At least five individuals from Neolithic burial sites in what is now Ukraine harbor ancestry that is normally associated with much later steppe populations. Labeled
UKR_N_admixed in the plot below, these samples were part of the
Mathieson et al. 2018 dataset and most were radiocarbon dated to well before 5,000 BCE. An interactive version of the plot is available
here.
Their unusual ancestry probably explains why they form a cluster that appears to be pulling away from the ancient European hunter-gatherer cline towards the part of the plot home to
RUS_Progress_En (from the Progress-2 Eneolithic burial site in the North Caucasus piedmont region). But, of course, there's more to this. For instance, consider the formal statistics-based qpAdm mixture models below:
UKR_N_admixed
RUS_Progress_En 0.083±0.021
UKR_N 0.917±0.021
chisq 7.461
tail prob 0.589238
Full output
UKR_N_admixed
RUS_Progress_En 0.172±0.021
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG 0.332±0.024
UKR_Meso 0.495±0.035
chisq 9.255
tail prob 0.321282
Full output
UKR_N_I1738
RUS_Progress_En 0.196±0.035
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG 0.414±0.039
UKR_Meso 0.390±0.056
chisq 7.913
tail prob 0.442006
Full output
Ergo, as much as a quarter of the genome of individual I1738, dated to 5473-5326 calBCE, might be derived from a population very similar to
RUS_Progress_En. This is a big deal, because it's still widely believed that this type of ancestry didn't exist until the Eneolithic, and that it didn't spread significantly until the migrations of steppe pastoralists associated with the Early Bronze Age Yamnaya culture.
I'm confident, nay, certain, that my findings will be confirmed directly with more Neolithic samples from present-day Ukraine and surrounds.
See also...
Understanding the Eneolithic steppe
Ancient DNA vs Ex Oriente Lux
Mixed marriages on the early Eneolithic steppe
What sample ids fall under this Ukr_N_admixed label of yours?
ReplyDeleteI emailed David Anthony and David Reich about this. They didn't have anything to say.
ReplyDeleteOne of the samples from Volniensky site carried mtDNA T2 which is an originally Middle Eastern haplogroup not found in any other European hunter gatherers, and confirms Ukraine Neolithic has CHG admix.
I am also curious why you picked out these 5 samples. sure they pull a bit away from the other ukr_N samples, but they barely have 5% more of progress like ancestry.
ReplyDeleteAlso seems to me like normal khvalynsk_en or khvalynsk_o can do the job better than progress_en, looking at just vahaduo. am pretty sure qpAdm will work even if you replace progress with khvalynsk in your model, keeping right pops the same.
WE 9 PCA has more Ukraine Neo samples in it than G25 PCA.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed, that Ukraine Neo sampes from Volniensky site have the most CHG ancestry. On average they are 25% Progress Eneo-like. That is according to WE 9 PCA which is not reliable.
Nonetheess, chances are populations with more Progress Eneo-ike ancestry lived east of Dnieper river. Let's wait and see Lower Don and Lower Volga Neolithic genomes.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteNonetheess, chances are populations with more Progress Eneo-like ancestry lived east of Dnieper river.
Good call. Yes, they did.
Maybe UKR_N mixing with RUS_Progress_En created steppe population from which CWC originated:
ReplyDeletehttps://i.postimg.cc/7Zc3B77g/CWC-origin.jpg
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteYep, it was something close to that.
EastPole said...
ReplyDelete"Maybe UKR_N mixing with RUS_Progress_En created steppe population from which CWC originated:"
It's impossible.
Neolithic Azov-Dnepr Ukraine Vovnigi 2, StPet4, inv. 6204/4 [I1738] 5473-5326 calBCE (6420±40 BP, Poz-81153) M I2a2a1b1b [L699]
Which ancient samples are those that are clustering just to the left of these Ukraine Neolithic samples on the PCA?
ReplyDeleteNevermind, I'm dumb.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of this, but is this saying that Ukraine Neolithic had significant admixture from both the East (something like RUS_Progress_En) and from the West/SW (ie Iron Gates-like admixture)? Maybe that should be obvious but I think it's pretty interesting if true.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“ It's impossible.”
ReplyDeletePossible.
R1a -M417 were probably further north / northeast of the main Dnieper cluster
R1a was just east of there, on the steppe near the Lower Don.
ReplyDeleteThe star like expansion under R1a M417 came from Tripolye.
ReplyDelete@Romulus
ReplyDeleteThe star like expansion under R1a M417 came from Tripolye.
That's unlikely, because M417 is initially mainly associated with Corded Ware and then Corded Ware derived groups, and there's no R1a in any Tripolye or related samples.
R1a will show up in Usatovo samples, but even if we say that these belong to the Tripolye culture, they won't be typical of that culture.
ReplyDelete@Rob:
«R1a -M417 were probably further north / northeast of the main Dnieper cluster»
@Davidski:
«R1a was just east of there, on the steppe near the Lower Don.»
@Romulus:
«The star like expansion under R1a M417 came from Tripolye.»
Wow, this is really interesting!
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteIt's not very interesting anymore.
It's been obvious where the initial R1a-M417 expansion was ever since early Corded Ware samples came out ~100% steppe.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteYes, it is clear that this is an area between the Dnieper and the Volga, with the center on the don. But in this area, all the named streams intersect in the Neolithic. From the South the culture of the Lower don (Parking Cherkasy 5), stroke-ornamented pottery culture (culture of the Middle don, very similar to the culture of Orlovka), Elshanskaya culture (Karamyshevo culture), the culture of Pit comb ware (Ryazan dolgovskaya), and later comes the Sredniy Stog culture seems to have blended with the post-Trypillia culture Sofiivka. By the Eneolithic, there is a very diverse population. But of these, M417, L51 or I2a is still unclear.
@Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteEarly Corded Ware has no more farmer ancestry than Yamnaya does. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to say R1a M417 is from Tripole a farmer population.
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteI don't think we'll ever be able track the path of M417 from the Neolithic to the Corded Ware culture via all of these different cultures.
Some of these cultures are probably bullshit anyway, and never really existed as distinct entities and populations.
But R1a was definitely present on the steppe between the Dnieper and the Volga, and in fact along the shores of the Don River, during the Eneolithic.
It then became associated with Sredny Stog and Usatovo, and especially with the ancestors of the Corded Ware people.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible anyway, the Ukrainian Neolithic population cannot be an ancestor to anyone not only genetically, it is also anthropologically, archaeologically and historically.
There must have been a very similar population east of the Dnieper that contributed a lot of ancestry to early Yamnaya, and also to proto-Corded Ware and Sredny Stog.
ReplyDeleteSee that's why EastPole's PCA model looks so good, and it can be backed up with formal models. But like I say, he's using UKR_N as a stand in for the real pop that mixed with Progress_En-related people.
These fine divergences are pretty tricky.
ReplyDeleteWhat is f4 (Mbuti, X, ukraineNadmix, ukraineN) for X: ProgEn, CHG, Ganj_Dareh_N, Koros_N, Ust-Ishim, Tianyuan?
And also f4 (Mbuti, X, ProgEn, ukraineN) for X: ukraineNadmix, CHG, Ganj_Dareh_N, Koros_N, Ust-Ishim, Tianyuan.
@ Archi
ReplyDelete“ It is impossible anyway, the Ukrainian Neolithic population cannot be an ancestor to anyone not only genetically, it is also anthropologically, archaeologically and historically.”
