search this blog

Monday, July 27, 2020

Ancient ancestry proportions in present-day Europeans (to be continued)


This year has already been massive in all sorts of ways, including for new data and software releases. So I'm thinking it might be time to update many of the analyses that were featured at this blog a while ago.

Let's start with the classic hunter vs farmer vs herder mixture model for present-day European populations. The rules of the game are as follows:


- run the latest version of qpAdm using qpfstats output

- use transversion sites and 1240K capture data

- pick a set of diverse and chronologically sound outgroups

- for a model to be successful the p-value must reach 0.01

- tweak the left pops in models that are clearly underperforming

- follow high end scientific literature, logic and common sense


Obviously, the reason that I decided to limit my analysis to markers from transversion sites is to mitigate problems associated with modeling the ancestry of modern, high quality samples with relatively low quality ancients. One of these problems appears to be qpAdm assigning faux East Asian/Siberian admixture to present-day Europeans (for instance, see figure 4 here).

My starting reference populations and outgroups are listed below. In qpAdm terminology the former are known as the "left pops", while the latter as the "right pops". Most of these samples are freely available at the David Reich Lab website here.

left pops:
HUN_Koros_N_HG
TUR_Barcin_N
UKR_Yamnaya

right pops:
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
Levant_Natufian
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
CZE_Vestonice16
BEL_GoyetQ116-1
Iberia_ElMiron
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_West_Siberia_HG
MNG_North_N
RUS_Ust_Kyakhta

As you can see, I picked a wide variety of right pops. But I chose most of them specifically to be able to differentiate the three streams of ancestry - from ancient hunters, farmers and herders - that are the focus of my analysis. I also intentionally avoided using samples in the right pops that may have experienced gene flow, including cryptic gene flow, from the populations in the left pops.

I somewhat speculatively earmarked HUN_Koros_N_HG, from the Early Neolithic Carpathian Basin, and UKR_Yamnaya, from the Early Bronze Age North Pontic steppe in what is now Ukraine, to represent the hunter-gatherer and pastoralist streams of ancestry, respectively.

That's because I expected HUN_Koros_N_HG to be the best proxy for the hunter-gatherer ancestry that was initially absorbed by the early farmers who fanned out from the Aegean region across much of the European continent, and of course it made sense to choose a steppe pastoralist population that was located close to Central Europe where such groups first made the biggest impact outside of the steppe.

Interestingly, HUN_Koros_N_HG and UKR_Yamnaya did prove to be among most effective choices for the types of ancestries that they represented. For instance, UKR_Yamnaya generally produced much stronger statistical fits than a very similar set of Yamnaya samples from the Caspian steppe (more precisely, from the Samara region in Russia). However, this might well be an artifact, due to very specific characteristics of these few ancient individuals. Larger sample sets would be welcome, especially from Yamnaya sites in Ukraine.

Below, dear audience, is a spreadsheet featuring the preliminary results. Click on the image to view and/or download the spreadsheet. The general rule is that the higher the tail prob, or p-value, the more likely it is that the ancestry proportions are close to the truth (a tail prob of well below 0.05 is usually a strong indication that something isn't right). For a detailed look at each of the qpAdm runs, feel free to consult the zip file here.


Note, however, that many of the European groups in my burgeoning genotype dataset are yet to make an appearance in the spreadsheet. That's because their models with the standard left pops showed p-values well under 0.01, which essentially meant that they failed, and I'm still trying to make them work.

But round one has certainly revealed some fascinating stuff. For instance, except for Hungarians and Estonians, none of the Uralic-speaking groups can be modeled successfully in the standard three-way model.

However, I managed to significantly improve the statistical fits in their models by adding a Siberian population, RUS_Baikal_BA, to the left pops. This is unlikely to be a coincidence, because the Proto-Uralic homeland was almost certainly located in or very near Siberia. Iain Mathieson please take note.

Saami
HUN_Koros_N_HG 0.134±0.043
RUS_Baikal_BA 0.270±0.015
TUR_Barcin_N 0.081±0.026
UKR_Yamnaya 0.515±0.058
chisq 19.865
tail prob 0.0108571

See also...


536 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 536 of 536
Archi said...

@EastPole

"the historical-comparative method and it is a pseudo-science."

Anti-science is that statement.

"Etymological method is much more valuable."

Etymology is part of the comparative-historical method. There's no independent etymology.

"Etymologists say ‘svet-‘ –> ‘kvet-‘ and reconstructions are wrong."

That's not true. Etymology doesn't say that. There are no separate etymologists from linguists.

Proto-Slav. *květ, *kvisti, *květъ is related to Lts. kvitêt, kvitu "flicker, shine," kvitinât "make flicker." < PIE. kwit.

Proto-Slav. *svět is related to Old-Ind. c̨vēta "light, white", Avesta sraēta -- same, Lit. švitė, c̨vēta "shine", šveičiù, šveičiù "clean, shine", švitėti "shine, shimmer", švìtras "sandpaper", Old-Ind.. c̨vitra "white", Old-Pers. spiɵra -- same, lat. vitrum "glass", Old-High-Germ. hwîʒ "white" < PIE. k'weit.

mzp1 said...

Clearly Kvet 'Shine' must be related to 'Svet' White. It would be a Centum version of the latter and someone even mentioned here that Balto-Slavic has some early borrowings from Centum languages, so it is not surprising if they have a Centum and a Satem version of the same IE root.

Archi said...

@ambron
"Archi, the historical-comparative method requires the without exception of the voice rights, and explains the exceptions by dialectal differentiation. So it is contradictory in itself. This has already been pointed out by neolinguists. Either there was one language or groups of similar dialects. You have to decide on something. If there were groups of dialects, then there is no need for a proto-language divergence, since the convergence of distant dialects is equally likely."

You wrote something incomprehensible. You have a completely wrong idea of comparative-historical method and linguistics.

AWood said...

@weure

WEZ54 as R1b-P312 from Spain or southern France might make sense. Might even be something like Z209 which has a minor frequency in the region today. Bronze technology flowed from south to north around this time and there were probably some immigrants, traders, blacksmiths who settled and were able to transmit valuable metallurgical items and knowledge. Might also explain the southern ancestry in recent papers from viking age Danish samples.

The additional presence of local P312 shouldn't be surprising either since branches like L238 may have originated in the vicinity a thousand years earlier. Single Grave Cultural remains will be necessary to see if that can further back up this hypothesis.

vAsiSTha said...

@rob
I dont like that you dont post distances. Include them for a complete picture.

"You see Vasistha, all these diverse Scythians share a same set of features"

In which you completely fail to mention the bmac component as being integral - 21% bmac in saka tian shan is not worth mentioning? This is what you wrote before
"Because even western Scythians demonstrate what defines the Scythian complex : post-Andronovo + Altai/Bakial ancestry"

Anyway here are some results of more southern nomads from the saka region, which you chose not to model.

Target: KAZ_Kangju
Distance: 1.0347% / 0.01034677
59.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
29.0 UZB_Bustan_BA
11.8 RUS_Shamanka_EBA (only slightly east asian shifted)

Target: KAZ_Wusun
Distance: 1.7044% / 0.01704435
51.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
30.2 UZB_Bustan_BA
18.2 RUS_Shamanka_EBA

Target: TJK_Ksirov_H_Kushan
Distance: 1.7878% / 0.01787770
54.6 UZB_Bustan_BA (55% oh my oh my)
36.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
8.6 RUS_Shamanka_EBA

All these were termed as sakas by contemporary indians of that time.

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

Archi clearly says many things in the wrong attitude, but he is clearly right here. Those of you who take your time to read literature in professional linguistics (and it takes some time before you gain enough familiarity to understand what you are reading) would know just how closely related that field is to philology and etymology; how much that field requires a deep working understanding of the textual and cultural history of many ancient texts and history of modern and ancient ethnic groups, and--as a corollary--just how incremental and slow progress in that field is. Among the best linguists, each step of argumentation in linguistic reconstruction often requires a dizzying level of erudition just in terms of how much evidence from different textual sources they have to muster and how polyglot they have to be.

People like Alexander Vovin, Ante Akkio, or Bianca Maria Prosper are some examples of people who clearly fall into this category. I mean, just try reading this, this or this and tell me that they don't know their stuff, and that the literature put out by less professional persons are simply refuted by the evidence they are able to summon from the weight of their knowledge. Recently, the written history of the Mongolic languages were pushed back by 600 years by a newly-discovered inscription and the language was very similar to reconstructed proto-Mongolic. This is a testament to the power of linguistic reconstruction, properly done.

There are, of course, bounds on what reconstruction can do. Edward Vadja, with a vast knowledge of American and Siberian languages, was over the course of a lifetime able to notice and then to demonstrate that Dene and Yeniseian--families of morphologically complex languages where words are formed by agglutinating large numbers of prefixes to the front of roots in particular "slots"--preserved signs of very similar prefixes and--what was truly amazing--an identical slot order and usage in their proto-languages. But almost all other signs of linguistic relation was lost, especially in lexicon, because the family was so old (though this is now changing with newer publications, which connect lexical members through the regular sound changes first demonstrated in the prefixes). Mycenaean was also a little surprising when first discovered, as most of the phonological changes that defined proto-Greek had not happened yet even at this late stage, even though a distinctively Greek morphology and lexicon was there. Linguists are much less able to reconstruct the pace or the order of linguistic change.

