search this blog

Tuesday, April 21, 2020

Aesch25


During the early 3rd Millennium BC much of Central and Northern Europe was being infiltrated by pioneer herders, often young men, from the east associated with the Corded Ware culture (CWC).

In some important ways, this expansion may have been very similar to the European colonization of the more remote parts of the Americas during the 16th and 17th centuries.

For instance, the European newcomers weren't always able to dominate the indigenous peoples, and, sometimes, instead of trying to impose their culture on them, they accepted theirs.

I suspect that Aesch25, an ancient sample from the recent Furtwängler et al. paper on the social and genetic structure of the prehistoric populations of the Swiss Plateau, represents a similar case.

Aesch25 wasn't buried with grave goods so he wasn't given a cultural context in the said paper. However, dated to 2864-2501 calBC, he's the earliest individual in this part of Europe with the originally Eastern European Y-haplogroup R1b-M269 and a CWC-like genome-wide genetic structure.


Indeed, the other fourteen samples from the same burial site, dated to more or less the same period as Aesch25, are overwhelmingly of local Neolithic farmer origin.

In any case, irrespective of his cultural affiliation and life story, Aesch25 represents an important data point in the search for the homeland of the so called Bell Beakers who spread across much of Europe during the Copper Age. That's because most Bell Beaker males belong to R1b-M269 and are very similar to Aesch25 in terms of overall genetic structure, apart from an excess of Neolithic farmer ancestry.

My view is that the Bell Beakers were an offshoot of the Single Grave culture (SGC), the westernmost variant of CWC. Of course, the SGC was centered on what is now northwestern Germany and surrounds, and didn't reach into the Swiss Plateau. However, in all likelihood it was founded by men closely related to Aesch25.

Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on Global25 data featuring Aesch25 and several other individuals from the Furtwängler et al. paper. To view an interactive version of the plot, copy paste the data from the text file here into the relevant field here, then press Add to PCA. Also, you should copy paste each population separately to make sure that they don't form one grouping in the PCA key.

Aesch25 can easily pass for a CWC individual from what is now Germany (DEU_CWC_LN). On the other hand, the CWC samples from the Swiss Plateau (CHE_CWC_LN) are clearly shifted "south" relative to the German CWC cluster, which suggests that they harbor more Neolithic farmer ancestry. Indeed, they all belong to Y-haplogroup I2, which is especially closely associated with Middle Neolithic European farmers.

MX265, from Singen in southwest Germany, is the only sample in the Furtwängler et al. dataset that belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a. This is a somewhat unexpected outcome, because R1a is, overall, the most common Y-haplogroup in CWC males (see here).

Another surprise is that this individual is dated to just 763-431 calBC, which is a period that overlaps with the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures in Central Europe. Considering that these cultures are often associated with early Celts, was this person perhaps the speaker of a long lost Celtic language?

See also...

Single Grave > Bell Beakers

Dutch Beakers: like no other Beakers

Hungarian Yamnaya > Bell Beakers?

Hungarian Yamnaya predictions

The Battle Axe people came from the steppe

911 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   801 – 911 of 911
vAsiSTha said...

"Cultural changes in India were huge with the arrival of the Aryans, it is a well-known fact."

Is that why they could not find a single archaeological evidence of the arrival of people from the steppe as is also mentioned by Reich in his book (pg 125-126 on google play books)?
Name one archaeologist who avers that they could see indo european changes in the north indian archaeological remains..

mzp1 said...

@Samuel,

"You talk about pre-Neolithic herders in Central Asia who you have no evidence from archaeology existed."

So you think the entire population of South and Central Asia were literally Hunter Gatherers up until 3,500BC with no complex social, economic or political organization? This is a weird assertation but it is accepted by current 'science'. This is because we have little archeological material from there, but Herders don't leave much behind.


"You talk about them migrating into the Near East and helping create the Neolithic revolution. Even though we have Neolithic farmer DNA from the Midddle East. There's no evidence for what you claim in it. "

There's EHG/ANE in the earliest Mesolithic Iranian sample. This is widespread across early Iran_N/CHG, right?

"On the other hand, the Kurgan hypothesis has direct evidence of closely related pops, who are so related they could speak the same language, spreading in Eurasia."

My point exactly. These guys were so closely related that they were speaking the same language, that language would be Iranian, as it is attested exactly there, and little else. As you say, there isn't enough genetic (or archeological, or geographic) diversity in that early continuum to hold all the structure of late-PIE, or even just Indo-Iranian. This is the point I was making you to, a major flaw in the theory.

Simon_W said...

@Gaska

"MX·310 he is clearly a Neolithic farmer with a small percentage of steppe ancestry, and belonged to the Lüscherz culture, which is clearly related to the French Chalcolithic cultures (all his pieces of silex come from France, not from the steppes or from the CWC)"

How do you want to know that MX310 belonged to the Lüscherz culture? He wasn't C14 dated! The date given in the paper is from another individual that was buried in the same dolmen. Do you really believe they were all buried at the same time? So MX310 may easily be from the Auvernier cordé, which is a mixed culture with Corded Ware influence.

What seems more unlikely: That there was geneflow and cultural influence from the Corded Ware into other cultures? Or that it's a coincidence that each time we find an R1b-M269, he has Steppe admixture.

vAsiSTha said...

By JM Kenoyer

"Another example of a “factoid” is the destruction of Mohenjo-daro by so called “Aryan” invaders. Although this idea had been proposed by earlier scholars (see R. Thapar this volume) Sir Mortimer Wheeler’s highly
speculative statements regarding scattered skeletal remains found in the
late levels of Mohenjo-daro (Wheeler 1953) were taken as being archaeological proof of this invasion and the theory became widely accepted in both scientific and popular writings. After assuming that Harappans were non-Aryan, and that the Åg Veda dated to around the fifteenth century B.
C. Wheeler presented various Vedic descriptions of the destruction of walled cities by Indra..."
"Dr. George F. Dales strongly refuted Wheeler’s claim of invasion by clearly demonstrating that the skeletons did not belong to one single period and there is no archaeological evidence for destruction, burning or looting of the city that would normally accompany a massacre (Dales 1964). Furthermore, reanalysis of the skeletal remains from Mohenjo-daro by Dr. Kenneth Kennedy indicate that only one out of the 42 different individuals shows any evidence of trauma that could have been the immediate cause of death (Kennedy 1984)."

all this speculative nonsense by Wheeler type circle jerks is what aryan invasion is based on lol.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

vAsiSTha said...
By JM Kenoyer

Kenoyer in full.

https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Kenoyer_Changing%20Perspectives%20of%20the%20Indus%20Civilization.pdf

epoch said...

@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar

"They are similar to the Indus script and yet undeciphered."


They are deciphered. That's why we know Lineair B is ancient Greek. Lineair A hasn't been *translated*, that is the issue.

gamerz_J said...

@vAsiSTha

Just so that I understand the OIT model, is it a scenario where there is a deep presence of Iranian related populations in India who are also a bit mixed with local AASI people (but you think AASI is not Onge like?) that later on move out of India to the Iranian plateau and finally into the Caucasus and north of it, having a part in the formation of the Yamnaya?

Gaska said...

@SimonW-

None of the three M269 found in Switzerland have absolutely nothing to do with the CWC- Aesch25 is a farmer of the Horgen culture buried with his relatives in a dolmen, MX310 is another Neolithic farmer belonging to the Lüscherz culture also buried in a dolmen, and MX304-Burgaschisee is another Neolithic farmer buried in Cortaillod culture territory-The Cortaillod cultures of west Switzerland are linked to the Chassean (Chasséens de Cortaillod-3600-2600 av.jc) and Lagozzan cultures, ultimately stemming from the Mediterranean, whereas the Pfyn culture in the east of the country belongs to culture groups emerging from the Danubian-What do these cultures have to do with the CWC?-Absolutely nothing, there is not a single archaeological remnant (battle axes, pottery etc) that allows you to relate these burials to the CWC, then you will agree with me that we are talking about Neolithic farmers- Regarding their autosomal composition, Auvernier and Burgaschisee have a very small steppe percentage, which they could have perfectly acquired due to exogamy-The difference between Western and Eastern Switzerland is due to an important cultural divide between these two regions. Being exposed to influences from the south and the west, the megalithic phenomenon appears in Western Switzerland as early as 3000 BC, together with a growing number of copper tools and diversified arrowheads in abundant quantity. On the other hand, Eastern Switzerland is influenced by Central Europe and only individual burials, in which copper objects are rare and arrowheads are scarce and unvaried, have been uncovered-But since you are so interested in proving that this individual belonged to the CWC, can you explain what happened? Was he a lonely explorer, killed with a blow to the head and buried on the shore of the lake? How many generations did it take in Switzerland to have that small percentage of steppe ancestry? Did he immediately adopt the Neolithic culture of the region as did Aesch25 and Auvernier? Do you think that the steppe ancestry is transmitted only through the male line?

Anonymous said...

OIT is a false scientific concept that all Indo-Europeans are from India. It is based on the ideas that the Brahmans have been cutting out Kshatriys (or vice versa) for many millennia (Yugas), thus they say they settled.

mzp1 said...

