late Bronze Age DSKC M U2e1 R1a1a1b2a2b (R-Z2122) is not DSKC,
KUR001 Early Bronze Age Afanasievo F A is not Afanasievo.

Anonymous said...

Alexey Kovalev cite "In your article, you give acknowlegments to us: i.e. D. Erdenebaatar and A.Kovalev for contributing archaeological material to study. However, no one asked permission from us, and did not contact us with questions about the attribution of the results of our excavations. In this regard, in your article we found many errors in the attribution of graves, the bones of which were used. I protest that these materials were so unprofessionally used, I believe that you need to clarify the attribution of materials from our excavations.We are ready to help you with this. Prior to this, we consider it impossible to publish this article." https://disqus.com/by/disqus_HxuYD29xWV/

By the way, in the works on the Black Sea Scythians and the (E)Neolithic Ukraine no one asked archaeologists either.

capra internetensis said...

@Vasistha

Yeah, I don't know what would be a better choice, maybe Shahr-i-Sokhta? I am just interested in whether any difference can be found within the Iran-related ancestry, outside of just differences in ANE and Anatolian contribution. I don't know if CHG and Ganj Dareh is enough to cover it all.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Yea no way are the Shirenzigou nomads Tocharians. MOre like invader of tocharian lands.

Anonymous said...

R1b-PH155 is an undeniable mystery, they are undoubtedly from Europe or Western Eurasia, but they don't show up anywhere before this period and how they came from and where they are not clear.

Chine Shirenzigou [M012] 2195±20 BP M R1b1a1a2 R-PH155 U5a2
Chine Shirenzigou [M15-1] M R1b1a1a2 R-PH200 I1b
Chine Shirenzigou [M15-2] M Q1a1a1 Q-M120 U4
Chine Shirenzigou [M4] 380-200 cal CE (2215±25BP) M U4'9
Chine Shirenzigou [M819] F H15b1
Chine Shirenzigou [M820] 285-230 cal CE (2185±30BP) F U5b2c
Chine Shirenzigou [M8R1] 330-200 cal CE (2230±25BP) M T1a1b
383-535 calCE (1625±20 BP, UCIAMS-226554, PSUG-5469) Mongolia_IA_Xianbei Yes Khovd, Bulgan sum, Uliastai deed denj II kurgan 1 burial 1 (secondary) Mongolia 45,39 90,798 1240K capture 1 5,534433 848539 M R1b1c
890-982 calCE (1115±20 BP, UCIAMS-226555, PSUG-5470) SOME DOUBT - The genetic data and direct 14C date are from the same exported petrous bone. However, this individual is the only representative of their genetic cluster and the archaeological context is not fully clear, so we treat this archaeological and chronological context assignment as tentative. Mongolia_Medieval Yes Khovd, Bulgan sum, Hudzhirtyn gol II, kurgan 1 burial 3 (secondary) Mongolia 45,35 90,85 1240K capture 1 0,79158 546668 M R1b1c

Earliest
Bronze Uzbekistan Dzharkutan [I4315 / UZ-JAR-004, Jarkutan 4b-85, Grave 60 ] 1609-1465 calBCE (3255±15 BP, PSUAMS-2518) M R1b1(xR1b1a) pre-PH155 R2+13500+195

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PH155/ theoretically can be part of the Tocharians.

Anonymous said...

The Tocharians were living in Xinjiang at this time.

vAsiSTha said...

@capra

qpAdm can differentiate between most Turan pops by their IranN/wshg/anatolia N ratios. Sarazm_en & SiSBA1 are the least anatolia shifted and have lower Anatolia to WSHG ratio, BMAC and geoksyur pops have higher Anatolia to WSHG ratio. Swat IA pops have higher AHG, if you need a pop with IranN + AHG but minimal Anatolia or WSHG, you will probably need a sample from India interior.

@jatt
"Yea no way are the Shirenzigou nomads Tocharians. MOre like invader of tocharian lands."

how do you know this just by looking at genetic profile? what are your presuppositions?

Rob said...

@ vAsiSTha

Good work.
I'd guess R1b-PH155 is a WSGH lineage

Rob said...

@ Kris
Thanks for that overview

Just a minor aside for ''On the eastern fringe, there is Ulaanzuukh crowd that is autosomally like the earliest Neolithic inhabitants.& Devils Gate''

Yet Wang paper documents a ~ 9% shift toward WSHG in Bronze Age east Mondolia. Overall, however, that figure is probably 20-30% (because the model uses the distant WSHG instead of another HG closer by. Q1a1 is new to the region (? related to Saqqaq line)
Overall, therefore there is a pretty significant shift in east Mongolia also; during BA

Henrique Paes said...


It is funny to see how many speculators, amateurs and ideologists - full of subjective agendas and desires - comment and condemn scientific articles. Some even go so far as to imply the words used in the article

Kristiina said...

@ Rob
According to ”The Genomic Formation of Human Populations in East Asia”, BA Ulaanzuukh carries 6% WSHG and IA Slab Grave 9% (p. 7; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.25.004606v1.full.pdf).

According to ”A dynamic 6,000-year genetic history of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe”, ”The genetic profiles of Ulaanzuukh and Slab Grave individuals are genetically indistinguishable (Fig. 2 and Table S16), consistent with the archaeological hypothesis that the Slab Grave tradition emerged out of the LBA Ulaanzuukh (Honeychurch, 2015; Khatanbaatar, 3462019). Both groups are also indistinguishable from the earlier eastMongolia_preBA individual dating to ca. 4600 BCE, suggesting a long-term (>4,000 year) stability of this prehistoric eastern Mongolian gene pool (Table S16).”

They also detect this East Mongolian ancestry in West Mongolia in several individuals (p. 8): ARS017 (DSKC), TSI001 (unclassified), KHU001 (Mönkhkhairkhan), but not as far as in Altai. Slab Grave expanded northwards in the Iron Age. They conclude that "our findings reveal a strong east-west genetic division among Bronze Age Eastern Steppe populations through the end of the Early Iron Age.”

Rob said...

@ Kris

Yes that's right, Slab Grave IA & LBA Ulaanzuukh are essentially the same population

Hence my statement '' ~ 9% shift toward WSHG in Bronze Age east Mongolia'' , is from Wang et al . I would therefor challenge the statement in Jeong ''Both groups are also indistinguishable from the earlier eastMongolia_preBA individuals'' - a rather difficult position when pre-BA mongolia seems to be characterised by Y-DNA C2 whislt Bronze Age is wholly dominated by Q1a (otherwise I find their analysis of the XIongnu era excellent)
Moreover, my further proposition is that the shift will turn out to be autosomally greater if/ when any Yensei-Altain fisher-foragers are sampled & can in turn be used for analysis

Ryan said...

@David - Any chance we'll get a thread on Human Genome Diversity Project? There's some really interesting stuff in there which I'd love to discuss but I'll save it for that thread if it'sc coming. For example if I'm reading figure 5 right I think they're showing pretty convincingly a older Out-of-Africa event in East Asia and Oceania around 100 kya which I think is pretty notable.

vAsiSTha said...

Looking at just the ancestry profile and location of the China_IA samples and without doing much research into the archaeological context, it is plausible that the Shirenzigou were tocharian speakers. Bulk of their ancestry is from Sakas who were IE speakers.

But the afanasievo connect being made looks very shaky.

Ryan said...

Weren't Sakas thought to be Indo-Aryan?

Anonymous said...

Ulaanzuukh is part of the Slab graves culture.

Anonymous said...