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

Then there are the 1) "dictionary linguists" or "wordlist linguists" on one hand, and the 2) linguists who insist on deviations from the comparative method, either through mass comparisons or in terms of extreme unsystematicity of the comparisons (lots of possible reconstructions, lots of exceptions) even when they claim that they are actually following the method. For some reason, these two groups are almost always the same people, who often do not have a working knowledge of the languages they are trying to relate, and whose working method is precisely what the labels imply: to search through wordlists and dictionaries and construct gigantic edifices of flimsy and unsystematic knowledge by forcing words through transformations that only a person not knowing the language would allow. Vovin is especially harsh on the "Altaicists" and the Moscow school of linguistics, who often segment Japanese words wrongly, demonstrating a clear lack of knowledge of the internal rules and development of the Japanese language, and who often impute what are clearly Chinese loanwords in Japanese back to some proto-Altaic form. Some of these Chinese loanwords even I, a novice, can recognize.

So about Svetasrava: can Eastpole, or those he cites, give us an etymological history of how this word, first attested in medicinal texts as a term for "white discharge", traces back to the same word as "Slav", which some linguists see as cognate with forms meaning "glory, fame, to be heard of" in multiple Indo-European languages (e.g. Latin clueo, Greek Kleos, German Leumund, Sanskrit श्रोमत), in Slavic with declension "Slovo" meaning "word" --> Slav. We even have some words with very remarkable shared etymologies with "Slav" from other languages, e.g. Italian Ciao from Latin Sclavus, "slave", to common usage "I'm your slave" as a term of farewell (in the same spirit as e.g. "Yours truly" in English) to just "slave" ("Sciavo" --> "Ciao"). Can he come up with something as good? Otherwise this is just a case of "dictionary/wordlist" linguistics--superficially convincing, but not to be believed.

Rob said...

@ Ambron

It seems you are trying to discredit the Stammbaum model because you want to propose the view that Slavs were already living far and wide before Late Antiquity, and their linguistic similarities are due to contact & convergence.
But that model is a fail. No matter what linguistic views you have, reality does not support it

Dmytro said...

"Why are academic disputes so vicious? Because the stakes are so small" (the younger Henry Kissinger)

Rob said...

@ vasistha

'In which you completely fail to mention the bmac component as being integral - 21% bmac in saka tian shan is not worth mentioning? This is what you wrote before''


Not only did my model demonstrate it for you, but i also said it

''The distinguisher of Scythians is Baikal_4000 BP ancestry, aside from the pervasive Andronovo - Srubnaya. Sakae have BMAC ancestry, but it’s not much in other Scythians (eg Pazyryk; Black Sea Scythians)'


So you're not only ignorant, but your full of crap. Keep it for you own blog there, Fake Guru :)
http://ivcdna.blogspot.com/

Copper Axe said...

@vAsiSTHa

You are aware that the Kangju were Sogdians right, rather than Scythians? And that neither are from the Saka region. The Kangju ruled over sedentary populations who comprised the majority of their populatiobn.

You even used a Kushan, who were not northern steppe nomads but heavily admixed with the sedentary peoples of southern central Asia, to prove a point about Scythians.

Either way Rob is right, Scythians originated in Inner Asia and BMAC ancedtry is tertiary to the Steppe and BA Altai/Baikal ancestry.

ambron said...

Rob, according to contemporary Slavists such as Babik, the reconstructed Proto-Slavic language was the result of the convergence of many earlier proto-Slavic dialects. So he was one of those dialects. Currently, the Slavs have a language continuum. Dialects flow smoothly into each other without clear linguistic boundaries. The boundaries are determined by codified national languages. Each codified national language is the result of the convergence of many dialects. Each such language is therefore one of the dialects. That is the reality.

ambron said...

Friends, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that PIE is not a historical reality. Thus, it will not be a historical reality that a specific haplogroup or its clade (for example R1b or R1a) speaks a specific proto-language (PIE or proto-Uralic). And that's all!

I am ending the linguistic discussions because this is, after all, a genetic forum.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

Did you say European Scythians/Iranians lacked BMAC admixture? I thought it was universally understood that they did. Plus, there's even mtDNA U7 in them which could only have come from BMAC.

Rob said...

@ Ambron

there was a large territorial expansion of late proto-Slavic, Common Slavic or whatever you want to call it
This involved migrations into new lands and genomic signals
It happened between 500-900 AD
There’s no way around that

Davidski said...

@Samuel

BMAC is way too exotic and too far back in time to be relevant.

Euro Scythians had some Caucasus and Central Asian ancestry, but it was minor, especially the latter. The U7 can be from the North Caucasus.

Copper Axe said...

When I said neither, I meant Wusun and Sogdians fyi. Wusun were recent migrants to Kazakhstan.

Copper Axe said...

@Davidski

"BMAC is way too exotic and too far back in time to be relevant."

I think everyone here, aside from vAsiSHta perhaps is talking about BMAC-related ancestry (Post-BMAC) mediated through their Indo-Iranian cousins here, rather than Scythians having direct BMAC ancestry.

If the Scythian ethnogenesis is Scytho-Siberians spreading from east to west, assimilating the Andronovans and Srubnayans in that process, there likely were more than a few people involved there which had post-BMAC ancestry. Given that there a whole bunch of Andronovo/BMAC fusion cultures such as the Vikh or Bishkent culture. Later on you likely had even more admixing between the various Scythian groups as well as southern neighbours such as Caucasians, Sogdians and Bactrians I suppose.

Maybe it is a misunderstanding on my part, but I do not see how BMAC ancestry would be too old and exotic to be relevant here, given that it was rather prevalent in Indo-Iranian populations.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

2.3947"

Scythian_Samara

Karagash_MLBA 44.7
Srubnaya 18.3
Dali_EBA 12.1
Sarazm_Eneolithic 8.7
XiongNu 6.5
Seh_Gabi_ChL 3.7
Assyrian 3.6
Nganassan 2.4
Gonur1_BA 0
Sappali_Tepe_BA 0
West_Siberia_N 0
Lokomotiv 0
Georgian_Imer 0
Armenian 0
Anatolia_EBA 0

1.4033"

Sarmatian_West:DA134 DA136 DA141 DA143 DA144

Srubnaya 30.9
Karagash_MLBA 28.3
Dali_EBA 11.7
Sarazm_Eneolithic 11.2
Lokomotiv 6.6
Assyrian 5.5
Yamnaya_Samara 4.4
XiongNu 1.3
Gonur1_BA 0.1
Sappali_Tepe_BA 0
Seh_Gabi_ChL 0
West_Siberia_N 0
Nganassan 0
Armenian 0

Rob said...

BMAC Ancestry is high in some chemurchek individuals; it then drops.
Rising again in LBA steppe before dropping again during the Scythian period due to the eastern stimulus
It then rises again in western xiongnu (apparently; I’ll have to test it as it could be confounding from Caucasian ancestry in sarmatians)

@ Sam

Your model shouldn’t include Xiongnu because they’re after Scythians
It’s also rather over fitted

Coldmountains said...

All Sarmatians show around 10% BMAC-related admixture. Some Scythians are not showing it because they are outliners and heavily mixed with locals or entirely of local origin (Scythian_Hun, Scythian_MDA,..).

Saka-related groups from deep in Central Asia/Siberia replaced Srubnaya and earlier steppe Indo-Iranians, which lacked this heavily Mng_N and BMAC-related admixture.

Obviously this does not mean Indo-Iranians formed in BMAC or that BMAC was Indo-Iranian. There just was geneflow in both directions what we also see in the increase of non steppe clades among Saka in Central Asia (E1b, J,...)

Archi said...

@ANI EXCAVATOR

"Archi clearly says many things in the wrong attitude,"

Well, what am I wrong about?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob, Your criticism loses meaning when you call everything rubbish.

Rob said...

@ Cold Mountains

''Some Scythians are not showing it because they are outliners and heavily mixed with locals or entirely of local origin (Scythian_Hun, Scythian_MDA,..).

Saka-related groups from deep in Central Asia/Siberia replaced Srubnaya and earlier steppe Indo-Iranians, which lacked this heavily Mng_N and BMAC-related admixture.''


The evidence doesn't really support that
The Scytho-Siberian complex is just that - a complex of communities with significant back-flow of Siberian ancestry, even in Hungary.
Before understanding a complex process, we need to be aware of the 5 or so major stages of these nomadic groups, demographic ebbs & flows and how the current sample set slots into that framework.

Yes, there is BMAC ancestry in southern Sakae, but that's a no brainer; just as western Scythians have Halstatt- and Balkan related ancestry

Samuel Andrews said...

Trust me, Rob, I'm one the best as using G25. I've learned things from it I don't post on this blog.

That Scythian model is 1.5 years old. I didn't feel like taking the time to make a new. What I remember is European Iranians for sure have minor West Asian admixture which should come from BMAC.

I'll check again.

Copper Axe said...

@Coldmountains

Any ETA on when Anthrogenica is going to be back up?

Also, wouldn't be assimilated/absorbed be a better term for the fate of the Srubnayans rather than replaced, as the Scythians we see there have less eastern ancestry then the Scytho-Siberian individuals we see around the Altai and in Tuva or even the main cluster of Saka samples we have today?

A question for everyone, which samples do you think are the best representatives of their local Scytho-Siberian subgroups on a genetic basis (the most average, least outlier)?

E.g:
Classical Scythians: X001
Saka: Y002
Tagar:
Sarmatian:
Alan:
Pazyryk:
Aldy-Bel/Uyuk:

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

In relation to the discussion on Slavic languages and proto language expansions, a dude recently sent me this link on the so called "interslavic" language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NztgXMLwv4A&t=19s

Initially this seemed like an internet startup type of thing, but digging deeper some serious scholarship has gone into it.


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

vAsiSTha said...

@copperaxe

"@vAsiSTHa

You are aware that the Kangju were Sogdians right, rather than Scythians? And that neither are from the Saka region. The Kangju ruled over sedentary populations who comprised the majority of their population."

Kangju is a name given by chinese, and such chinese did not call anyone scythians or saka. The kangju elites were a nomadic/semi-nomadic people just like scythians or saka described by greeks.