So I had a quick look at the short paper written by Igor B. He construct a simple argument looking at just one aspect of the IE languages, consonant systems, which he uses to break down the IE family into 4 groups.

one series of plosives; two series of plosives voiced and unvoiced; three primordial series of plosives; system with secondarily developed 'fourth' unvoiced aspirate series

He uses "rule of archaic periphery and innovative center" to get the below table:

Western Route - Central Urheimat - Northern Route
Proto-Anatolian - IE Stem - Proto-Tocharian
Proto-Italo-Celtic - IE Stem - Proto-Baltic
Proto-Albanian - IE Stem - Proto-Slavic
Proto-Graeco-Armenian - Proto-IA - Proto-Germanic
Western Iranian - IA - Eastern Iranian

So similar to me, he has two routes out of South Asia, a Northern one and a Western one. However, we are somewhat inverted in that he is working from *PIE as the original and me from Sanskrit, but we end up with a similar route. I would say he is working backwards and seeing innovation as archaism, because I don't generally use the 'rule' of archaism on the periphery. But because he starts from *PIE and I from Sanskrit we sort of end with a similar expansion.

Some useful quotes

"Special relation between Iranian (especially, Eastern and Steppe Iranian) and Slavic is again too striking to be just a case of happening"

"some place to the north of Iran where Balts originally lived (the fact that they moved later from east to west through modern Russia is attested in Central Russian hydronyms)"

"..but they are very well explained through the more plausible view that Iranian is simplified Indic spread over the substratum territory of the previous waves of Indo- European"

"2) the system of two series of plosives voiced and unvoiced which is represented by Baltic, Slavic, Nuristani, many late Eastern Iranian dialects, and/or the most part by Celtic (though with some traces of a third series, cfItalic in the next group below)"

So according to his (simplified) system he is grouping Nuristani, Late East Iranian, Balto-Slavic, which is just the same as I've been arguing here (without the Celtic above but this is more detailed).

So it's valuable that by looking at two completely different things we both have come to similar conclusions.

Gaska said...

@SimonW

A Fürtewangler-"CH Auvernier 2866-2601 BC (2sigma cal.) Schwegler 2016 The dolmen of Auvernier was discovered in 1876 near the lake Neuchâtel. The complex consisted of 12 vertical stone slabs and two horizontal ceiling tiles. In the burial chamber inhumations of 15 to 20 individuals could be found. Marks on the stone slabs indicate the reuse from an older Neolithic construction which was possibly used around 3000 BCE. The rebuilt dolmen is dated at 2800 BCE at the earliest and was used until the Bronze Age. The ONLY DNA COULD BE RETRIEVED FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT DATES TO 2866-2601 calBCE. Samples were provided by the Archaeological Service of the canton of Bern.


Those words mean that the individual is perfectly dated (like all the other samples of the work) - If you have any doubt, send an email to the researchers and ask them for explanations about the dating-Obviously, that individual belonged to the Lüscherz culture, which also has absolutely nothing to do with the steppes or the CWC. I'm sorry you're going to have to keep looking

What seems more unlikely is that individuals allegedly related to the CWC appear in Western Switzerland in three distinct Neolithic cultures (Horgen, Lüscherz, and Cortaillod)
which are related to France and northern Italy-

What happened to them? Did they get lost? Did they forget their battle axes? Did they get married outside their villages? Common sense tells us that they were Swiss Neolithic farmers who were buried with their relatives according to their customs, that they acquired their steppe ancestry through exogamy and that we will find more R1b-M269 / L51 in Neolithic cultures of Central Europe in the future.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

@epoc

"They are deciphered. That's why we know Lineair B is ancient Greek. Lineair A hasn't been *translated*, that is the issue."

Thank you for the information. Hopefully, Linar A and Indus get deciphered.

natsunoame said...

epoch
Titus Livius, History of Rome, 36.17 -the hostile army was more numerous and made up of far better soldiery; there were in that army Macedonians, Thracians and Illyrians, all very warlike tribes; here there are Syrians and Asiatic Greeks, the meanest of mankind, and born only for slavery. " http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/livy/livy36.html

Don't overplay with the Greek card. It says clearly what they are. They are not local. The author puts them next to the Syrians and name them Asiatic. And many other classics too, like Herodot. No need to continue with that LIE.

Matt said...

@Davidski, cross posted at GNXP:

New preprint: Large-scale Inference of Population Structure in Presence of Missingness using PCA.

Appears to outperform PLINK on missing data scenarios in their test data, but uses much more memory. ("We further note that EMU outperformed PLINK in every scenario regarding inference of principal components.")

However, may be relevant in adna, where numbers of individuals still relatively low (thousands). Missingness a big problem in adna. Also includes a memory efficient variant though performance of this does not seem to be established in paper.

May be able to get more individuals and crucial individuals with high missing data, placed accurately.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

@mzp
So similar to me, he has two routes out of South Asia, a Northern one and a Western one. However, we are somewhat inverted in that he is working from *PIE as the original and me from Sanskrit, but we end up with a similar route.

And that is indeed the crux of the matter and how much credit ones gives to the idea that linguistics is a science. The much totted discovery of laryngeals has put linguistics up on the pedestal with physical sciences but if one digs dipper the linguists are not sure exactly how many were there and more importantly how they were pronounced.


Here is the famous Schleicher's fable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6ne-xvC0TU


But these are just simple phrases and it is doubtful whether a complete language can indeed be reconstructed (James Clackson, Univ of Cambridge) . Some PIE words look like mathematical equations

http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/2009/10/two-proto-indo-european-widows.html

Not every linguist accepts the laryngeal theory and there are alternatives such as the glottalic theory. French linguist Antoine Meillet would refuse to utter a reconstructed word.

As one would expect, here again ideological preferences are involved. Should PIE be reconstructed using the three vowel system of Indo Iranian or the five vowel one of Latin and Greek. Scholars have opted for the latter alternative which Igor TB must follow if he wants to be taken seriously. mzp1 can afford to be rebellious.


From the OIT standpoint, nationalist passions have been inflamed by PIE linguistic scholarship resulting in people totally dismissing the very idea of a reconstructed language. I used to belong to that group but not any more. Which ever way one looks at it either Igor's or mzp1's OIT potentially has an equal claim to fame.



Anonymous said...



The arrival of the first Siberian people to Europe is even more confirmed by the Romanian Oase2, which turns out to be even more Eastern Asian than Oase1, even more like Tianyuan. This is fully confirmed by the model of Proto-Aurignacian's appearance from the Altai.


mzp1 said...

@Mayur,

Laryngeals, Labiovelars, Centumization - these are main items taking *PIE away from Sanskrit.

I believe that these are developments that occurred to IE South of Caucuses, creating what we call Centum languages. Because Iran_N/CHG were not originally IE speakers, so those languages had huge substratum effects.

But Linguists have used these characteristics, which don't appear in Indo-Aryan (and Iranian), otherwise the most conservative branch in every way (Linguistics, Mythology and Prosody) to reconstruct PIE for the whole family.

So I don't necessarily think those things are incorrect, but that they should not be applied to Indo-Iranian but only to a separate 'Centum' group.

I have the 'Centum Group' as a kind of CHG/Iran_N subfamily, related to the Neolithic, which drifted far away from Indo-Aryan very early, then separated into the different Centum languages.

Jatt_Scythian said...

@Archi

How East Asian are Oase1 and Oase2?

vAsiSTha said...

@gamerz
"@vAsiSTha

Just so that I understand the OIT model, is it a scenario where there is a deep presence of Iranian related populations in India who are also a bit mixed with local AASI people (but you think AASI is not Onge like?) that later on move out of India to the Iranian plateau and finally into the Caucasus and north of it, having a part in the formation of the Yamnaya?"

I wont comment on OIT. Mine is a different idea based mostly on genetics.
AASI is only very very deeply related to Onge and SE asian. Might possibly have additional inputs from other ancient populations like Tianyuan and ANE, cant say till we get aDna. If there is such admixture, qpAdm would not be accurate with Onge as proxy source.

I am talking about 6- end of 5th mill bce or maybe even earlier when AASI was hardly present in N & NW South asia. This is a testable hypothesis, requires aDna from that region and time. The region from east iran to SC asia to NW india would be iran Like + WSHG/ANE, with very minor anatolian (again - testable hypothesis). So as such qpAdm models will not be able to figure out actual exact source location when some samples from other regions require Iran_N like ancestry as source.
It would also render figuring out migrations within the iran, SC asia, and NW SA regions problematic except maybe SC asia will have a bit higher ANE ancestry.
East of caspian had early farming and goat/sheep domestication. The wheat and barley farming later reached caucasus and east ukraine steppe. Contacts of this region with steppe maykop have also been highlighted by Ivanova. This region also had horses (caspian small horse) which have been dug up from 5th mill bce http://new-indology.blogspot.com/2014/

caucasus clearly has iran related ancestry, Iran related ancestry also appears in anatolia very early, and can be attested in eastern kazakhstan (dali) and altai(chemurchek) starting 3200bce (tongtian cave wheat barley seeds from oxus) at latest.

This chg/iran ancestry then reaches khvalynsk and later yamnaya. Yamnaya_ozera_outlier has clear excess iran related ancestry.





Simon_W said...

@Gaska

"None of the three M269 found in Switzerland have absolutely nothing to do with the CWC- Aesch25 is a farmer of the Horgen culture buried with his relatives in a dolmen"

Check the C14 dating: Whereas e.g. Aesch1 is dated to 3090-2917, Aesch25 is dated to 2864-2501. This means that he isn't only later, but he might well have lived
around 2501 BC, close to the date when the Bell Beaker culture started in Switzerland. Because the range of dating doesn't mean that he lived during that whole timespan
mor does it mean that he lived in the middle of that timespan. It means that he lived during any time of the timespan. Moreover Aesch25 has a really large
proportion of Steppe ancestry, larger than the average central European Bell Beaker man has. It's similar to the proportion German Corded people have. So calling him a Neolithic
Farmer is misleading. He may have identified himself with farmer culture, he may have adopted farmer language, and he may have been accepted by other farmers as one of their own, but his genetics say he's an
immigrant.

