Tuesday, April 21, 2020
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. 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. 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
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
MX265 explains how the Roman name Lacus Venetus was created.ReplyDelete
This specific individual does ?ReplyDelete
Veneti- are found in France & Britain too
From all ancient scaled population averages, Hungarian Scythians are closest to MX265. He's even closer to Scythian_HUN than Hallstatt_Bylany:DA112 is! And Samuel Andrews rightly remarked that DA112 is probably also just a Hungarian Scythian, in line with his burial. So the only sensible explanation imho for MX265 is that he's part of the Scythian infiltration of the central European Celtic world. Nope this has nothing to do with the Veneti.ReplyDelete
Is there any info available about the MX265 burial?
I cant recall any Scythian infiltration of Switzerland. The Scythians remained in the Carpathian basin, raids excepted
If this guy has Scythian affinity, it's due to being in contact with them..
''And Samuel Andrews rightly remarked that DA112 is probably also just a Hungarian Scythian, in line with his burial.''
Such as ?
Not in the paper; someone would have to do a research in the literature.
He's not from Switzerland but from Singen, Germany. And there is some Steppic Scythian cultural influence in the Hallstatt and La Tène world, quite broadly. Now we see this was brought by people with Scythian ancestry, not just through imitation.
Sam wrote about DA112: His DNA was sequenced by Damgaard 2018 on Eurasian Steppe, who sequenced this Hallstatt DNA because the site showed Scythian cultural influence.ReplyDelete
I did not know about that join@ feature for the G25 views. Thank you for that :)ReplyDelete
'' Now we see this was brought by people with Scythian ancestry, not just through imitation.''
Yes I agree with that. I'm just not sure this guy was actually a Scythian.
As we know, La Tene was influenced by Scythians
Actually La Tene was influenced by the later steppe world in cultural terms, but genetically Scythians should be of secondary importance. More important might have been in the Hallstatt culture already a fairly significant Thraco-Cimmerian impact. Actually we might even deal with an upper class, aristocracy from the East in Hallstatt. Certainly in Eastern Hallstatt, which wasn't even Celtic most likely, but rather Thraco-Illyrian based, and probably even in Western Hallstatt from which La Tene emerged after the Hallstatt society collapse.ReplyDelete
How about this individual fitting into such a scheme?
Back to Corded Ware we might finally see that there were different clans and patterns spreading along different expansive spheres. Like we see a connection from Polish Lowland and Southern Poland. This relates very clearly to different groups of people, certainly tribes, probably even more signicant ethnic distinctions. And it shows that
a) Some CW isolated their paternal lineage
b) Some CW accepted foreign males among their ranks, even got dominated by locals in an area
c) Some CW even assimilated into locals completely
There is no general pattern and this might relate to the linguistic diversity in some regions. This is the main lesson to learn from these results. It was known by large already, but now we have plenty of proofs for it.
“So the only sensible explanation imho for MX265 is that he's part of the Scythian infiltration of the central European Celtic world. Nope this has nothing to do with the Veneti.”
It was a Venetic/Venedic lake, not Vedic. And that individual was R1a- M458, not R1a-Z93.
Venedic R1a-M458 was not Vedic R1a-Z93. Slavs were not Indo-Aryans although their role was similar to the role of Indo-Aryans in India.
Adam Mickiewicz w prelekcjach paryskich na podstawie podobieństw językowych i podobieństwa religii sformułował tezę, że Słowianie przybyli z Indii i rozpowszechnili religię Indii w Europie. To był dość powszechny pogląd wśród badaczy w tamtych czasach, którzy znali Sanskryt i języki słowiańskie oraz wiedzieli coś o religii wedyjskiej i słowiańskiej. Prof. W. Mańczak wykazał, że języki słowiańskie, a zwłaszcza polski, zawierają najwięcej rdzeni wspólnych pozostałym językowm indoeuropejskim. To by wskazywało na brak przedindoeuropejskiego substratu w kolebce Słowiańszczyzny. To wskazywałoby również, że Słowianie nie przybyli z Indii, lecz do Indii zawędrowali. Zanieśli swoją religię nie tylko do Indii, ale też do Grecji i Europy Zachodniej. To by wyjaśniało liczne podobieństwa językowe i kulturowe. Wydaje mi się, że to dzisiaj potwierdza genetyka. Nauka zachodnia kontynuuje tradycje prusaków i nazistów, oni niczego nie rozumieją.
Genetically the Scythians from Hungary are only partly Scythian. So MX265 is also only partly Scythian, partly local Pannonian. Facts are he is closer to the Scythians_HUN than to any other population average, that surely means somethingReplyDelete
@Rob: My bad, I should have been more clear with my wording. I referred to early steppe influence on Hallstatt (= Thraco-Cimmerian) and later ones on La Tene (= Scythian).ReplyDelete
So you are right, it was Scythian contact for La Tene. But what I wanted to say with this is that even in Hallstatt and pre-La Tene, steppe influences were present and should be, demographically, even stronger than the later Scythian ones. With "later steppe world" I just meant full fledged Scythians. "Early steppe world" would be pre-Scythian/Sarmatian in my book, before the typical horse nomad way of life emerged with the Scythians and succeeding cultures up to Mongols. In this case and for Hallstatt especially Thraco-Cimmerian, which even formed a horizon in the critical time according to some sources.
Actually his C14 dates overlap mostly with Hallstatt only marginally with early La Tene. So he probably reflects the Thraco-Cimmerian influence found in Hallstatt C1, the horse bits and daggers of eastern origin.ReplyDelete
@ Simon W & ZardosReplyDelete
Yep agree. I recall I earlier had said that Thraco-Cimmerians were 'more friendly' and perhaps influential
Cimmerians have a lot of Asian ancestry. This guy has zip.ReplyDelete
@David: Thracians had zero too afaik and how representative are those possibly Cimmerian samples we have so far?ReplyDelete
What if MX265 is a “forest steppe Scythian”, from Cernolis culture etcReplyDelete
Yes Lake Constance was at times called lacus venetus. So apparently Veneti like those in northeastern Italy once lived in its vicinity. There is also a late antique source claiming that the Vindelici north of it were originally Liburnians, a people that has been suggested to have been related with the Veneti. However MX265 is so close to Scythian_HUN, that I don't believe it's a coincidence. DA112 also was close to these. Of course as they were not purely Scythian by ancestry, R1a-M458 needn't be Indo-Iranian nor from the Steppe. Moreover I have to remark that a connection between the Veneti and the Venedae of Poland isn't established beyond doubt.
The ancient Venetic language found in Italy for sure isn't Slavic. It's close to Italic or even part of it.ReplyDelete
The fact that it has no cultural context is not true, I do not trust a word to the one who started this rumor.
Aesch site is attributed as the Bell Beaker culture (finely Aesch25).
This is an early mix of WSH and EEF in BB when they haven't fully taken on their classic look yet.
The paper is very bad, the archaeological descriptions are very bad, they are insignificant, the archaeological descriptions are completely untrue. The data is extremely poorly presented and incomplete. The authors are biased in the terminology and display of results. This is one of the worst papers.
When the Scythian campaigns smashed the Lusаtian culture, there were naturally many refugees from there. In general, in those days a lot of people were moving.
Central Europe....Basic factsReplyDelete
Corded Ware to Bell Beaker transition=Population replacement
Bell Beaker to Bronze age transition=Population continuity.
Bronze age to Iron age (Celts)=Probably Population continuity.
We know that Iron age Italic tribes were of 50% Bell Beaker origin, mostly carried R1b P312. So, we can directly link that IE language to Bell Beaker.
Eventually, someone will get lots of Hallstatt and La Tene genomes. I bet they will turn out a near complete continuation of Bell Beaker Central Europe. Which will link Celtic to Bell Beaker as well.
In this low coverage study, something like 30 Celtic Y Chromsomes all came out R1/b.
Multi-scale archaeogenetic study of two French Iron Age communities: From internal social- to broad-scale population dynamics
There's no signs of real East Europe contribution into Central Europe after Bell Beaker. Nothing which can be linked to the origin of Celtic languages.
The Aesch Dolmen is located on the banks of the Birs River, which splils into the Rhine River about 10 miles away. The Rhine was likely an important waterway for the expansion of SGC (and AOC) groups) in all directions.ReplyDelete
Nah its a great paper. Invaluable data. Moreover, it doesnt make any claims it can't back. It describes the transitions of LN - BA. It doesn't delve into what BB is, what CWC isReplyDelete
Admittedly, the supp info is brief on the sites, so I've dug some stuff up
There are two early R1b-L151 which appear
A dolmen originally built c. 3000 BC
Re-used c. 2750 BC
The R1b-L151 is the youngest of the individuals analysed, all others being > 100 years older, and are all EEF with hg G2a1
Aeasch25 has high steppe ancestry
The individuals had all been buried in extended supine position
The one outlier was in a hocker position, like BB
Dolmen with multiple burials, built ~ 3000 BC
Reuse ~ 2700 BC, and then continues to B.A.
Outside the tomb, a 2m stellae had been built.
Individual analysed dates to ~ 2700 BC, is R1b-L151. Mix of steppe & EEF.