They were skilled archers, just as herodotus describes scythians to be.

Kangju was mentioned by the Chinese traveller and diplomat Zhang Qian who visited the area c. 128 BCE, whose travels are documented in Chapter 123 of the Shiji (whose author, Sima Qian, died c. 90 BC):

"Kangju is situated some 2,000 li [832 kilometers] northwest of Dayuan. Its people are nomads and resemble the Yuezhi in their customs. They have 80,000 or 90,000 skilled archers. "

They buried their dead in kurgans just like 'Scythians' did"

"The burials show that the traditional culture of the Kangju resembled characteristics of the Saka.(Zadneprovskiy 1994)"

And of course, thy spoke an iranian dialect.

@rob
BMAC related ancestry is present in some of the ukrainian scythians, and almost all the sarmatians. get over it.

vAsiSTha said...

Who were the Kangju? From http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp080_saka_sai.pdf

"At about the same time, another group of the Sakas (who were mainly made. up of the Asii) migrated to the littoral of the Aral Sea and the Caspian Sea going downstream along the Syr Darya. These Sakas were noted as "Yancai", but those who remained on the northern bank of the Syr Daria were known as "Kangju" in the Shiji, ch. 123. "Yan-cai" [iam-tziat] may be taken as a transcription of "Asii" and "Kang-ju" [kang-kia] may be taken as "Saca[rauli]", as [ki (kang)] would be palatalized to [sf (sa)]. Therefore, the former were mainly the Asii and the latter, the Sacarauli."

Who were the KushAns?

"The five Xihou were all Daxia, who were propped up and used as puppets by the Da Yuezhi. Qiujiuque, the Guishuang Xihou, who overthrew the power of the Da Yuezhi and established the Kushan kingdom, must have been the descendant of the Gasiani, one of the Saka tribes which invaded Bactria."

Rob said...

@ Vasistha

“ BMAC related ancestry is present in some of the ukrainian scythians, and almost all the sarmatians. get over it.”

Actually you have to get over it , because your entire narrative (Iran -> Scythians -> slavs) collapsed like a house of cards
10% is basically noise and irrelevant , and disappears in formals models . Same for sarmatians; which instead have Caucasian ancestry
Cold mountains should Learn some basics instead of pontificating about issues he doesn’t have a clue about. This isn’t Anthrogenica where uneducated Tokens babble to each other
So you really need to stop shifting your story; but what does one expect from a Fake Guru ?







Copper Axe said...

@vAsiSHta

Yes Kangju is a chinese name, and it is the name of a state, most likely a Sogdian state. It is commonly accepted that the Kangju were early Sogdians. The Chinese do refer to the Saka actually, as Sai. In addition you have other potential Scytho-Siberians such as the Wusun, Yuezhi and the Yancai, who might've been Sarmatians and Alans given that they are known as Alanliao after they became vassals of the Kangju state.

Regardig the Kushans, the Chinese records mention how the Yuezhi were significantly outnumbered by the local peoples they subjugated. The Kushan empire emerged a couple centuries after they settled into southern central Asia and mixed with the local populations. Given the difference in demographics, it is not surprising to see Kushans have significantly more southern Central Asian ancestry than Scythians. I fail to see why the Kushans would be relevant here.

Sogdians are not considered to be part of the Scythian cultures, and for good reason as they had different origins as well as massive cultural differences.

I mean it is not surprising that Sima Qian found the Kangju to be similar to their neighbours, given that they were both Iranian speaking peoples living in proximity to each other. But then again the Chinese basically considered all the western barbarians to be the same so that is not saying much.

I guess we should consider the Getae Scythians by these standards, because they were skillful horse archers with pointy hats and kurgans as well.

Archi said...

Of course, the Scythians there are minor BMAC ancestry.

Target Distance RUS_Sintashta_MLBA TKM_Gonur3_BA RUS_Sosnoviy_HG RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA TKM_Gonur1_BA TKM_Gonur2_BA
Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA:I0576 0.04306950 69.0 17.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA:I0577 0.02475615 71.2 2.4 19.0 0.0 7.4 0.0
Scythian_MDA:scy301 0.02943469 71.6 7.6 0.0 14.6 6.2 0.0
Scythian_MDA:scy311 0.03258821 64.6 25.8 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0
Scythian_RUS_Urals:MJ42 0.02832778 67.8 19.8 12.2 0.0 0.2 0.0
Scythian_UKR:MJ13 0.02544978 97.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0
Scythian_UKR:MJ14 0.04613810 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scythian_UKR:MJ15 0.01519389 53.0 7.0 1.6 25.6 6.0 6.8
Scythian_UKR:MJ16 0.02134421 50.6 7.4 0.0 31.8 0.0 10.2
Scythian_UKR:MJ34 0.01762527 62.0 13.6 0.0 19.8 0.0 4.6
Scythian_UKR:MJ35 0.02947457 64.4 26.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0
Scythian_UKR:MJ46 0.02859319 82.4 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scythian_UKR:scy011 0.02558003 77.8 6.4 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0
Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA:IS2 0.02298354 53.2 2.6 6.4 18.4 14.8 4.6
Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA:Ze6b 0.03852230 19.8 26.0 7.2 40.8 6.2 0.0
Average 0.02860541 67.0 11.9 4.0 11.3 3.9 1.7

Davidski said...

There's no BMAC ancestry in the European Scythians.

They have a mixture of Balkan, Caucasus and eastern steppe ancestries, but nothing from BMAC or even post-BMAC areas of Central Asia.

Uniparental markers are in total agreement with this conclusion.

vAsiSTha said...

"you have to get over it , because your entire narrative (Iran -> Scythians -> slavs"

You clearly are a very dim person and frankly quite stupid because i said nothing of that sort.

I only said the excess closeness of slavic to Iranian language may be due to long presence of Iranian speakers in the steppes.

I also opposed you claim that excess Iranian ancestry (from bmac) is not present in scythian adna.

This is literally all I'm saying. Rest is all you making stories up in your brain.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Actually, Balto-Slavic languages aren't especially close to Iranian.

Balto-Slavic languages are especially close to Sanskrit. The reason for this is that Balto-Slavic languages are highly conservative, while Sanskrit is no longer a living language.

Rob said...

@ Vasistha

What you say is irrelevant and you have no veracity

Archi said...

@Davidski
"Uniparental markers are in total agreement with this conclusion."

Copper Turkmenistan Geoksyur [I8526 / MOS323, Geoksyur 1, 1964, 188, Tolos "", IE-10-15] 3500-2800 BCE M R R2 R-Y8766? J1d6

MJ-46.SG MJ-46 11 .. 2019 JarveCurrentBiology2019 .. 2223 363-183 calBCE (2195В±30 BP, Poz-) Ukraine_IA_WesternScythian.SG Mamai-Gora, The eastern sector of the burial. Object 165, burial 1 Ukraine 47.4333333 34.2666667 F .. .. J1d6


Coldmountains said...

@Davidski

Can you please show some model showing European Scythians and Sarmatians especially the eastern shifted ones lacking any kind of BMAC-related ancestry?

It is in any way only a minor component at max but BMAC had a huge cultural/genetic impact on many if not most Indo-Iranians in Asia that is why you see BMAC material culture instead of Andronovo material culture south of BMAC with expanding Proto-Indo-Iranians.

Davidski said...

@Coldmountains

As I said above, I've looked at this issue with formal stats recently, and there's no way that there's actual BMAC ancestry in European Scythians.

Keep in mind that most of these Scythian samples are garbage, and we're dealing with a lot of overlapping components, so it's easy to mess things up, especially for the low coverage individuals.

vAsiSTha said...

Davidski

While running qpfstats, what is the outpop you use in the population list? can you paste the input list file or its location here?

vAsiSTha said...

Or do you leave it blank so that first pop in line is taken as base pop?

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

I don't use an outpop, but CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP is always first in my poplist file.

Coldmountains said...

@Copper Axe

I of course no meant full replacement. It seems that Srubnaya was basically a direct descendant of Sintashta/Abashevo with some minor extra Poltavka/Catacomb admix but already Cimmerians show some very eastern admixture from Siberia and cluster in some cases even with Huns.

Cy Tolliver said...

@David,

Do you run D-stats much any more? If you do, I'm curious, would you recommend using the Shum Laka samples as an out-group, or do you strictly just use Chimp? In various papers and online discussions I've seen either Chimp or some African population (usually Yoruba or Mbuti it seems) being used as outpops and I'm wondering what functional difference there is using one over the other. I believe these Shum Laka folks are the oldest aDNA we have to date from Africa so wouldn't that make them better to use than moderns like Yoruba/Mbuti?

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

Yeah i also keep shumlaka as 1st.

@coldmountains
Heres qpfstats qpAdm runs on those 3 Scy_Ukr samples MJ14/15/34

left pops:
Ukraine_IA_Scythian.SG

Hungary_EBA_BellBeaker: 33 +- 7%
Kyrgyzstan_TianShanSaka.SG: 38.3 +- 3.4%
Russia_Srubnaya: 28.7 + -9%
tailprob: 0.035
result file https://pastebin.com/j5134Md9

0.035 is not great, but neither is it an utter failure.

Davidski said...

@Cy Tolliver

I just use Chimp nowadays for D-stats and f4 stats.

I never use Mbuti or Yoruba anymore.

CrM said...