"MX310 is another Neolithic farmer belonging to the Lüscherz culture also buried in a dolmen"

Nope. We don't have his C14 date. He may be Auvernier cordé. His steppe admixture strongly supports this hypothesis.

"and MX304-Burgaschisee is another Neolithic farmer buried in Cortaillod culture territory"

Yes, Cortaillod territory, where (at later dates) also Corded Ware was found. See the link I posted. OK it's in German, but you may believe me.

"Regarding their autosomal composition, Auvernier and Burgaschisee have a very small steppe percentage, which they could have perfectly acquired due to exogamy"

Don't exaggerate. 30% and 21% are not very small percentages. The former is almost 1/3, the latter about 1/5. Enough to explain steppe yDNA.

"But since you are so interested in proving that this individual belonged to the CWC, can you explain what happened? Was he a lonely explorer, killed with a blow to the head and
buried on the shore of the lake? How many generations did it take in Switzerland to have that small percentage of steppe ancestry? Did he immediately adopt the
Neolithic culture of the region as did Aesch25 and Auvernier? Do you think that the steppe ancestry is transmitted only through the male line?"

The individual from Burgäschisee for sure wasn't a lone Corded Ware explorer. His Steppe ancestry is too low for that. But he had some steppe ancestry. He was mixed.
Maybe he was killed because of this? Because some locals wanted to get rid of the mixed bastard? Steppe ancestry of course isn't only transmitted through the male line,
but please explain to me why we don't find R1b-M269 individuals without Steppe ancestry. If the lineage originally had nothing to do with the Steppe, there surely would
have to be R1b-M269 farmers without Steppe admixture.

Simon_W said...

@Gaska

"A Fürtewangler-"CH Auvernier 2866-2601 BC (2sigma cal.) Schwegler 2016 The dolmen of Auvernier was discovered in 1876 near the lake Neuchâtel. The complex consisted
of 12 vertical stone slabs and two horizontal ceiling tiles. In the burial chamber inhumations of 15 to 20 individuals could be found. Marks on the stone slabs
indicate the reuse from an older Neolithic construction which was possibly used around 3000 BCE. The rebuilt dolmen is dated at 2800 BCE at the earliest and was
used until the Bronze Age. The ONLY DNA COULD BE RETRIEVED FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT DATES TO 2866-2601 calBCE. Samples were provided by the Archaeological Service
of the canton of Bern.
Those words mean that the individual is perfectly dated (like all the other samples of the work) - If you have any doubt, send an email to the researchers and ask
them for explanations about the dating-Obviously, that individual belonged to the Lüscherz culture, which also has absolutely nothing to do with the steppes or the
CWC. I'm sorry you're going to have to keep looking"

You contradict yourself. That individual (which is not the individual the DNA was taken from) is dated to 2866-2601 BC. Shortly later you say that the dolmen was used until the Bronze Age (= about 2200 BC). So like I said,
MX304 may well belong to the Auvernier cordé. The cordé in the name of that culture isn't a coincidence, but reflecting Corded Ware influence. The Swiss Corded Ware
extended up to Lake Biel, which is not far from Lake Neuchatel and Auvernier.

"What seems more unlikely is that individuals allegedly related to the CWC appear in Western Switzerland in three distinct Neolithic cultures (Horgen, Lüscherz, and
Cortaillod)
which are related to France and northern Italy"

They didn't appear in these cultures. But IMHO in the transitional phase to Bell Beaker, in a Corded Ware influenced environment, and in the Auvernier cordé.

"What happened to them? Did they get lost? Did they forget their battle axes? Did they get married outside their villages?"

Maybe they realised that they were not pure steppe people and identified themselves with the culture of their mothers? Or maybe they just developped some sort of respect for the
indigenous locals?

"Common sense tells us that they were Swiss
Neolithic farmers who were buried with their relatives according to their customs, that they acquired their steppe ancestry through exogamy and that we will find
more R1b-M269 / L51 in Neolithic cultures of Central Europe in the future."

That's very unlikely.

Simon_W said...

@J.S.

"@Davidski
Are you going to add to G25 the aDNA French sample files?"

It looks like Davidski is not going to reply to your question. Maybe because it has already been said that the French Iron Age samples are too low coverage. But some of the earlier samples (Bell Beaker) have been added to the G25. It's the same as with my question to you where those Iron Age Gauls are from. You don't reply to it because it was already said in the paper.

But I agree, it would nonetheless be interesting where they plot. Some inofficial G25 coords that are not added to the G25 sheet might be the solution.

That said I'd also be very interested in how those Alamannic BAM-files plot. If anyone could tell me how I can convert these into files that David works with, then I'd immediately do it.

Samuel Andrews said...

@mzp1,".....your theory cannot explain the biggest branching events in IE, Centum/Satem"
"If I ask you many important questions like what caused the separation between centum and satem branches you can't answer. "

You say Corded Ware is too young to explain the deep branches of IE.

Then explain why, four different distinct IE langauges in Europe can be traced back to Corded Ware: Balto-SLavic, Germanic, Celtic, Italic.

Not even you will deny IE languages in Europe mainly come from Corded Ware.

Lingustics is not a fossil. Ancient DNA is a fossil. Ancient DNA gives more definite time periods of when things happened than lingustics. Because you say IE branches broke off in 5000 BC doesn't mean it happened that early.

Gaska said...

@SimonW-

1-Aesch25-Sorry, but your argument regarding the dating of this sample seems absurd to me because everyone calculates the average between the calibrated dates. Therefore, it could be dated in 2,501 BC but in the same way in 2,864 BC- The Bell Beaker period (2450–2200 BC), is marked by new cultural elements, including decorated bell-shaped pottery, common ware, wrist guards, V perforated buttons, and a rich iconography of anthropomorphic stelae (Gallay 1995)- We have already discussed that it could be a BB intrusive burial in a dolmen of the Horgen culture, but the lack of grave goods related to that culture and its Mit Hap, means that his ancestors (at least by maternal line) had been buried in that dolmen for 300 years, ERGO we are talking about a neolithic farmer without any doubt, so calling him a german CW is misleading-Then if its steppe ancestry is a good argument for you to think that it is related to the CWC, for me it is only an anecdote that can be explained very easily through exogamy, and more considering that all the men belonging to that culture in Switzerland are I2a (and have dates similar to Aesch25)-
2-MX310-He may be Auvernier Cordé-Yeah “may be”, but that man is BURIED IN A DOLMEN built in 3,000 BC, remodeled in 2,800 BC which belonged to the LÜSCHERZ CULTURE-You should look at the few objects collected in the site to understand that there is nothing that can relate it to the Auvernier Cordé, absolutely nothing (Pottery, weapons, tools etc). The Lüscherz period is characterized by flint importation from France, especially the Grand-Pressigny region, as well as awls and stone bead types similar to those found across southern France (Stöckli 1995)-
The west–east axis does become more dominant during the Auvernier-Cordé with the increase of long blades and daggers, paralleled by flint importation from Grand-Pressigny region (Honegger 2001)- The sources of flint are mostly allochthonous, 41 pieces were created from flint originating in Mont-les-Etrelles (Haute Saone) (Cupillard et al. 1995), 31 were created from flint originating in Vallée du Largue/Forcalquier (Alpes-deHaute-Provence, France) and other from Yonne Basin- Have you found cord impressions or/and stone battle-axes in the dolmen?-NO, then you can continue dreaming but you will never be able to relate that sample to any variety of the CWC and please do not invent, I have never mentioned its use in the Bronze Age so I have never contradicted myself-
3-MX304-The dating of this sample is so evident that it can only be related to the Cortaillod culture, no matter that much later the CWC arrived because that individual is another Neolithic farmer with a small percentage of steppe ancestry which is not strange in the areas of contact with that culture-

gamerz_J said...

@vAsiSTha

Thanks for the elaboration, I think I understand your model now (PIE in Iran right?) but was a bit confused before when following the discussions you had about it.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

@mzp1

"I believe that these are developments that occurred to IE South of Caucuses, creating what we call Centum languages. Because Iran_N/CHG were not originally IE speakers, so those languages had huge substratum effects."

Actually, Tocharian is a kentum language and they have unexpectedly found Bangani in the Himalayan region which also is a kentum one. Google to find more about the huge uproar created by this discovery.

http://www.himalayanlanguages.org/language_studies/bangani

As a native speaker of Marathi I only recently noticed that it has both chetan (meaning energy or life ) and ketan (meaning a space). So really who knows which came first?

Gaska said...

SimonW-Do you know VK531 (2,400 BC)?-R1b-P297/L51 with ZERO steppe ancestry- We already have a case of M269 outside the steppes (Smyadovo-4,500 BC), nothing prevents us from finding its descendants in any culture of the Balkans or Central Europe (4,500-2,800 BC) and I suppose that all of them would maintain a small percentage of steppe ancestry-On the other hand, genetics is not reduced to the autosomal composition of individuals, there are many factors that you cannot control and many errors when calculating percentages-

Even if we accepted the miracle that those three Neolithic farmers in Switzerland were related to the CWC, their finding is devastating for the Kurgan theory as formulated by Harvard (Haak 2,015 etc ...)
1-There were no conquests or massive migrations related to R1b-M269/L51-
2-CWC men quickly mixed with the local population and abandoned their customs-
3-How could those solitary explorers, outliers or whatever you want to call them imposing their language/culture on western Neolithic cultures if they were very few, mixed with them and adopted their customs-Can you think of an explanation?
4-Can anyone believe that the BBC originated from the CWC?

gamerz_J said...