The mystery of who the Tokharians were will not be solved until the Chinese dig up burials in Xinjiang in places where the Tokharians were (their written monuments remained) in the 3rd-9th centuries AD and test them.


Falcon said...

There is no ENA/East Asian admixture in ANE, new papers confirm that.

"We find no evidence on the genetic affinity of MA-1 with ancient and present-day Southeast/East Asians including Devil’s Gate Cave (8.0 kya), Chokhopani (3.0 – 2.4 kya), and IK002 Jomon (2.5 kya) (Fig.2). Therefore, we conclude that MA-1 gene flow occurred after the divergence between the ancestral populations of Northeast Asians/East Siberians (NS-NA) and East Asians (Fig.4)."

Even Yana papar could not model ANA/ANE with Tianyuan, they say it's was poor fit. New papers support that.

"Symmetry tests using f4 statistics reject tree-like clade relationships with both Sunghir and Tianyuan; however, Yana is genetically closer to Early West Eurasians, despite its geographic location in northeastern Siberia"

ANE is closer to Early West Eurasians who settled in Northeast Europe. Native Americans are mix of Devils_Gate (NS-NA) and ANE for a reason.

New papers keeps rejecting ENA admixture in ANE, including paper we are discussing about.

Samuel Andrews said...

@SLMD, Good stuff. A question I have is, is East Asian closer to ANE than to Paleolithic Europe. If so, that could mean ANE has something related to East Asians inside it.

Falcon said...

@Samuel Andrews

It's not, ANE is closest to Kostenki 14 and Sunghir and plots with West Eurasians who have high HG admixture. Pure East Asians/ENA plot on other end of the cline, not even remotely close to ANE.

Bogdan said...

If 90% of East Asians were lactose intolerant you wouldn’t know it, because a vast number in the region devour diary products (granted more limited levels overall per capita), straight off the shelves....Perhaps mainly ex-pat driven, but I doubt it.

Bogdan said...

I don’t know how to diplomatically say this, but the reason why East Asians have become more lactose tolerant is that we’ve increasingly been f’ing each other. It doesn’t go back too far, perhaps past 75 years or so. It’s predominantly one sided....

Kristiina said...

@ SLMD

You are not quoting the two new papers. The first quote is from "Jomon genome sheds light on East Asian population history". The second quote is from the Yana paper (The population history of northeastern Siberia since thePleistocene).

The Yana paper that you are quoting (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/448829v1.full.pdf) models ANE branch with a 22% input coming from the root of the Devils Gate line (see figure 2), while Devil's Gate does not show any western input. The Yana paper did not use Tianyuan.

I cannot find in these two new papers an admixture graph model with MA-1 or Yana. I only find models with Tianyuan.

Falcon said...

@Kristiina

That is not a "root" coming from Devils Gate, grey-dotted line is capturing unknown ghost. Early West Eurasians and ENA share a drift to the exclusion of EEF/Basal. This drift should not be mistaken for admixture until more DNA comes out.

Look at that fit, make of it what you want. They are also suggesting Yana has no neanderthal, based on graph you pointed out.

Papers that came out after that study do not see ENA or Devil's Gate admixture in ANE.

Falcon said...

Even the new paper we're discussing (Figure 5) rejects ENA admixture into Loschbour. Unlike previous 2016 paper about Ice Age Europe which claimed Han admixture in Loschbour, which is now rejected by new study.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.25.004606v1.full.pdf

Rob said...

All these models are liable to change
And we should remember they are above all statistical models. Not necessarily direct reflections of (pre)history
But I would expect some more recent shared ancestry between ANE and northEast Asians because of the Microblade phenomenon which linked Altai all the way to Korea

Rob said...

Ah ! Well that’s it - the flow went from ANE to east Asia . Which then moved to America
But then northeast Asia became more “East Asian “

Targamos the Based, son of Kavkasos son of CHG son of said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdftbYqA_VQ
Where's the samples Davidski?

Jatt_Scythian said...

How far did ANE extend? That's pretty awesome if there is no ENA in ANE or ANS. We can finally stop hearing about the SE Asian origin of K,P,and R from Asian supremacists.

So Native Americans are paternally West Eurasian?

Davidski said...

The Global25 coords are here for now...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ixQrFPZII-LL4_z-16TQEwrDUqDB-sNC

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GgvTverqeKYdV_zzU4pWj762Pbq_CnnU

I'll be updating all of the Global25 datasheets tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

@Jatt_Scythian
"We can finally stop hearing about the SE Asian origin of K,P,and R from Asian supremacists."

ANE, K,P,and R not from East Asia anyway.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Y-Haplogroup_Paleolithic_Migrations.png


Joey said...

So what youre saying is that O is also West Eurasian? Most of East Asia is paternally West Eurasian? There's pretty much no chance that those are not from East /Southeast Asia.

What is also interesting is how youre tying up origins of a haplogroup to perceived superiority. As if it made one bit of difference to who is "superior". Sadly, too often these discussions become marred in pathetic ethnic pride.

Rob said...

Native Americans have Q (L53) and C-P39
If we want to speak of affinitites, geographic are best - Q is broadly 'central Eurasian' in origin, and C is ? 'Pan-Eurasian''.
The migratory paths of Q are clear enough, C is more complex , older more deep divergences

Jatt_Scythian said...

I;m also curious about why Indians have an East Eurasian component. I always thought this was tied to ydna H and mtdna M but people have been saying H is West Eurasian (which does make sense).

vAsiSTha said...

"I;m also curious about why Indians have an East Eurasian component. I always thought this was tied to ydna H and mtdna M but people have been saying H is West Eurasian (which does make sense)."

@jatt scythian, you do understand that it is completely possible to have a haplogroup with undetectable amount of autosomal component tied to that haplogroup?

vAsiSTha said...

and what does H being west eurasian even mean? the indian subclade of H is not found elsewhere. that way we are all africans.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Yes I understand that. But this is the opposite scenario (possibly). Where there is detectable ancestry but no paternal haplogroup that can surely be linked to it

Leron said...

vAsiSTha: East Eurasian ancestry is partially descendant of very early Out-of-Africa immigrants that survived in India, Southeast Asia and Oceania.

Copper Axe said...

@Davidski, and everyone elsse who likes to weigh in,

How do you rate the papers by Jeong et al. and Wang et al? While they provide a lot of interesting information, I can't help but feel some parts are a bit sloppy.

To start with the Shirenzigou nomads, genetics aside, is there even anything about these samples which indicates that they were Tocharians? IIRC the samples were from 200 bc, which is when Kucha and Agni were already fully formed city states. I don't have access to the supplementary data of Ning Et al. so I don't have any archaeological information to look at.

And then you have the whole genetic debacle which makes them look more like early Xiongnu, and the steppe ancestry might not even have been through Afanasievo. Didn't they have PH155 rather than M269?

By the way David they actually referred to one of your posts regarding the Shirenzigou culture!

Then you have the Qiemuerqieke samples and their haplogroup calls. I am way less versed in this genetics magic as some of you guys are, but I did notice that the IAG001 had R1b1a2 and T2b2, and YAG001 had R1b1a2a2 which if I am not mistaken is Z2103. Those are all haplogroups associated with WSH and it would be weird for these two Chemurchek individuals to have those haplogroups but no WSH ancestry.

There are probably some other errors which I missed but I spotted these. You had Russian Archaeologist Alexey Kovalev also critiquing aspects of the pre-print as well.