Incorrect
First of all, there’s no “history” on the Copper - Bronze Age
Secondly; the I2a2 lineage in Neolithic Ukraine matches copper - Bronze Age Balkan, one of the catacomb, swat valley and some BB
Thirdly Formal modelling backs it; you’re claims are backed by your own hot air
Fourthly, even if the “skull shape” study (which in all probability you’ve misquoted or misunderstood) suggests this population “disappeared” the morphological shift could be due to partial replacement; admixture or move to somewhere else. In fact; show us the samples size, methodology and regions of sampling..
ReplyDeleteNo need, formal tests give that Ukrainian Neolithic and Piedmont had nothing to do with it at all, if they participated, they participated in a very weak impurity. Basically, some unknown population like Syezzheye, which is displayed like Ukraine_Globular_Amphora/Ukraine_N, could have participated to a weak extent.
Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara: Russia_EHG Georgia_Kotias.SG Ukraine_Globular_Amphora Russia_Piedmont_Eneolithic Ukraine_N
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00000 0 8 6.400 0.602572 0.468 0.280 0.193 0.039 0.020
00001 1 9 6.480 0.691078 0.487 0.275 0.209 0.030 0.000
00011 2 10 6.458 0.775413 0.500 0.287 0.211 0.002 -0.001
https://pastebin.com/23zm7bnM
It is possible to draw a line between any two points on a 2D PCA, but it does not mean anything.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteI guess if you understand how these f4 stats really work you'll know that the stat in bold is the most important one.
Mbuti RUS_Progress_En UKR_N_admixed UKR_N -0.000356 -1.574
Mbuti GEO_CHG UKR_N_admixed UKR_N -0.000828 -3.478
Mbuti IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N UKR_N_admixed UKR_N -0.00057 -2.896
Mbuti HUN_Koros_N UKR_N_admixed UKR_N -0.000674 -2.98
Mbuti RUS_Ust_Ishim UKR_N_admixed UKR_N -0.000354 -1.492
Mbuti CHN_Tianyuan UKR_N_admixed UKR_N -0.000134 -0.517
Mbuti UKR_N_admixed RUS_Progress_En UKR_N 0.00933 29.085
Mbuti GEO_CHG RUS_Progress_En UKR_N -0.003558 -10.56
Mbuti IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N RUS_Progress_En UKR_N -0.002579 -9.108
Mbuti HUN_Koros_N RUS_Progress_En UKR_N 0.001643 5.244
Mbuti RUS_Ust_Ishim RUS_Progress_En UKR_N 0.000653 1.838
Mbuti CHN_Tianyuan RUS_Progress_En UKR_N 0.000577 1.541
That is, CHG is really what differentiates UKR_N_admixed and UKR_N in these stats, because RUS_Progress_En has too much EHG to be a strong enough reference point along the mixture cline, even if it's closer to the true mixture source than CHG.
@Davidski
ReplyDeletePlease list the samples that you attribute to UKR_N_admixed.
UKR_N:I1738 M UKR_N_admixed
ReplyDeleteUKR_N:I3715 M UKR_N_admixed
UKR_N:I3717 M UKR_N_admixed
UKR_N:I4111 F UKR_N_admixed
UKR_N:I5870 M UKR_N_admixed
Seems like the CHG / GD related stats are consistent with UkraineNAdmix as UkraineN+ProgEn (about 1/3 latter), but Koros_N stat and other two not really (UkraineNADmix as UkraineN+ProgEn would converge less with KorosN than UkraineN does, while UkraineNADmix converges with Koros_N more). Koros_N near significance but not quite 3.
ReplyDeleteI suppose this is where qpAdm moves around the Ukraine_Meso+IronGates to get a point further from UkraineN, more like Baltic MN/Sweden HG that can fit with ProgEn. That is plausible if UkraineN more eastern than true admixing population I guess.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteIt’s old news that the main trunk of steppe Yamnaya is from something like Repin ; not Ukraine Neolithic.
But your misdirection is clear- claiming one thing; and Showing stats for something completely different
Samples David is discussing who have significant Progress Eneo-like ancestry.
ReplyDeleteUKR_N:I1738 M UKR_N_admixed-Vovnigi site, Y DNA I2a2a1b1b
UKR_N:I3715 M UKR_N_admixed-Volniensky site, Y DNA I2a2a1b
UKR_N:I3717 M UKR_N_admixed-Dereivka site, Y DNA I2a2a1b1
UKR_N:I4111 F UKR_N_admixed-Dereivka site, female
UKR_N:I5870 M UKR_N_admixed-Volniensky site, Y DNA I
Modelling Ukraine Neolithic as Progress Eneolithic using the WE 9 PCA, the samples from Volniensky site score the highest. They average: 20% Progress_Eneo.
9 of 9 in Volninesky site belong to Y DNA I2a2a1b1b, the same form of I2 later found in Yamnaya. It is very possible Yamnaya's I2a2 is from Ukraine hunter gatherers. Also, I2a2a1b1b is popular in Bulgaria Kurgans dating 3000 BC.
WE9 PCA
ReplyDeleteDereivka average=12.3% Progress Eneo
Volniensky average=20% Progress Eneo
Volniensky is on east bank of Dnieper River. Dereivka is on west bank of Dnieper River. Their positioning on the river could explain slightly different levels of CHG.
We don't have to question whether Neolithic genomes from Lower Don culture will show CHG ancestry. They will. The question is how much. Yamnaya-like people probably lived across a big range in Southern Russia during Neolithic. The question is where exactly.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete“I don't think we'll ever be able track the path of M417 from the Neolithic to the Corded Ware culture via all of these different cultures.”
Apparently Yes. This is very sad. But I'll make a guess. In 3100 BC, R1a-M417 apparently were here: "the inhabitant of the settlement Serteya VIII (3120±120 years BC) was found Y-chromosomal haplogroup R1a1 and mitochondrial haplogroup H." this is the Smolensk region - the westernmost region of Russia. In the next 200-300 years, the descendants of these people entered Europe as CWC.
The corded ware culture represents a massive migration from the steppe. Massive population is a prerequisite for massive migration. Star like expansions of y dna haplogroups correspond to population explosions. The only massive populations and population explosions on the steppe came from the Cucuteni Tripolye culture, resulting from EEFs introducing farming to the steppe. To say that we have no R1a from Tripolye is misleading because we have no y dna from Tripolye. The only Y DNA or DNA at all we have from the CT culture comes from Verteba cave at the Western side of the CT Zone. Triploye is the Northeastern most settlement of the CT culture where it overlaps with Sredny Stog where we DO have R1a M417 in a sample already Corded Ware like autosomally. We have 4 beaker like samples from CT already, beaker like because they come from the western zone of CT where beakers came from. R1a in cwc comes from the sredny stog zone where Tripolye overlaps with Sredny Stog.
ReplyDelete@Romulus
ReplyDeleteThe star-like expansion in R1a was caused by a massive migration out of the steppe, not into the steppe.
The Corded Ware culture migrated out of the steppe, and its males were rich in R1a. The Tripolye culture migrated into the steppe, and its males were not rich in R1a.
Romulus said...