M458 from Lacus Venetus is characteristic of later Wenden. Plinius and Tacitus exchange Veneti together with Sarmates (successors of Scythians).ReplyDelete
I think it's more likely that the Veneti the lacus venetus refers to were R1b-rich Italic speaking people similar to Lech Valley BA. And MX265 was a very recent migrant who had come up the Danube. After all being Serbian-like he's likely a mix of Eastern European and Danubian ancestries rather than identical to an Iron Age people from eastern PolandReplyDelete
Thanks for pointing that out Rob. Aesch25 isn't the only R1b M269 dating 2800-2600 BC in this study. There are actually three of them! Three R1b M269s in Western Europe, dating 2800-2600 BC!ReplyDelete
But, the other two are mostly Neolithic famer. Hence, this is consistent with what David is saying about these guys being Corded Ware males living in majority Neolithic farmer world.
Anyways, it proves R1b L151 is who pushed Corded Ware into the Rhine region very early on.
G25 Fits for Aesch25.ReplyDelete
Steppe EMBA plus Middle Neolithic Europe.
CWC_Early_Poland and CWC_Early_Baltic included into that model.
When given the option to chose Yamnaya/Afan or CWC_Early, he scores almost 0% Yamnaya/Afan.
So, we're looking at Corded Ware-specific stuff going on. This is even though both early Corded Ware samples are R1a M417.
See the approximation of the origin of Centum IE
"it proves R1b L151 is who pushed Corded Ware"
Absolutely not, you're twisting the data, it proves exactly the opposite, R1b L151 is just Bell Beakers, they have nothing to do with Corded Ware.
For Auvernier, all models show poor results, or rather none of the models is better than the others. This leads to the conclusion that the WHG+ANF+WSHSamara mixture is inaccurate for it, and other sources should be found for it.
Y chromosome SNP results for Curgy les Croisats and Urville-Nacqueville
Multi-scale archaeogenetic study of two French Iron Age communities: From internal social- to broad-scale population dynamics
Claire-Elise Fischer's thesis:
Contributions of archaeogenetics to the study of groups of the second Iron Age in France: multi-scalar approach
In temperate Europe, and more particularly in France, the Iron Age is divided into two periods: the First (800-400 BC) and the Second Iron Age (400-25 BC). The Second Iron Age is often associated with Celtic cultures, the unity of which has been shown through the study of Celtic art.However, this apparent unity is now rediscussed through recent work in archeology. While cultural diversity is well known from an archeological point of view, it is still little addressed from a biological point of view. This work therefore offers a unique paleogenetic and paleogenomic analysis of individuals from three necropolises in the North of France, distributed along the Seine valley, a major axis of exchange between Manche and Burgundy. A total of 106 haplogroups and 87 mitochondrial haplotypes could be characterized, as well as 15 paternal lines.
In addition, 12 genomes with low coverage were obtained. At the local level, the data obtained were systematically compared with the available biological and archaeological data, making it possible to highlight three distinct functions. The necropolis of Urville-Nacqueville (Normandy) seems to welcome a cosmopolitan population, while that of Gurgy ‘Les Noisats’ (Yonne) is probably used by a local community. The cases of Barbuise ‘Les Grèves de Frécul’ (Yonne) and d'Urville-Nacqueville also reveal the complexity of the social organization of these Iron Age groups through the structuring of the funerary space.Although these necropolises welcome diverse communities, they share an important mitochondrial diversity, an absence of regrouping based on maternal links and a weak diversity of the paternal lines. These results form a bundle of indices supporting a patrilocal type matrimonial system and a patrilineal type filiation, consistent with the data in the literature. On a regional scale, the results show that the sites located in the lower Seine valley share more affinities with the groups in the south of England while those in the upper Seine valley are closer to the populations of the he east of France and occupy an intermediate position between the north and the south of France, thus highlighting a genetic structuring of these groups according to their location along this fluvial axis.Finally, on a continental scale, the results show that the Iron Age communities of Western Europe form a coherent genetic cluster and exhibit genetic continuity with the Bronze Age groups. The acquired data agree with the archaeological hypotheses favoring an economic, political and / or climatic transition to explain the transition between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, in agreement with the local evolution of the groups perceived at the genetic level. .https://www.theses.fr/s203359
MX265 IS MY DADDY, and oh he's my daddy's daddy too. One thing that may be a cogent point about his autosomal makeup may be found in mine, his theoretical male-line descendant and if not that, distant cousin. My closest matches in the Eurogenes oracles at GEDmatch are west Germans and south Dutch, and while I do have west German ancestry, the majority is British Isles. It is just that with my German and British Isles, I also have Sicilian ancestry, and adding that farmer-rich component to the steppe-heavy British makes my overall closer to the west Germans. This kind of effect must be considered when mulling upon the ancestry of MX265, whom I have named Windiorix. Hey, we M458s have been waiting for this guy for a long time.ReplyDelete
@J.S., Thanks. SO preliminary results show continuity from Bronze age to Iron age Celts.ReplyDelete
"In addition, 12 genomes with low coverage were obtained. "
"Finally, on a continental scale, the results show that the Iron Age communities of Western Europe form a coherent genetic cluster and exhibit genetic continuity with the Bronze Age groups. "
Sample_name Hg Hg_marker Total_reads Valid_markers QC-score QC-1 QC-2 QC-3
DA197 R1a1a1~ R-CTS4259/etc*(xS2848, AM01874, CTS456, CTS3402, YP1158, CTS11934, S5293, YP6454, YP403, YP594, FGC28656, YP1375, YP3914, Y24038, YP5887, FGC64142, YP5961, F992) 3096613 15477 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
R-Z93 Z2479/M746/S4582/V3664 * Z93/F992/S202 * FGC77882 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
Scythian as in culturally or linguistically? I highly doubt this individual ever spoke an East Iranian ancestry.ReplyDelete
What type of Asian ancestry did Scythians have(East Eurasian, WSHG or farmer type?)
Mean Coverage 1240k SNPsReplyDelete
Markers with haplogroup information:
Total derived calls:
Relevant derived calls below R1:
Haplogroup assignment in the .xls file:
MX265 low coverage
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.ReplyDelete
@Arza "Haplogroup assignment in the .xls file:ReplyDelete
MX265 low coverage"
They have different data in the xls and pdf tables.
MX265 Singen (D) 763-431 L146/M420/PF6229 R1a
I know. But most people will reach to the .xls file first. And giving him just "R1a" still counts as hiding probably the most important data in this paper. Good luck with arguing with historians if it's not explicitly written in the publication that he has a Slavic marker.
@Rob, I agree that this is a very important paper in many regards.ReplyDelete
Regarding the Auvernier individual, we cannot really assume much. The 2866-2601 date was not from him but from a different individual within the dolmen and the dolmen was used up to the Bronze Age. There were a total of 15-20 individuals buried there.
It's one of the countless bad things about this paper, they've done so badly that there are no words. It's like they were just doing it on their knees. They could have given only the sources and the sample description table and the paper would have lost nothing from that.
Awesome, we have three R1b-M269 in Switzerland-Aesch25 (2,682 BC), MX304 (2,734 BC) and MX310 (2,721 BC) - all of them Neolithic farmers buried in collective graves. Very difficult times are coming for the steppes theory- The CWC in Switzerland is I2a, nothing to do with L51. The Alps and brachycephaly are the key to understanding the origin of P312, How far are the fairy tales of the conquests of mainland europe by the riders of the steppes. I suppose everyone will now agree with Furholt when he denied the existence of those massive migrations-Those Swiss Neolithic farmers have exactly the same mitochondrial haplogroups as the French, Iberians, and British- The megalithic culture was very uniform genetically speaking, so more surprise awaits us
So I have been re-looking at the steppe dna data after having had new ideas from looking at the other data, particularly the position of PIE relating to the Neolithic and the spread of Farming, Pastoralism and Metallurgy wrt to ADNA and the IE question.ReplyDelete
It is clear that PIE is a culture of advanced animal husbandry with basic metallurgy and basic use of grains. This is clear from looking at IE cognates across families and is also consistent with internal evidence from Indo Iranian literary chronology.
According to IE linguistics Animal Husbandry and Wheeled Vehicles predate organized Agriculture and advanced Metallurgy.
Therefore, IE should not be a Bronze-Age society. Moreover, arguments that Horses and Wheels only became relevant post-Neolithic in the Steppes is not consistent with the spread of IE according to linguistics. If we assume Horses and Wheels predate, or are independent of the Neolithic, than we are consistent with the internal evidence from IE linguistics. If this is what it takes to overturn misheld assumptions about the history of technical innovations then it is good the study of IE linguistics has provided that to the world.
Non-believers use the argument that the steppes were not agricultural so IE does not have the terms for that. However, though agriculture was not a major part of the steppe cultures, metallurgy certainly was, and by the late Bronze Age it is too developed and economically important for it be 'forgotten' by the early strata of Language and Literature in Indo-Iranian.
Therefore, one has to look outside of the Neolithic expansion from the Near East to find the larger Indo-European cultural sphere, of which the Neolithic is a divergent branch.