@Matt

Interesting pre-print but the results do not look that much different from PLINK unless I am understanding something wrong. However, it does seem more accurate with missing data.

gamerz_J said...

@Archi

"OIT is a false scientific concept that all Indo-Europeans are from India. It is based on the ideas that the Brahmans have been cutting out Kshatriys (or vice versa) for many millennia (Yugas), thus they say they settled."

Obviously I agree with you that's not true.

old europe said...

@simon_W

You wrote this:

But, A 311 was a male of about 20 years who was killed with an axe. He was a short, gracile, Mediterranean type, mesomesomorphic.

This was IIRC an R1b sample. It looks like a novelty to me. Weren't all the R1b eastern bell beaker supposed to be the proto europoid/steppe looking. This sounds strange to me. It looks like an Iberian Beaker with r1b.
Could you clarify

mzp1 said...

@Gaska,

So you're saying BBC is not related to Steppe DNA? What do you think about the Corded Ware? I guess you've been looking at this for a long time, can you fill me on this and what exactly you disagree with the Kurganists about. Not wanted to argue with you or anything but just interested in your (different) point of view.

Rob said...

@ Ric Hern

''"Yeah but thse transmissions were effected by hunter-gatherers from the Carpatho-Dnieper region."

Any specific cultures or culture you can point us to in this regard ? Was it a full package of ideas and innovations ?


This is just a ''ball park'' zone - where the early eastern LBk encountered a series of hunter-gatherer groups ~ 5200 BC. Archaeologists have outlined Big-Dniester, Dnieper-Donets (the latter might have been quite heterogeneous because it encompassed a larger territory), but these are mostly based on pottery labels. In reality groups were porous and mobile.
It was mostly piecemeal adoption of aspects from EEF. But this was bilateral, and the HG exported flint to Balkans, etc
As we know, farmers did not/ could not colonise the steppe (in fact nobody did at this time, communities remained in river valleys), but the HG clans might have been territorial, e.g. vying over Dnieper rapids (as documented in Mathieson and earlier isotopic provenance studies)
Come 4500 BC, things really picked up with the Eneolithic - Varna in Balkans, CT in West Ukraine and S/S -Khvalynsk in steppe. This is still at a 'pre-proto'' stage
After the Varna collapse, there were knock-on effects, e.g. the Khvalynsk chiefs lost their source of prestige. But the HG groups were robust and survived.
The new networks now drew not on the Old Balkan copper chiefts, but central European agropastoralists, baden & GAC groups, on the one hand, and Majkop on the other. Hence new genomic signatures with rising EHG/CHG and WHG-inflated MNE. Increasing adoption of pastorlaism but still piecemeal After 4000 BC, we can talk about PIE.
After ~ 3200 BC, pastoralism is adopted widely across steppe, esp in Caspian steppe, where it was completely new. We're probably looking a population replacement in Volga steppe.


All in all, we need 4D models by people who understand all the data, not 2D statistical constructs

FrankN said...

@vAsiSTha: "AASI is only very very deeply related to Onge and SE asian. Might possibly have additional inputs .."
You are touching on an important issue here.
On a general note: While there is certainly a lot of room for improvement when it comes to paleoclimatic modelling for South Asia, available data suggests that the subcontinent was heavily affected by the LGM. More specifically, the change in the ocean/land ratio effected by lower sea levels during and after the LGM, and formed two large land masses, Sundaland and Sahul:
(i) Those landmasses severely constrained water exchange between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, directing most of related currents far southwards (south of Tasmania); and
(ii) The - then dry - Gulf of Thailand couldn't anymore provide for humid air. Instead, Sundaland apparently created a continental high pressure zone that diverted humid airflows southwards (i.e. away from S. Asia).

The result appears to have been a virtually complete termination of the Eastern Monsoon by ca. 18 ky BC at latest. Geology suggests a decrease of glaciation of the Central and Eastern Himalayas during and after the LGM, signifying that they hardly received any precipitation anymore. Consequently, the Ganges and other rivers running from the Himalaya would probably have fallen dry. There is a certain chance that the northern end of the Bay of Bengals might still have served as refugium for humans and other species, but most of India's east coast would have been hardly inhabitable.

OTOH, there is quite some paleoclimatic evidence for strengthening of the Western Monsoon during and after the LGM, meaning Baluchistan, India's west coast, and at least the lower Indus valley should have been well inhabitable. As concerns SW Iran/Baluchistan, this seems to have been a late Neanderthal holdout, possibly into the early Holocene. However, the coastal (now submerged) areas further east, including the then much larger Maledives, might well have provided an appropriate habitat to AMHs. It's those areas that I would tentatively associate with AASI (and pre-pre-proto Dravidian). The entrance of AASI ancestry - in the order of 2-3% - into Iran_N, obviously mediated via the Persian Gulf Oasis, fits that narrative.

Note that the a/m paleoclimatic considerations don't just apply to the LGM. For the Gulf of Thailand to become re-flooded, it took at least to after the Younger Dryas (Meltwater Pulse 1B). The Sunda and Torres straits in all likelyhood only opened after the 8,2 ky event. As such, most of Eastern India, including the Ganges Valley, might have been hardly habitable before the 6th mBC (refined paleoclimatic studies, and/or AMS-dated archeological finds might correct that assessment).

Angantyr said...

@Gaska

"-Do you know VK531 (2,400 BC)?-R1b-P297/L51 with ZERO steppe ancestry"

He was R1b1a1-P297, nothing else was reported. And P297 is of paleolithic age, so of course there were P297 men without steppe ancestry, just like the P297xM269 Kunda and Narva Baltic HGs.

Rob said...

@ FrankN

Yeah I hope archaeology of Paleolithic South Asia advances more. Its hard to even make ''archaeological guesstimates'', at present


'' this seems to have been a late Neanderthal holdout, possibly into the early Holocene''

Really ? Neadnerthals in 9000 BC ?

Rob said...

@ Ric

Also the Carpathian passes have been used for Eons, from modern nomads back to Paleolithic big game hunters.

old europe said...

@angantyr

where was found this sample and what is its genome wide ancestry?

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe “I remember reading in Anthony's The Samara valley project book that there was an uptick in diseases and violence related deaths prior to the Yamnaya period, in comparison to the Khvalynsk/Sredny Stog days. Interestingly the haplogroups in those earlier periods seem more diverse. I think the increase in mobility due to wagons could have lead to a more violent, patrilineal kin based society.”

By that, do you mean the extinction of R1a and Q1a in the transition from Khvalynsk and SS into Yamnaya?

Andrzejewski said...

@Jatt_Scythian “Are those being tested anytime soon? Do you also think we'll find small amounts of R1a in Yamnaya?

What about Middle Dnieper?”

I’m curious, you brought it up. Just with my comment yo @Copper Age, R1a and Q1a were found in Khvalynsk, so the way R1b became dominant in Yamnaya must be a missing link here.

Angantyr said...

@old europe

"where was found this sample and what is its genome wide ancestry?"

VK531 was found in Northern Norway close to the city of Tromsø. It is included in the Viking Age preprint and the genome data is not available yet, but a plot in the preprint shows being intermediate between EHGs and SHGs.

Gaska said...

@MZP1-

The BBC was the first pan-European culture and had many regional variations- In Iberia it is very old (2,800 BC) and at first it was related to large Calcolithic villages and with the massive production of arsenical copper-R1b-P312 never monopolized this culture, there are G2a, I2a and H men buried in BB deposits throughout Europe (Hungary, England, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain)-In other words, BB culture was not exclusively related to steppe ancestry because it is not exclusively related to M269, and only in those areas of contact with the CWC that autosomal component became a distinctive aspect of the BBC-Much later, the Central European Bbs extended this signal throughout Western Europe (British Isles, southern France, Iberia and the islands of the western Mediterranean)- On the other hand, R1b-L754 is documented in Europe since the Epigravettian (12.000 BC), so it is evident (as Argantyr says) that there are many cases of this lineage that do not have steppe ancestry (whatever it is, and although every day it is more difficult to know what exactly it is)-

I speak Spanish (IE) and Euzkera (Non IE) and I don't care about the origin of these languages because I consider it impossible to find out, but I am clear that the Basques are the most direct descendants by paternal and maternal lineage of the Iberian Bbs, and like the Iberians, the Aquitanians and the Tartessians we never speak an IE language. This genetic continuity makes me think that the BBC never spoke an IE language and that therefore R1b-P312 has a western origin and that it did not participate in migrations originating in the steppes unlike R1a-I think that in Western Europe the expansion of Indo-European languages is a matter of the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, nothing to do with Chalcolithic

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob @Ric Hern “This is just a ''ball park'' zone - where the early eastern LBk encountered a series of hunter-gatherer groups ~ 5200 BC. Archaeologists have outlined Big-Dniester, Dnieper-Donets (the latter might have been quite heterogeneous because it encompassed a larger territory), but these are mostly based on pottery labels. In reality groups were porous and mobile.
It was mostly piecemeal adoption of aspects from EEF. But this was bilateral, and the HG exported flint to Balkans, etc
As we know, farmers did not/ could not colonise the steppe (in fact nobody did at this time, communities remained in river valleys), but the HG clans might have been territorial, e.g. vying over Dnieper rapids (as documented in Mathieson and earlier isotopic provenance studies)
Come 4500 BC, things really picked up with the Eneolithic - Varna in Balkans, CT in West Ukraine and S/S -Khvalynsk in steppe. This is still at a 'pre-proto'' stage
After the Varna collapse, there were knock-on effects, e.g. the Khvalynsk chiefs lost their source of prestige. But the HG groups were robust and survived.
The new networks now drew not on the Old Balkan copper chiefts, but central European agropastoralists, baden & GAC groups, on the one hand, and Majkop on the other. Hence new genomic signatures with rising EHG/CHG and WHG-inflated MNE. Increasing adoption of pastorlaism but still piecemeal After 4000 BC, we can talk about PIE.
After ~ 3200 BC, pastoralism is adopted widely across steppe, esp in Caspian steppe, where it was completely new. We're probably looking a population replacement in Volga steppe.“

Dnieper Donets were described as very “Europoid”, robust and their reconstructions looked like ancient Greeks. Anthony 2019 claimed that DD had the same uniparental markers as WSH except for the latter having EEF and CHG mtDNA. Based on this argument l, Dr. Anthony thought that it’s likely PIE is an EHG language, although I have my own (strong) reservations.