ReplyDelete"The only massive populations and population explosions on the steppe came from the Cucuteni Tripolye culture"
Complete nonsense and untruth that contradicts all the data of archaeology, anthropology, genetics. We know very well the expansion of the Dnieper-Donetsk culture and the Mariupol type in the Neolithic, the expansion of the Sredniy Stog and the Dereivka cultures in the Eneolithic, the expansion of the Yamnaya culture and the Usatovo culture in the Bronze Age. Expansion in Tripolie culture in steppe at all was not, it has been limited to the western part of a forest-steppe to the west from Southern Bug and the north of Dnieper river.
@Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteThat 2015 study with Y DNA/mTDNA from Northwest Russia produced false results. All mtDNA, Y DNA results from that study are incorrect.
For example, their Y DNA results for hunter gatherers was R1a1 and N1c. Which is the Y DNA modern Balts have. Obviously, this is modern contamination. Recent ancient DNA studies show N1c didn't arrive till the Iron age..
@Romulus,
ReplyDelete"We have 4 beaker like samples from CT already"
That's not true. They cluster with outliers from Beaker Hungary not the bulk of Beaker samples.
Moreover, the oldest R1b L151 sample in Western Europe is 76% Steppe. This is much more Steppe than any of those CT samples.
@Romulus,
ReplyDeleteCorded Ware was originally 100% Yamnaya-like. So, it is impossible to derive Corded Ware from a population who was mostly farmer such as Cucuteni Tripolye.
"To say that we have no R1a from Tripolye is misleading because we have no y dna from Tripolye."
Well, Tripolye was a farmer population. So, it is safe to assume they lacked yHG R1a.
The only way they could have R1a was from intermarrying with Steppe people. In that case, the R1a would still be from the Steppe people anyways. So, I don't see where you going with this CT=R1a M417.
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteThis is the Smolensk region - the westernmost region of Russia. In the next 200-300 years, the descendants of these people entered Europe as CWC.
So how come there's no Y-hg N in any CWC samples? Do you think there ever will be?
Those samples look like they were contaminated, because they fit the profile of modern people in the region.
The method that the authors used is susceptible to contamination and the results would need to be verified with shotgun or capture sequencing, but that's unlikely, because they look implausible.
Romulus said:
ReplyDelete"The only massive populations and population explosions on the steppe came from the Cucuteni Tripolye culture, resulting from EEFs introducing farming to the steppe"
Anthropomorphic clay figurines from CT
https://www.alamy.com/anthropomorphic-trypillian-clay-figures-museum-state-history-museum-moscow-image211768428.html
And from Indus
https://www.google.com/search?q=indus+goddess+figurines&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj22rfexcPpAhXTj3IEHQmyC3UQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1745&bih=852#imgrc=l08zT3tHdaCr5M
Unbelievable!
Blogger Davidski said...
ReplyDelete@Romulus
The star-like expansion in R1a was caused by a massive migration out of the steppe, not into the steppe.
The migration out of the steppe was due to the steppe no longer being able to support the massive population spike that the introduction of farming caused. Prehistoric people do not pack up and migrate en masse during times of plenty. It was no longer able to support this massive population because of the climate shift associated with aridification of the Steppe i.e. the shift from the Atlantic->Subboreal Holocene periods:
Atlantic (8 ka–5 ka BP)
Subboreal (5 ka–2.5 ka BP)
R1a was not present in the Cucuteni-Tripolye Verteba cave samples which belonged to G2a and E Y DNA Haplogroups. R1a came to supersede early farmer Y DNA haplogroups just as I2a came to supersede G2a as the primary Y DNA haplogroup of farmers elsewhere in Europe.
Early CT Farmers + Sredny Stog HGs belonging to R1a -> Corded Ware R1a.
This looks interesting
ReplyDeletehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742030502X
The eastward expanding Yamnaya culture may have something to do with it as well.
ReplyDelete@Romulus
ReplyDeleteR1a came to supersede early farmer Y DNA haplogroups just as I2a came to supersede G2a as the primary Y DNA haplogroup of farmers elsewhere in Europe.
But this isn't just about R1a.
Early Corded Ware genomes are very similar to those from Yamnaya and very different from those of Tripolye farmers.
Obviously the Corded Ware and Tripolye populations were of different origins.
The interesting thing I have noted (although its been commented on before) is that ~ 5300 BC people were moving onto the steppe. CHG & WSHG ancestry in the eastern Ponto-Caspian (probably connected with Pottery Neolithic); whislt WHG-shift & minor amounts of EEF in the westernmost steppe. Then a less clear middle phase (4500-3000 BC); including an early move out of western steppe into East Balkans & Anatolia (proto-Anatolians, & other early I.E.s); followed by big expansion ~ 3000 BC
ReplyDelete@Romulus,
ReplyDeleteExplain how Corded Ware can be from CT farmers if Early Corded Ware only has 10% Farmer ancestry (the same amount which Yamnaya had).
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThere is a cline in Steppe ancestry within CT, geographically and in time. Steppe ancestry increases in CT samples over time, Steppe ancestry is highest in the East and lowest in the West as farmers colonized from West->East. We only have CT samples from Verteba Cave in the East and 4 females from Moldova. Nothing from Tripolye . note the location of Tripolye:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_culture#/media/File:SEE-Eneolithic-cultures-Cucuteni.jpg
Early CT farmers had EHG ancestry as did the Varna samples, and one sample from Varna is VERY Steppe like . Farmer females were highly desirable for the Steppe tribes as elite status symbols, imitating the elite male dominance they were exposed to in the Varna culture. Conversely Steppe females were seen as lower status and were undesirable for all but the lowest rungs of the EEF cultures.
Even you yourself now place the origin of R1a CWC in Ustaovo which is CT derived culturally and unknown genetically with the exception of your statements about the appearance of R1a there. Logically Ustaovo will look like the Moldovan CT samples with an increase in Steppe ancestry due to being later in time (as I said earlier Steppe ancestry increases over time, just as we see WHG ancestry resurgent over time elsewhere in Europe).
"The Cucuteni-Trypillia complex (CTC) flourished in eastern Europe for over two millennia
(5100 – 2800 BCE) from the end of the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. "
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/11/21/849422.full.pdf
Coincidence CT ends the exact same century CWC individuals appear in Western Europe?
@Rob, Yep. And bronze age DNA from a necropolis in Serbia was published.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.18.101337v1
They are 55% EEF, 8% WHG, 37% Steppe. Their Y DNA is R1b Z2103, I2a, J2b.
Apparently their R1b Z2103 belongs to the same subclade which modern Albanians belong to. That's what Alabanian user at Anthrogencia said.
Maybe, Illyrian/Albanian language comes from Western Yamnaya. Because apparently Bronze age Western Balkans were of largely Yamnaya origin.
@Rob, the Albanian user (who studies FTDNA) said roughly 19% belong to R1b. And that essentially all belong to specific Z2103 subclade.
ReplyDeleteSo, yeah, R1b Z2103 might be an IE marker in Southeast Europe. *Might.*
Davidski thinks Middle Eastern R1b Z2103 comes from Hurrians who were part Yamnaya/IE. I agree. But, where does R1b Z2103 in Southeast Europe come from? Probably Western Yamnaya.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteYou're confusing two different issues.
There was mixing between Tripolye farmers and steppe people on the western edge of the steppe, but this had nothing to do with Corded Ware.
The Corded Ware culture appeared later and it was due to a quick expansion of groups from further east on the steppe.
The Battle Axe people came from the steppe
These groups weren't closely related to Tripolye, and farmer ancestry increased over time in Corded Ware people after they mixed in Central Europe with other farmer groups, like Globular Amphora and TRB.