I think it's reasonable the Anatolian Farmer ancestry in Steppe MLBA found it's way there through the Neolithic in Northern Iran, Jeitun etc, then mixed with Pastorialist harboring the 'baseline' steppe ancestry which is mostly of EHG and Near Eastern (Iran_N/CHG?).ReplyDelete
We have J in Karelia EHG and EHG signals in early Mesolithic Iran which increases in the Chalcolithic. So we are looking at an increase of Anatolian and CHG influence from the earliest Neolithic West Asian samples, and a 'resurgance' of local HG. The resurgence is something we are seeing frequently, it tells of the interaction between Farmers and HGs (Pastorialist) where the early Neolithic actually shows greater foreign influence from incoming Anatolian farmers and later this is diluted as Pastoralists take up farming. The opposite can happen too where farmers join the Pastorialists and we can see this in Steppe
MLBA (Anatolian component) and also post BMAC Scythian samples.
I don't think the term 'Steppe' really makes sense for MLBA due to them being defined away from the original steppe genome which is ANE with or without Near Eastern for example, Samara HG, Botai, Sarazm Eneolithic, Yamna?. MLBA has additional Anatolian which is not found in pre-Neolithic Steppe ANE cultures. The original 'steppe' peoples are ANE+Iran_N.
This makes sense because IE is supposed to be a pre-Neolithic culture and Iran_N is common in EHG related steppe groups and also the Anatolian Neolithic on which Yamna is dependant. Iran_N is also linked to South Asia.
There is also the Corded-Ware like Alexandriya sample which is too early to be descended of Corded Ware, and also the Steppe signal in Haji Firuz and also Hotu Cave. These are too early in West Asia to be descended from their later relatives in Europe.
"The population structure of the ancient Near East was not independent of that of Europe (Supplementary Information, section 4), as evidenced by the highly significant (Z=−8.9) statistic f4(Iran_N, Natufian;WHG, EHG) which suggests gene flow in ‘northeastern’ (Neolithic Iran/EHG) and ‘southwestern’ (Levant/WHG) interaction spheres (Fig. 4d)."
Although the Neolithic seems primarily related to the spread of IE, it is important to note that Neolithic cultures are lacking in some important aspects of IE culture, Horses, Wheeled Vehicles and Metallurgy are areas where we see influences from the North And East, as these technologies were already spread out by the original spread of PIE prior to the Neolithic expansion leading to Yamnaya and Steppe MLBA.
@CrM Am I reading it ccorrect in that Mx265 is closest to the Anataolin farmer admixed Scythians? And ssome of those Sakas were predominantly East Eurasian?ReplyDelete
@Gaska "Very difficult times are coming for the steppes theory"ReplyDelete
Everything's fine with the steppe theory.
CW-like = ~50% WSH + ~50% EEF
BB-like = ~50% CW-like + ~50% EEF
WSH men come from Eastern Europe definitely.
Common IE only CWC (-> SGBR)
the approximation of the late origin of Centum IE, only SGBR
Distance to: DEU_EIA:MX265
MX265 is closest to DA197,
Distance: 4.8476% / 0.04847633
Distance: 3.4228% / 0.03422825
Devils Gate and Neolithic Baikal are East Asian, and some Saka indeed pick a lot of that ancestry.
“the approximation of the late origin of Centum IE, only SGBR
Archi, what do you think about the wave theory:
Arza, Y-DNA from Welzin is even more hidden.ReplyDelete
I think it's reasonable the Anatolian Farmer ancestry in Steppe MLBA found it's way there through the Neolithic in Northern Iran, Jeitun etc, then mixed with Pastorialist harboring the 'baseline' steppe ancestry which is mostly of EHG and Near Eastern (Iran_N/CHG?).
It's from Globular Amphora and similar groups you fool. Here's a map...
The Poltavka outlier
"Archi, what do you think about the wave theory:
Wave theory and wood theory are opposed only in images; in fact, they do not contradict each other, but complement each other.
Of course, branches of Сentum languages should have formed long ago, the wave theory can not provide this.
They were formed by the transition of local east BB groups to dialects of local CWC groups, that cutting them off from the common continuum. But after division, they influenced each other according to the wave theory, as Baltoslavic influenced Germanic, making it similar to Baltoslavic. Which is also reflected in the wood models.
@Gaska said... R1b-M269 in Switzerland-Aesch25 (2,682 BC), MX304 (2,734 BC) and MX310 (2,721 BC) - all of them Neolithic farmers buried in collective graves.ReplyDelete
Aesch25: David's PCA above that shows Aesch25 plotting with Corded Ware samples and modern day northern Russians. All the Neolithic Farmers are at the very bottom right of the graph. They could not be any more distant from each other. Obviously this was a partoralist from a population deep in Eatsern Europe.
MX304: A quote from the paper: "2866-2601 date from individual of the same collective burial." Another words, he was not radiocarbon tested.
MX310: Another quote from the paper: "excluded from popgen analysis due to low coverage."
" Awesome, we have three R1b-M269 in Switzerland-Aesch25 (2,682 BC), MX304 (2,734 BC) and MX310 (2,721 BC) - all of them Neolithic farmers buried in collective graves. Very difficult times are coming for the steppes theory- The CWC in Switzerland is I2a, nothing to do with L51. The Alps and brachycephaly are the key to understanding the origin of P312, How far are the fairy tales of the conquests of mainland europe by the riders of the steppes. I suppose everyone will now agree with Furholt when he denied the existence of those massive migrations-Those Swiss Neolithic farmers have exactly the same mitochondrial haplogroups as the French, Iberians, and British- The megalithic culture was very uniform genetically speaking, so more surprise awaits us "
I don't like to be disrespectful, but Sometimes I think you are Trol or you play dumb. Neolithic western Europe had far less R1b and far less steppe genetics before male migrations. The increase in the frequency of R1b and ancestry in the steppe in western Europe is an obvious indication that male R1b strains with steppe ancestry arrived in western Europe from the east or from the north.
You seem to believe that recognizing facts is some kind of demerit for Western Europe, but that is bullshit. Modern Europeans are the result of mixing and understanding how mixing processes took place should not be demerit for anyone. There is ancestry of the steppe in the west / south as there is ancestry of farmers in the north. I don't understand why people here seem to deal with this issue in such a resentful way.
No modern European is completely steppe, totally neolithic or totally WHG. They're all mixed up. There is no 'pure horseman' of the steppe living to boast of 'conquering Western Europe'. From north to south and east to west modern Europeans are mixed.
Regarding Aesch25-Yeah obviously a pastoralist from a population deep in Eastern Europe, that's why his Mit Hap is X2b+226, which is an absolutely western lineage-
X2b+226-Iberia- Fuente Celada-5.033 BC>Les LLometes-3.590 BC>Coveta Emparetá.3,426 BC>Cerdañola del Vallés-2.550 BC>Cueva Verdelha-2.500 BC
Britain-Cissbury-3.513 BC>Carsington Pasture-2.088 BC
Morocco-Kehf el Baroud-BBC-2.800 BC
Germany-Niedertiefenbach, Wartberg culture- 3.125 BC/Haunstetten-2.027 BC
Switzerland-Aesch13-2.958 BC/Aesch25-2.682 BC
You don't have to be very smart to see that Aesch25's maternal ancestors had lived there for at least 300 years. Even some G2a of the dolmen have steppe ancestry. Of course, taking into account how you like fairy tales, surely you intend to make us believe that he is a newcomer from the SGC who forgot the battle axes in the Netherlands and went to the Alps on vacation -You also want us to believe that this man was able to change the genetics of western Europe with his magic wand-The reality is that this L51 is a Neolithic farmer buried in a dolmen, together with his close relatives-It is not an individual burial, it is not oriented according to CWC custom, there are no battle axes, there is absolutely nothing to can relate it to the CWC / SGC- From a population deep in Eastern Europe? Yeah may be Western Mongolia but only in your dreams-
Neolithische Kollektivgräber in der Schweiz (Urs Schwegler, p210)-Der Dolmen von Aesch
I know that as guardian of Kurganist orthodoxy your mission is to discredit any M269 that appears in Europe. It has happened many times over the years, but now we have two 27th BC Neolithic farmers undoubtedly classified as R1b-M269 and published in a very respectable genetic work. Neither you nor anyone else will succeed in disqualifying those samples. Now, all you have to do, is start looking for credible explanations for your steppe theory -I remember when you started two years ago the thread about the steppe BBs and how you said that the main difference between them and the Iberian BBs was the use of collective graves. two years later you have a very old R1b-L51 and found in a dolmen. Congratulations -The longer you take to rectify the harder the fall
What the hell are you talking about? -Nobody denies that we Europeans are WHgs, EEF and Steppe related -We are discussing things that apparently you don't understand.
Gaska said... "It has happened many times over the years, but now we have two 27th BC Neolithic farmers undoubtedly classified as R1b-M269 and published in a very respectable genetic work. Neither you nor anyone else will succeed in disqualifying those samples."ReplyDelete
I told you the delusional text of this paper would still be used to the detriment. Their deception with terminology where they do not even mention that the Aesch is attributed to the Eneolithic BBC and the names with the terms Neolithic, which is just delusional, is already used to the detriment, such as if it is Neolithic means this is farmer. Better be they hadn't written anything at all. Their archaeological description is just disgusting profanity. This paper has been ranked among the worst papers in terms of archaeological deception.
Get over your national pride or shut the fuck up. We're tried of hearing your bullshit you fucking moron.
" What the hell are you talking about? -Nobody denies that we Europeans are WHgs, EEF and Steppe related -We are discussing things that apparently you don't understand."