Also this is really nitpicky but I don't like the emphasis on Sarmatians in this paper. Historically we know that the Wusun were part of the Xiongnu, and likely Yuezhi and Kangju tribes joined in on the fun too. In Damgaard et al. 2018 there were some samples of these cultures but those steppe were not even mentioned once.

What do you guys make of all of this?

Cheers!

Jatt_Scythian said...

Just read a comment on Razib Khan's blog that Tianyuan is the acnestor of R/Q and Ust_ishtim is the ancestor of NO and that K in general is SE Asian. Is this true David or anybody else?

Anonymous said...

Tianyuan is not the ancestor of the Western Eurasians, if anyone can claim this title it is Yana P1. K is not from SE Asia, more from India.

---------

Usually fans fantasize that Slab Graves were Mongols, although archaeologists have long written that they were Donghu.

In general, it is necessary to clearly test those places and periods for which there is written data about what people lived there. And how with the Tochars, it is completely unclear how to identify them, how to search for their ancestors. In Shirenzigou too lived a mass of different tribes, and it is absolutely unclear to whom these samples relate.

Copper Axe said...

@Archi I meant to tag you in my prevoous comment as well but I forgot (2 comments above), I would like to hear you opinions as well.

Regarding the SGC and Donghu, aren't the Donghu generally seen as the ancestors of the Khitan, who then were also ancestral to the Mongols? Donghu means Eastern Barbarian, so I am not sure if that name would apply to the inhabitants of modern day central and eastern Mongolia, but rather somewhere around modern day Manchuria. Cheers!

Anonymous said...

@Copperaxetotheneck

Archaeologists, researchers of these cultures, Kommissarov, Volkov, Novgorodova, etc. associated Donghu with Slab graves. I've never met any other opinion. Donghu is the only people who are known by name and whose area overlapped with Slab graves. They were defeated by the Xiongnu as well as Slab graves. Both of them move to Wuhan. So if it's not Donghu, then this people doesn't have a name at all.

Rob said...

Donghu are more southeastern than Slab Graves

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donghu_people#/media/File%3AQinEmpireWithOrdos.jpg

Anonymous said...

This map is incorrect, it depicts the Donghu after the defeat of their Xiongnu and the disappearance of the Slab graves culture. And we are talking about an earlier time.

Rob said...

@ Archi

''This map is incorrect, it depicts the Donghu after the defeat of their Xiongnu and the disappearance of the Slab graves culture. And we are talking about an earlier time.''

The map might or might not be correct , but 210 BCE is not after they had defeated the Xiongnu, which is rather c. 200 CE.


@ Copperaxetothe head

Can you try to be less of an Incel ?

Anonymous said...

@Rob

You write nonsense again, Xiongnu defeated Donghu about 200-150 BCE, not CE!

Rob said...

@ Archi

Frankly it’s often difficult to decipher what you’re meaning

In any case, a Donghu individual was genotyped and he's C2b, not Q1a1a. the Donghu began in the east (afterall that’s what Dong-Hu means), and then expanded west across Mongolia

Ric Hern said...

@ Jatt_Scythian

If Mal'ta boy and Yana have some Denisovan Ancestry then maybe it originated in South-East-Asia but as far as I understand it they don't...

Ric Hern said...

@ Jatt_Scythian

Does it not make more sense that K originated somewhere near the Caucasus/Anatolia/Iran where its closest relatives I and J were found ? Early samples of K descendants (Oase and Ust Ishim) after all were found in Romania and Western Siberia...that is significantly North.

So maybe the spread was from Central-East-Asia towards the South.




Ryan said...

@Ric Hern - The Onge lack Denisovan ancestry. Denisovan ancestry seems to have acreted on to East Asian ancestry relatively late, and according to the HDGP paper, from differing sources.

Ryan said...

And I think a migration of K from West Asia makes sense, but K seems to have further diversified and spread later from SE Asia. K2 is pretty clearly rooted there.

Ric Hern said...

@ Ryan

If Haplogroup D did not spread with Denisovan Ancestry into Southeast Asia who precisely brought this type of Ancestry into Southeast Asia ? My humble guess is some groups among K or C...and if Ust Ishim does not have Denisovan related Ancestry it must have been some other downstream clads of K or Haplogroup C. This all for me points towards a Sink rather than a clear Root...



Copper Axe said...

"@ Copperaxetothe head

Can you try to be less of an Incel ?"

@Rob I'd prefer it if you would refrain from immature namecalling and such. If you @ me keep in in the context of the matters discussed, thanks.

gamerz_J said...

@Simon_Stevin @Samuel Andrews

On the topic of ANE, most models show then in the range of 25%-30% East Eurasian. Though, some I have seen have suggested they were about 40% or more East Eurasian (which I doubt).

Please feel free to correct me if wrong, but it is my understanding that this East Eurasian admixture occurred more than 30.000 years ago. If the West-East split was around 45kya then it makes sense ANE would look admixed, but could it also be that they instead split later from East Asians than main West Eurasians? Would that not in theory explain shared drift?

To me, how East Asian they may have looked depends on how old the admixture is. Had it taken place 20kya, then more likely.

gamerz_J said...

@Ryan

Onge do lack Denisovan ancestry surprisingly, which is peculiar, given that they seem to be related to the Hoabinhian HGs and for a while seemed to me like less of the "pure" ancient population that was being suggested.

Guess not. East Eurasia is still a very unexplored region genetically imo, regarding its population histories.


Iggy said...

@SLMD Wow. I've never considered that ANE had no ancestral affinity to East Asians. So you think that ANE were closely related to West Eurasians?

gamerz_J said...

@SLMD

Very interesting, but I am not sure you can get around East Asian in ANE for 2 reasons
1) R and Q are downstream of P downstream of K2b
2) East Asian affinity in Fu et al, 2016 in some Villabruna samples that is unlikely to be directly mediated to Europe without some East Eurasian-related ancestry at least in AG3. It follows ANE admixture.

And many papers (such as Lazaridis,2018) have found ENA in ANE, though Lazaridis seemed to almost equate the 2.

But based on what I have read so far, I do not think it is Tianyuan in ANE per say but a related population that forms the core ancestry of modern-day East Asians perhaps.

Anonymous said...

@Ric Hern

The amount of Denisovian impurity relative to EHG.
https://i.ibb.co/MM8fjgC/3326-original.png

This all says that they came from Siberia from the Altai Macroregion, Denisovan man is in Siberia in the Altai.


Anonymous said...

@Rob "C3/C2b"

It is quite probable that the Chinese archaeologists were just wrong about the attribution and it is not Donghu, but just the (Proto-)Mongols and the Xiongnu. Because Donghu were defeated and essentially exterminated by those who did not flee to Wuhuan, they just did not spread their genetics to Mongolia after 200 BC, in Mongolia the Xiongnu spread their genetics exactly.

Mongolia Early Iron Age Slab Grave M Q1a1a1 - losers = Donghu, no C2b
Mongolia Xiongnu M C2b1a1b - winners = Xiongnu (no Q1a1a1, except 1 - slave?)


EastPole said...

April Fools' Day publication from Racimo, Kristiansen et al

https://i.postimg.cc/FzTFsZcx/screenshot-80.png

Mediterranean population living in Poland now.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/03/30/1920051117

gamerz_J said...

@EastPole

I am really surprised they did not change that.

As I mentioned before here, I am also confused about their North African cluster (20% North African in Greeks and Italians for example) though they included it in the SI not the main paper.

Anonymous said...