It seems to me like you're confusing Corded Ware with Usatovo.
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDeleteThe CT settlements only grew so massively large because they incorporated massive amounts of Steppe people. This pushed their autosomal to 90% Steppe.
In the early phases settlements were small and composed of people who look like the Verteba Cave samples or Varna, i.e. 12%EHG + Rest Farmer and some WHG. The Moldova samples are from 3500 – 3100 BCE, they uniformly have much more Steppe ancestry but still have less Steppe ancestry than CWC, they are also Western. In the Easternmost area, i.e. Tripolye, this cline was 90% Steppe by 2900-2800 B.C.
Over time they just kept incorporating Steppe people at a faster rate than EEFs were reproducing in those societies. The effect is just much more pronounced than the resurgence in WHG we see in Western Europe over time, because Eastern Populations were historically higher than HGs in Western Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_throughout_history
@Rob
ReplyDeleteWhere is the full text? :)
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThe Sredny Stog R1a has lots of Farmer ancestry and it predates GAC on the Steppe. The Steppe migrants did mix with GAC, when CT mixed with GAC. Farmer ancestry varies in CWC samples just as it does in Beaker.
Steppe ancestry increases until 2800 B.C. when these settlements collapse, the people migrate into Northern Europe and start mixing with local Farmers there rather than staying on the Steppe and incorporating more Farmerless Steppe types.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteThe CT settlements only grew so massively large because they incorporated massive amounts of Steppe people. This pushed their autosomal to 90% Steppe.
Only some CT samples have steppe ancestry.
@Romulus
ReplyDelete"Farmer females were highly desirable for the Steppe tribes as elite status symbols, imitating the elite male dominance they were exposed to in the Varna culture. Conversely Steppe females were seen as lower status and were undesirable for all but the lowest rungs of the EEF cultures."
Your fantasies are ridiculous. The main thing is that you don't know where you make them up from. The Tripolyeans weren't steppes and ancestors of CWC, it's a simple fact.
"Even you yourself now place the origin of R1a CWC in Ustaovo which is CT derived culturally"
It's not a Ustatovo derivative of the CT culture, it's a proven fact. Ancient errors of the mid-20th century have long been obsolete by archaeologists, but the old texts are still available. Usatovo are typical steppes that came to the Tripolye substrate of women, moreover, this substrate is only in the early phase of this culture and manifests itself only in the pottery of burials, further it completely disappears from this culture.
@Samuel Andrews
There is no evidence that the Maros culture (2300-1700BC) was Illyrian speaking. The Mokrin necropolis was buried in Pythos, which has nothing to do with Indo-European customs, and this culture has disappeared without a trace, replacing by the Tumulus culture.
@ Sam
ReplyDeletePretty interesting, thanks for the link
The I2a1b is a surprise; I hope they carbon date some of the samples
Obviously Z2103 is from Yamnaya, or maybe even earlier movements. However, its current frequency & distribution has been modified by later movements & demographic shifts, of which there were quite a few in SEE. Indeed, this Mokrin cemetery is basically on the Carpathian steppe.
The J2b is intereting also, probably J2b2 like the one found in Croatian Iron Age
Being this far inland, it goes against a Levantine-coastal dispersal. I think, although not originally IE, they had a role in proto-Illyrian
Undoubtedly Albanian is descended from “Paleobalkan IE”; but I don’t think the link between western Yamnaya & Albanian is quite that straightforward. By the time Albanian emerges in Middle Ages, it had been significantly modified, which is why some linguists get odd results of its supposed Germanic affinity (they havent taken into account adstratum effects)
@ Mary
I cant access one at the moment, maybe later on in day, or so
@Romulus
ReplyDelete" The CT settlements only grew so massively large because they incorporated massive amounts of Steppe people. This pushed their autosomal to 90% Steppe."
Answer, where do you get your funny fantasies from? You write unscientific nonsense directly.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteThe Sredny Stog R1a has lots of Farmer ancestry and it predates GAC on the Steppe.
How does this invalidate the fact that Corded Ware had ancestry from Globular Amphora and TRB, not from Tripolye?
And how does it invalidate the fact that the star-like expansion of R1a is the result of the Corded Ware expansion, and nothing to do with Tripolye?
Think of CT settlements as a cell. In the nucleus is dense in Farmer DNA, but the outer 90% of the cell is composed of Steppe types, some with and some without Farmer ancestry. The cell collapses, the effect is most pronounced in the nucleus, all of that dying out. The remains are CWC and mix with GAC.
ReplyDelete@Romulus
ReplyDeleteYou'll just have to admit that you made a mistake by linking Tripolye to the Corded Ware expansion and the star-like expansion in R1a.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteI have been saying on this blog for 5 years now the steppe people came from CT. My argument has only gotten stronger with time. For so long people were adamant they came from Yamanya and only recently after continuous contradiction by genetic evidence has that changed and it's changed to within the CT zone. Even Anthony and the others now state the impact of CT.
@Rob, Archi
ReplyDeleteOk, thanks for the correction. I suppose it is unlikely Maros culture was Illyrian speaking considering they lived mainly in Carpthian Basin.
People at anthrogenica think the I2a1b is not ancestral to modern I2a1b2a which has a TMRCA of 2.1ky and is linked to Slavic expansion. So, maybe just a weird coincidence like R1b V88 in Neolithic Spain.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteCorded Ware doesn't derive from CT.
You know that right?
@ Sam
ReplyDelete“ People at anthrogenica think the I2a1b is not ancestral to modern I2a1b2a which has a TMRCA of 2.1ky and is linked to Slavic expansion. So, maybe just a weird coincidence like R1b V88 in Neolithic Spain. ”
Different kettle of chips . L151 and V88 are wholly different; what’s the coincidence that modern I2a1b2 isn’t derivative from Bronze Age I2a1b? Of course , Mokrin itself might be a dead end, but it suggests that I2a1b was around the Bronze Age carpathian. Hardly shocking
I know that on AG there was theory that I2a1b came from the west with the late Iron Age “Basternae”, but that’s no longer needed . Indeed it’s non-provable because they cremated
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteOne reason to the lack of N in Corded Ware can simply be that Zhizhitskaya is a Late Neolithic culture while Corded Ware is a new dynamic Bronze Age culture from the south. Existence or non-existence of N in North Russian late Neolithic can be verified by analyzing late Neolithic samples from the relevant area and not by analyzing Corded Ware.
@Kritiina,
ReplyDeleteThat study also found 100% mtDNA H in the Northwest Russian hunter gatherers. So, it for sure false results.
@Kristiina
ReplyDeleteI don't think you'll see any Y-hg N in Zhizhitskaya culture samples in any study based on new sequencing methods.
Modern Balts don't have 100% mtDNA H. So it isn't modern contamination. It is someother mistake.
ReplyDeleteOld mTDNA studies compae mtDNA sequences to rCRS who belonged to H2a2a1. They never find mutations, meaning they never find differences with rCRS, therefore they conclude the ancient samples belongs to H/H2a2.
In reality, they didn't sequence any ancient mtDNA which is why they typically find no differences with rCRS.
That's why old mtDNA seemed to confirm mtDNA H was the main haplogroup in prehistoric Europe.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteModern Balts don't have 100% mtDNA H. So it isn't modern contamination.
What do Balts have to do with this? The mtDNA H is from the person or people handling the sample remains.