I did not say that you literally denied the mixture, but that you behave in a passionate way that refers to a person who would deny reality. The increase in the frequency of R1b strains in western Europe is related to the increase in the autosomal ancestry of the steppe. This is a fact, deal with it in a less passionate and irrationalistic way.
Yeah Gaska, me and all those geneticists that keep saying M269 is derived from the steppe. You are a joke.ReplyDelete
"Within the X2b+226 clade, there are an Early Neolithic sample from Hungary (Garadna site; 5,281−5,132 BCE)64 and a Chalcolithic sample from Spain (El Mirador Cave; 3,010−2,975 BCE)49. HVRI and HVRII data also indicates the presence of X2b+226 in two Neolithic samples from Germany (Salzmünde site; 3,400−3,025 BCE and 4,100−3,950 BCE, respectively)45. All these results, imply the affiliation of X2b with Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations of Europe."
Doesn't look particular "western" to me, rather like typical (albeit minor) EEF mtDNA of Near Eastern origin. Aesch25's ancestors might have picked it up in North Hesse (post-Wartberg), but equally - should their route have passed through there - on the Middle Saale. Wartberg would at least somewhat better explain the strikingly low EEF portion (anybody having an idea where that Niedertiefenbach X2b+226 plotted on the WHG-EEF scale?)
Still, the fact that a guy with EEF maternal ancestry holds just a bit over 10% ANF is extremely irritating (see my respective comment under the previous thread).
Now that R1b-L51 has been found in Corded Ware will we find R1a-Z93+ in the eastern end?ReplyDelete
It'll be in Abashevo and Fatyanovo, both CWC derived.ReplyDelete
Are those being tested anytime soon? Do you also think we'll find small amounts of R1a in Yamnaya?ReplyDelete
What about Middle Dnieper?
To me it seems what happened, is R1b Z2103 Yamnaya pushed out all Kurgan pops out of the Steppe into Central Europe where they created Corded Ware. Because, R1b L151 and R1a L664 and R1a Z283 and R1a Z93 are all in Corded Ware. Yet, Yamnaya seems to be only R1b Z2103.ReplyDelete
What do you guys think of that idea? I don't think there is any hard evidence for it.
Yes, Abashevo and Fatyanovo are being tested. No idea about Middle Dnieper. Haven't heard anything about that.
I'm not sure if there'll be any legit R1a in Yamnaya. Maybe, but even if so, these lineages might not be relevant to the modern R1a lines that probably all came from Corded Ware.
But yeah, Corded Ware and its R1a are definitely from the steppe.
I think what happened is that, for whatever reason, proto-Corded Ware and Afanasievo moved out first, and when they did they created some space for Yamnaya, which then moved out as well into the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans. The people that were left behind became the more aggressive, well armed Catacomb, but they started migrating as well eventually.
It's possible that increasing aridity on the steppe had something to do with this, although I'm not discounting conflicts, which may have arisen due to increasing scarcity of resources.
Ancient genomes from present-day France unveil 7,000 years of its demographic history.ReplyDelete
Genomic studies conducted on ancient individuals across Europe have unraveled how migrations have contributed to its present genetic landscape, but the territory of present-day France has yet to be connected to the broader European picture. We generated a large dataset comprising the complete mitochondrial genomes, Y chromosome markers and genotypes on a number of nuclear loci of interest, obtained through a DNA enrichment approach, of 203 individuals sampled across present-day France over a period spanning 7,000 years, complemented with a partially overlapping dataset of 58 low-coverage genomes. This panel provides, for the first time, a high-resolution transect of the dynamics of maternal and paternal lineages in France as well as of autosomal genotypes. Both parental lineages and genomic data revealed demographic patterns in France for the Neolithic and Bronze Age transition consistent with neighboring regions with a first wave of migration of Anatolian farmers, then varying degrees of admixture with autochthonous hunter-gatherers and a second high gene flow from individuals deriving part of their ancestry from the Pontic Steppe at the onset of the Bronze Age. 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.
Two Beakers (R1b and G2a), single I1 in the Iron Age, C1 C-K29 in one neolithic sample. The rest is standard R1b (BA, IA), I2a (Meso, Neo), H, G2a (Neo).
Wow, new ancient DNA studies are coming out of the wood works.ReplyDelete
“ which then moved out as well into the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans”
Some of that “Yamnaya” might also be from an earlier wave , ie Cernavoda . Esp the I2a2 guys
Dave: Has any of the Niedertiefenbach stuff already been incorporated into G25?ReplyDelete
Not yet. I'm not overly keen on basing the G25 on low coverage, non-UDG treated shotgun sequences. But when the genotypes are released and they look OK, I'll add the highest coverage samples.
Also, there are Neolithic samples from Germany already in the G25 that are very similar to these.
MtDNA of MX265, 763-431 calBC, is H1c. I have seen on Anthrogenica the following admixture analysis:ReplyDelete
Baltic EST BA 25%
CWC Germ 32%
His mtDNA has indeed been detected in the Baltic during the late BA and the Iron Age:
BA Estonia Jõelähtme Harju OLS11 1060-850 cal BC H1c,
LBA Latvia Kivutkalns215 700 BC H1c,
IA Estonia Loona Saare X04 480-360 BC H1c
There are also earlier H1c samples from Scottish and English Neolithic, TRB Sweden, Megalith Sweden, BB and EBA Germany and English EBA. H1c is clearly a northern European mtDNA line.
As for modern H1c, the highest frequency seems to be in Poland (http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/h1c_genbank_sequences.htm). H1c is also frequent in Russia and Sweden. Could the yDNA of MX265 be originally from Poland or thereabouts?ReplyDelete
Distance: 2.0406% / 0.02040550 | ADC: 0.25x
He definetly has some (North) Balkan ancestry i would say. Hard to say from where he is from because he is obviously mixed but Hungary, South Poland or the Carpathian region are my guesses
Do you know anything about Trzciniec Y-dna? Their mtdna seems to be quite different from Balto-Slavs. Low H and mostly Pan-Euro clades. Much older GAC even seems to have more overlap with Balto-Slavs in terms of mtdna. Not sure what this means and maybe just an result of founder effects and small sample size. On the otherside mtdna from Baltic BA has many clades present today among Slavs too.
Kristiina, today there is the most M458 and H1c in Poland, so ...ReplyDelete
I haven't heard anything yet about Trzciniec Y-haplogroups, but I'm guessing that the samples from the recent mtDNA study will be fully sequenced soon.
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.
"Fernandes D. M. et al. A genomic Neolithic time transect of hunter-farmer admixture in central Poland". The y-chromosomal haplogroup R1a-Z280>S24902 and the mitochondrial haplogroup J1c1b1a were determined in a representative of the early trzyniec culture (sample PL_N17).ReplyDelete
Obviously, the Trzyniec culture is R1a-Z280. And here is R1a-M458 this apparently Unetice culture.
According to the Russian archaeologist V. V. Sedov, carriers of the culture of subcleshy burials (Kultura grobów (pod)kloszowych) were the earliest Slavs. According to these researchers, it is from the culture of subcleshy burials that it is possible to identify elements of continuity in the development up to the authentic Slavic antiquities of the second half of the first Millennium ad. But they became so as a result of migration to this territory of certain Celtic or Veneti tribes. For a long time there was no understanding who these migrants are from the South, and now it becomes clear that this is probably the arrival of R1a-M458 in the area of R1a-Z280.
And to put it quite crudely (and also taking into account last year's study on the bronze age of Estonia), the R1a-Z280 this is proto Balto-Slavs . Those who assimilated with R1a-M458 became Slavs, while those who did not fall under their influence remained Balts, such as modern Lithuanians.ReplyDelete
You forgot about I2a1b-S10228
They somehow catalysed the differentiation too
@Arza said... Two Beakers (R1b and G2a), single I1 in the Iron Age, C1 C-K29 in one neolithic sample. The rest is standard R1b (BA, IA), I2a (Meso, Neo), H, G2a (Neo).ReplyDelete
Gaska - looks like France, the final place you've been hiding your fantasy scenarios, crumbles this week as well. Good luck in your future endeavors.
@Vladimir "Fernandes D. M. et al. A genomic Neolithic time transect of hunter-farmer admixture in central Poland". The y-chromosomal haplogroup R1a-Z280>S24902"ReplyDelete
No, simple R1a1.
"Obviously, the Trzyniec culture is R1a-Z280."
It is not possible to make such hasty conclusions based on speculation by only one sample of a haplogroup which is not defined to such level, but is simply R1a1 and whose culture is not defined at all.
The skeleton from the Early Bronze Age (individual N17) comes from a damaged burial discovered at the Gustorzyn site. Despite the absence of archaeological artifacts, the absolute dating of the skeleton suggests that the burial must have belonged either to the Iwno culture or to the early Trzciniec culture. Morphologically, the skeleton was of a 40–50-year-old male.