@gamerz_J

You have to understand that East Asian admixture is a modern concept, it is in the modern population. And the direction of distribution was not from modern East Asian to ancient ANE, but on the contrary ANE > modern East Asian.

Kate Frey said...

Apologies if this has already been mentioned. Does the East Asian component of ANE show any affinities for Tianyuan or GoyetQ116-1 in the Goyet caves in Belgium? My understanding is that Tianyuan is East Asian, maybe close to basal.

Anonymous said...

@@gamerz_J "But based on what I have read so far, I do not think it is Tianyuan in ANE per say but a related population that forms the core ancestry of modern-day East Asians perhaps."

For the times of Tianyuan and GoyetQ116-1, it is not necessary to speak about East Asians at all, because autosomal Tianyuan ~= GoyetQ116-1. No divergence

At this time, there is no divergence between north East Asians and north Western Eurasians, humanity is rather divided into northern and southern populations.

George said...

Hi,

Off Topic:

Abstract:
The dental proteome of Homo antecessor
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2153-8

"Here we present the dental enamel proteomes of H. antecessor from Atapuerca (Spain)9,10 and Homo erectus from Dmanisi (Georgia)1, two key fossil assemblages that have a central role in models of Pleistocene hominin morphology, dispersal and divergence. We provide evidence that H. antecessor is a close sister lineage to subsequent Middle and Late Pleistocene hominins, including modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans. "

Also see:
Oldest ever human genetic evidence clarifies dispute over our ancestors
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200401111657.htm




Kristiina said...

Maybe some of you remember an old paper from 2014: ”Ancient DNA evidence reveals that the Y chromosome haplogroup Q1a1 admixed into the Han Chinese 3,000 years ago, American Journal of Human Biology (Aug 2014).

Ancient DNA was analyzed from Hengbei site in Central Plain area. "The graves likely belonged to a vassal state of the Zhou Dynasty ruled by the Peng clan (Fig. 1). This site dates back to approximately 3000 years ago, a key transitional period during the rise of the Han Chinese."

The result was that among 27 male samples, 11 of them belonged to Q and more specificly to Q1a1. There were six aristocrats, and three of them were Q1a1 and none of the slaves belonged to Q1a1.

As Slab Grave is most of all Q1a1, it looks like this population (or at least warrior males) migrated to North China ca 1000 BC.

”Archaeological, anthropological and genetic evidence from Hengbei site consistently considered that Han Chinese is originated from Shanxi and neighboring regions, also called the Central Plain (Zhao et al., 2015b). And then Han Chinese population migrated southward with the Han-associated culture (Demic diffusion) and admixed with southern Chinese natives and formed the current patterns of genetic diversity distribution (Wen et al., 2004)” (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2019.01045/full)

This also opens us the possibility that the Slab Grave language is somehow ancestral to Sino-Tibetan languages.

Anonymous said...

@Kristiina

Too late, the Sino-Tibetans split into branches no later than 5 millennium BC, so they could not penetrate north China from the north only in 1 millennium BC. In general, Sino-Tibetan-Caucasian languages are not associated in any way with Q1a.

Ric Hern said...

@ George

Thanks. Very interesting.

Kristiina said...

Ok. I agree that the whole Sino-Tibetan family started expanding earlier, but it is possible that the Slab Grave language had a profound influence on Sinitic and accelerated its diversification from the Tibetan branch.

Copper Axe said...

Don't we have Shang dynasty inscriptions which are contemporous to the early Slab Grave dates?

Copper Axe said...

By the way, is there any information out there regarding the genetics of the Longshan, Qija and Erlitou cultures? The last one might have been the Xia dynasty.

Cy Tolliver said...

@Ryan

"@David - Any chance we'll get a thread on Human Genome Diversity Project? There's some really interesting stuff in there which I'd love to discuss but I'll save it for that thread if it'sc coming. For example if I'm reading figure 5 right I think they're showing pretty convincingly a older Out-of-Africa event in East Asia and Oceania around 100 kya which I think is pretty notable."

I don't have access to that new paper, however the pre-print came out last summer and is available on biorxiv: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/674986v1

If you have access to the new version, can you confirm if Figure 5 in the new paper is the same as Figure 5 in the pre-print? If so, where exactly are you seeing evidence of a divergence between East Asia-Oceania around 100 kya, in Figure 5.B?

Rob said...


@ Copperaxetotheneck

“ Rob I'd prefer it if you would refrain from immature namecalling and such. If you @ me keep in in the context of the matters discussed, thanks.”

But your appelative is pretty lame and immature
So my summary of you is correct- a virgin, noob, Gamer
And the fact that youre under the impression Archi knows what he’s talking about confirms that you’re mentally lame

Anonymous said...

Which is clearly proved that Rob, aka Mammoth Hunter, always writes what he does not know, writes the same mistakes and lies without exception. He hasn't written a single correct message yet, he's proven to be a complete ignoramus in any matter.
I always write exactly what I know, he always fantasizes on the go with the sole purpose of deceiving everyone.

Rob said...

@ Archie
Step out of your own fantasy - nobody takes you seriously except for incel. Your models are jokes and you don’t understand relevant literature
And, again, if you think people fantasise about aDNA , then you really get a life

Anonymous said...

Rob Mammoth Hunter, stop fooling the people, you're writing for one purpose to fool them. You're trolling people to deceive them. Everything I write is true, my models are all true, you just don't have them because you can't do anything, everything you wrote is a lie and nothing but lies.
you, a kindergarten clown, are not taken seriously by anyone from men.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Do we know anything about the Paleiolithic and Mesolithic people of South Asia, Central Asia and the Himalayas?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Jat_Scythian, No Ancient DNA from Mesolithic South Asia so not really. In my opinon we can safely say mtDNA U2 which has long been considered a Paleo lineage in South Asia, actually arrived in the Neolithic from Iran. Also, Paleo/Meso India probably had no ANE even though it was speculated it did. And, as we already knew, Paleo/Meso India was related to Onge but we don't know exactly how related.

vAsiSTha said...

Paleo North india (pre 10000bce) already had the indian cousin of Iran farmer ancestry.

Anonymous said...

No samples over 5,000 years BP from India. So don't fantasize.

vAsiSTha said...

They tested 2500bc rakhigarhi sample, it was majority Indian iran farmer, not onge. Therefore, any idea that whole of south asia was onge like before neolithic is just some eurocentric fantasy. adna will prove me right.

Anonymous said...

@fAsiSTha You as always lied by writing that "Paleo North india (pre 10000bce) already had the indian cousin of Iran farmer ancestry." when there isn't a single sample, your fictions don't interest anyone at all. And it wasn't about Onge.

Based on known specimens from India, we can definitely conclude that there were populations close to ASI in previous Neolithic times.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi
1. refer Shinde rakhigarhi paper. indian Iran component is the first to split before Hotu cave & Zagros_N ancestries. The split date is latest 10000bce because Harvard couldn't resolve it further. Harvard calls it eastern Iran farmer ancestry.
2. There is ~0 AASI in geoksyur, sarazm, parkhai, tepe anau, namazga,bustan eneolithic.
3. I had been shouting that rakhigarhi would come out more than 60pc NI farmer when people like you were claiming it would be AASI like. I was right, you were wrong. 73% indian farmer ancestry in rakhigarhi 2500bce. In fact their pvalue with eshg (0.2 with shamanka_n) is better than 0.10
pvalue with Onge lol.
4. Narsimhan paper - admixture between aasi and Indian farmer occurred between 5400bce and 3700bce. Aasi surely not exist up north before that time as there is 0 evidence from eneolithic Turan or west Iran (hajji firuz, seh Gabi etc). Which means North India was inhabited by indian Iran farmers prior to 6000bce.
5. You have no supporting evidence for your claim apart from eurocentrism. You want everyone to believe that Iran like ancestry stopped existing across modern Iranian border.