I don't think the mtDNA is modern contamination. I don't think it comes from a human at all.
ReplyDeleteIn these bad ancient mTDNA studies I see two things. No mutations (which they call H) and random mutations which don't fit profile of any haplogroup.
This is because, their mtDNA results don't come from a human period, whether from the ancient person of modern researcher handling their bones. Ut is just random errors which don't match any human lineage.
Which, is why you get really weird results in some studies. Like reportdly mtDNA C in Neolithic Ukraine. It really wasn't mHG C. It was random mutations, one or two matches mHG C.
I do not want to speculate more than this. We simply need more data. The area where Uralic languages are spoken is very poorly studied for ancient DNA.
ReplyDeleteThese Ukr_N samples are probably not adjusted for reservoir effect. Check Reich anno file. from Mathieson 2018, Srb_iron_gates and romania_iron gates dates are all adjusted for reservoir effect and clearly mentioned in the file. Not so for any of the Ukr_N samples.
ReplyDeleteGiven that all these sites are right on the bank of Dnieper, they should have high % of freshwater fish in diet. If diet consists 70% fish (like for steppe eneolithic), reservoir effect will bring date down by 700 odd years as per Cook et al 2002. So these Ukr_N samples might actually belong to 4500bce.
There is little difference between Ukr_N and Ukr_N_admixed. The latter has 6% more Steppe_en ancestry, 10% instead of 4%.
Ukraine_N_adm (I1738, I3715, I3717, I4111, I5870)
Ukraine_Mesolithic: 0.630
Serbia_Mesolithic_IronGates: 0.265
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic: 0.105
p-value: 0.22
https://pastebin.com/JVu0pZ47
Ukraine_N
Ukraine_Mesolithic: 0.699
Serbia_Mesolithic_IronGates: 0.259
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic: 0.04
p-value: 0.09
https://pastebin.com/xBScZVsr
And what can you say about the maternal U5a2b1a of I2a1b individuals from the Carpathian Basin? Today, if I'm not mistaken, it appears in Bulgaria, Poland, Russia and Belarus.
ReplyDelete@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteSo these Ukr_N samples might actually belong to 4500bce.
Learn to count you idiot.
UKR_N I1738, dated to 5473-5326 calBCE.
No way is this date 4,500 BCE, even if you correct it for extreme reservoir effect.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteI remember a lecture by Mallory where he stressed that the pastoral lifestyle on the steppe also supported a surprisingly large population. It shouldn't be underestimated. Also you're contradicting yourself saying that the massive population on the steppe was the result of farmers migrating onto the steppe and at the same time you're saying late CT was 90% steppe because of steppe people migrating out of the steppe more quickly than CT farmers could reproduce.
Paleolithic to Bronze Age Siberians Reveal Connections with First Americans and across Eurasia
ReplyDeletevery interesting statement
"This suggests that the Baikal hunter-gatherer and Nganasan populations are more likely to have formed in central or southern Siberia while Paleo-Eskimo ancestry could have emerged in either central or northeastern Siberia."
https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=37674&d=1590050976
@vAsiSTha, just using Ukraine_N, EHG and CHG, do you get any models which then work for this Ukraine_N_adm?
ReplyDeleteProbably as you can work out from my post above, I'm not totally sure why we'd use a model that allows the point on the EHG->Iron_Gates_HG cline to vary, but has the point on the EHG->CHG cline fixed at Progress_En*. (That places the Iron_Gates_HG->EHG point around Sweden_Motala_HG or ROU_Meso.) When we have Ukraine_N right there as the proximal population, while the EHG->CHG cline is possibly kind of unmapped / unsampled.
One other point, might be worth noting that the dates on some of these UKR samples in Harvard .anno file don't clearly line up such that Meso are all before all Neolithic with being before and after one another.
We've got:
- 4 of the UKR_Meso from similar dates before 8000 BCE and are more EHG like: I1819, I1737, I1733, I1763
- Next, 1 UKR_N from 7200 BCE: I1734
- Next, 2 UKR_Meso from after 7000 BCE: I5876, I5885
- All remaining UKR_N in a sequence from 6100BCE to 4580 BCE.
The "UKR_Meso" who are after the first UKR_N (I5876 and I5885), to me, look genetically closer to "UKR_N" than to earlier UKR_Meso.
It looks to me like UKR changes to a UKR_N like structure somewhere between 8000-7000 BCE, and then stays like that afterwards (though these UKR_N_admix may be slightly different; but UKR_N definitely forms its genetic character by 7000BCE and then stays like that).
*of course as from previous conversations, I think Progress_En possibly has some other low level admixtures summing to about 30%, which mostly cancel out in places on broad West Eurasia PCA... but this isn't very important for a situation where it is itself ony 25% the ancestor of anything else.
@Romulus
ReplyDelete"I have been saying on this blog for 5 years now the steppe people came from CT. My argument has only gotten stronger with time. For so long people were adamant they came from Yamanya and only recently after continuous contradiction by genetic evidence has that changed and it's changed to within the CT zone."
The time you write your personal unscientific fantasies doesn't matter, it's not an argument. Your fantasies are unscientific, they have weakened to zero, to a complete impossibility. Genetics has strictly proved you wrong in everything that your personal assumptions are completely impossible.
from feb 2020 paper
ReplyDeletehttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-020-01014-4
Overall, the most striking conclusion evident from the human Ī“13C and Ī“15N dataset is that it demonstrates a clear, continued, and heavy reliance on aquatic proteins into the Neolithic period, regardless of whether individuals show burial affinities with the Surskaja or Dnieper Donets cultural groups.
For burial 54, with a Ī“15N value of 14.1‰, we observe a chronological difference of c. 470 years between the individual (human) and the deer tooth pendent that was dated.
At Yasinovatka, whilst investigations into the reservoir effect are currently limited to one burial, we can tentatively use the observed difference of c.470 years as a primary baseline for comparison.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteProbably as you can work out from my post above, I'm not totally sure why we'd use a model that allows the point on the EHG->Iron_Gates_HG cline to vary, but has the point on the EHG->CHG cline fixed at Progress_En*. (That places the Iron_Gates_HG->EHG point around Sweden_Motala_HG or ROU_Meso.) When we have Ukraine_N right there as the proximal population, while the EHG->CHG cline is possibly kind of unmapped / unsampled.
Because almost all of the UKR_N samples have that type of ancestry, it's just that some have more of it than the others.
But in any case, when I use UKR_N to model UKR_N_admixed, I still do get a signal of this admixture in UKR_N_admixed well above the standard error, no matter which samples I use in the right pops.
@matt
ReplyDeletefor Ukr_N_adm
Ukr_meso + Iron_gates + Khvalynsk does not work (Khvalynsk % is -ve)
Ukr_meso + Iron_gates + Karelia + CHG does not work (Karelia % is -ve)
so clearly more EHG is not required
What does work is
Ukr_meso + Iron_gates + Steppe_en
Ukr_meso + Iron_gates + CHG
qpAdm for the last model
Ukraine_Mesolithic: 0.736
Serbia_Mesolithic_IronGates: 0.222
Georgia_Kotias.SG: 0.042 +- 0.016
p-value: 0.1798
https://pastebin.com/01RWiYKH
@All
ReplyDeleteI've updated the mixture models in the blog post by adding CHG to the right pops. I also added a third model. This one...