Aesch25 vs CBV95ReplyDelete
Vahaduo Global 25 West Eurasia PCA
SGC burrows in the Netherlands yielded Grande Pressigny daggers and there is a battle axe found in a cave burial 30 km from Pressigny. Which seems proof that SGC were active in large trading networks.ReplyDelete
Off topic: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64007-2 - "Mapping co-ancestry connections between the genome of a Medieval individual and modern Europeans"ReplyDelete
New paper may be of interest to anyone into medieval stuff (Simon?). Some of ibd links between a medieval Spain, Black Death era, very high coverage genome and present day people somewhat surprising (Lithuanians?), relative to expected based on present day relatives. (Only grumble is that seems they'd surely have learned more from using a Human Origins panel newer than 2016 with a more balanced pop spread).
"I know. But most people will reach to the .xls file first. And giving him just "R1a" still counts as hiding probably the most important data in this paper. Good luck with arguing with historians if it's not explicitly written in the publication that he has a Slavic marker."
Everyone with a serious interest should read all the info. I read the PDF too, after having examined the .xls, and I saw he was R1a. I certainly believe in your analysis, I just wouldn't suspect a conspiracy to hide something. They probably overlooked it.
Simon, why is there no Y-DNA from Welzin? What do you think...?ReplyDelete
Thanks. I care more about the Migration Age/early Midde Ages though.
There's even no paper, so nothing about anything. Maybe they are like Furholt, not wanting to feed "völkisch" thinking. But in general modern-day Germans and the Swiss don't hate the Slavs, so I can't imagine that they hide the data for that reason.
I think there are people arguing on other sites that this R1a-m458 might have spoken some unknown branch of IE to deny his relation to Slavs.ReplyDelete
Thanks for the info. Hopefully those come out soon. I'm guessing they will be predominanly Corded Ware like but with maybe some individuals being like Scythians with elevated Baltic or Uralic type ancestry?
Also does anybody know the relation of SWAT I2 to Balto-Slavic and I2 in general?
SX18 from Wartau is interesting, that sample is C14-dated to 178 BC - 2 AD. So although it's called a "Roman era sample" in the paper, chances are high that this is actually a La Tene era sample. The area was conquered by the Romans in 15 BC. The tribe located there were probably the Vennones. According to Pliny they were a Raetic tribe, Strabo however regarded them as a tribes of the Celtic Vindelici. Facts are, inscriptions found in that part of the Rhine valley were written in a Celtic language, not a Raetic one. Maybe they were a Celtic speaking tribe of mixed Celtic and Raetic ancestry.ReplyDelete
So, @Davidski is it possible that this individual makes it into the Global25?
I warn you that this site in xls table is pure cheating. Aesch, Burgäschisee, Auvernier are not Corded Ware_Switzerland, this is not even in the source.
Simon, Germans and Poles share most of their common ancestors since the early Bronze Age. We must understand that we are brothers. Y-DNA from Welzin would help.ReplyDelete
I absolutely agree, a paper would be highly welcome.ReplyDelete
@Davidski, Can you please explain who CBV95 is? Thanks for putting in G25. But, You show us a super Steppe Bell Beaker from France with no explanation.....I assume he is from new French paper.ReplyDelete
Bernard from AG states it's from Ciry-Salsogne: one of France's earlier BB burials with a AOC beaker.
"Simon, Germans and Poles share most of their common ancestors since the early Bronze Age. We must understand that we are brothers. Y-DNA from Welzin would help."
"Merkel is of German and Polish descent."
Ciry-Salsogne: 2574-2452 BC (GrA-32767: 3970+-30 BP)ReplyDelete
Has this paper already come out? Sounds interesting.ReplyDelete
"Genome-wide ancient DNA investigation of Eneolithic individuals from south-western Russia reveals a genetic contact point between the forest-steppe and steppe populations"
This is really interesting
Here we target the population-genetic transition processes through genome-wide next-generation sequencing data of 25 Eneolithic to Bronze-Age individuals from seven archaeological sites in southwestern Russia. We observe a consistent signal of the hunter-gatherer -like ancestries, followed by the earliest occurrences of individuals with Iranian Neolithic-related ancestry (previously described as ‘steppe ancestry’) mixed with these. In addition, remnants of the genetic ancestry from early Siberian populations, today mainly prevalent in the Native Americans, are present in the region.
I can see that ruffling some feathers here.
These results provide novel insight to an integral contact zone between major cultural movements, illuminating the role of the forest-steppe populations in Eurasian prehistory and their early contacts with the Eurasian agro-pastoralists. Furthermore, the waves of cultural and genetic input may have heralded language exchange between the early forms or predecessors of Uralic languages, with the Indo-European effects still observed in their modern equivalentsReplyDelete
What do they mean by this? Are they saying Forest Steppe populations spoke Uralic?
Look at the authors.
KERTTU MAJANDER 1,2,4, KERKKO NORDQVIST 5, ARKADII KOROLEV 6, ALEXANDER KHOKHLOV 6, ROMAN SMOLYANINOV 7, HENNY PIEZONKA 8, PÄIVI ONKAMO 3, JOHANNES KRAUSE 2,4 and WOLFGANG HAAK
They are all convinced supporters of the idea that Indo-Europeans lived in Neolithic Iran and Eastern Europe was populated by the Uralians.
I'm guessing Iranian Neoliyhi related ancestry is just CHG. Doesn't sound groundbreaking.ReplyDelete
Kelkar, grandfather Angela Merkel is probably from my clade (S18681 YP314), because the Kazimierczak family belongs to this mutation.ReplyDelete
PCA comparing G25 data for CBV95 and Aesch25_scaled to the positions of a subset of early Beaker from NW Europe and some BA. I2417, the second oldest Beaker burial (or co-earliest with I2418 really, since there isn't much in the date range difference, with the third oldest being I2416, the least steppe British Beaker), is close but still slightly more rich in EEF/WHG : https://imgur.com/a/3MojWSoReplyDelete
From the internet:
"The SNP sequence is R1a > Z280 > CTS3402 > CTS8816 > S18681 > YP315 > YP314 > YP331 > Y5973.2. This recent work on new SNPs is ..."
Cool. So it is Z280 then.
Almost everything they describe is miss leading. From Iran Neolithic-related to Native AMerican-relatedReplyDelete
It is because they run faulty models based on distant reference pops when they should be using more relaevent and more recent reference pops. And they don't know how to use qpADM properly.
Like, the SIcily/Sardinia paper used IranNeo as a reference for Near Eastern admix. IranNeo is way to distant of a reference. You see this problem again and again. It's frustrating.
Their whole concept of Iran Neo is so screwed.....ReplyDelete
They say Bronze age Sicily has Iran Neo admix, they say Eneolithic Steppe has Iran Neo admix, they say Neolithic India has Iran Neo admix.
This creates the misconception, that somehow the "IranNeo-related" ancestry in all these pops is apart of the same pheromone.
They talk about IranNeo in the same way they talk about Steppe admix. When, in reality all the "IranNeo-related" migrations were done by distantly related groups and done thousneds of years apart. So, not comparable to Steppe migrations done by closely related groups in the same time frame.
The authors of every ancient DNA West Eurasian paper, need to take a mandatory course taught by Eurogenes bloggers.ReplyDelete
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.
Or the 'steppe' migrations are part of a larger phenomenon which also includes - and is more wholistically described by - Iran_N related migrations.ReplyDelete
Kelkar, Z280, exactly! The S18681 family nest is in Pomerania, which is why I am so interested in Y-DNA from Welzin.ReplyDelete
The Hungarian Scythian DA197 is R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP343>YP340 (xYP371,P278.2) according to Pribislav on Anthrogenica. That is again a quite Slavic line in Central Europe. But DA197 is not from the Carpathians and was found in South Hungary afaik.ReplyDelete
I've used already processed bam, Pribislav probably have used fastq file, because... oh wow... what a difference.
I'll later process it this time from fastq, but for now I'm downloading few French samples that were without a bam file plus that I1(xI1a1) (BES1248) to see if it has more markers in fastq.
How many Z280+ have been found among IndoIranians?
The burial of the CBV95 sample in my PCA plot is described here...
The Bell Beaker grave of Ciry-Salsogne. La sépulture Campaniforme de Ciry-Salsogne “la Bouche à Vesle” (Aisne), France
And yes, it's a Bell Beaker from the new French paper.
Two Srubnaya samples are Z280+
Also some modern Indo-Iranians have Z280+ . For example there is on ftdna a Z280<R-CTS1211<YP1019* from Iran which is today also quite a Slavic line. It is very rare but Z280+ exists among Indo-Iranians
Early mixes = ~50% WSH + ~50% EEF -> CWC, Early BBC
Late mixes = ~50% Early mixes + ~50% EEF -> Post-CWC, Late BBC
I'm actually surprised we don't have more Z280, Z2103 and I2 among us.
"Two Srubnaya samples are Z280+ Also some modern Indo-Iranians have Z280+"
There's nothing to fantasize about the Scythians having Z280. For a long time it is known that there were no true Scythians in Hungary in essence, there were Scythoids of the Forest Steppe Zone. These people adopted much of the culture and customs of the Scythians, but there were no Scythians, maybe except for some elite layer.
This specimen does not show anything Scythian. It is quite probable that it is not even from the Scythians, but just a burial place of the Scythian period.