Anonymous said...

@fAsiSTha

1,2. This has nothing to do with India.
3. You're lying, straight up. I didn't say anything about it. I just thought they'd be almost the same as Iranian farmers, because I thought they'd be R2, like in Iran. So you're wrong as always.
4. That's bullshit and it's not true. It clearly says that this sample was a descendant of Iranian settlers and mixed with local ASI. You can choke on it.
5. You've got nothing in your head but your nationalism. What does that have to do with Eurocentrism? Paranoia heal.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi
"That's bullshit and it's not true. It clearly says that this sample was a descendant of Iranian settlers and mixed with local ASI. You can choke on it."

Hahahah. Where do they say so? provide evidence. You are crumbling and I love it. You block out all information which goes against your narrative.

Here is Reich himself
"At least some of the people of the ancient people of the Indus Valley Civilization were a mixture of south/southeast Asian-related hunter gatherers and Iranian-related hunter-gatherers. I say Iranian-related because their ancestors may actually have lived in South Asia rather than the Iranian plateau for many thousands of years before the time of the IVC. We just don’t know yet where they lived because of lack of ancient DNA from the relevant times and places."

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/steppe-migration-to-india-was-between-3500-4000-years-ago-david-reich/articleshow/71556277.cms

Anonymous said...

As always, @fAsiSTha is deceiving, and directly contradicts the texts in reference to them.

See https://i.ibb.co/qNzch6x/image.png

1. The Iranian BMAC farmer cline has nothing to do with India, it is a cline that appeared later and is related to the emergence of BMAC.

2. It is precisely that the Hindus periphery clearly has a large number of ASI, it is the local ASI that was there before the Iranian periphery farmers came, carrying some amount of WSHG, must be R2.

There is not a word about Paleolithic, earlier IVC it is earlier about 3300 BC, and it is directly said that nothing is known, as far as it can be earlier in Neolithic is unknown, in contrast to what is fantasized fAsiSTha.

Samuel Andrews said...

@vAsiTha, Saying IranN ancestry in India is from Iran is not Eurocentric. If anything it is Irancetric.

There's no reason to fear for Eurocentrism in modern Western genetic studies. Europeans on have a history of Europhobia in genetic studies. It's why Harvard says the Indo-European story is equally relevant to India & Europe, when it is obviously much more relevant to Europe but to say so they think is Eurocentric.

It's why Harvard in 2009 called Indian's West Eurasian ancestry "Ancient North Indian" not West Eurasian. David Reich literally said he named it that because he didn't want to offend Indians.

That paper which claimed the Rakhigarhi sample's Iran-like ancestry was native to India was made by Indian authors, who I think argue that because they are Indocentric.

vAsiSTha said...

"It is precisely that the Hindus periphery clearly has a large number of ASI, it is the local ASI that was there before the Iranian periphery farmers came, carrying some amount of WSHG, must be R2."

Such a large amount of local AASI that no Indus periphery sample yet had more than 50pc AASI lol. On the other hand that max amount of IranN in I8726 is >80pc.
It is clear that AASI is the migrant into North India. Even Shahr_Sokhta_BA1 has just minute traces of AASI. its almost as if AASI is nowhere to be found but in your dreams.

repeating again
The Iran related component in Rakhigarhi split before Zagros farmer and belt cave sample prior to 10000bce

Samuel Andrews said...

If North India was inhabited by a cousin to IranN in the Mesolithic, that population did not originate in India. This is because IranN, has deep deep origins in the Middle East. IranN-like ancestry in India ultimately from the Middle East at some point in time.

mtDNA/Y DNA is a good place to look if you want to see the most recent common ancestor between Middle East and India. I know that at mtDNA U7 there are 'recent' connections between India and Middle East which should date to the Neolithic.

mtDNA U2 does point to something West Eurasian old in India. India has U2 found nowhere else. However, U2b has been found in Neolithic Central Asia. But, U2a and U2c have not been found outside India yet. I'd say it's the best evidence you can get for a pre-Neo Iran presence in India.

Samuel Andrews said...

@vAsiStha,"The Iran related component in Rakhigarhi split before Zagros farmer and belt cave sample prior to 10000bce"

That's realistic. I agree Zagros IranN isn't a perfect fit for the Iran ancestry in India.

Anonymous said...

@fAsiSTha"Such a large amount of local AASI that no Indus periphery sample yet had more than 50pc AASI lol. On the other hand that max amount of IranN in I8726 is >80pc.
It is clear that AASI is the migrant into North India. Even Shahr_Sokhta_BA1 has just minute traces of AASI. its almost as if AASI is nowhere to be found but in your dreams.
The Iran related component in Rakhigarhi split before Zagros farmer and belt cave sample prior to 10000bce"

Your brain is completely out of order, you can't see anything behind your paranoia.
What does Iranian Shahr Sokhta have to do with it? What does it have to do with India?

You can't see at point-blank range that there are settlers in India who brought the West Siberian Hunter Gatherers, besides the Iranian component. You've been clearly shown that, so you can tear your eyes out of spite. About some recent migrants with ASI it's just ridiculous unscientific nonsense, you must be hoping to fool someone.

What they're counting divergence with Zagros over time doesn't in any way suggest that 10,000 BCE these people were in India, and then it could be a mistake, because they might have missed out on WSHG's admixture, which they took as part of an ancient Iranian component.

Anonymous said...


Namazga III Turkmenistan Kara-Depe [DA380, 6286-37, Excavation 1, burial 42] 3363-3261 cal BP (4528 ± 40 BP, UBA-33659) F U2b
>
Bronze IVC India Rakhigarhi [I6113 / RGR7.3, BR-01, HS-02] 2800–2300 BCE F U2b2

vAsiSTha said...

@samuel andrews
I will show you how biases work

narsimhan and harvard had indus periphery samples long before Shinde. In its preprint, Harvard went ahead with the assumption that Iranian farmers mixed into North india and gave the region agriculture (because for them agriculture had to come from outside, not as if archaeologists have been saying otherwise since long.) They did not even deign to test if the iran related ancestry was from iran or was only deeply related to iran.

But of course, Shinde has worked on the ground and knew that farming in NW india was local. So I guess he pushed Harvard to test for the origin of that iran related ancestry in HIS rakhigarhi paper. The conclusion was that "farming in South Asia was not due to the movement of people from the farming cultures of the west and that it arose in local foragers."

If Shinde was not on it, we could have been hearing about how iranians brought agriculture into NW india, and possibly dravidian language and how IVC population was dravidian speaking.

These might be minor issues for you, but are major issues in my country. Also, iranians had nothing to do with formulating all these hypotheses. All the work of european and american indologists.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi
"You can't see at point-blank range that there are settlers in India who brought the West Siberian Hunter Gatherers, besides the Iranian component. You've been clearly shown that, so you can tear your eyes out of spite."

How conveniently you forget the anatolian component which is widespread in turan and west iran by 5000bce but is nowhere to be found in indus periphery. I know this region much better than you archi, and have worked on each and every sample in qpAdm. you are just plain wrong as always.

from narsimhan final paper. read and weep
"Thus, although our analysis supports the idea that eastward spread of Anatolian farmer–related ancestry was associated with the spread of farming
to the Iranian plateau and Turan, our results do not support large-scale eastward movements of ancestry from western Asia into South Asia after ~6000 BCE (the time after which all ancient individuals from Iran in our data have substantial Anatolian farmer–related ancestry, in contrast to South Asians who have very little)."