Andrzejewski said...

@Arza “Our data have also highlighted the persistence of the Magdalenian heritage in hunter-gatherer populations outside Spain and thus provide arguments for an expansion of these populations at the end of the Paleolithic period, more northerly than what has been described so far. Finally, no major demographic changes were detected during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages.”

Is it true that they found that modern Spaniards and French are ~5% Magdalenians (the former are 25% Villabruna WHG cluster), while in Poles Magdalenians are approximately 2% of their heritage?

Anonymous said...

@Andrzejewski
"Anthony 2019 claimed that DD had the same uniparental markers as WSH"

Nonsense, Dnieper-Donets had R1b-V88 and I2a.

"Dnieper Donets were described as very “Europoid”, robust and their reconstructions looked like ancient Greeks."

This is too big an abstraction, they were not completely similar to the ancient Greeks. They had an incredibly archaic structure, were very massive, peculiar Neanderthals among the Cro-Magnens, half of them had flattened faces. They left no descendants. They were very far from modern people, even the Mesolithic population of the Dnieper was closer to the modern population.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews “The authors of every ancient DNA West Eurasian paper, need to take a mandatory course taught by Eurogenes bloggers.

The ancient DNA field is so new that no one is schooled in it. They have lots of education but not education on this topic. None of the authors study the details as much as people on this blog.

If they think EHG spoke Uralic.......Oh my goodness.”

Did EHG speak a Comb Ware Ceramic language instead? How is Volosovo related to Uralic, or is it basically a Comb Ceramic language?

Some commentator here noted recently that PIE cannot be a CHG one because it’s diametrically opposed to Kartvelian language macrofamily; but OHOH PIE and Proto-Uralic cannot be more different from each other in phonology, morphology and vocabulary/lexicon - except for a few Sintashta-era influence on PU - so is PIE closer to CHG instead?

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

Yamnaya wasn't derived from Khvalynsk but from Sredny Stog. So was Corded Ware.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski “Yamnaya wasn't derived from Khvalynsk but from Sredny Stog. So was Corded Ware.”

Wow! I’ve read that Yamnaya was an outgrowth of Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog and Repin amalgamated, and that Sredny Stog is somewhat ancestral to CWC but not so much to Yamnaya. I also read Anthony 2019, but there are lots of things he said that I don’t agree with him

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@Andrzejewski
"Dnieper Donets were described as very “Europoid”, robust and their reconstructions looked like ancient Greeks."

Come on, bro, get real. Other than being Caucasoid, there's no way those two populations looked anything alike. Ancient Greeks were genetically more similar to Yemenis than to Ukraine Neolithic. You're putting too much faith in superficial reconstructions. If you saw a Dnieper Donets person and a Mycenaean in the flesh they'd look even more different from each other than I do from Davidski.

vAsiSTha said...

"Yamnaya wasn't derived from Khvalynsk but from Sredny Stog. So was Corded Ware."

You got a model for that?

Andrzejewski said...

@zardos @Samuel @Rob “Continuity after BBC might be a relative thing, because after the time of the Beakers most of Europe had steppe ancestry already. If, what I still think, Celts came with a later Iron Age wave to the West, the shift is to be expected being rather subtle.”

The Scythian influenced group was not La Tene but Hallstatt. And it was not the Scythians who were Thracian-like but the Cimmerians. Some Cimmerians and East Saka had East Asian mtDNA but they were not the majority

Andrzejewski said...

@Michalis

This is what I based my opinion on. Supposed to look like a DD person.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper–Donets_culture#/media/File%3ADnieper-Donets_male_(Vasil'evka_III).jpg”

About ancient Greeks looking like Yemenis, I’m not so sure: Levant_N were 1/3 Anatolian Neolithic, 2/3 Natufians, in addition to both populations being mainly Dzudzuana (Natufians were Dzudzuana + Iberomaurasisns; Iran_N and CHG were Dzudzuana + ANE). I’m not sure where Proto-Semitic came from, if they were derived from Pre-Pottery or that Pre-Pottery are direct descendents of Anatolia farmers. Furthermore, Semitic people already were 45% Iran_Chalcolothic I’m not sure if it was due to Kura Araxes or what. Was the relations between Semitic and Hamitic languages reflective of the Iberomarausain introgression into Natufians? Who knows.

The bottom line is that Anatolian_N and Levant_N were distinct albeit closely related populations, although it seems that Europeans have on average 40%-90% Anatolian_N, but pre-IE European v. Middle Eastern cultures and languages, as well as the physical anthropology traits (Ötzi reconstruction) cannot seem more far apart. I just can’t wrap my head around all these apparent contradictions, and there seems to be lots of missing pieces to the puzzle here - where did Southern/Central pre-IE Neolithic Europeans versus ancient Levantines and Semities started to diverge.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@Andrzejewski

Obviously ancient Greeks didn't look like Yemenis. I didn't say they did. The only point of that comparison was to illustrate just how different Greeks were to populations on the WHG-EHG cline. You keep going back to reconstructions (this is the millionth time I've seen you allude to Otzi). Forget them; they're fun but clearly not very informative. Check out the Kostenki reconstructions and try not to laugh at how different artists can make the same specimen look.

Andrzejewski said...

@Old Europe “we alredy know since the dzudzuana paper came out in september 2018 what is the relationship between Iran and CHG

Dzudzuana is Villabruna (like) + Basal Eurasian

CHG= Dzudzuana + ANE
Iran Neolithic is CHG + a bit more ANE”

Therefore, Anatolia Neolithic Farmers are WHG + Basal Eurasians, right?

And CHG = ANF/EEF/Barcin + ANE —> CHG = WHG + Basal Eurasians + ANE

Now, EHG = 35% WHG + 65% ANE (or Yana-like)

So, if we model PIE/WSH as 50-50 CHG - EHG, then:

PIE are WHG from both it’s EHG and it’s CHG side; ANE from both CHG and EHG PLUS Basal Eurasian from CHG side.

BUT - we know that Yamnaya/WSH are also 18% EEF

So Indo-Europeans are WHG from EHG, CHG and EEF; Basal Eurasians from both its CHG and Globular Amphora admixture; and ANE from CHG and EHG, in terms of its deep ancestry sources.

Am I correct or not?

Andrzejewski said...

@Michalis “Obviously ancient Greeks didn't look like Yemenis. I didn't say they did. The only point of that comparison was to illustrate just how different Greeks were to populations on the WHG-EHG cline. You keep going back to reconstructions (this is the millionth time I've seen you allude to Otzi). Forget them; they're fun but clearly not very informative. Check out the Kostenki reconstructions and try not to laugh at how different artists can make the same specimen look.”

Understood. But who were the Pre-Pottery Neolithic folks, and what’s their relationship to both Levant and Anatolian populations? And where did Semitic tribes emerge from, knowing that their languages were linked to prehistoric North Africa but they were already 45% Iran_Chalcolothic when they arrived on the scene?

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews “That's a fair argument, it is strange CHg ancestry is basically absent in Ukraine and Russia HGs. But, the fact is Yamnay has CHG ancestry from the Cauasus. The fact is CHG only lived in the Caucasus and never lived in Central Asia, therefore it is impossible for Yamnaya to have Central Asian ancestry.

Ukraine Neolithic HGs dating 5500 BC do have very minor CHG ancestry. Russian HGs in Samara do not. However, I think hunter gatherers in southern Russia did have lots of CHG ancestry.”

By “Ukraine_N”, do you mean Dnieper Donets, Bug Dniester or Sredny Stog 1?

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski “Yamnaya is a mixture of EHG/Ukraine_N with mostly hunter-fisher populations from the north Caucasus foothills rich in CHG-related ancestry.

You'll see that this mixture took place well north of the Caucasus near the Don River around 4,500 BCE!“

Could it be that the CHG rich ethnicity that contributed to the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya Piedmont_EN?

I’m waiting to see who was buried at the R. Yar cemetery, were they CHG rich?

J.S. said...

@Simon_West
The Iron Age samples are from Picardy(North), Alsace(East) and Languedoc-Roussilon (South). I can't be more specific.
https://www.inrap.fr/ancestra-10433
K15 results map
https://imgur.com/vcApcIm

Samuel Andrews said...