UKR_N_admixed
RUS_Progress_En 0.083±0.021
UKR_N 0.917±0.021
chisq 7.461
tail prob 0.589238
@ Matt
ReplyDeleteI think there’s more to it than blends; it’s also important to consider uniparentals, for ex: I5876 is R1a as the other Mesolithics, hence this case represents itnernal variation. But ~ 5300 BC there are some shifts; from one of R1a and I2a1 to I2a2 & R1b-V88, with a different overall position on the WHG-EHG cline.
Its been hypothesised for a while from other lines of evidence (eg Telegin’s work; isotopic work - Lillie et al)- shifts in HG networks due to “knock -on” effects due to the arrival of LBK, climate change, etc
Perhaps something analogous to CHG further east, but its own thing
A visualisation of sample dates so far (median + SE)
https://imgur.com/X6dC607
@vAsiTha, you're free to test what you want but I never suggested that more EHG than Ukr_Meso had was required. If you thought I was saying so, you may have not understood.
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion was that using ProgEnvas a fixed point, a fixed blend of CHG+EHG, then allowing IronGates+UkraineMeso to vary, made less sense than allowing CHG+EHG to vary freely and using UkraineN as a fixed point. Since we know UkraineN existed at the time and place, and we don't know in what blends and where CHG+EHG were.
@ambron,
ReplyDeleteUnless there is an informative downstream marker, I2a1b is nearly the equivalent of Loschbour, and double the age of M269, so I wouldn't say it's all that telling, unless someone can find a deeper level SNP. I2 is generally found throughout all of mesolithic Europe, so it may or may not be related to anything found at high rate in the Balkans today. As we've seen the region has had completely different haplogroups spanning the mesolithic to modern day, with some continuity but vastly different haplogroup proportions. In essence, I'd take it with a grain of salt, as R-Z2103 is the modal haplogroup in the BA sample, but as we can see is a minority in Serbia today.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteIf I understand your argument correctly, you claim that steppe people adopted farming from CT, exploded demographically because of this, and migrated westwards when the climate got worse, thereby outnumbering the original farmers in the late CT by 9:1. Yet you claim that R1a came from the original farmers, not from the steppe people who had adopted farming. There's something weird about this line of thought.
Romulus, has good point to say CT farmers only one in archaeology who could home a large population. But, everything else in his theory doesn't work.
ReplyDelete@ambron,
ReplyDelete"And what can you say about the maternal U5a2b1a of I2a1b individuals from the Carpathian Basin? Today, if I'm not mistaken, it appears in Bulgaria, Poland, Russia and Belarus."
You're not mistake. U5a2b1 today is a East European "Slavic" marker. Why is it in bronze age Serbia and in modern Russia even though the only link between them is supposed to be Slavs? Hard to say.
@matt i did not think that you implied extra EHG was necessary. It was more self talk because i surely though EHG was necessary and that Khvalynsk would work.
ReplyDeleteBut Khvalynsk did not work, neither did EHG + CHG. Only Chg worked.
If you check my 2nd comment on the top to Davidski you will see that I had asked him to check Khvalynsk and that I think it would work.
Khvalynsk doesn't work.
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=12Dxglde6abdgixjROiSqHBkaT-yynHVk
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1u4JOswdIE7WfGrHLY3Ta-Az3ux7UL9yX
You need a more western-shifted, less EHG population, with more CHG. Even Progress isn't ideal for this.
But like I've been saying, such a population did exist around 5,000 BCE in the Lower Don.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"But like I've been saying, such a population did exist around 5,000 BCE in the Lower Don."
Not necessarily, UKR_N_admixed they're I2a all, it's probably Azov-Dnieper culture. The shift towards CHG there may be from Mesolithic, may be related to the Kukrek culture of the Crimea and to the north, of which is often erected to the influence from the south of Central Asia, which went through Transcaucasia and the Crimea.
@ Sam
ReplyDelete“ You're not mistake. U5a2b1 today is a East European "Slavic" marker. Why is it in bronze age Serbia and in modern Russia even though the only link between them is supposed to be Slavs? Hard to say.””
All the more reason to C14 date these guys
@Archi
ReplyDeleteI'm not speculating, you are.
No need for Kukrek culture from Crimea and Caucasus. It’s an old theory which is no longer tenable
ReplyDeleteKukrek is bullet cores , a spin-off from micro blade technique from Siberia
Mesolithic Ukraine is heavily R1a / EHG.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete"I'm not speculating, you are."
No, you're speculating too. You don't know what was in the Lower Don, what was in the Crimea, what was in the Kukrek culture, what was in Mesolithic there, what was in Neolithic there. I1738 belongs to the Azov-Dnieper culture, which is considered the successor of the Kukrek culture, at least in territorial terms.
I know what was in the Lower Don 5,000-4,000 BCE, and many other interesting things.
ReplyDeleteDavidski said...
ReplyDelete"I know what was in the Lower Don 5,000-4,000 BCE"
Maybe, but not 6000-5000BC. The Lower Don 5,000-4,000 BCE is Sredniy Stog time, after the Ukr_N and the Azov-Dnieper culture.
Lower Don 5,000-4,000 BCE is Eneolithic, but not Mesolithic or Neolithic.
ReplyDeleteIts weird. My models pasted above show that EHG is not required, just Steppe_En or CHG works.
ReplyDeleteBut adding Karelia_HG to right pops junks both these above models to below 0.05.
@Simon_W
ReplyDelete1. I never said R1a came from the farmers, it was local.
2. Also you're contradicting yourself saying that the massive population on the steppe was the result of farmers migrating onto the steppe and at the same time you're saying late CT was 90% steppe because of steppe people migrating out of the steppe more quickly than CT farmers could reproduce.
The migration of farmers onto the steppe to form CT was slow and small, it only grew over time. See here, everywhere farmers settled there was a population explosion because their subsistence strategy and hence fertility rates was much better than previous populations:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zqu5iPpZtzg/VA2UUEhNP5I/AAAAAAAAB0Q/Fd3wyqdErbc/s1600/bohemia.png
It was not a "massive migration of farmers onto the steppe" it was a small migration of farmers with fast growth.
Everywhere the farmers went subsequently had a population explosion, but only in CT do we see mega settlements. That is because the farming population explosions in CT were magnified by the incorporation of many local steppe people. Initial migration of pure farmers from the southeast stopped after the early phase, but incorporation of pure steppe types only increased with time, leading to overall uniform shift in autosomal ancestry to steppe. Just like the resurgence of WHG in the west, just much more so, enough to push to 90% steppe.
Early CT farmers (EEF & G2a, E) + Sredny Stog (Steppe, R1a) -> CWC
But there were other settlements where R1b was the local Steppe Y DNA haplogroup, R1a comes from the northeastern Triploye settlement, R1b m269 from Romanian CT.
ReplyDeleteNEW RADIOCARBON DATES OF THE NEOLITHIC SITES OF THE DON REGION
© 2017 A. A. Vybornov, M. A. Kulkova, M. Oynonen, G. Possnert
1 Samara state socio-pedagogical University 2 Russian state pedagogical University, Saint Petersburg 3 Helsinki University, Finland 4 Uppsala University, Sweden
«The paper is devoted to the new data on the radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the Don region. The analysis of the chronology of Karamyshevskaya, Srednedonskaya, Pricaspiyskaya cultures is presented. The correlation between the dates on charred food crusts and organics from the ceramics has been traced. The chronological framework of the various stages of the Neolithic in the Don region is determined.