Anonymous said...


All archeologists said unequivocally that agriculture came to India from outside, nobody is interested in the opinion of local nationalists. The fact that it was developing locally detached from Iran and BMAK is connected with the fact that this wedge is already late and really did not penetrate into India.

Anonymous said...

@fAsiSTha"How conveniently you forget the anatolian component which is widespread in turan and west iran by 5000bce but is nowhere to be found in indus periphery. I know this region much better than you archi, and have worked on each and every sample in qpAdm. you are just plain wrong as always."

You're just wrong, I'm writing you for the hundredth time that BMAC has nothing to do with India and India. BMAC is the latest wave of Anatolian impurities, which has nothing to do with agriculture in India. You specifically reduce everything to BMAC only, and everything is reduced to it, as if it were the first Neolithic culture in the region, but meanwhile it is synchronous with IVC. The Anatolian component has nothing to do with the spread of agriculture in the region. The fact that you don't know how to count and understand this has already convinced everyone.

Samuel Andrews said...

@vAsiSTha, The fact is at some point after 15,000yo, there was a substantial migration from Iran to India. Whether it was Neolithic or Mesolithic is up to debate.

A Neolithic makes sense because the Neolithic in India is considered derived from the Neolithic in the Middle East.

Samuel Andrews said...

Btw, Neolithic Spain is not a direct descendant of Neolithic Barcin Anatolia. This isn't because their Anatolian ancestry is local to Western Europe. But instead because at least two different Anatolian population spread into Europe.

The same can be true for the Neolithic spread of Iran into India. The Zagros farmers may not be direct ancestors of Indians, but maybe hunter gatherers turned farmers in eastern Iran are.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi, The Anatolian admix in Central Asia predates BMAC. It goes back to the oldest samples from Eneolithic dating to 4000-5000 BC.

vAsiSTha said...

@samuel
however both narsimhan final paper and Shinde paper categorically reject linking movement of people to origin of farming in the indus region (neolithic by definition)

i do not claim that the iran related ancestry originated in india, just that it was very old in south asia and was the default pop of N/NW South asia.

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews

This refers the Iranian BMAC cline, not the BMAC culture itself. The word Iranian component is simply ambiguous in this context, as it may refer to different Neolithic and Eneolithic times. And the word BMAC shows unambiguously which times we are talking about.

Anonymous said...

"however both narsimhan final paper and Shinde paper categorically reject linking movement of people to origin of farming in the indus region (neolithic by definition)"

This is not true, Narasimhan does not talk about origin of farming at all (he says about Iran-BMAC cline), and Shinde only says that according to their calculations this population has separated from Zagros population before the Neolithic Age appeared in his opinion. It doesn't say anything, so he doesn't reject anything.
As Narasimhan has made clear, this population is simply not related to Zagros, but is northeast of it on Iran's periphery.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi why are you wrong so many times

Narsimhan paper pg 11
"An alternative is that this ancestry reflects movement into South Asia from the Iranian plateau of people accompanying the eastward spread of wheat and barley agriculture and goat and sheep herding as early as the seventh millennium BCE and forming early farmer settlements, such as those atMehrgarh in the hills flanking the Indus Valley (59, 60). However, this is in tension with the observation that the Indus Periphery Cline people
had little if any Anatolian farmer–related ancestry, which is strongly correlatedwith the eastward spread of crop-based agriculture in our dataset.
Thus, although our analysis supports the idea that eastward spread of Anatolian farmer–related ancestry was associated with the spread of farming
to the Iranian plateau and Turan, our results do not support large-scale eastward movements of ancestry from western Asia into South Asia after ~6000 BCE (the time after which all ancient individuals from Iran in our data have substantial Anatolian farmer–related ancestry, in contrast to South Asians who have very little)."

Shinde paper (Under Summary)
"Instead, sampled ancient genomes from the Iranian plateau and IVC descend from different groups of hunter-gatherers who began farming without being
connected by substantial movement of people.
"

and dont forget this gem from page 5
"While there is a small proportion of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry in South Asians today, it is consistent with being entirely derived from Steppe pastoralists who carried it in mixed form and who spread into South Asia from 2000–1500 BCE (Narasimhan et al., 2019)."

Anonymous said...

@fAsiSTha why are you wrong so many times

Don't be twisted, it says exactly what I wrote to you. Narasimkhan and writes Iran BMAC wedge bearing Anatolian ancestry does not penetrate into India after 6000 BC. This penetration was earlier without the Anatolian component. Early Iranian farmers do not carry the Anatolian component, which is clearly written.
Shinde's view of the numbers is irrelevant, he only assumes he sees that the Rakhigarhi "population" (1 sample sic) was mixed with local AASI.

mzp1 said...

The Hakra Wares cultures in NW India, Haryana, is good fit for the (late) Rigvedic culture in the region. It is contemporary with Mehrgarh but Hakra Wares is a predominantly pastoral cultures unlike the settled farming communities of Mehrgarh and the later Harrapan period which all seem to have greater influences from West Asia (farming).

South Asian farming does not look local, it is related to West Asia. South Asian indigenous culture was always animal husbandry as related in the Rigveda.

The Hakra Wares had subterreanian pit-dwellings much like Botai, these settlements were temporary 'campsites' for nomadic peoples.

Period IA: Hakra Wares Culture: The artefacts of this period comprised a copper bangle, a copper arrowhead, bangles of terracotta, beads of carnelian, lapis lazuli and steatite, bone point, stone saddle and quern.[9] The pottery repertoire is very rich and the diagnostic wares of this period included Mud Applique Wares, Incised (Deep and Light), Tan/Chocolate Slipped Wares, Brown-on-Buff Wares, Bichrome Wares (Paintings on the exterior with black and white pigments), Black-on-Red Ware and plain red wares.

Period IB: Early Harappan Culture: ...bull figurines, rattles, wheels, gamesmen

Bull figurines, gamesmen, arrows, wheels etc are all indicative of the Rigvedic culture.

At Bhirrana, Hakra Wares culture we find the last remnants of the pre-agriculture, pastoral, IE culture that once spread from India to West Asia.

Also, as I had theorized earlier, metal-work, an economy of skilled craftsmanship, high-quality wares are all found in this pastoral society. Therefore, we can see that prior to farming, there did exist complex and developed societies based on pastoralism. The wheel can even predate the Neolithic.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't point to any Rigvedic culture, don't be delusional.
"The wheel can even predate the Neolithic. " LOL.

mzp1 said...

So Archi is like an 'academic' who thinks it must be impossible for complex pastoral societies to exist before farming.

Why do you think the wheel could not exist before farming?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

@mzp1

Pastoral society is a producing economy, it is domesticated animals, domesticated animals are the Farming Neolithic. Education.

The wheel could have appeared only after the herds of domesticated animals were grazed on the wild expanses (steppes) as a means of moving shepherds for free grazing herds, and this is the Farming Eneolithic steppe. To make wheels, you need metal tools.

mzp1 said...

No, you have it backwards. Farming is dependant on Pastoralism which existed prior and independently from farming.

Hakra Wares is a good example of this as it a pastoral economy but is well-developed with craftmanship and the use of metal. Pastoralism produced the original, affluent, diverse economy, a necessary condition for the Neolithic transition.