@Andre,

Harvard lab is working on a new paper on Eneolithic East Europe. They have 30+ new Khvalnsky genomes. None of them belong to R1b M269. Which, almost definitely means Khvalanksy is not the ancestor of Yamnaya.

David's claim Yamanya is from Sredny Stog is a theory yet to be proven.

Samuel Andrews said...

Everyone expected Yamnaya to be the descendant of Khvalansky. It is a surprise to everyone.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Js,

Those are K15 results for Iron Age France? Where did you get them? There's a lot of variation. They're mainly between France and Basque, some near England and North Italy. One outlier is from Eastern Europe.

Samuel Andrews said...

Old Y DNA studies have more signifcance now.

For example, Greece and Turkey and Armenia have 15-25% R1b M269. Some kind of IE migration happened in those places.

We already have three examples of R1b M269 in Bronze age Middle East all dating 1000 BC. One in Northwest Iran, one in Armenia, one in Israel.

How did R1b M269 get from Russia into Middle East? Through Balkans or through Caucasus?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,

R1b M269 is an Indo European haplogroup. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you on this.

No way, Steppe ancestry in Balkans left no Y DNA behind. Probably, there isn't Y DNA replacement. But, ancient Greeks definitely had some Indo European Y DNA. Why couln't it have been R1b M269?

It is really interesting to me, that actually Armenia has 28% R1b M269, speaks an Indo-European language. Maybe, Armenian language comes from R1b M269-rich pop from Bronze age Southeast Europe.

Rob said...

@ Sam

Maybe it is but certainly not the & only. You and needy people like Jatt Scythian somply assume that PIEs came from R1-rich Volga people. ANd despite the continued evidence to the contrary, you keep spinning the same shit
So i offer you to back your claims - outline the sublineages of R1b in SEE and their chronology
Otherwise, wait for aDNA

J.S. said...

@Samuel Andrews
Graham, from theapricity linked the results.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?310130-NEW!-All-Gedmatch-calculators-on-Vahaduo-ON-LINE&p=6668318#post6668318
http://vahaduo.genetics.ovh/k15ancient-vahaduo.htm
Another guy, a Polish one, Dolmen from hitstorycy.org told me he sent the files to Dave few days ago.
http://www.historycy.org/index.php?s=fc3bb290cb84aa90ec4f909fd64ab16e&showtopic=184053&st=3300

ambron said...

Coldmoutains, Y-DNA mutations are of course important, but you need to carefully draw conclusions from their individual ancient finds. They cannot be directly attributed to ethnos, as Balanowski and population geneticists believe. More important, therefore, are autosomal data that show that Steppe MLBA pulls genes from Central Europe. This does not change the fact that some Y-DNA lines may have belonged to an older, local demographic substrate.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,

You're telling me I'm stupid for associating R1b M269 with Indo Europeans? Are you completly ignorant of all the ancient DNA which has come in the last 5 years?

Ancient DNA has given enough evidence to say it is a fact R1b M269 originated in Indo Europeans.

If you want to find signals of Bronze age INdo European migrations into Greece, the 15-25% frequency of R1b M269 is a really good place to look.

CrM said...

@Andrzejewski @Michalis Moriopoulos
"This is what I based my opinion on. Supposed to look like a DD person."
"Forget them; they're fun but clearly not very informative."

I agree with Michalis, reconstructions are fun but they're pretty inaccurate for the most part. Speaking of Dniepr-Donets and Comb Ceramic... there's this image floating in the internet.

https://imgur.com/a/ZQBQM2k

Ric Hern said...

About the spread of certain strains of Barley.

Found this little gem included in the Map :

"Dashed lines: routes of spread are more speculative, based on sparser distribution of barley genepools and/or archaeobotanical data."

So what basically happened here is they found Barley at a site in Azerbaijan, well South of the Caucasus and then proposed a spread across the Caucasus into the Steppe, with absolutely no certainty. Meanwhile back at the ranch the same paper mentions the Cultivation of Barley already in Central Europe at roughly the same time as the Azerbaijan site +-6000 BC.

So I think it is safe to say that Steppe people recieved most of their agricultural and husbandry knowledge from the West most probably via the Cris Culture...


Slumbery said...

@Samuel Andrews

Well, I thought for a while that the main ancestor of the population of Yamnaya proper within the wider Pit Grave phenomenon is the western side: Repin. I think I wrote about this opinion last year in some topic. This is actually compatible with Davidski's idea with Sredny Stog, because Sredny Stog is older and probably participated in the formation of the Repin population. (The exact extent/percentage of this participation is impossible to tell for now.)
So I am, for one, not surprised that the main ancestor is not Khvalinsk. I would be surprised to learn that Khvalinsk was not a significant minority ancestor however. The archaeological transition from Khvalinsk to Yamnaya proper seem to be very smooth and gradual.

Coldmountains said...

@ambron

Not sure what you are talking about here. EEF admixture among Sintashta and Indo-Iranians can be explained with GAC or other EEFs which already penetrated deep into Central-East Europe (Poland, Ukraine,..). Sredny Stog 4000 B.C already had some groups rich in it. So the idea that Sintashta got it Central-Euro-like admix from some place like Germany is not really supported. Y-DNA is of course most important here and where PIE Y-DNA will be found from this region also PIE is most likely from. We are talking here about a very patriarchal and pastoralist group which got his language most likely from his EHG side.

Samuel Andrews said...

@slumbery,

"So I am, for one, not surprised that the main ancestor is not Khvalinsk."

That's cool. You are one of the few who expected Yamnaya is from west of Khvalank.

Rob said...

@ Sam

''You're telling me I'm stupid for associating R1b M269 with Indo Europeans? ''

And moreover dishonest- You keep twisting statements.
I did not critique you for connecting R1b-M269 with PIE, in some way or form, but the centrality you assign it, and in this specific case, your suggestion that Myceneans spread with R1b-M269.


''Are you completly ignorant of all the ancient DNA which has come in the last 5 years?''

Yes all the R1b-M269 in Iberia and Britain - Not very relevant for the early spread of IE languages


''If you want to find signals of Bronze age INdo European migrations into Greece, the 15-25% frequency of R1b M269 is a really good place to look.''

Like I asked, can you break down the P312 in Greece and assign its chronology ? It's a simple question. If you can, then I withdraw my critique

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"I did not critique you for connecting R1b-M269 with PIE, in some way or form, but the centrality you assign it,"

I give it centrality, because it originated in Proto-Indo Europeans and it was a major haplogroups for multiple Indo European spreaders. In particular Bell Beaker and Yamnaya.

I give it centrality because it is central. Central alongside R1a M417.

Samuel Andrews said...

Fact number 1=R1b M269 was one of the haplogroups of the Proto-Indo Europeans.
Fact number 2=Albania and Greece have 15-25% R1b M269. Neighboring, Romania, Serbia have low frequencies of R1b
Fact number 3=The chances most R1b in Greece/Albania is from Western Europe is 0%.

ConclusioN: The R1b M269 there is a good candidate for legacy of early Indo European waves in Southeast Europe.

Rob said...

@ Sam

You're a buffoon without any facts.

First off, according to population studies, the frequency of R1b-M269 in Greece is 7 -13,5%, not 25%
Secondly, 4-6% of that is U152, from Romans, Crusaders, and whatever else from western Europe
The rest is Z12013 and 1-2% of x L23. I bet it didnt arrive with early Myceneans, but only arrived during the MLBA

Anonymous said...

@
1. The fact that the BBC is not Indo-European.
2. The fact that R1b-M269 is the BBC.
3. The fact that the BBC is a completely separate population from the CWC.
4. The fact that R1b-M269 are not Proto-Indo-European, but they became Indo-European as a result of the well-known process of assimilation Eastern BBC by the CWC.

Early (P)IE https://i.ibb.co/47LH7bp/image.png
Late https://i.ibb.co/F7f16QG/Centum-IEgroups.png

There's nothing to argue about.

Andrzejewski said...

@Ambron @coldmountains “ We are talking here about a very patriarchal and pastoralist group which got his language most likely from his EHG side.”

You and Anthony say the same thing. But how can you explain the polar opposites between PIE versus EHG languages like Uralic, Comb Ceramic or Botai in terms of morphology, phollgy and grammar, (excluding a few words stemming from contact)?

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel @Davidski “Harvard lab is working on a new paper on Eneolithic East Europe. They have 30+ new Khvalnsky genomes. None of them belong to R1b M269. Which, almost definitely means Khvalanksy is not the ancestor of Yamnaya.

David's claim Yamanya is from Sredny Stog is a theory yet to be proven.”

Is it probable then, that Samara HG culture, along with its putative successor, Khvalynsk, may NOT be Indo-European speaking?


I’ve always thought that Sredny Stog was almost overwhelmingly R1a1, so thinking of Yamnaya as its direct offspring would require a major rearranging of my thought process...

FrankN said...

Rob: "Really ? Neadnerthals in 9000 BC ?

First a correction: I erraneously spoke about Neanderthalers in SW Iran, but meant SE Iran. In the SW, i.e. the Zagros, Neanderthalers appear to have died out by the LGM at latest, maybe already around 30 kyBC.

My statement was based on P. Biagi's assessment of Mousterian assemblages in SW Pakistan
http://lib.chmnu.edu.ua/pdf/arheologi/3/3.pdf

"The currently available evidence (..) seems to support the impression of the absence 1) of any rapid techno-typological change marking the arrival of modern humans, as it is clearly observable, for instance, in Europe, 2) of any possible cultural/ chronological subdivision based on the systematic occurrence of industries with typologically well-defined traits throughout the entire Late (Upper) Palaeolithic. This phenomenon seems to last until the very end of the Pleistocene/beginning of the Holocene." (p. 36f)

gamerz_J said...