@Davidski

Among the Sarmatians that I have tested, I see only a couple with Caucasian ancestry. I used both CHG-rich BA Caucasus sample (North_Caucasus_MBA) and more Iran_N-rich Caucasus sample (Kura_Araxes_Kaps, this one should be genetically closer to BMAC), yet the Bustan signal is still clear in all Sarmatians.

https://i.imgur.com/abvkZcf.png

Also, regarding the Sarmatian and Scythian language question. The general consensus is that Ossetian is a language that was introduced to Northwest Caucasian tribes by the Alans, and luckily we have a couple of Alan samples available. Now, they're all pretty much identical to modern North Caucasian populations, meaning that they have mixed with them heavily, but they still carry non-Caucasian, Steppe-related ancestry at about the same percentage as modern Northwest Caucasians and Nakh, roughly 20-40%.
I wanted to pinpoint which Steppe source matches that ancestry best. The oldest Alan samples are DA162 (dated 100-400AD according to umap), and DA243 (dated 300-400AD according to umap), and their ancestry is:

Target: RUS_Alan_MA:DA243
Distance: 1.7876% / 0.01787617
41.2 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
30.2 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
15.6 Scythian_UKR
12.8 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
0.2 Scythian_RUS_Urals
0.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.0 Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
0.0 Scythian_HUN
0.0 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA

Target: RUS_Alan_MA:DA162
Distance: 1.3450% / 0.01345011
39.8 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
26.4 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
24.8 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
6.2 Scythian_UKR
1.8 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA
0.8 Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
0.2 Scythian_RUS_Urals
0.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.0 Scythian_HUN

I use Kaman-Kalehoyuk because apparently there was an influx of BA Anatolian ancestry into West Caucasus, perhaps related to the Kaskians. Were I to remove it then the Scythian_Hun ancestry will increase a bit, and the fit along with it:

Target: RUS_Alan_MA:DA243
Distance: 1.9038% / 0.01903794
41.6 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
24.4 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
16.8 Scythian_HUN
11.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
5.0 Scythian_RUS_Urals
1.2 Scythian_UKR
0.0 Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
0.0 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA

Target: RUS_Alan_MA:DA162
Distance: 1.7230% / 0.01723012
34.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
27.6 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
22.0 Scythian_HUN
6.2 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA
5.6 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
3.0 Scythian_RUS_Urals
0.8 Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
0.0 Scythian_UKR

But if you include Georgian_Imer into the source (as a proxy for pre Steppe influx, post Anatolia influx West Caucasians), then you'll see a similar picture as with my first models, ~45% Steppe ancestry with a preference for Caspian Steppe Sarmatians in DA243, and ~30% Steppe ancestry with the same preference:

Target: RUS_Alan_MA:DA243
Distance: 1.6163% / 0.01616266
41.8 Georgian_Imer
32.2 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
12.0 Scythian_UKR
8.6 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
3.6 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
1.8 Scythian_HUN

Target: RUS_Alan_MA:DA162
Distance: 1.2952% / 0.01295216
23.8 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
23.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
21.6 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
21.2 Georgian_Imer
3.4 Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
2.8 Scythian_UKR
2.0 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA
1.8 Scythian_HUN

I assume those samples carry ancestry from Iranics proper, and I think said ancestry also represents a type of Scythians, ones that are not heavily mixed with Europeans and East Asians.
Subtracting the Caucasian ancestry from DA243 leaves you with this:

Target: Alan
Distance: 4.1525% / 0.04152547
45.8 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
34.6 Scythian_UKR
15.6 Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka
4.0 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA
0.0 Sarmatian_KAZ
0.0 Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
0.0 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals
0.0 Scythian_HUN
0.0 Scythian_MDA
0.0 Scythian_MDA_o
0.0 Scythian_RUS_Urals
0.0 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA

Target: Alan
Distance: 3.8717% / 0.03871696
39.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
32.4 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
15.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
10.8 RUS_Shamanka_EBA
2.8 TUR_Barcin_N
0.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.0 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
0.0 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
0.0 UZB_Bustan_BA

https://i.imgur.com/20M0Wwp.png

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

I did a few runs on European Iranians.

With BMAC is the only Middle East reference their average fit is; 0.0205.
With Middle East as their only Middle East reference their average fit is; 0.0195.

But the thing is, when BMAC is not included, all their Middle East admix is attributed to Iranian_Persian who is mostly BMAC-like.

When Iranian_Persian is taken out and when only Caucasus pops are availbale their average fit is; 0.0215.

These aren't significant differences in fits, but they do seem to favor an Iranian farmer/BMAC type of Middle East admixture.

Samuel Andrews said...

(Continued).....But it would be strange if European Iranians were 15% BMAC, if Iranians in Kazakhstan and Siberia were only like 0-5%, and if European Iranians arrived in Europe via Kazakhstan.

BMAC admixture traveled throughout Asia during Iron age, we can see around 25% BMAC in Atalia_IA in Siberia (and he has Y DNA J2a). It would be strange if some entered Europe, but not impossible.

@All,

I'm not trying to give support to ideas Iranian language comes from BMAC. They come from Andronovo. Iranian language entered European Steppe via Asia, but the root of iranian language came to Asia from Europe.

Rob said...

Unfortunately most comments & models above have confused rather than shed any light on Scythians.

So its worth taking a look at a time slice through the Kazakh steppe, given its centrality


KAZ_Karagash_MBA
~ 100% Sintashta
d 2.68


KAZ_Katon_Karagay_LBA
Sintashta 75%
Gonur 22%
Shamanka 3%
d 2.15%

Saka_Kazakh_steppe
Sintashta 45%
Shamanka 26.6%
Chokopani 17%
Gonur 8.2%
WSHG 3.4%
d 3.01%


As I outlined previously; the key change from LBA to Iron Age Sakae is actually a drop in BMAC-related ancestry, and rise in SIberian -related acnestry (represented by Shamanka)

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

How do you execute qpfstats?

Davidski said...

@Norfern-Ostrobothnian

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/major-updates-to-admixtools.html

vAsiSTha said...

@norfern

Make a txt file with the list of populations you would want to play with (left + right pops) (max 30).

Make a parameter text file (parfile) with location of ind/snp/gen files as well as location of pop list file and other options as given in the readme.

call the qpfstats program from terminal with qpfstats -p parfile and wait for output.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

@Davidski
@vAsiSTha
Thanks! What part of the output does qpAdm need? Should that be put in a textfile?

Mr. J said...

Scythian_UKR:MJ16 belongs to a J2a subclade that is present among the Tian Shan Saka and some later Turkic samples. He belongs to the same upstream clade as them.

vAsiSTha said...

qpAdm validation for my model for Sarmatian_SouthUral

left pops:
Russia_EarlySarmatian_SouthernUrals.SG

Turkmenistan_IA.SG: 25.6 +- 4.9%
Russia_Tagar.SG: 62.2 +- 3.9%
Russia_North_Caucasus: 12.1 +- 5.2%
tailprob: 0.463
result file https://pastebin.com/Axvu1nCu

vAsiSTha said...

Model for AldyBel_Tuva_Scythians

left pops:
Russia_Tuva_IA_AldyBel

Kazakhstan_LBA_Zevakinskiy: 64.5+-6.6
Russia_Shamanka_EBA.SG: 21.8 +- 1.8
Turkmenistan_IA.SG: 13.7 +- 5.6
tailprob: 0.09

result file https://pastebin.com/cBHCzp9m

vAsiSTha said...

@samuel

"BMAC admixture traveled throughout Asia during Iron age, we can see around 25% BMAC in Atalia_IA in Siberia (and he has Y DNA J2a). It would be strange if some entered Europe, but not impossible."

Yes, thank you.
Altai_IA has 2 J2's and bmac/turan related excess IranN ancestry, although 25% seems a bit too high.

Point is that this type of ancestry was definitely traveling northward, for quite some time actually, in many bursts at different points in time. you see it in Dali_EBA 2600bce as well as 2 chemurchek samples. Plus a lot many bmac related outliers in Narasimhans steppe dataset from 2nd millenium bce. and all these central asian and altaian IA samples from 1st mill bce.

Simon_W said...

Actually, these papers linked by the ANI EXCAVATOR are pretty interesting:

https://www.academia.edu/7649315/Some_observations_on_the_classification_of_Tartessian_as_a_Celtic_language

https://www.academia.edu/15117471/The_inscription_of_Cab%C3%A9%C3%A7o_das_Fraguas_revisited_Lusitanian_and_Alteurop%C3%A4isch_populations_in_the_west_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula

Their author, the linguist Blanca Maria Prosper, holds some interesting views that are nicely in line with ancient DNA evidence:

- She adheres to Otto Krahe's theory that there is evidence for an "Alteuropäisch" language stratum that is very old European IE. Not Vasconic as Vennemann wanted to make us believe.

Here is a map with some of the evidence for the Alteuropäische Hydronomie:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alteurop%C3%A4ische_Hydronymie#/media/Datei:Old_European_hydronymic_map_for_the_root_*al-,_*alm-_Krahe.jpg

It looks like it could be mostly a Corded Ware and Bell Beaker linguistic layer.

- B.M. Prosper further argues that, if the Lusitanian language is related to any other IE language, it's to Italic. She writes that Proto-Italic speakers may have crossed both the Alps and the Pyrenees in the Bronze Age. And that the Celts followed in their footsteps, mostly in the Iron Age. I recently linked two papers arguing for an Italic affiliation of the ancient Ligurian language:

https://www.academia.edu/24851735/La_lingua_degli_antichi_Liguri_Iscrizioni_e_figure_sacre_su_due_rocce_di_Campocatino_Alpi_Apuane_

https://www.academia.edu/23414809/LINGUA_SCRITTURA_DIVINIT%C3%80_E_ARTE_RUPESTRE_DEGLI_ANTICHI_LIGURI_5_L_ISCRIZIONE_DI_BEVERINO_LA_SPEZIA_2016

If these authors are right, there were Italic-related languages in Portugal, Southern France and Italy, going back to Bronze Age movements of Bell Beaker-derived populations.

And Celtic must have had a similar Bell Beaker-derived, but more northern origin, as it's less related to these southern languages than they are to each other.