Domestication is not necessary to herd cows. But domestication accelerates when cows are kept in an enclosed space, separated from wild herds. We can see this in Mergarh where Cattle decrease in size over time, as this is the first time they are kept in an enclosed space, allowing for greater control in breeding.

But farming societies would need a complex pre-existing state/tribal alliances to allow for security, the exchange of information, practices and produce and this can only be facilitated by a network of pastoral tribes that can guarantee security and trade. Farming is high-investment so it requires a well-organized state to make the investment worthwhile.

That pre-existing society was the affluent, pastoral IE society with the use of metals and diverse craftmanship. The Rigveda holds Tvasthar, the Craftsman, Smith, in high-regard but does not even mention farming or permanent settlements.

The obvious issue is that most archeological finds come from farming societies as by their nature pastoral societies are lower in concentration, size and have fewer belongings overall.

Anonymous said...

@mzp1
Don't imagine, you're just an unscientific delusion. You're just uneducated. All you write is pure unscientific nonsense.

mzp1 said...

I can assure you Archi I am not a delusion. I have been called many things in my time but that is quite extreme.

Anonymous said...

@mzp1 All that you write is pure anti-scientific untruth without exception, you write exclusively fiction. It is a fact that you do not know anything, but invent on the go for nationalistic purposes.
There are three of you here such.

TLT said...

Looks like there was a discussion that I was too late to participate in. Here is a relevant excerpt.

"Symmetry tests using f4 statistics reject tree-like clade relationships with both Early West Eurasians (EWE; Sunghir) and Early East Asians (EEA; Tianyuan); however, Yana is genetically closer to EWE, despite its
geographic location in northeastern Siberia. Using admixture graphs (qpGraph) and outgroup-based estimation of mixture proportions (qpAdm), we find that Yana can be modelled as EWE with ~25% contribution from EEA"

While it might have rejected Tianyuan specifically, there is still some kind of ENA in ANS. The link made between ANS and Tianyuan in particular were circumstantial. I think that part of this is because Tianyuan itself is a mix within early ENA and one of the ENA that contributed to Tianyuan also contributed to ANS while the other component(s) of Tianyuan didn't contribute to ANS. There aren't nearly enough early UP samples from east Eurasia to be sure but for now this is my hypothesis.

Anonymous said...

Yana is closer to Gravettians.
Tianyuan is closer to Aurignacian GoyetQ116-1.
Ust'-Ishim is closer to Peştera cu Oase.

Jatt_Scythian said...

So what's the cronology of ydnas entering South Asia?

H first, R1a last and everything else in the neolithic?

TLT said...

@archi
I am not arguing that Yana isn't mostly Gravettian-like as far as autosomal DNA is concerned. But that P1 definitely seems to have come from the minor ENA component in it. The question is what kind of a source was it ultimately? If Tianyuan was rejected in spite of showing affinity, then it could be because of a common ENA found in Tianyuan and Yana as opposed to all of Tianyuan being ancestral to the ENA in Yana.

Jatt_Scythian said...

So P is East Eurasian? Seems like the PC thing to say.

Anonymous said...

Jatt_Scythian said...
So P is East Eurasian?

Is this the mistake you're writing again? You've been told many times before that you haven't. I even gave you a picture.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Is that picture reliable? Isn't it old? Just asking/

gamerz_J said...

@Archi

"At this time, there is no divergence between north East Asians and north Western Eurasians, humanity is rather divided into northern and southern populations."

Do not Australasians etc diverge from East Asians after the WE-ENA split?

In any case, WE and EE already show divergence 45kya. This ENA gene flow into ANE (if real-which I think to be based on the haplogroups and the ENA signal in all populations that have ANE like Villabruna, CHG etc- could there be an alternative explanation for that?) took place around 30kya or a bit earlier which means still 10kya to have proto-West Eurasian and proto-East Eurasian populations.

There can be some ANE in East Eurasians and probably is, but I am not sure that it is behind the East Eurasian affinities of ANE. Could be wrong of course, so please let me know if you disagree.

gamerz_J said...

@Archi

On that note, I do think ANE is mostly West Eurasian, and not 40% or more ENA/East Eurasian as I have seen claimed around the internet.

Certainly not an entirely East Eurasian population which I have also seen being clamed solely based on its Ydna.

gamerz_J said...

Btw, please excuse for going off-topic but new paper on selection and admixture in West Eurasia
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.021006v1

Singh said...

@Jatt_Scythian

It's scientific thing to say. It's not found in ancient West Eurasians without ENA admixture. ANE inherited it from it's East Eurasian side of ancestry.

Karafet et al. (2014) "rapid diversification process of K-M526 likely occurred in Southeast Asia, with subsequent westward expansions of the ancestors of haplogroups R and Q."

Even the closest ancestral clad to Yana is from Philippines, they are all very old there and their TMRC dates before Yana's. https://www.yfull.com/tree/K2b/

Go find me a study that claims these clads are West Eurasian. Because upstream of P* (K2b2) is K2b1 (papuan-australian clads). Use your brain, if you have one.

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

People at anthrogenica have checked the Y-chromosome of Tianyuan, the ur-East Asian if this paper is right, and he is actually K2b (xK2b1). He is definitely not on the Southeast Asian/Oceanian clade of K2b1 and may be either K2b* or K2b2. whichever of these he turns out to be, he would be directly on the line to Yana's P*.

We also have:
JHM06 K2b* a Jehai sample from Malaysia:
K2b M1221+, L405+; P M295-, M1189-; MS PR2099-, P397-; K2d P402-, P403-.
The clade P2, which is present in Southeast Asian negritos, and a very early pre-P from the Andaman islands.

These plus K2b1 should make us suspect some connection between haplogroups PQR and very deep East Asian ancestry, but the existence of Tianyuan is a clearer link.

TLT said...

It is pretty clear that P is east Eurasian or ENA or whatever way you want to refer to it as. The question is whether it came from an Australoid Papuan type of population or a Mongoloid type. If it was a Mongoloid type then the lack of it in modern northeast Asians is strange. Among Asians it is mostly if not exclusively found in negrito types that are a mix of Mongoloid + relic Australoids.

Ric Hern said...

I think Ancient DNA spreak more clearly about who were found when and where during the Paleolithic. So I think some Ancient DNA from Southeast Asia will be enlightening. Sofar we see the Oldest samples of K2 (K2a) in Europe and Western Siberia and the closest relatives of K, I plus J in Europe and the Caucasus. So let us wait for more Ancient Samples to clarify who was where when.


Samuel Andrews said...

@ANI EXCATOR, Good stuff. A sister clade to yHG P exists in Southeast Asian negritos and Andmanese?

Jatt_Scythian said...

@ Cho

Why don't you use your brain?

Just because the ancestral lineages exist in modern SE Asians doesn't mean they were always there. Ancient DNA trumps modern DNA. As for the SE Asian origin of R and Q lol. No evidence they passed through India or anywhere west of SE Asia.

Trolls going to troll.

Ric Hern said...

I really can not understand why some people think that Ancient Modern Humans stuck to tropical Jungles up until number 99.9. Homo Erectus and Neanderthal were found outside this type of environments. How about Ancient Modern Humans in Morocco and Israel between 300 000 and 100 000 years ago ? This basically shows us that Modern Humans and Archaic Humans did not confine themselves to the Tropics as much as some would like them to have been...



Jatt_Scythian said...

Also only the K and P males from SE Asia decided to migrate.

And the argument that most subclasses under K are found in East Asians is bullshit.