Principal Component Analysis, admixture analysis (Main Figure 2, Supplementary Figure 163), reveal that the Sarmatians of the Late Iron Age are genetically shifted towards present day South Siberian hunter-gatherers and Altaians as compared to the Hungarian Scythians. The relevant D-statistic is D(BHG_BA, Mbuti; Sarmatians, Hungarian Scythians)=0.03; Z= 11.09. Thus, the neighbouring Hungarian
Scythians and Sarmatians were clearly genetically distinct. At the same time the Sarmatians harbor less East Asian ancestry than the Inner Asian Sakas, i.e. D(BHG_BA) = -0.05 ; Z = -14.87. This could suggest that these Sarmatians had a western steppe origin and the temporal difference between them and the Hungarian Scythians explains the difference in Inner Asian ancestry.
@ Jatt_Scythian & coldmountainsReplyDelete
Indo-Iranians generally don't have any of the so-called "Balto-Slavic drift" (whatever it really was).
DA197 has it. A lot. Moreover he has the same neolithic base as Slavs.
So now we have a "Celt" and a "Scythian" with Slavic Y-DNA that both share the drift with modern Slavs. Consequences should be obvious for everyone.
As I suggested, this guys might be forest steppe Scythians or “Scythian farmer” of Herodotus.ReplyDelete
~ Chernoles culture
I was going based off
The third baltic component does seem to exist throughout Scythians/Saka etc
The fact is, this (DA197) burial site is bi-ritual. Therefore, there were probably people from different populations, probably local and coming.
That's practically WHG (which in connection with Anatolia_N acts as a proxy for EEF). You need to add Baltic_EST_BA specifically. Some Ukrainian Scythians have it IIRC, but it's not something that define Indo-Iranians.
"Almost everything they describe is miss leading. "ReplyDelete
Speaking of miss leading:
Thanks. That's confusing given there is a WHG component at the end of that graphic as well. Also what do you make of those half East Eurasian Saka and Scythians? Was that the norm or restricted to the upper class?
Yes they have it but other and most samples from Central Europe and Hungary lack it even im early Medieval times. Both samples have Balto-Slavic drift but are very mixed. Modern Balto-Slavs don't seem to pick them in most models and rather look like a mix of Baltic BA/IA+DEU_MA+minor Welzin Other eastern Y-DNA and steppe influences were already found in Hungary like Y-DNA N so this is not that surprising. It looks like it was picked up in the forest steppe zone of Ukraine
Here are the Y calls for the samples from the Swiss and French papers...
Out of fundamental incomprehension is only the time of appearance at Iron Age BES1248 I1.ReplyDelete
"Place name studies tell which languages were spoken in a given area earlier. E.g. North Russia is currently Russian speaking, whereas earlier it was Uralic speaking (Saarikivi 2013). Genetic studies revealed that the Uralic influence remained through language sift(shift) and complete population turnover never too (took) place – genetically the areas resembles (resemble) the neighboring Uralic speaking populations (Tambets et al. 2018)."
Pretty Miss Leading.
Where's the M269 in mesolithic and neolithic France? Dumbass. Funny how you're nowhere to be found when something challenges your insecure racist nationalistic POV.
"Cimmerians have a lot of Asian ancestry. This guy has zip."
Would you have a broad estimate of how East Asian are Cimmerians? Did they not spread a lot to Central Europe too?
Cimmerian samples from different sites in Moldova and Ukraine all have a lot of East Asian ancestry. You can check this out using the Global25 data.
They didn't spread this into Central Europe, because it's basically missing in Central Europeans.
There's also no genetic continuity from the Cimmerian period in any part of Ukraine today.
"They say Bronze age Sicily has Iran Neo admix, they say Eneolithic Steppe has Iran Neo admix, they say Neolithic India has Iran Neo admix."
Lazaridis, in my understanding, models Iran_N as a population that gave some ancestry to all West Eurasians with CHG -> Iran_N -> Iran_N_India (the Iran-related lineage in South Asia) being on a cline of increasing ENA (and BE I think) ancestry. Narasimhan et al (2019) suggested population structure/ lineage splits instead.
Thanks, I will def look them up in Global25. Sometimes I ask mostly because I don't recall the population labels trying to catch up with all the papers/samples.
My question was more about Cimerrian cultural influence in Europe but I was actually curious about the genetic impact too so much appreciate the reply!
The following samples have been added to the Global25 datasheets. These are the final genotypes...
Same links as always here...
What ever happened to Maju?ReplyDelete
Maju got upset that reality didn't share his biases, so he went off somewhere, apparently never to return.ReplyDelete
Ok. Thank you.ReplyDelete
Maju still posts in Castilian (Spanish) actually.ReplyDelete
Jatt_Scythian is right.
@Rob Yes, this is exactly the Chernoles culture, which is a syncretic culture of the Scythians and the local post-CWC culture of Milograd and later belogrudskaya, which, in turn, are descendants of the Komarovsky cultureReplyDelete
scy009* Starosillya 770 - 415 BCE XY J2b1a6 R1b1a1a2 YFull (R1b R-P312)
@ Archie @Chernoles culture
scy009* Starosillya 770 - 415 BCE XY J2b1a6 R1b1a1a2 YFull (R1b R-P312)"
This person, apparently, got from here to Ukraine:
The Gava-goligrad culture or Gava culture is an archaeological culture of the late bronze and early iron age (Hallstatt period). The name is derived from the names of the Gava burial ground in Hungary and the Ukrainian name of the settlement of Gologrady. To the East, it extends to Transcarpathian Ukraine and Transnistria. The Gava culture influenced the formation of some features of the chernoles culture.
Coldmountains, uneconomical thinking. N came to Hungary in the Middle Ages with Avars and Magyars. The old Carpathian comes from the Carpathians, so there is no need to drag her to Hungary from the forest-steppe Ukraine.ReplyDelete
CW-like = ~50% WSH + ~50% EEF
BB-like = ~50% CW-like + ~50% EEF
WSH men come from Eastern Europe definitely.'
I would guess.
For NW Europe. Approximately.
'Corded Beaker' (PFB)= 40% WSH+25% HG+35% EEF
BB-like= 50% CW-like + ~50% EEF
That was not my point. The point was that in Iron Age Hungary steppe people from the east settled and we have already found even more exotic Y-DNA there like Y-DNA N and this was lomg before Magyars.Also the sample is from South Hungary and not from the Carpathians. He also has Scythian_Ukr-like ancestry ane clustets with some of the Central Euro-mixed Scythians
@weure and archiReplyDelete
A little bit more realistic is this:
CWC= 75% WSH + 25% (EEF+WHG)
BBC= 50% WSH + 50% ( EEF+WHG)
But maybe you know better.
Keep in mind that the Scythian classifications for some of those ancient samples from Moldova and Ukraine aren't certain.
If you look at the archeological data, they didn't come with any unambiguous Scythian artifacts, and in reality no one can say for sure who they really were.
Also, it seems like many people are overstating how eastern MX265 is, even though he's not very eastern at all.ReplyDelete
OK, I know where was the difference - Pribislav uses YFull tree while in the ISOGG tree YP340 is not even listed and there is a difference in the tree structure.ReplyDelete
That's confusing given there is a WHG component at the end of that graphic as well.
It's WHG, but of the wrong kind. If you want to have universal WHG proxy use Iron_Gates_HG. If you want to test for the "Balto-Slavic drift" use Baltic_EST_BA plus multiple HG sources (WHG to EHG) to exclude any possibility that Baltic_EST_BA acts as a proxy for something different.
Also what do you make of those half East Eurasian Saka and Scythians? Was that the norm or restricted to the upper class?
I have no idea how to answer these questions. They backmigrated from the east so they brought ancestry from the east? :D
Yes they have it but other and most samples from Central Europe and Hungary lack it even im early Medieval times.
Distance: 2.7234% / 0.02723441
Distance: 1.7464% / 0.01746439
Distance: 1.2173% / 0.01217310
Distance: 2.2907% / 0.02290667
Distance: 1.3804% / 0.01380425
Even chalcolithic sample from Romania shows this drift:
Distance: 1.8545% / 0.01854468
Compare the simplicity and distance of this model to the IA model you have posted on AG:
Distance: 0.7167% / 0.00716747
Germanics for comparison (note the difference in preference for neolithic proxies):
Distance: 1.7264% / 0.01726359
Modern Balto-Slavs don't seem to pick them in most models
They don't have to because Both samples have Balto-Slavic drift but are very mixed.
It looks like it was picked up in the forest steppe zone of Ukraine
And why not in Carpathians? Don't forget that Unetice were full of R1a.
There was no admixture event between Baltic_BA and Corded_Ware_Deu which existed in different regions and ages. So this model is just an theoretical one with not much relevance for modeling real population movements. Baltic_BA is on the extreme side of the Balto-Slavic continuum and using them you get Slavs as mix of Baltic_BA+something Balkan EEf-like what for me does not seem plausible because Slavic EEf ancestry is mainly GAC derived (Many Slavic mtdna clades are derived from GAC)
The site is not close to the Carpathians/Unetice and shows genetic links to Scythians in Ukraine and is even Scythian from a cultural point of view so for me they look like they came from sowhere in Ukraine or Moldava. Also other Scythians from Hungary lack the Balto-Slavic drift and many other later samples from Hungary so it was definetly not very common there.
A more accurat add.ReplyDelete
I guess were the Steppe Pastoralist encountered a TRB kind of population this enhanced the ENF and especially in the Tiefstich-TRB the HG factor.