One of the most interesting groups of ceramics is dishes from the settlement of Cherkasskaya 5. It is characterized by an admixture of freshwater clam shells (silt?), smoothed outer surface, and ornamentation with notches, which researchers do not identify with known local Neolithic cultures. For organics in ceramics of this type, a fairly early date was obtained (table 1, 1). it Would be possible to explain the aging due to the presence of clam shells, but they were eliminated during the sampling process. In addition, the date for carbon deposits from similar types of ceramics from the same Parking lot was obtained (tables 1, 2), which completely coincided with the newly obtained date. In other words, two identical dates were obtained for two different organic materials, which fix the interval of 6200-5900 years BC. Thus, the researchers ' assumption about the early Neolithic age of this group of ceramics on the Middle don is confirmed. Cherkassk type of ceramics reflects the interaction of the local population with the carriers of the lower don culture with collared vessels.
1 Cherkasy 5 6249-5839 BC Ceramics
2 Cherkasy 5 6236-5730 BC Nagar»
and this lower don population has already come to the Middle don. Actually on the Lower don it was much earlier.
NEW INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SITE RAKUSHECHNY YAR IN 2008-2013
ReplyDelete© 2014
There are many dates in this work. they begin with 7930 BC
http://www.pgsga.ru/research/samara-scientific-journal/number_journal/023.pdf
@Davidski "I know what was in the Lower Don 5,000-4,000 BCE, and many other interesting things."
ReplyDeleteI asked you last time about Lower Don on the Eneolithic Steppe topic. I knew Lower Don will be crucial for the Steppe. What kinda population was there? Can you enlighten us even if 5000-4000BCE is Eneolithic not Neolithic ?
@Kavkasi
ReplyDeleteYamnaya-like.
Wood, I am aware of this, but I apply the principle of economics of thinking. To think that I2a1b offspring live in a nearby area to this day is simply economical.
ReplyDeleteSam, maybe the Russian geneticists and linguists gathered around Balanovsky and the Russian genophond are right, who think that the Slavs were mainly from the Carpathian Basin.
Re paternal N: it seems to me that N-CTS9976 related to fex Finns, Estonians, Scandinavians and Balts expanded into East Baltic area already during Seyma Turbino expansion, probably from Volga area. However, it seems to have first resided in NW Russia for a while, before the slightly later areal re-expansion. Then there is fex N-Z1936, (Eastern )Finns, Hungarians, Khanty, Mansi, Bashkirs, Volga Tatars and such, which apparently still resided in later Hungaria Magna in Southern Urals even when N-CTS9976 was already in Baltic area. Zhizhitskaya, very doubtfull, in my opinion but we'll see.
ReplyDelete@All
ReplyDeleteThe following samples are now in the Global25 datasheets.
RUS_Baikal_BA:GLZ003
RUS_Baikal_BA:KAG002
RUS_Baikal_BA:KPT001
RUS_Baikal_BA:KPT002
RUS_Baikal_BA:KPT003
RUS_Baikal_BA:KPT004
RUS_Baikal_BA:KPT006
RUS_Baikal_BA:STB001
RUS_Baikal_BA:ZPL001
RUS_Baikal_BA:ZPL002
RUS_Baikal_BA_o:GLZ001
RUS_Baikal_BA_o:GLZ002
RUS_Baikal_N:ANG001
RUS_Baikal_N:IUO001
RUS_Baikal_N:KAG001
RUS_Baikal_N:STB002
RUS_BZK002:BZK002
RUS_KPT005:KPT005
RUS_UKY:UKY001
N-CTS2929/VL29 > N-Z4908 > N-L550/S431 > N-L1025/B215 has been found in great percentages (30%+) of present-day Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians. It also has been observed in smaller percentages of people in (European) Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Finland, and Sweden, and there also seems to have been a minor diaspora to the West Germanic countries (Germany, the Netherlands, England) during the Middle Ages.
ReplyDeleteN-CTS2929/VL29 > N-Z4908 > N-L550/S431(xL1025/B215) has been found mostly in Sweden (including a specimen from medieval Sigtuna), but it also has been observed in Norway, Finland, Estonia, Russia, Poland, England, and Scotland.
N-CTS2929/VL29 > N-Z4908 > N-Y46443 has been observed in an individual from Moscow Oblast, Russia and in an individual from Samara Oblast, Russia.
N-CTS2929/VL29 > N-CTS9976 has been observed in many people from Finland as well as in Estonia and Sweden. It also has been observed occasionally in Russia, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
I wonder whether N-Z4908 may have originated in some Uralic-speaking population of Fennoscandia (proto-Baltic Finn or proto-Sami), admixed into the ancient proto-Swedes (Svear), and then migrated into northeastern Europe in medieval times with the Rus/Varangians.
Are other lineages (especially Y-DNA haplogroups) of North Germanic provenance also found among Lithuanians and Latvians besides this ambiguously Swedish or Finnic/Samic one?
@Ebizur "I wonder whether N-Z4908 may have originated in some Uralic-speaking population of Fennoscandia (proto-Baltic Finn or proto-Sami), admixed into the ancient proto-Swedes (Svear), and then migrated into northeastern Europe in medieval times with the Rus/Varangians."
ReplyDeleteZ4908 is unlikely. But the L550 (xL1025) for sure.
L550 was still in the South-East of the Baltic sea. And they went to Scandinavia: Y20911, Y7795, S9378, FGC14542, Y4341.
Genomic history of the Italian population recapitulates key evolutionary dynamics of both Continental and Southern Europeans
ReplyDeletehttps://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-020-00778-4#Fig2
there seems to be no new ancient DNA, but still the article is interesting
@Ebizur
ReplyDeleteWhen do you think Mongoloid/East Eurasian N admixed into a Western population?
Eneolithic N1 from Baikal and north China are NOT ancestral to European N clades which were probably already somewhere further west, in central Siberia. The first contacts with an IE population would have occured in the forest steppe region, somewhere between the Urals and Altai between N-L1026 rich Uralic groups and R1a rich Iranian groups forming Seima-Turbino. The Uralic groups probably would have already had contacts with EHGs/WSHGs in west Siberia.
ReplyDelete@Ebizur
The Estonian Tarands were already N-L550. I think N-Z4908 would have originated near the Volga in the Akozino-Akmylovo culture which the Estonian Tarands have been traced to.
Jatt_Scythian wrote,
ReplyDelete"When do you think Mongoloid/East Eurasian N admixed into a Western population?"
About 4,000 ybp with the spread of the Seima-Turbino phenomenon. A later introduction is implausible considering the diversity and geographical spread of European subclades, and an earlier introduction would require one to assume that subsequent back-migrations from Europe had replaced a great deal of the Y-DNA of many indigenous peoples of Siberia.
Does anyone know if Iran_N has Ust-Ishim-like ancestry? I am trying out some models and it prefers Ust-Ishim to Onge or Tianyuan. Gets a marginally better fit too. CHG doesn't show it.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
Thanks for adding the samples.
@Jatt
The Iron Age IIRC.
What Y-DNA did the indigenous people of Siberia belong to? I presume subclasses of Q and they were predominantly ANE/EHG like?
ReplyDelete@Anthiny Hanken
ReplyDeleteBasically, I agree. And here is from recent work in support of your thesis that it is not a fact that N1a broke up on lake Baikal, and not in southern Siberia.