- B.M. Prosper also very nicely criticizes the fashionable theory that there were no migrations involved in the spread of languages, and that the spread only came about through social networks and trade contacts.

Simon_W said...

Sorry, I meant Hans Krahe.

Foxvillager said...

@ Crm

Muski people are probably the source for this anatolian LC/BA admixture into the west caucasus(Colchians).The Georgian samples on G25 are coming from the Western parts and indeed they show a decent BA anatolian input.Thought most of their ancestry has a connection with a North Caucasus source(Dolmen-Maykop Late period etc) they show some post-BA Central Anatolian admixture(increase in ANF) compared to samples we got from Mesoko Darkveti,North Caucasus MBA and Maykop periods as well.The Muski-Kaskians blended probably with Kartvelian speakers forming modern Colchians in some way during LBA/EIA.

Simon_W said...

As for Ambron's observation on present-day Slavic being a language continuum and on national languages being mergers of different dialects: the same could be said about vast parts of the Romance language area, yet all these dialects are derived from one proto-language: Latin. And it's equally clear that the Germans are an alliance, a union of rather different tribes, some of which were closer to the Anglo-Saxons, others to the Frankish Dutch, again others to the Alemannic Alsatians and Swiss or to the Baiuvaric Austrians. And standard German is an artificial mix of low German, middle German and upper German influences. Yet, this all doesn't make me doubt that there was a Proto-Germanic language that differentiated into different branches.

Coldmountains said...

@vAsiSTha

Turkmenistan_IA is around 50% BMAC so according to your model Sarmatians have around 10-15% BMAC-related ancestry what fits global25 where we see the same. Sarmatians quite surely had BMAC-related ancestry and some of the eastern shifted Scythians likely too. Cimmerians maybe not yet at least i can model them without it on global25.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

What would be the best way to differentiate EHG and Steppe admixture among Mari?

Davidski said...

@All

I'm giving up for now.

It's too difficult to find models that work reasonably well for all European regions.

I guess I could try reducing the right pops to get better statistical fits, but I don't want to do that. Obviously, it's better to wait for more relevant left pops to appear in the ancient DNA record.

To be continued...

Rob said...

To clear up some errors from above


Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:tem002
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 34.4%
RUS_Kubano-Tersk 27.9%
BGR_IA:I5769 16.5%
RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960 11.7%
MNG_North_N 6.3%
Bustan 2.6%
RUS_Shamanka_EBA:DA339 0.6%


Distance 2.402%

Sarmatian_KAZ:DA30
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 38.2%
Bustan 25.2%
RUS_Kubano-Tersk 18.3%
Hallstatt 8%
RUS_Shamanka_EBA:DA339 6.5%
MNG_North_N 3.6%
RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960 0.2%
BGR_IA:I5769 0%

Distance 3.5964%





@ CRM

you're not doing a very good job either

RUS_Alan_MA:DA243
RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC002 42.5%
BGR_IA:I5769 25.2%
RUS_Kubano-Tersk 24.2%
RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960 3.9%
RUS_Shamanka_EBA:DA339 0%
Bustan 0%

Distance 2.0599%

vAsiSTha said...

@rob
"horrid that you're trying to distort Real pre-history just because you have an inferiority complex ."

Lol.

@norfern
The qpfatats parfile will have name of the output text file. Once program is finished the text file will appear in the folder in which the parfile is present.

You can copy this output text file and place it in the folder from where you will run qpadm. qpAdm needsits own parfile, left pops file, right pops file and qpfstats output file.

vAsiSTha said...

Russia_EarlySarmatian_SouthernUrals.SG (straight from reich updated dataset)
Samples: MJ41, MJ39, MJ43, MJ56, LS13

left pops:
Russia_EarlySarmatian_SouthernUrals.SG

Turkmenistan_IA.SG: 25.6 +- 4.9%
Russia_Tagar.SG: 62.2 +- 3.9%
Russia_North_Caucasus: 12.1 +- 5.2%
tailprob: 0.463
result file https://pastebin.com/Axvu1nCu


Target,Distance,RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late,RUS_Sintashta_MLBA,RUS_Tagar,TKM_IA
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:MJ41,0.01732801,15.8,11.0,57.8,15.4
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:chy001,0.01827889,1.6,16.4,46.6,35.4
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:chy002,0.01896628,12.4,0.0,61.2,26.4
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:MJ43,0.01990059,0.0,1.8,72.0,26.2
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:tem002,0.02032305,12.0,26.6,49.6,11.8
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:MJ44,0.02181918,4.2,4.0,58.8,33.0
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:tem003,0.02218802,19.0,8.4,53.2,19.4
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:MJ56,0.02317313,1.6,12.0,58.0,28.4
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:LS13,0.03154470,0.0,19.0,62.8,18.2
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:tem001,0.03258328,16.6,15.0,52.0,16.4
Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:MJ39,0.04492831,0.0,13.8,74.4,11.8
Average,0.02463940,7.6,11.6,58.8,22.0

Now go to your corner and cry again. Raise a ruckus, call us names lol

Rob said...

@ Vasistha

Thanks for proving my point; as I said it amounts to barely 10% BMAC-releated ancestry (~20% x 50%)
This is just side-lateral contact amongst broad Scythian communities, mediated via Sakae themselves, and had actually dropped during the Scythian period due to Siberian introgression. So it’s direct relevance is minimal if any
Of course; It doesn’t bother me whether its Shamanka or Turan which is more relevant, and its quite clear that you and CM are sulking about the issue and spreading disinformation about a matter which neither of you have a clue about steppe replacements.


Btw here's a better qpADM model


left pops:
RUS_Sarmatian
RUS_Shamanka_N
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late

right pops:
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG
RUS_MA1
RUS_Ust_Ishim
RUS_Kostenki14
RUS_Kolyma_Meso
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Iberia_Northwest_Meso

0 RUS_Sarmatian 7
1 RUS_Shamanka_N 10
2 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 12
3 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late 2
4 CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP 2
5 MAR_Taforalt 6
6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N 8
7 Levant_PPNB 11
8 Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG 1
9 RUS_MA1 1
10 RUS_Ust_Ishim 2
11 RUS_Kostenki14 1
12 RUS_Kolyma_Meso 1
13 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP 5
14 Iberia_Northwest_Meso 1
jackknife block size: 0.050
snps: 1151073 indivs: 70
number of blocks for block jackknife: 713
## ncols: 1151073
coverage: RUS_Sarmatian 981304
coverage: RUS_Shamanka_N 1149984
coverage: RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 1121873
coverage: RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late 979069
coverage: CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP 1038317
coverage: MAR_Taforalt 1101328
coverage: IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N 1057353
coverage: Levant_PPNB 882421
coverage: Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG 892972
coverage: RUS_MA1 805947
coverage: RUS_Ust_Ishim 1150595
coverage: RUS_Kostenki14 1068312
coverage: RUS_Kolyma_Meso 1149853
coverage: BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP 1046324
coverage: Iberia_Northwest_Meso 995762
dof (jackknife): 615.590
numsnps used: 1151073
codimension 1
f4info:
f4rank: 2 dof: 8 chisq: 5.407 tail prob: 0.713369636 dofdiff: 10 chisqdiff: -5.407 taildiff: 1
B:


So instead of your Fake Yogi models; take the time to learn a basic Concept or two about sarmatians and Scythians

ambron said...

Simon, but Latin was one of the five Italian dialects and may have been the result of their convergence as it later ousted them from the region. It is of course about the known dialects, because in fact there were probably many more. It was the same with the Proto-Slavic language, as Polish linguists believe. So I have no doubt that it was the same with the Proto-German language.

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

I like how you pick only the Sarmatian individuals being lowest in BMAC-related input and ignore the other which well can get modelled with 10%. Please try to be less emotional here. Nobody will be really convinced by emotional and aggressive ad-hominem phrases.

Steppe people already since the Neolithic and post-Sredny Stog stage had sometimes diverse kind of admixture (Maykop, Yamnaya outliners, Kazakh steppe). They picked genetic signals from many people and that is why you see Scythians in Ukraine clustering with Poles, Saka in Tian Shan clustering with Pamiri (outliners) and other Saka clustering with Siberian populations. But all Scytho-Siberian groups had Sintashta/Yamnaya, Mng_N and to a lesser extent minor WSHG+BMAC in common. You dont see Saka in Siberia with Balkan,Balto-Slavic-like or Halstatt admixture at least not detectable but Scythians/Sarmatians show Mng_N and often minor BMAC admix (not more than 10% ).

CrM said...

@Anatolian Farmer
Yes, possibly. However one thing to note,
"Thought most of their ancestry has a connection with a North Caucasus source(Dolmen-Maykop Late period etc)"

From my resent research, I don't think there's a DIRECT connection with North Caucasus for the Kartvelians, but it is somewhat possible that Maykop Novosvobodnaya was Kartvelian-related. The Sioni culture that was present in the foothills of Eastern Georgia (Shida Kartli region) marked the transitioning period between Shulaveri-Shomu Culture and Kura-Araxes Culture. Sioni culture had links with West Caucasus, specifically with West Georgia and it exhibited local Mesolithic roots. The location of Sioni culture was right to the East of Darkveti (Darkveti would also migrate North forming the Meshoko culture, whose samples we have on G25, allegedly there's a cultural link between Darkveti and Meshoko, but not with Sioni and Meshoko, Sioni pottery was found even in Abkhazia and Kislovodsk, but not in Meshoko). Darkveti and Sioni could have been Kartvelians. I base this on several things. First I've noticed that Kura-Araxes culture holds a strong affinity to Chalcolithic Hajji Firuz, who represent the Dalma culture, their material traits are well attested in the Caucasus. Their second affinity comes from a more CHG-rich source, something akin to Darkveti-Meshoko but without as much Levant_N.
If you subtract the excess BA Anatolia from Georgian_Imer (they have about 17-18%), then you'll get a sample that fits as an ancestor of Kartvelians, KAC and even Maykop Novosvobodnaya. It might be the closest thing to Sioni and Darkveti.
One of the main reasons why it suits them better than Darkveti-Meshoko is because Georgians (much like KAC and Maykop Novosvobodnaya, but unlike Meshoko, Maykop_Late and modern Northwest Caucasians) don't have much Levant_N.