I compared the Dutch BB, mostly from Oostwoud NW Dutch (is not TRB territory!) if I remember it well. They look less admixed.
They are the BB who most probably are most close to 'original' Steppe Pastoralist.
BB Lech Valley is, according to Davidski, most close to the Protruding Foot Beaker (PFB ) a NE Dutch phenomenon.
You can see it's more admixed:
MtDNA of MX265, 763-431 calBC, is H1c.
As for modern H1c, the highest frequency seems to be in Poland (...)
Could the yDNA of MX265 be originally from Poland or thereabouts?
This is how MX265 looks like when all modern populations are in sources:
Distance: 1.9512% / 0.01951164
It's completely unsupervised and quite telling IMHO.
Both MX265 and SCY009 demonstrate BA_Est ancestry, at least with nMonte, but with different admixing 'other' (? different central European groups, would need formal testing)ReplyDelete
IR-1 is completely different. He's an actual proto-Scythian, and his admixing is Balkan. His lineage isn;t that of Magyars & Avars, but the earlier Botai- & Merek-related one
The most Slavic-like sample is scy009 who is Polish-like but with Celtic y-fna and Slavic-like mtdna. The sample is from Central Ukraine.
The most Slavic-like sample is scy009 who is Polish-like but with Celtic y-fna and Slavic-like mtdna. The sample is from Central Ukraine.
So what do you think are the chances that there was significant Celtic ancestry that far east at the time and that this isn't an unusual case?
He has P312. He's from the West.
First column - average distance to 5 closest Slavic samples, third column - distance to the nearest one.
0,031799020 Scythian_HUN:DA195 0,02948725 Bulgarian:Bulgaria1
0,032210976 Scythian_HUN:DA197 0,02948039 Croatian:Croatia_Cro198
0,032706354 Scythian_UKR:scy009 0,02787978 Polish:Polish27
0,040356110 Scythian_HUN:DA191 0,03821388 Slovenian:Slovenian147
0,041866574 Scythian_UKR:MJ14 0,03993297 Russian_Kursk:RussianKursk9
0,042127320 Scythian_HUN:DA194 0,04153103 Polish:Polish10
0,043640728 Scythian_UKR:scy010 0,04067153 Croatian:Croatia_Cro198
0,044876930 Scythian_MDA:scy305 0,03875876 Macedonian:Macedonian8
0,045435136 Scythian_MDA:scy192 0,04074635 Macedonian:Macedonian8
0,045516350 Scythian_MDA_o:scy303 0,04349155 Slovakian:Slovakia85
0,047917948 Scythian_UKR:MJ13 0,04638768 Russian_Kostroma:RUS_Kostr170
0,049245336 Scythian_MDA:scy197 0,04464785 Macedonian:Macedonian8
0,053257778 Scythian_MDA:scy300 0,04426561 Macedonian:Macedonian8
0,055741998 Scythian_HUN:DA198 0,04616696 Macedonian:Macedonian8
0,065033802 Scythian_MDA:scy311 0,06190489 Bulgarian:Bulgaria1
0,065553992 Scythian_UKR:MJ34 0,06031869 Croatian:Croatia_Cro141
0,068189702 Scythian_MDA:scy301 0,06612622 Bulgarian:BulgarianE2
0,075439378 HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1 0,07237977 Bulgarian:BulgarianF2
0,081498944 Scythian_UKR:MJ16 0,07883172 Russian_Kostroma:RUS_Kostr149
0,084881294 Scythian_UKR:MJ35 0,08169872 Croatian:Croatia_Cro141
0,090635834 Scythian_UKR:scy011 0,08637095 Bulgarian:BulgarianF2
0,098846210 Scythian_UKR:MJ46 0,09465239 Bulgarian:BulgarianF2
0,116470174 Scythian_UKR:MJ15 0,11167886 Russian_Pinega:RusPinega1
0,150176394 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA:IS2 0,14454303 Russian_Pinega:RusPinega1
0,158681750 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA:I0577 0,15027287 Russian_Pinega:RusPinega9
0,188463806 Scythian_RUS_Urals:MJ42 0,18046952 Russian_Pinega:RusPinega9
0,281445010 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA:Ze6b 0,27331144 Russian_Pinega:RusPinega9
0,283326438 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA:I0576 0,27347590 Russian_Pinega:RusPinega9
As you can see DA197 and DA195 have nearly the same distance to Slavs as scy009.
Yes he is an unusual case but because of his unusual high Celtic ancestry. Other Scythian from Ukraine also show Balto-Slavic drift and MJ14 maybe even more and he is in low in Celtic-like ancestry
Scythian MJ14 also has very high Balto-Slavic drift. Check him
Apart from scy009, there are two other north-shifted Scythian Ukrainian samples (both females, scy003 and scy010), so they also land among the modern Central Europeans on PCA. What are the chances that this is because of some strong Slavic-like admixture coming to the Ukraine from the West (ie. from Central Europe) rather than from the North (ie. from the hypothetical Slavic homeland)? Why there are no Central European (Hungarian) Scythians who are "more Slavic" or at least as much Slavic as those Scythian outliers from Ukraine(mostly from Central Ukraine)?
"He has P312. He's from the West."
Some of his paternal ancestors are likely to have come from west (and this exactly why he looks like shifted west when compared to the Early Slavic sample Av2 from Pannonia), but this doesn't mean he himself is from west. Where is that ancient BA/IA P312-rich and Slavic-like population in Central Europe from which scy009 could have come to Ukraine?
I guess someone could claim that Serbs originated near Lake Constance because of MX265, but obviously that wouldn't be very sensible.
For similar reasons it's not very sensible to continue this discussion about scy009 and modern Poles.
"As you can see DA197 and DA195 have nearly the same distance to Slavs as scy009"
They have close distance to the Bulgarians and Croats, not to the Northern Slavs who are commonly considered to resemble the Early Slavs more strongly. So unless you believe that the Proto-Slavs looked like modern Southern Slavs (rather than like Av2), this is totally irrelevant.
There was no admixture event between Baltic_BA and Corded_Ware_Deu which existed in different regions and ages.
Who cares? Everything is a proxy as we don't have the right sources.
So this model is just an theoretical one with not much relevance for modeling real population movements.
This model is based on endpoints of clines that define genetic structure of Europe.
Baltic_BA is on the extreme side of the Balto-Slavic continuum and using them you get Slavs as mix of Baltic_BA+something Balkan EEf-like
Same model, but without Baltic_EST_BA:
Distance: 1.7861% / 0.01786056
Distance: 3.8957% / 0.03895681
The difference persists.
Also other Scythians from Hungary lack the Balto-Slavic drift
4 out of 5 Hungarian Scythians show it.
Distance: 2.6554% / 0.02655437
Distance: 1.6927% / 0.01692704
Distance: 2.9283% / 0.02928345
Distance: 3.5853% / 0.03585274
sorry for the offtopic commentReplyDelete
but arent indians best modeled as steppe emba instead of mlba ?
i have read everywhere, including indians and harvard scientist afirming this but there is very little anatolian farmer like ancestry in today indians .
how is this posible?
but arent indians best modeled as steppe emba instead of mlba?
That was a statistical artifact, which confused a lot of people, including me for a while, so it's a good lesson not to just rely on formal statistics, but also pay close attention to other stuff, like uniparental markers. See here...
The Poltavka outlier
"I guess someone could claim that Serbs originated near Lake Constance because of MX265, but obviously that wouldn't be very sensible."
His G25 coordinates have changed somewhat in the final version. He's now closest to Slovenians among the moderns. Indeed not the most Eastern European population. He's still closest to Scythian_HUN among the ancients and closest to BGR_EBA:I2165 among the ancient individuals. But actually the Scythian_HUN average is closer to him than any ancient individual.
SX18 from the Vennones in eastern Switzerland is closest to Catalans from Castello d'Empuries. Somewhat disapponting, I had hoped he would come out more Celtic, but apparently the Raetic ancestry was strong in that area, inspite of the attested use of Celtic speech.ReplyDelete
But, I obtain pretty sensible models using CHE_IA for modelling the modern Swiss:ReplyDelete
Distance: 1.2509% / 0.01250943
Distance: 1.7802% / 0.01780210
Distance: 1.6490% / 0.01649025
So maybe that level of pre-Celtic admixture was normal for Swiss Celts.
@Simon, The only legitimate West European Iron age sample in Switzerland is closet to modern Spanish. It makes sense to say he is Raetic not CelticReplyDelete
Italic tribes were close to modern Spain as well. Maybe, Iron age Italy was homogenous from Alps to southern Italy.
The population with today's Slavic markers (Y-DNA, mtDNA, autosomal) counted several million in the Iron Age and the Roman period. So she had to live in wide areas of Central and Eastern Europe. As a result, she co-created German, Celtic, Venetic, Scythian, Dacian, Baltic, Slavic and other cultural circles.ReplyDelete
I see that some posts have brought up the whole "Iran neolithic-related" thing up again. The "related" is an incredibly irritating weasel word. Let's replace that with African-related populations interacting with African-related populations all of the time just to show how annoying it is.ReplyDelete
There is only a trace small of Iran_N related ancestry in Sardinia and that might as well either be a toss up between Iran_N proper and CHG clade. It would go back to the aceramic Anatolians, personally I am kind of leaning towards it being phylogenetically closer to the Iran_N/Zagros group even if it is a third group distinct both the Zagros specific and the (IMO more distant) Kotias specific CHG branches. However the Iran-like ancestry found eastward of Iran is most definitely not even close to CHG.