Maybe K is West Eurasian based on the fact that most f descendants are west Eurasian.

G-Check
H-Check
IJ-Check
K(LT)-Check

Only K(xLT) is found in east eurasians.

Ric Hern said...

@ Jatt_Scythian

You will find this Paper interesting.

"Middle and Upper Paleolithic Levallois technology in eastern Central Asia"

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

@Jatt_Scythian & Ric Hern
A possible ancestor of the major haplogroup NO in East and Southeast Asia was found in Romania in the very ancient Pestera cu Oase sample. So beyond a certain depth even very implausible scenarios are possible and all bets are off. We're not talking about a recent migration from Southeast or East Asia.


For K2b we have a chain of connections that tie Oceanian M and S, various Southeast Asian K2's and the Southeast Asian P2 and Andamanese pre-P, and now K2b* in Tianyuan in northern China, with a broad ancestry clade. Maybe West Eurasian R came from a separate offshoot of K2, like the K2a in Pestera cu Oase, but this is a bit hard to sustain because it looks like West Eurasian Qs and Rs ultimately came from ANE-related groups in a broad zone in Siberia, and are absent among Europeans until Villabruna-related WHG, which is ANE and East Asian shifted compared to previous Paleolithic Europeans, shows up. So West Eurasian R would have to be traced back to Yana in Eastern Siberia, who is admixed with East Asian ancestry, and it would be very surprising if this had nothing to do at all with the K2b* in Tianyuan or the strange basal clades of even P2 in some East Asian related groups in Southeast Asia and Oceania.

ramones1986 said...

"We finally report data from Jomon hunter-gatherers from Japan who harbored one of the earliest splitting branches of East Eurasian variation, and show an affinity among Jomon, Amur River Basin, ancient Taiwan, and Austronesian-speakers, as expected for ancestry if they all had contributions from a Late Pleistocene coastal route migration to East Asia."



Hmmm.... I was really curious about such information....

gamerz_J said...

@TLT

I am not sure that the "Mongoloid" type existed back then, but in any case it is from a Tianyuan-related population so more East Asian-like than Australasian.

You can find P in Negritos etc for a variety of reasons, unless we have more ancient DNA from East Asia, it is too early to tell.

Ric Hern said...

At this stage it looks to me like K descendants in Southeast Asia came from the Western Altai Eastwards and through Mongolia into Northern China between 48 000 and 45 000 years ago. Maybe picking up some Denisovan on their way. Tianyuan Cave after all is located closer to Mongolia than to Southeastern Asia...just a bit of speculation.

TLT said...

@gmerz_j

"You can find P in Negritos etc for a variety of reasons, unless we have more ancient DNA from East Asia, it is too early to tell."

Yeah but a direct mix between Sunghir/Gravettian and Tianyuan was rejected in the Sikora wasn't it? Maybe both of the 2 early east Eurasian populations carried both K2b and K2a. Maybe over time the Australoid population like Papuans lost K2a and the precursor to the Mongoloid group lost K2b.

Though, on the other hand I am still kind of wondering if Tianyuan is a mix between an Australoid type and a true east Asian pre-Mongoloid type which is yet to be identified because the ADMIXTURE breakdown of Tianyuan man had the purple Papuan type and green south Asian Australoid type component in it. Though this was done by genetiker and many people would turn down results attached to that name, and it was an ADMIXTURE result no less, maybe another reason why people would turn down the result.

gamerz_J said...

@TLT

The reason I do not think is a direct mix is because Tianyuan is a sibling of the true population that admixed into Yana and which in my opinion forms the core of East Asian ancestry. (other will tell you it's because the admixture went the other way around-which is not impossible but I just have not seen any real evidence for it)

I do not think "Mongoloid" people existed 40kya. It is a bit more recent than that, to say the least.

"Maybe over time the Australoid population like Papuans lost K2a and the precursor to the Mongoloid group lost K2b."
I think it is certainly possible.

"Tianyuan is a mix between an Australoid type and a true east Asian pre-Mongoloid type "

Well, too far back in time to really know at the moment. I am not sure who genetiker is, but I am afraid I belong to the second group of people who, as you mentioned, distrust ADMIXTURE results when comparing ancient and modern populations. I am not an expert by any means, but for me all these ADMIXTURE results are showing are that Papuans, aboriginal South Asians (Onge-related?) etc and Tianyuan are all ENA-East Eurasian populations.

TLT said...

@gamerz_J
I'd wait for more old results, maybe a better match than Tianyuan would be found which will not be rejected as a direct ancestor to ANS. I have a hunch that such a sample would be found further east of Tianyuan, maybe in Japan, possibly the 45% of the Jomon ancestry component could be involved.

Jorge Escalante said...

@ Samuel Andrews

I was with you until you said ANE had brown skin because Native Americans do.

Native Americans are 70% East Asian. They carry East Asian-related skin genes. That's why they have brown skin - like East Asians.

ANE had pigment related genes that Natives don't -- such as the blond hair gene that is in Europeans today, over 13,000 years ago. It also lightens skin. It must have been about as common as the expression in Europeans is today, since the EHG-admixed populations were about 50-70% blond if the fossil record is any indication (probability would suggest it is).

There ia evidence some Native Americans had blond hair -- such as the Copper Inuit,
the old Chichimeca, and certain MesoAmericans. Below see a picture of a Chichimeca family from a Mexican codex.

https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/images-aus/aus_64_01_2.jpg

Jorge Escalante said...

@Jorge Escalante

Oops, instead of typing "Copper Inuit", I meant to type "blond eskimos".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond_Eskimos

A lot of arctic aboriginals actually descend directly from the Afontova Gora population that had a blond haired individual. The Q-NWT01 haplogroup was found in another Afontova Gora specimen although that one was older and didn't carry blond genes. Q-NWT01 today is mainly found in Inuit people and was also found at the Saqqaq sites in Greenland. Maybe there were once Inuit populations with blond hair, I don't know.

epoch said...

Summarizing, are we confident that Chemurchek came from Afanasievo? Because it's one of the steps that Mallory described in this document:

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp259_tocharian_origins.pdf

Here he also mentions Xiaohe as possible source, even if they were R1a.

"This involves the following sequence of cultures: Yamnaya > Afanasievo > Qiemu’erqieke > Gumugou. We might regard this as the classic Eurasian steppe trajectory, a hypothesis that since has received some aDNA support (see above). As a cultural sequence, this chain of cultural developments is now far less robust than was imagined earlier. The case for deriving Afanasievo from Yamnaya now appears to be strengthened by aDNA analysis, but the links between Afanasievo and Qiemu’erqieke may be only sporadic cultural contacts, as argued by Kovalev (2011; 2012b), and a genetic relationship between Qiemu’erqieke and Gumugou (or Xiaohe) is barely supportable."

Well that is solved now.

|In the analysis above I commented on how the Xiaohe culture made a better fit than the Afanasievo culture in terms of meeting some of the major requirements of a linguistically reconstructed Proto-Tocharian culture. A central issue here is that Xiaohe and the related sites reveal clear evidence for domestic cereals, while none has been found in either the Afanasievo culture nor its successor, the Okunevo culture. "

And that is solved as well.

epoch said...

Also, a little tidbit from that article that seems very interesting considering the models provided in this thread:

"Afanasievo sherds, for example, have been reported from Gonur Depe in Turkmenistan

Copper Axe said...

Am I the only one who expected WSHG type ancestry to have played a bigger role in the formation of the Xiongnu?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 346 of 346   Newer› Newest»