@Frank_N

"The entrance of AASI ancestry - in the order of 2-3% - into Iran_N, obviously mediated via the Persian Gulf Oasis, fits that narrative."

Do you have a citation for specifically that amount of AASI ancestry in Iran_N?

gamerz_J said...

@Michalis

I don't think ancient Greeks were more similar to modern-day Yemenis, were are you basing that on? Minoans you mean?

Matt said...

On topic of Uralic, kind of missed this abstract from ESBA last year - https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/events/653/program-app/submission/122849 -

"The population dynamics of eastern Siberia revealed by Lake Baikal region" includes - "... further demonstrate the formation of these populations. They were formed by the gene flow from Ancient North Eurasian ancestry into East Asian ancestry between 8,000-7000 years before present, supported by a recent admixture signal in the Early Neolithic group (15-20 generations ago) and a relatively ancient signal in the Bronze Age individuals (75-100 generations ago). This admixture event also provides a source for the unique North Siberian ancestry present in the contemporary Nganasan population ".

6000-5000 BCE. Roughly compatible with split off of proto-Samoyed lanuguage at est 4000 BCE, or no? The usual objection to Uralic from WSHG/ANE has been that the WSHG/ANE trace in Nganassan happened much earlier than this, but this abstract proposes a relatively late admixture date. In this model, admixture between Nganassan and WSHG independent of event that formed Native Americas, and relatively recent. Let's see if there is any substance to back this.

@gamerzj, the situation in the scenarios with missingness of 5-50% is not very different, but in scenarios with individuals with 90-99% missingness (over 350k sites, so 35000-3500 sites), it is quite different.

See: https://imgur.com/a/yGggJak ; Neither match real truth, but PLINK producing more uninformative outliers at poles that just reflect variable missingness, and more noise in intermediate proportions, than EMU.

Since lots of adna has very high missingness, it is worth a look, I think.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@gamerz_J

Vahaduo distances and PCA positions using G25. And what I said was that ancient Greeks were more similar to Yemenis than to Ukraine Neolithic. The point was that if Yemenis look different from Greeks, imagine how different the even less-related Dnieper-Donets people must have looked. Is this really that hard to understand?

Andrzejewski said...

@Sam @Michalis “That would be sweet. There's a lot to untangle, about relationship between Epipaleo West Eurasians.

For example, mtDNA H, T2, J1, N1a1 all existed in IranNeo and AnatoliaNeo. All clades are less than 30,000 years old. Yet, David Reich says IranNeo and AnatoliaNeo are as distinct as modern Europeans & East Asians. Obviously, this isn't true.”

Seems like Dzudzuana formed the basis/substrate for 4 distinct populations: Levabt_N, Iran_N, Anatolia _N and CHG. It would be riveting to find out who the Sumerians, Halafians, Ubaidians and Yassinians came from, what ethnicity was the Pre-Pottery Neolithic culture, and who’s ancestors to whom

Simon_W said...

@Old Europe

MX304 has only 30% Steppe according to the qpAdm Analysis in the paper. That's easily compatible with a Mediterranean look. Modern Iberians don't have much more. According to Vahaduo he has 41.6% though, and plots closest to French people from Paris. But the distance is great. It may be noisy because MX304 is quite low coverage.

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi “Q1a2 most likely formed a WSHG cluster.”

I agree with you 100%. The only lingering Q is whether it came to Khvalynsk from Botai, Keltinminar or Steppe Maykop. It also seemed that there has been a long simmering rivalry between WSH groups - Yamnaya, Sredny and Sintashta - and all these WSHG neighboring tribes.

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi “The hypothesis that early CWC had populations with R1a and with R1b is unscientific, it is wrong. Early CWC was one population (with R1a). BBC were another population (with R1b). The BBC was not Indo-European speaking, it is a proven fact. And the mixing happened later.”

That’s what I myself used to think until 2 weeks ago, but the discovery of the SGC culture at the margins of CWC society has been a game changer for me

Ric Hern said...

Let's leave the R1a and I2a guys to fight another 20 years for the "privilege" of being the "Only" first PIEs...so good luck on weaving Indo Europeans past all the R1b samples, all the way from Russia to Ireland.

Simon_W said...

@J.S.

I'm not Simon West BTW.
But great that Domen has sent the files to Davidski. Let's wait and see if they have enough markers…
Today I've also asked Domen to process the Alamannic BAM-files for Davidski. I suppose they will have enough markers to be added to the G25.

Andrzejewski said...

@zardos “About PIE it still stands that this language was brought by EHG, because that are the dominant paternal lineages and have a heavy autosomal impact as well. There is no other element in PIE of which both could be said: Absolutely dominating the male lineages and having the dominant overall genetic impact.“

Right, so how come Semitic people have predominantly CHG J1 & J2 patrilineal lineages yet they speak an Iberomaurasian/Afroasiatic/Semitic-Hamitic labguagecclose yo Berber and related to ancient Egyptian? And how can you plausibly explain that PIE is so different from EHG ones like Uralic ones?

Simon_W said...

@Gaska

1-Aesch25-Judging from Vahaduo/G25 analysis he is most similar to German CW. And very, very far from the earlier Horgen samples. You claim his paternal line isn't from the steppe and the maternal line had been buried in the same dolmen for 300 years. Something doesn't add up. If he was only half Corded Ware, and half Horgen by ancestry he'd have much less steppe. So if he wasn't a Corded Ware migrant, then his steppe ancestry must have come from pure Yamnaya people settling down in Aesch. Not a very realistic scenario!

2-MX304-You said it: Only few objects were collected in the site. No wonder clear Auvernier Cordé objects are missing. For me his R1b and his steppe admixture is the best evidence that he's indeed from the Auvernier cordé. And yes you did cite a text from the paper's supplement asserting the continued use of the dolmen up to the Bronze Age. This is what you have cited: "...The rebuilt dolmen is dated at 2800 BCE at the earliest and was used until the Bronze Age..." I didn't invent this.

3-MX310-The dating of this sample is 2862-2581 BC. So there is really nothing here that can exclude contact with the Corded Ware here!

BTW we confused MX310 and MX304. You confused them first, I took it on from you. But now I called them by their correct IDs.

"We already have a case of M269 outside the steppes (Smyadovo-4,500 BC), nothing prevents us from finding its descendants in any culture of the Balkans or Central Europe (4,500-2,800 BC) and I suppose that all of them would maintain a small percentage of steppe ancestry"

Unlikely, but possible, however R1b-M269 without Steppe yet has to be found to confirm that theory.

"2-CWC men quickly mixed with the local population and abandoned their customs-

3-How could those solitary explorers, outliers or whatever you want to call them imposing their language/culture on western Neolithic cultures if they were very few, mixed with them and adopted their customs-Can you think of an explanation?"

I think it's possible that Bell Beakers didn't speak IE, inspite of their R1b and Steppe admixture. So what you wrote might be an explanation how and why this happened.

Simon_W said...

BTW @Gaska
I wouldn't call autosomal ancestry anecdotal. What's anecdotal are rather the uniparental markers because they ultimately reflect only an infinitesimally small part of one's ancestry. Autosomal ancestry in contrast reflects everything a person has inherited and a wide coverage of one's pedigree

Simon_W said...

In short, autosomal ancestry tells you what you are. YDNA and mtDNA are rather random.

Anonymous said...

@Andrzejewski
"The only lingering Q is whether it came to Khvalynsk from Botai, Keltinminar or Steppe Maykop."

Botai, Steppe Maykop cultures were later Khvalynsk.

"That’s what I myself used to think until 2 weeks ago, but the discovery of the SGC culture at the margins of CWC society has been a game changer for me"

No evidence that SGG was R1b. It is a fact that none of the Swiss R1b specimens belong to CWC.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Slightly off topic but how much CHG is there in Iran and Afghanistan?

Rob said...

@ Ric

''Let's leave the R1a and I2a guys to fight another 20 years for the "privilege" of being the "Only" first PIEs...so good luck on weaving Indo Europeans past all the R1b samples, all the way from Russia to Ireland.''

I don't recall ever stating that, in fact it tends to be guys who are obviously R1b-M269 who make outlandish claims, like Sam, Carlos Quilles & the muppets @ Anthrogenica.
Obviously, hg I is 35,000 yr old, and most of them have nothing to do with PIE. But some are rather central, and the evidence will speak for itself.
I for one believe the evidence points to a network of HG's around the steppe leading to PIE formation, ranging from I2a2 to R1a, R1b, J1, Q1.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Rob

I agree with you.

There's more douchebags arguing that R1a is Uralic than there are people arguing R1b is not related to PIE.

Gaska said...