Now, speaking more broadly, I kind of wonder if Iran_N and CHG are even closely phylogenetically linked, say compared to Pinarbasi as a third population for comparison. Has an independent origin for them been ruled out yet? If it hasn't, then it could be different Basal, ANE and Pinarbasi type sub-populations mixing in different proportions to produce something that kind of looks similar.
"Now, speaking more broadly, I kind of wonder if Iran_N and CHG are even closely phylogenetically linked, say compared to Pinarbasi as a third population for comparison. Has an independent origin for them been ruled out yet? If it hasn't, then it could be different Basal, ANE and Pinarbasi type sub-populations mixing in different proportions to produce something that kind of looks similar."
CHG has more or less only 15/30% ANE.
Distance to: GEO_CHG:KK1
Yeah, no one knows how CHG and IranN are related. In G25 PCA they have a distance of @0.188158. Which is comparable to the distance between French and Lebanese. So, how related are they exactly?
The source of this Iran-related stuff is Harvard, David Reich. If you watch his lectures online, read his book you'll see that he breaks up West Eurasian history like this.....
"In 10,000 BC, there were four races in West Eurasia who were completely unrelated to each other, as unrelated as modern Europeans and East Asians. They were: WHG, EHG, IranN, and Natufian. Then in the Neolithic, Bronze age they all mixed creating modern West Eurasians (Caucasians) who are not a race but mix of races."
He doesn't even include CHG in this story. Basically, Harvard completely ignores CHG. According to them CHG doesn't exist. They prefer a nice and simple story, in which there is just IranN.
*****So, it isn't that they think Yamnaya's Near Eastern ancestry is more related to iranN than to CHG. it is that they are not even aware CHG exists.
Recall, that it was NOT Harvard who sequenced the CHG genomes in 2016. And it was NOT Harvard who published Wang 2018 (study on Eneolithic North Caucasus).
Harvard mainly only knows about the studies they have published. They don't know a lot about other studies. Hence, why they are very unaware of CHG's existence.
So what was the migration route of the Ancestors of the Single Grave Culture ?ReplyDelete
So you don't agree with this modelling then?ReplyDelete
"The two Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (CHG)9 are less extreme along PC1 than the Mesolithic and Neolithic individuals from Iran, while individuals from Chalcolithic Anatolia, Iran, and Armenia, and Bronze Age Armenia occupy intermediate positions. Qualitatively, the PCA has the appearance of a quadrangle whose four corners are some of the oldest samples: bottom-left: Western Hunter Gatherers (WHG), top-left: Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG), bottom-right: Neolithic Levant and Natufians, top-right: Neolithic Iran. This suggests the hypothesis that diverse ancient West Eurasians can be modelled as mixtures of as few as four streams of ancestry related to these populations, which we confirmed using qpWave7 (Supplementary Information, section 7)."
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
From the paper of Lazaridis:
Finally, we can model CHG and samples from Neolithic Iran (Iran_N) as deriving their ancestry largely (∼58-64% using qpAdm and ∼45-62% using qpGraph) from a Dzudzuana-like population, but with ancestry from both ‘Deep’ and ANE sources, thus proving that ANE ancestry had reached Western Eurasia long before the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe migrations that carried further westward into mainland Europe.
I miss that
Iran and CHG have also a more tad basal than Dzudzuana
Harvard/David Reich's narrative on West Eurasian origins was shaped by that paper in 2016. They need to update themselves by doing new analysis.
Technically IranNeo is more extreme than CHG and therefore they concluded IranNeo is more pure and CHG is just iranNeo plus other stuff. Which is false, CHG is a different population who only distantly related to IranNeo.
Calling Yamnaya's Middle Eastern ancestry IranN-related is like calling Latin American's European ancestry Russian-related.ReplyDelete
We have CHG genomes, they need to do basic analysis, they need to talk to Davidski, and finally understand we know where Yamnaya's Midle Eastern ancestry is from so we no long have to call it mysterious IranN-related.
Dzudzuana paper is not published yet. Much of that model will change because new papers that came out this month already hints at that.
can you provide as to what are the corrections or reformulations of the Lazaridis's paper?
Do you have any thought on those East Asian admixed Scythians? Do you think this was the norm?
Davidski noticed even before CHG genomes were published, that Yamnaya's Middle Eastern ancestry is from Caucasus. This was back in 2015.ReplyDelete
So even looking modern pops, Yamnaya choses the Caucasus. If back in 2015 with only modern genomes, Davidski could see this, Harvard geneticists should be able to see it using the countless ancient genomes published since 2015.
Someone, needs to bug them to redo analysis for Yamnaya. Because, what they say makes impact on the official discussion of Indo European origins.
This is just a modelling, Reich 2015 did not claim that CHG comes from Neolithic Iran, nor did it claim that the steppe is an admixture from Neolithic Iran. It's just that CHG has the admixture of EHG, IranN doesn't have it, so it was convenient for modeling, there was no IranHG yet.
Naturally, CHG and IranN share a common ancestor dating back to Paleolithic, but IranHG->N has also been exposed to ANE.
You're right, more accurate model in the picture https://i.ibb.co/P1RMnNx/WSH-EEFmixes.png
Roughly speaking, at an early stage two men with pure male lineage had one woman from Neolithic farming and one with steppe lineage. Then there was another mix-up, but not with pure EEF.
However, Swiss very non-standard CWCs had the opposite, on the male line it was the EEF, and on the female line it was WSH with the U2e line as CWC Esperstedt/Karsdorf/Estonia/Lituania, which they received as a result of matrimonial connections.
There were two separate migrations of separate populations, one was ancestral to the CWC and one to the BBC. These were perfect different populations.
But there doesn't seem to be any non-Anatolian admixed genomes in the Caucuses from the relevant period.ReplyDelete
From the Wang paper...
"In contrast, the oldest individuals from the northern mountain flank itself, which are three first degree-related individuals from the Unakozovskaya cave associated with the Darkveti-Meshoko Eneolithic culture (analysis label ‘Eneolithic Caucasus’) show mixed ancestry mostly derived from sources related to the Anatolian Neolithic (orange) and CHG/Iran Neolithic (green) in the ADMIXTURE plot (Fig. 2C). While similar ancestry profiles have been reported for Anatolian and Armenian Chalcolithic and Bronze Age individuals20, 23, this result suggests the presence of the mixed Anatolian/Iranian/CHG related ancestry north of the Great Caucasus Range as early as ~6500 years ago."
So it looks like Harvard have good reason to describe the Southern component in Yamna as Iran related. Those CHG/Iran_N + EHG genomes must have formed in Northern Iran/Turkmenistan Herders before Anatolian got there with the Neolithic.
The required non-Anatolian steppe component wont easily be found because they were likely herders, but being herders they were less affected by early Anatolian admixture. With time the Anatolian component found it's way into the herding communities hence later Steppe groups show that 'western' influence.
You're fantasizing, CHG in the North Caucasus since the Final Paleolithic at least. There were no mixtures with Iran_N in the steppe, none of the fantasists gave any arguments about it, and all the more no one is delusional about some Turkmenistan.
You are denied by absolutely all sources, and fantasies will not help your delusional version about EHG and CHG mixture in Turkmenistan.
CHG and Iran Neolithic were formed during LGM (around ~13 kya), not Paleolithic. Around same time when EHG were formed.ReplyDelete
This is what that paper says :
"The Dzudzuana population clarifies the origin of these populations by showing that European
affinity in the Caucasus decreased between Dzudzuana at ~26 kya and Satsurblia at ~13 kya as additional
ENA/ANE ancestry arrived. Thus, Iran_N/CHG are seen as descendants of populations that existed in the
Villabruna→Basal Eurasian cline alluded to above, but with extra Basal Eurasian ancestry (compared to
Dzudzuana), and also with ENA/ANE ancestry. The extra ENA/ANE ancestry also explains the affinity
between Iran/Caucasus and EHG previously proposed as part of a North/East West Eurasian interaction
sphere12, which our results suggest was created by admixture of ENA/ANE ancestry on top of the
Villabruna→Basal Eurasian cline. In the north, Karelia_HG traces its ancestry to a Villabruna-related
source modified by ENA/ANE admixture, while CHG/Iran_N were Dzudzuana+Basal Eurasian (or,
equivalently Villabruna+Basal Eurasian) derived populations also modified by ENA/ANE admixture."
"CHG and Iran Neolithic were formed during LGM (around ~13 kya), not Paleolithic."
LGM is not 13 kya. LGM is Paleolithic. Satsurblia is Palaeolithic.
Palaeolithic Georgia Satsurblia cave [SATP] 11430-11180 calBCE (11415±50 BP, OxA-34632) M J1
The fact is CHG was originally restricted to the Caucasus. It didn't live in Turkmenistan or Iran.
The fact is, Yamnaya's Middle Eastern ancestry is CHG not iranN. CHG lived in the Caucasus, therefore Yamnaya's Middle Eastern ancestry is from the Caucasus.
There's no wiggle room in this. It's impossible to make Yamnaya part Iran or part Turkmenistan. Because CHG did not live in those places.