Target: RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
Distance: 2.2144% / 0.02214376
62.8 GEO_CHG
26.8 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
4.4 Levant_PPNB*
3.4 IRN_Wezmeh_N
2.6 RUS_Progress_En

Target: Georgian_Imer_without_AnatoliaBA
Distance: 2.5700% / 0.02569991
60.2 GEO_CHG
35.8 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
2.2 IRN_Wezmeh_N
1.6 RUS_Progress_En
0.2 Levant_PPNB*


Target: Abkhasian
Distance: 1.9607% / 0.01960684
50.6 GEO_CHG
34.6 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
7.0 RUS_Progress_En
5.0 Levant_PPNB*
2.8 Mongolian
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N

Target: Georgian_Imer
Distance: 2.3430% / 0.02342950
51.2 GEO_CHG
43.2 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
4.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
1.6 RUS_Progress_En
0.0 Levant_PPNB*
0.0 Mongolian


Target: RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Distance: 1.7066% / 0.01706552
67.6 Georgian_Imer_without_AnatoliaBA
22.4 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
6.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En*
4.0 RUS_Progress_En

Target: Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
Distance: 1.8336% / 0.01833600
55.6 Georgian_Imer_without_AnatoliaBA
41.2 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
3.2 RUS_Progress_En
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En*

Target: RUS_Maykop_Late
Distance: 1.7680% / 0.01767997
35.4 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
31.4 Georgian_Imer_without_AnatoliaBA
25.6 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En*
7.6 RUS_Progress_En


@Rob
"you're not doing a very good job either"

What are you trying to show with that model? My fit is better for DA243.

Davidski said...

@All

There are many confounding factors when looking for BMAC ancestry in Sarmatians and Scythians, and not yet enough high quality data.

For instance, these groups would have had varying levels of minor ancestry from the Balkans, the North Caucasus, the Kazakh steppe and/or the IMAC corridor.

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

Some of this, I suppose, might have been derived from BMAC groups, but it's impossible to say that for certain and, if so, how much exactly. That's because the complex ancestry in some of the Sarmatians and Scythians might also be creating a BMAC-like effect.

But one important thing to note is that, unlike BMAC groups, there are no Sarmatians or Scythians with any detectable indigenous South Asian ancestry. So how do we reconcile this fact with the idea that there was minor but significant BMAC ancestry in any of them?

I don't see how it's possible. But OK, let's wait for some decent UDG-treated capture sets of Sarmatians and Scythians from different parts of Europe and then we'll see.

Rob said...

@ CRM

''What are you trying to show with that model? My fit is better for DA243.''

Who cares ? Don't you think I can make on overfitted model too, like yours, with near-contemperanoues Source columns an a "better fit"
But it wouldnt really demonstrate the big issues - the majour relevant ancestry blocks in terms of steppe MLBA, BMAC-related, Siberia, so forth
In either case, DA243 shows no BMAC ancestry
I thought from previous discussions that you might have a few clues, but clearly you don't.


@ Cold Mountains

''Nobody will be really convinced b''

Dave and I both said you're wrong. That's all that matters.
It seems you have mistaken yuor pontifications to the lemmings at Anthrogenica as the real world.

'' Please try to be less emotional here. ''

You're the one with an identity crisis



''I like how you pick only the Sarmatian individuals being lowest in BMAC-related input and ignore the other which well can get modelled with 10%. ''

The figure is derived from Vasistha's avergae, which you supported
Average,0.02463940,7.6,11.6,58.8,22.0

22 % Turk.IA x 50% BMAC = 10%



''Steppe people already since the Neolithic and post-Sredny Stog stage had sometimes ...''

Blah blah. You have nothing to teach here, boy.
If you want to pretend you have a clue, outline for us the phases, demographic transitions and archaeogenetic correlates of Scythians and Sarmatians...
you dont and wont' . So get back on your camel

Coldmountains said...

@Davidski

thanks for your input. You are probably right about the complex ancestry creating misleading models and results. Neverthless much of BMAC lacked South Asian (ASI) ancestry too. It was present mostly among outliners or eastern BMAC groups in Tajikistan/Usbekistan but not among all of them.

CrM said...

@Rob
"..which shows no BMAC or Bustan"
And I came to the same conclusion when pasting the model of a simulated non Caucasian admixed Alan...

Target: Alan
Distance: 3.8717% / 0.03871696
39.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
32.4 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
15.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
10.8 RUS_Shamanka_EBA
2.8 TUR_Barcin_N
0.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.0 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
0.0 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
0.0 UZB_Bustan_BA

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

Much of your aggressibe brabbel turned out wrong many times here so before being arrogant and aggressive you should wait for more ancient dna and studies.

Coldmountains said...

@Rob
"Get back on your camel" lol. Showing your real face here and intention.

@Davidski
You should ban Rob. Throwing out racist insults here.

Rob said...

@ Cold Mountains

Actually, you're tha arrogant brat here. Ignorantly arrogant, as I'd term, whose contributed nothing to science or development. Stop sinking lower and lower

''Much of your aggressibe brabbel turned out wrong many times here so before being arrogant''

Nobody is 100% correct, but feel free to list what Im wrong about - without a strawman - and ill certainly revisit any inconsistenceies. But I seriously doubt you have that capability

if you want to demonstrate your professed expertise - I ask again ''outline for us the phases, demographic transitions and archaeogenetic correlates of Scythians and Sarmatians...''
Facts matter. If you want to pontificate, become a politician

Rob said...

@ Cold Mountain

''Throwing out racist insults here.''

That's your false interpretation. Actually, your profane ignorance and falsification of history is the bigger slur
If your offended, go back to Anthrogenica , cupcake

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

You sound like you are 15 and from 4chan

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews

One Sarmatian sample has mtdna M. Is mtdna M present among Caucasians? Can you find out more about the Sarmatian mtdna M? (Exact subclade) But yeah i know mtdna haplogroups assigments can be wrong based one few mutations so maybe the mtdna M in Sarmatians is actually a wrong result.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

"But one important thing to note is that, unlike BMAC groups, there are no Sarmatians or Scythians with any detectable indigenous South Asian ancestry. So how do we reconcile this fact with the idea that there was minor but significant BMAC ancestry in any of them?"

What? Bmac does not have more than 3-4% AASI/Onge like ancestry. Why should you expect any detectable AASI in Scythians/sarmatians? This cannot be a serious objection.
If you find elevated IranN:EHG or IranN:ANE ratio in scythians as compared to sintashta/srubnaya; it is likely due to bmac related admixture as bmac was about 60% iranN.

@rob
Showing your class here with your comments (invariably deleted later). Thought you were 30-40 yrs old before this, now i think you're 20.

BMAC - "This is just side-lateral contact amongst broad Scythian communities, mediated via Sakae themselves, and had actually dropped during the Scythian period due to Siberian introgression. So it’s direct relevance is minimal if any"

So what? Even sintashta admixture drops due to east asian inflow? Is the relevance of that reduced?

Now i am very curious. With regard to language & culture of the scytho siberians
1. Do you think they spoke an iranian dialect? if not, what did they speak in your opinion? What literature informs you of their language?
2. You trumpet the east asian introgression so much. do you think that their language was brought to them by the east asian ancestry? if not, why is it so relevant to our discussion here - which was about european scythians and their iranian language.

I suspect that you use the east asian ancestry just as a prop against the southern ancestry, because it suits your political goals?

vAsiSTha said...

@norfern
"What would be the best way to differentiate EHG and Steppe admixture among Mari?"

I would say best bet in qpAdm is to have EHG and steppe eneolithic/yamnaya in right pops among others and have khvalynsk_en and sintashta among others in left pops to be proxies for ehg and bronze age steppe ancestry respectively.

epoch said...

@Simon_W

That paper by Mrs. Prosper is indeed very interesting. This quote can basically be mapped one on one on the Iberian paper:

I find it worth considering that the Proto–Italic
speakers (or whatever we choose to call them) traversed
both the Alps and the Pyrenées and were pushed into
western Hispania and central Italy by Celtic speaking
tribes, which in turn had entered Hispania (where Italic is
residual) and Italy (where we find the converse situation)
in their footsteps.


It is noteworthy that the proposed Nort-West Block is also considered close to Italic, while showing some similarities to Celtic (kw -> p in akwa -> apa)

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

"But OK, let's wait for some decent UDG-treated capture sets of Sarmatians and Scythians from different parts of Europe and then we'll see."

Here are 2 UDG treated 1240k captured Sarmatians from south ural region of pokrovka. the 2 samples provide 614k snp's which are very sufficient for analysis.

Target,Distance,KAZ_Dali_MLBA,RUS_Tagar,UZB_Bustan_BA
Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0574,0.01867682,41.6,43.8,14.6
Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0575,0.02435210,38.0,49.6,12.4
Average,0.02151446,39.8,46.7,13.5

Strangely, in both g25 and qpadm, Bustan is selected over TKM_IA. Kubano_Tersk is also completely rejected in qpAdm.

left pops:
Russia_IA_EarlySarmatian

Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali: 56.1 +- 7.9
Russia_Tagar.SG: 27.9 +- 7.8
Uzbekistan_BA_Bustan: 16 +- 2.6
tailprob: 0.266
result file https://pastebin.com/9LgTz72r

North caucasus if added as source is rejected with -74% coefficient https://pastebin.com/w7n5Mx1d

Rob said...