@Simon

Summarizing our conversation, we could say that these men are indeed Neolithic farmers (Horgen-Lüscherz and Cortaillod cultures) because you do not have a single valid argument to try to link these Swiss samples with the CWC-You have no archaeological arguments (because they do not exist), no anthropological arguments (Mediterranean type), and your genetic arguments are reduced to their autosomal composition. Yeah, autosomal DNA is important for knowing percentages of ancestry, but it's absolutely useless for accurately determining the geographic origin of uniparental markers-This is precisely what has happened with the failure of the Yamnaya culture where neither R1a-M417 nor R1b-L51/L11/P312 have been found. The uniparental markers are the only valid guide to trace an indisputable genetic continuity and this continuity is the only one that can explain both the direct transmission of the language (as has been demonstrated in Iberia) and the direct transmission of a culture-Smyadovo (Bulgaria-Gumelnita culture-4,500 BC), and Glavanesti (Romania-R1a-3,500 BC), are two recent examples that both lineages may have entered mainland Europe during the Neolithic and therefore it is perfectly possible that these men had descendants who lived in other European Neolithic cultures - Unlikely? Maybe, but in any case, it's perfectly possible-I don't share your faith in autosomal DNA primarily because it's perfectly possible that men or women who share unipersonal markers have very different autosomal compositions-that's the case with R1b-M269, because none of his R1b-L754-P297 ancestors have that famous steppe ancestry. Why don't you compare those samples with Iberian chalcolithic, you might be surprised-The similarities in autosomal composition can originate in both men and women and it is impossible to determine if one or the other is responsible-that is, Aesch25 shares 60% with the German CW?-1.What samples have you used for comparison - Espertedt, Eulau, Yamnaya?-2-Have you checked the uniparental markers in those samples?-3-Do you understand that this similarity is partly produced by the similarity of the genomes of the Neolithic farmers?-Regarding the other two cases - Auvernier and Burgaschisee - their percentage of steppe ancestry is so low that if they really had their paternal origin in the steppes, their ancestors must have been in Central Europe for several generations (perhaps 3,000 BC?), which would even be outside the temporal range of the CWC and you would have to look for alternative migrations or perhaps other explanations (Smyadovo etc)

gamerz_J said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos

You are probably referring to Mycenaeans then, and yes I am aware of their positions on the Vahaduo PCA, but if you attempt to model them at their components, Mycenaeans for me seem to get a lot more Ukraine_N ancestry than Yemeni.

It is not hard to understand and I don't mean to imply that Mycenaeans looked the same or close as Dnieper-Donetz people but I don't think that the Vahaduo distances are definitive on that question.

gamerz_J said...

@Matt

", the situation in the scenarios with missingness of 5-50% is not very different, but in scenarios with individuals with 90-99% missingness (over 350k sites, so 35000-3500 sites), it is quite different."

Thanks for the elaboration, I only had a quick look the first time, I noticed later. Yes with high missingness it does much better indeed.

gamerz_J said...

@Archi

"Botai, Steppe Maykop cultures were later Khvalynsk."

Is there evidence for Botai/WHSG gene flow into Khvalynsk? I am asking because I don't think so based on what I have read and some Global 25 models but perhaps I missed something.

Simon_W said...

Regarding the origins of the French Iron Age samples, I think we can draw some conclusions from their ID labels. According to J.S. they are from Picardy, Alsace and Languedoc-Roussillon. Now PEY53 and PECH5 are clearly from Languedoc-Roussillon, because there are no placenames starting with these letters in Picardy and Alsace, but several in Languedoc-Roussillon. According to Domen from historycy.org, PEY53 resembles Bretons and PECH5 Catalans from Girona. (See post #3298 on http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=184053&pid=1878520&st=3285& ) BES1248 could be from Picardy or from Languedoc-Roussillon, but since it's closest to Normands from Upper Normandy I guess it's from Picardy. I have no idea what BFM265 stands for, but it's closest to modern Picards, so I guess this is from Picardy too. The samples starting with NOR could be either from Picardy or the Alsace. NOR3-6 and NOR3-15 are closest to Burgundy-Franche-Comté, NOR2B6 to Pays-de-la-Loire and NOR4 to Veneto-Verona. The overall picture suggests to me they are rather from southern Picardy, perhaps from Noroy-sur-Ourcq. JEB8 must be clearly from Alsace, there is no placename starting with JEB in the other regions. The same applies to the samples starting with ERS, they must be from Alsace too. JEB8 resembles Germans from Rheinland-Pfalz, ERS1164 Germans from the Saarland, ERS88 Lombardy-Bergamo, ERS86 Cataluna-Tarragona. ATT26 could be either from Picardy or the Alsace. Since he's closest to Germans from the Rheinpfalz I would guess he's from the Alsace. Would fit the pattern. I have no idea where the samples starting with COL are from. Of course Colmar immediately comes to one's mind. But there are other places starting with Col in both of the other regions.

So the Belgae (the samples from the Picardy) look similar to modern Frenchmen from northern and central France. The Triboci (from Alsace) are partly German-like and partly rather southern, similar like CHE_IA SX18. And indeed the Triboci may have been early Germanic migrants expanding along the Rhine southwards. The Celtic locals apparently were much more southern. Finally the Iberian-Celtic mix in the south apparently varied between Catalan-like and Breton-like.

J.S. said...

Simon_W
I really hope you could do something with the Bronze & Iron Age samples files.

Simon Stevin said...

@gamerz_J There is absolutely no WSHG/Botai admixture in Khvalynsk. From Damgaard et al. 2018: "We therefore examined the genetic relationship between Yamnaya and Botai. First, we note that whereas Yamnaya is best modeled as an approximately equal mix of EHG and Caucasian HG ancestry and that the earlier Khvalynsk samples from the same area also show Caucasian ancestry, the Botai_CA samples show no signs of admixture with a Caucasian source (Fig. S14). Similarly, while the Botai_CA have some Ancient East Asian ancestry, there is no sign of this in Khvalynsk or Yamnaya." I am not sure if it is disputed or what, but WSHG may have some Ancient East Asian ancestry like that found in Botai despite the latter being much younger. Either way, as has been stated by both Damgaard and Davidski, there is no East/Central Asian/Siberian or WSHG/Botai ancestry in WSH groups such as Samara, Khvalynsk, Progress/Vonyuchka, Sredny Stog, Yamnaya, Srubnaya, or Poltavka.

gamerz_J said...

@Simon Stevin

(I am re-writing the comment because I accidentally replied to myself.)

Thanks, I am aware of the paper, hence why I said earlier that I don't think so but I was confused by some of the comments here and Ydna Q1a2.

Simon_W said...

@J.S. I'm not that advanced as a user, I checked their Eurogenes K15 results on Vahaduo. But Domen's analysis makes more sense to me, he's a DNA wonk like David.

J.S. said...

Simon_West
https://www.zamzar.com/uploadComplete.php?convertFile=ods&to=xls&session=5d344b6a68ee8d3db49e4a63e7cad7&email=true&tcs=Z93

Simon_W said...

@J.S.

I'm not Simon West, I told you before.

What you linked are the Eurogenes K15 results of the BA/IA French samples. But I've seen them already on Vahaduo, at least the IA samples.
Here: http://vahaduo.genetics.ovh/k15ancient-vahaduo.htm

And of course I had checked for each sample which of the modern pops comes closest to these K15 results. But I didn't post it, because the results Domen had posted on historycy.org made more sense to me. The Eurogenes K15 is quite old, it's not state of the art. And Domen has much more modern population samples, allowing for a more finely grained allocation of the ancients to the modern pops.

But to enable you to judge for yourself, I'll post what I had got with those K15 components:

PEY53 = Southeast_English
PECH5 = Spanish_Galicia
NOR4 = Spanish_Galicia
NOR3-6 = South_Dutch
NOR3-15 = German_Bavarian
NOR2B6 = Italy_Trentino
Jeb8 = France-South
ERS88 = Italy_Lombardy
ERS86 = France-South
ERS1164 = South_Dutch
COL153i = French
COL153A = French
COL11 = North_German
BFM265 = South_Dutch
BES1248 = Southeast_English
ATT26 = West_German

For comparison Domen's analysis:

PEY53 = Bretagne
PECH5 = Cataluna-Girona
BES1248 = Upper Normandy
BFM265 = Picardy
NOR4 = Veneto-Verona
NOR3-6 = Burgundy-Franche-Comté
NOR3-15 = Burgundy-Franche-Comté
NOR2B6 = Pays-de-la-Loire
Jeb8 = Rheinland-Pfalz
ERS88 = Lombardy-Bergamo
ERS86 = Cataluna-Tarragona
ERS1164 = Saarland
ATT26 = Rheinpfalz
COL153i = Cataluna-Terres-de-l'Ebre
COL153A = Tyrol
COL11 = Galway

I'd say the results are similar in many cases. And arguably the Eurogenes K15 results make more sense in the case of NOR4, Jeb8, ERS86, and the three COL samples.

Simon_W said...

In this inofficial Vahaduo G25 sheet there are also the Alamanns:

http://g25world.genetics.ovh/Ancient_NicolaunScaled.htm

First I thought "what the heck?!" How did he get the G25 coords of the Alamanns, even though they are not in Dave's G25 spreadsheet? I found this unfair. But now I checked which one of the ancient averages from the official G25 sheet comes closest. And I saw that DEU_MA has a distance of 0.0000000. So what this guy called Alamanni are in fact the Baiuvars. And the so called Marcomanni in his sheet is the Medieval Poprad sample. That guy is terribly misleading.

J.S. said...

@Simon_W
My apologies. I don't know why i'm still calling you "West".
Anyway.
The Germanic samples seem a bit far away from the modern French ones.

Simon_W said...

Well, Saarland, Rheinland-Pfalz and Rheinpfalz are not the most Germanic parts of Germany. It looks like the Triboci were admixed. And else, I get the impression that the early Medieval expansion of the Salian Franks also expanded Belgic ancestry.

«Oldest ‹Older   801 – 911 of 911   Newer› Newest»