Paleolithic to Bronze Age Siberians Reveal Connections with First Americans and across Eurasia
"This suggests that the Baikal hunter-gatherer and Nganasan populations are more likely to have formed in central or southern Siberia while Paleo-Eskimo ancestry could have emerged in either central or northeastern Siberia."
The only thing that I would like to challenge is the fact that Seima - Turbino is Andronovo. In Siberia, there are monuments both separately Seima-Turbino and Andronovo, and syncretic between them, which are called Samus Kultura. And already in the Volga region there is evidence of serious clashes between Seima- Turbino and Abashevo. For example, PŠµpkino burial ground, where a huge number of deaths population Abashevo from weapons Seima-Turbino. In a word, Seima- Turbino is probably the N-L1026.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteSo where was the epicenter of this Yamnaya-likeness ? At the Lower Don or in the Caucasus Piedmont Steppe ?
This is from the work of 2019 on the occurrence Akozino option Ananyino culture from the culture of mesh ceramics : "Ethnically the Ananyino cultural area time in the Volga-Kama was, therefore, at least three "Ananyino" cultures (ethno-cultural entities or groups): akozino-akmylovo on the Middle Volga, Vyatka-Vetluga (ceramics with comb-wire ornamentation) and Kama (ceramics with hard-wire ornamentation). Each of them had its own genetic roots.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the existing points of view (V. S. Patrushev, S. V. Kuzminykh), akozino-akhmylov monuments genetically go back to the middle Volga cultures of mesh ceramics; V. N. Markov associated the origin of the Vyatka-Vetluzhsky variant with the migration of a part of the Northern Ural population-descendants of carriers of the lebyazhsky culture (Markov, 2007, p. 56-57). " Ivanov V. A. journal of Archeology of the Eurasian steppes
This is from the 2017 work: "Around the 22nd century BC, a group recognizable by the fatyanoid pottery quickly dispersed over the territory of the Volosovo culture. It is possible to call Chirkovo-Seima, and just Seima . A. H. Halikov (1960) identified this component in Chirkovo-Seima culture as "a pottery type Seima dunes". Some people with fatyanid (Seima) ceramics became part of the forest-steppe Pozdnyakovo culture, but most went into the forest and were among the remnants of the Volosovo culture, where we will know them by fatyanoid (Seima) ceramics. This same culture is defined to the East as the Chirkov-Seima culture, here it is mixed with the Balanovo culture, which is clearly visible on the Vasilsursky settlement (Khalikov, Khalikova, 1963).
ReplyDeleteAnd it is from the moment of settlement of the fatyanoid (Seima) population that the Volosovo culture changes so that we no longer recognize it. The stone technique is also changing. This is natural: the migrants are familiar with the metal. The way of life is changing, apparently, with the advent of cattle breeding. But the territory and the system of connections remain the Seima-Volosovo. The ceramics also change - a dedicated throat appears. The ceramic technology as fatyanoid (Seima) - thin-walled vessels, with a sink in the dough, but without the bird down. The ornaments of the throat as fatyanoid (Seima), but simpler. But the body becomes reticulated. The fact that the tradition from which evolved fatyanoid ceramics (seima), the ornament on the body below the shoulders was not supposed to, and the Volosovo - the entire vessel is decorated with ornaments. Apparently, the appearance of the grid is a compromise between these cultures: meaningless (from the point of view of the fatyanoids( Seima) there is no ornament on the body, and the emptiness does not irritate the population of Volosovo. Mesh ceramics have become a common feature of woodland tableware.
The next step is to enter the forest zone of the Pozdnyakov culture (Sidorov, 2014). Apparently, they paved the road in the forest portanote with fatyanoid (Seima) population. In addition, they were not only farmers, but also pastoralists, and cattle breeding in early forms is more adapted to the forest zone. Pozdnyakovo groups related to forest tribes through fatyanoid (Seima) component, penetrating, settling down in the Volosovo environment. But the appearance of their settlements is different, not agricultural - they are not so capital, they are located in forests on infertile soils, they do not have grain grinders. Their culture is already Abashevo and Srubnaya traits and, of course, there is a mixture of mesh with the culture of ceramics. Apparently, it is from the moment of relocation to the forests of some Pozdnyakovo communities on the Oka, in turn, there are settlements with netted dishes. Thus, the reproduction of the old kinship systems in the forest zone included in them and Pozdnyakovo. The grid appears both on the Oka and South of the Oka. And it is quite agricultural settlement is investigated under the Kashira - Koltova 7 (Sidorov, 1999). It is no longer pozdnyakovo, but mesh ceramics culture, but with separate pozdnyakovo vessels. "
V. V. Sidorov Archeology of the Eurasian steppes
@gamerz_J
ReplyDeleteWhat are the the other reference populations of the model where Ust-Ushim comes up?
If I add Ust-Ishim to the model I used to compare CHG to Iran_N/M under the earlier post, I get this:
"sample": "GEO_CHG:Average",
"fit": 24.4305,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 50.83,
"RUS_MA1": 45,
"RUS_Ust_Ishim": 4.17,
"Levant_Natufian": 0,
"Onge": 0,
"sample": "IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso:Average",
"fit": 20.8852,
"RUS_MA1": 50.83,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 20,
"Levant_Natufian": 15,
"RUS_Ust_Ishim": 14.17,
"Onge": 0,
"sample": "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:Average",
"fit": 25.0145,
"RUS_MA1": 39.17,
"Levant_Natufian": 20.83,
"RUS_Ust_Ishim": 20.83,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 19.17,
"Onge": 0,
"sample": "IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso:Average",
"fit": 13.5753,
"GEO_CHG": 61.67,
"RUS_MA1": 19.17,
"RUS_Ust_Ishim": 13.33,
"Levant_Natufian": 5.83,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 0,
"Onge": 0,
"sample": "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:Average",
"fit": 16.2512,
"GEO_CHG": 72.5,
"RUS_Ust_Ishim": 17.5,
"Levant_Natufian": 6.67,
"Onge": 1.67,
"RUS_MA1": 1.67,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 0,
Ush-Ishim is super ancient even compared to the likes of MA1. So I do not think this is ancestry specifically connected to Ush_Ishim. More like ancestry from a ghost population that is so badly represented in the samples that Ust-Ushim can step in as the least horrible reference.
Interesting however that MA1 can be modelled as AG3 + Ust-Ishim with a fit that is reasonably good considering the age differences.
"sample": "RUS_MA1:Average",
"fit": 3.9146,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 78.33,
"RUS_Ust_Ishim": 21.67,
My feeling is that R1a-m417 pop up in a neolithic group on middle-Don or central chernozem.
ReplyDeleteWe need DNA from late Rakushechny Yar 6000-5000BC? This should be EHG + the CHG component diverged from Iran_N/CHG before 7000BC.
ReplyDelete@Slumberry
ReplyDeleteI used the same ref pops as you did but instead of Barcin_N I used Pinarbasi_HG . I also added a bunch of ancient East Asians from China, Hoabinhians and Taforalt.
"So I do not think this is ancestry specifically connected to Ush_Ishim. More like ancestry from a ghost population that is so badly represented in the samples that Ust-Ushim can step in as the least horrible reference."
I also don't think it's actually Ust-Ishim, but it could be some kind of deep ENA from Central Asia or alternatively some kind of pop structure in the BE component of Iran_N etc. It could also be related to the ENA component in ANE (?)
I did not get it in CHG but I need to check again.