@ Vasistha

“ Even sintashta admixture drops due to east asian inflow? Is the relevance of that reduced?”

BMAC is fairly irrelevant for Scythians as a whole; it’s only locally relevant for sakae. In fact; not even Sakae; but something slightly different


“ Do you think they spoke an iranian dialect? if not, what did they speak in your opinion? What literature informs you of their language?”

Generally espoused to be; but there’s very little hard data. They could have been polylingual
The more solid evidence actually comes from the sarmatian era

“ You trumpet the east asian introgression so much. do you think that their language was brought to them by the east asian ancestry? ”

No; because the main link remains Andronovo -related ancestry. These are basics you should know

“ if not, why is it so relevant to our discussion here - which was about european scythians”
Because the Scythian branch of Iranian has a likely homeland in the altai region
It’s relevant for european Scythians because the earliest european Scythians also demonstrate Siberian affinities; but lack any BMAC ancestry
I’ve explained this several times. Try to grasp these factors instead of prancing around and inquisitioning like a lawyer

“Suits your political goals?”

Huh? How does the fact that Scythians not sarmatians are from India or Iran even link to anything? Im apolitical
You , on the other hand are clearly a Hinduvta OIT nut masquerading as a genetics Yogi :)

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

You seem to think that acceptably high tail probs are the be all and end all of these sorts of discussions. However, they're not even relevant if you can't produce a model that makes sense in other contexts.

There's no direct link or any link between Sarmatians and BMAC.

Sarmatians are thought to be ultimately derived from Andronovo tribes and known to have made the steppes just north of the Caucasus their home.

You should start with that.

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

well there is a good reason why you we were banned on AG and now you can not go on ( you often came back with sock puppets because you could not accept that). Just stick to the discussion and i dont care about your personal problems.

Nevertheless the point is that BMAC had a big impact on Indo-Iranians in Asia and Saka+neighbouring populations there show often BMAC from minor to significant amounts (Saka Tian Shan, Altai Ia,Wusun,...) Scytho-Sarmatians as being heavily influenced by Iranic groups from the far east in northern Central Asia would likely/by common sense pick up minor BMAC-related ancestry (The lack of ASI among them is not a good argument against that because most BMAC samples lacked ASI too). Qpadm and Global25 also point to minor BMAC-related ancestry among steppe groups around the Iron Age Ural. It was not a big component and irrelevant mostly for their ethno-linguistical ethnogenesis but being dogmatic against BMAC ancestry southwest of the Urals is just not realistic and based on the assumption that there was as sharp genetic border between Asian Saka and European Scythians/Sarmatians what is simply not realistic in my eyes yet.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

"There's no direct link or any link between Sarmatians and BMAC."

It is immaterial what you think of the links between them. Fact of the matter is that the 2 pokrovka udg treated 1240k captured samples show clear bmac ancestry. Did bmac directly contribute ancestry? likely not. There must be a population with bmac related excess iranN ancestry which did, which is the proximal source.

@rob
Your qpAdm model for russia_sarmatian is shite, and i know for a fact that it isnt even your model, it is davidski's. because i recognize his right pops, and theyre inadequate in this model.

left pops:
Russia_Sarmatian.SG (da134, da139, da143, da144, da145, da136, mj38)
Russia_Srubnaya
Russia_Shamanka_EBA.SG
Russia_North_Caucasus
tailprob: 1.11853449e-25 (lol)
result file https://pastebin.com/pxNY847q

Now the actual model which works
left pops:
Russia_Sarmatian.SG

Russia_Srubnaya: 11.9+-4.4
Russia_Tagar.SG: 53.4 +- 4.1
Turkmenistan_IA.SG: 34.7 +- 4.7
tailprob: 0.1095
result file https://pastebin.com/drgRmrBD

In fact i also added shamanka_eba and kubano_tersk_late to sources in below analysis. They were chosen at 0 or negative coefficients when Tagar & Tkm_IA are present. https://pastebin.com/y3kxs4jj

Too bad.

I wont be replying on this topic further, i think all of this is enough evidence for people to make up their mind regarding bmac related ancestry in scythians and sarmatians. They also may simply use g25 coordinates to test it themselves. There is no fun in personal mudslinging and name calling.

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

@ Vasistha

''Too bad.''

Again, can you explain how it affects me whether the link is to BMAC or the Caucasus ? From where I am, theyre essentially the same thing. You appear to be projecting

Can you explain how people from Turkmenistan migrated to the Urals & Black Sea ?
Why does the archaeology link to the Caucasus, and why is it that Alans live in the Caucasus ?
And how do you explain that when the Sarmatians 'appeared' in the west, Turan was actually in the Hunnic period ?

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

What exactly is the fstatsa.txt supposed to contain? I'm getting segmentation errors with the raw output.

Rob said...

@ Vasistha

''It is immaterial what you think of the links between them. Fact of the matter is that the 2 pokrovka udg treated 1240k captured samples show clear bmac ancestry. ''

Its immaterial that you claim that your model is super duper.
Fact is, there's no link

Rob said...

@ cold mountains

“ well there is a good reason why you we were banned on AG and now you can not go on ( you often came back with sock puppets because you could not accept that). “.

Pfft that’s was years ago and contrary to your claims, I haven’t bothered going back- For the most part, The people there are tend to be nerds; but not smart ones. More the disingenuous, ignorant , arrogant type - kind of like your most recent series of posts here
The only decent posters there are Chad, Dave & Kristiina and the thread on East Asia, all of whom, and much more I have direct access to. Ill leave anthrogenica to the amateurs with Kruger-Dunning, XXX (whatever his name is) and the gang

“I dont care about your personal problems.“
Thank you for your concern; everything is very good, which is why I want to give back to the world. You on the other hand, dont seem to be up to much


“ Nevertheless the point is that BMAC had a big impact on Indo-Iranians in Asia and Saka+neighbouring populations there show often BMAC from minor to significant amounts ”

Tha's self evident . Feel free to post when you have something new or enlightening to say
Anyhow, sorry I got angry, it simply seems that some are trying to share fresh ideas about specific topics, which aren’t being heard carefully

vAsiSTha said...

"Three Silver Bowls from the Isakovka Burial-Ground No. 1 with Khwarezmian and Parthian Inscriptions"

https://brill.com/view/journals/acss/9/1-2/article-p147_7.xml?language=en

"Another kind of trophies were the silver Parthian and Persian bowls and Achaemenid phialai with Parthian and Chorasmian inscriptions found in the graves of rich nomads in the Ural and Western Siberia regions. The possible route of their coming to Sarmatians was through Iran to Graeco-Bactria, robbed by Sarmatians in the late 2nd c. BC."
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=77617

Davidski said...

@Norfern-Ostrobothnian

I'm getting segmentation errors with the raw output.

That's because you're using the output from your run, not the fstats file.

Put this in your qpfstats parfile:

fstatsoutname: fstats1.txt

And then also this in your qpAdm parfile:

fstatsname: fstats1.txt

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Sorry, you were saying?

Here's a basic three-way model (that also fits nicely with uniparental markers):

RUS_Sarmatian_Pokrovka
RUS_Fofonovo_En 0.076+/-0.011
RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA 0.323+/-0.032
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2 0.600+/-0.035
chisq 12.386
tail prob 0.192406
Full output

Essentially, this model tells the story and we don't really need to add anything else. What we need are more relevant and proximate samples from the steppes, not from BMAC.

Gonur1_BA rejected!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DrP45jWxodjDjosAZtuzNqCZ9XUzrgQj/view?usp=sharing

Bustan_BA rejected!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14AXAiwPfIn7K6EzL9E9isDQcylJ1mwge/view?usp=sharing

Dzharkutan1_BA, yep you guessed it, rejected!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19-u-LmbnhRX5a1qrIt0jM3SafPITJJSs/view?usp=sharing

I mean, sure, these Sarmatians may have stolen some women in Turan along with the bowls you mentioned, but let's not get obsessive compulsive about it.

Coldmountains said...

@Davidski

thanks for your model.Maybe some Caucasian groups in the northeast were more Iran_Chalc-like shifted than the current sampled groups what would indeed explain some of the BMAC affinity in Global25 and fit your model. But i think not even vAsiSTha is suggesting that Sarmatians/Scythians had very significant BMAC admix or mixed directly with BMAC groups, which were long gone, when Scythians and Sarmatians formed.

We were talking here about a minor (max 10%) input transmited by other steppe Iranics south of Scytho-Siberians but north of former BMAC zones. Existing or not it would in any case not play a very important role in the ethno-linguistical ethnogenesis of steppe Iranics. Neither Proto-Indo-Iranians formed in BMAC or close to it, what still seems to be a popular theory among some Russian scholars i have read. Rather Proto-Indo-Iranians formed around 2500 B.C in the Fatyanovo-Abashevo chain of cultures (linguistic evidence, most R1a-Z94>ZZ2124 and R1a-Z94>L657 clades split during this period in different subbranches).

Neverthless I would not dogmatically deny any kind of BMAC-related input west or around the Urals during the Scytho-Sarmatian age because we see some mtdna like J1d6 and U7 among Scytho-Sarmatians, which show strongest links to Iran Chalc/Iran_Neolithic (found in ancient dna from Iran) and less to the Caucasus (but also found there). MJ-16 Scythian J2a clade is also shared with several Saka_Tian_Shan samples, which had BMAC-related admixture. Actually BMAC also belonged to closely related J2a clades, what pretty much points to MJ-16 getting his Y-dna from South Central Asia. Also BMAC-related ancestry spread already in the MLBA with some groups northwards.

For example I4794 (Taldysay_MLBA dated to 1600-1100 B.C) in Central Kazakhstan shows almost around 20% BMAC-like admixture. He also belongs to J2a-F3133 which in this case likely came from BMAC (was found in Gonur and Bustan) and is the same J2a clade to which the Scythian from Ukraine and Saka_Tian_Shan belong. This J2a clade seems to be very rare in the Caucasus and rather has an Iranian/Middle Eastern/South Asian distribution. The sample is by time and geography not much more distant to Sarmatians around the Urals than the samples from the North Caucasus.

Target: KAZ_Taldysay_MLBA2:I4794 ( i used Rus_North_Caucasus in the model)
Distance: 1.8042% / 0.01804180
53.8 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
21.8 TKM_Gonur1_BA
12.2 RUS_Poltavka
8.4 MNG_North_N
3.8 KAZ_Botai


To summarize my view i think your position is overall correct that most West Asian ancestry came from the Caucasus or from Maykop/Kubano-Tersk-like groups neverthless i suspect minor ancestry from more southern steppe Iranics around Central/Southern Kazakhstan, which already had some kind of BMAC-related substrate/adstrate (especially because of Scythian MJ-16 with a J2a linked to BMAC, Kazkahstan_MLBA and Saka_Tian_Shan)

Rob said...


Cold mountains simply cherry picked his arguments. There are Sarmatians with Hg I2a in Russia; as are other minor % lineages from N, to Q
The J2a being in LBA Kazakh steppe only confirms my previously mentioned rise during the M-LBA; but then a drop during the Scythian period.

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

And? How is this relevant? Where i wrote that Scytho/Sarmatians had more BMAC than this Kaz_MLBA samples and that BMAC ancestry not dropped with the arrival of more MNG_N shifted groups from the east? This are not my points and i am not interested in dicussing things i not disputed in the first place.

Neverthless the Scythian MJ-16 J2a clade L25 was found in these ancient cultures so far. The oldest being Bustan_BA

Bustan Eneolithic Uzbekistan 3331-2972 calBC I11028 J2a1h2-L25/PF5345/S399 (ISOGG 2016), J2a1a1b2a1-L25 (ISOGG 2019)

CA Tepe Hissar Chalcolithic Northeast Iran I2337 J2a1h2-L25; under J2a1a1b2a1a (ISOGG 2019)

Iran Bronze Age Seistan 3328-3022 calBCE I11471 J2a1h2-L25/PF5345/S399 (ISOGG 2016), J2a1a1b2a1-L25 (ISOGG 2019)

BA Aigyrzhal Kyrgyztan 2114-1928 calBC I11527 J2a1h2-L25/PF5345/S399 (ISOGG 2016), J2a1a1b2a1-L25 (ISOGG 2019); pre-J-Y17404 (under J2a1a1b2a1a1)

Taldysay MLBA1 Central Kazakhstan I4794 J2a1h2-L25; J2a1a1b2a1a-F3133 (ISOGG 2019)

BA Sappali Tepe Kohitang mountains SE Uzbekistan I7494 J2a1-L26/PF5110

TianShanSaka nomad Baskya Kyrgyzstan DA57/TianShanSaka J2a1h*-Y13534; under J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)
TianShanSaka Baskya nomad Kyrgyzstan DA58/TianShanSaka J2a1h*-Z7706; J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)
TianShanSaka Baskya Kyrgyzstan nomad DA59/TianShanSaka J2a1h*-Y13534; under J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)

Imperial Romans Lazio ANAS (villas) 100-300 CE R68 J2a1-L26; J-FGC9942* under J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (2019)
Roman late Antiquity Lazio Marcellino & Pietro 300-500 CE R136 J2a1h2a1-L70 (2016); J2a1a1b2a1b1-L70 (2019)
Viking Sweden_Skara 62 Varnhem 10-12th AD VK42 J2a1a1b2a1b1-L70

Medieval nomad Butakty 1 Zharbulak Kazakhstan DA222/Karluk J2a1h*-Z7706; J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)
Medieval nomad Butakty 1 Zharbulak Kazakhstan DA230/Karluk J2a1h*-Z7706; J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)
Medieval nomad Butakty 1 Zharbulak Kazakhstan DA203/Karakhanid J2a1h*-Z7706; J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)
Medieval nomad Butakty 1 Zharbulak Kazakhstan DA204/Karakhanid J2a1h*-Y14698; under J2a1a1b2a1a2b*-Z7706


TianShanSaka nomad Baskya Kyrgyzstan DA57/TianShanSaka J2a1h*-Y13534; under J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)
TianShanSaka Baskya nomad Kyrgyzstan DA58/TianShanSaka J2a1h*-Z7706; J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)
TianShanSaka Baskya Kyrgyzstan nomad DA59/TianShanSaka J2a1h*-Y13534; under J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)

Medieval nomad Butakty 1 Zharbulak Kazakhstan DA222/Karluk J2a1h*-Z7706; J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)
Medieval nomad Butakty 1 Zharbulak Kazakhstan DA230/Karluk J2a1h*-Z7706; J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)
Medieval nomad Butakty 1 Zharbulak Kazakhstan DA203/Karakhanid J2a1h*-Z7706; J2a1a1b2a1a2-Z7706 (ISOGG 2019)
Medieval nomad Butakty 1 Zharbulak Kazakhstan DA204/Karakhanid J2a1h*-Y14698; under J2a1a1b2a1a2b*-Z7706

Rob said...

@ CM

Yes I know, in fact I was amongst the earliest to draw attention to the J2a1h in Taldysay back in the Narasinham pre-print days

Rob said...

Anyway, the Alans - a late Sarmatian tribe - are espoused to be from 'Central Asia'. It would be interesting to see if such samples show any distinctions

vAsiSTha said...

davidski

"@vAsiSTha

Sorry, you were saying?

Here's a basic three-way model (that also fits nicely with uniparental markers):

RUS_Sarmatian_Pokrovka
RUS_Fofonovo_En 0.076+/-0.011
RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA 0.323+/-0.032
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2 0.600+/-0.035
chisq 12.386
tail prob 0.192406
Full output"

Lol, using outliers & 4500bce eneolithic inputs now for 200bce samples? how many attempts did you make lol? hahaha.
anyway.

Heres G25 of your model - AVERAGE DISTANCE 3.23%
Target,Distance,RUS_Fofonovo_En,RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late,RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0574,0.02869391,8.2,39.2,52.6
Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0575,0.03592645,7.6,35.2,57.2
Average,0.03231018,7.9,37.2,54.9

Heres G25 for my model - AVERAGE DISTANCE 2.15%
Target,Distance,KAZ_Dali_MLBA,RUS_Tagar,UZB_Bustan_BA
Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0574,0.01867682,41.6,43.8,14.6
Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0575,0.02435210,38.0,49.6,12.4
Average,0.02151446,39.8,46.7,13.5

2.15% vs 3.23% for yours. Hmm, i wonder...

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

These Sarmatians do have ancestry from the Sintashta outliers dumbass.

Other (most) Sarmatians have more standard Sintashta ancestry. So what?

Apostolos said...

@Rob

Herodotus used the term Sarmatian (Sauromatian) for a population in Southern Russia.
Russian archeologists used the term Sauromatian for a culture in Southern Urals?

How do you use the term?

There are 4 ? studies that have sampled 'Sarmatians' Unterländer et al. 2017, Damgaard et al. 2018, Krzewińska et al. 2018, Järve et al. 2019

Do you think the term Sarmatian is used in a consistent and meaningful way?

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

You really ought to stop using 30000 bce goyet vestonice etc samples in your right pops. theyre really inadequate while modeling 200bce samples. really.

I always use the same right pops - belonging to HG, neolithic & eneolithic. Except in this case i had to switch ustbelaya_angara with kolyma_meso because you had fofonovo_en as east asian source which is very similar to ust_belaya_angara in time and ancestry.

Heres your model which fails.

right pops:
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Russia_HG_Karelia
Tyumen_HG
Jordan_PPNB
Serbia_Mesolithic_IronGates
Anatolia_N
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Kolyma_M.SG
ONG.SG
Botai

left pops:
Russia_IA_EarlySarmatian

Fofonovo_En_Oss
Russia_North_Caucasus_MBA
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta_o2

tailprob: 4.51e-06 (big fail)
result: https://pastebin.com/erStW6x5

Again, the model which actually works. Which i had pasted before as well.

left pops:
Russia_IA_EarlySarmatian

Russia_Tagar.SG: 17.9 +- 10.6
Uzbekistan_BA_Bustan: 17.4 +- 2.7
Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali: 64.8 +- 10.3
tailprob: 0.198 (pass)
result: https://pastebin.com/fEX8AC7L

G25 also proves my point: Your model 3.23%, my model - 2.15%

Target,Distance,RUS_Fofonovo_En,RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late,RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0574,0.02869391,8.2,39.2,52.6
Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0575,0.03592645,7.6,35.2,57.2
Average,0.03231018,7.9,37.2,54.9

Target,Distance,KAZ_Dali_MLBA,RUS_Tagar,UZB_Bustan_BA
Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0574,0.01867682,41.6,43.8,14.6
Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0575,0.02435210,38.0,49.6,12.4
Average,0.02151446,39.8,46.7,13.5

Matt said...

A G25 PCA approach for all samples labelled "Scythian", "Sarmatian", etc.

Few rotations of different outgroups (from very proximate/none to some/deep): https://imgur.com/a/kERnYkx

Pastebin of samples: https://pastebin.com/RUwyQUrY

I think there's relatively little geneflow over time, of course. Not from the dense cores where there would have been large amounts of BMAC related ancestry, though turnover via a chain of relatedness may have been substantial...

I would guess to me, the explanation for this is likely that going to the western steppe was a little like "going to the moon" for much of pre-history - there's not wealth there, and its arid and empty, and requires a specialized toolkit to exist in. So you just had a lot of fairly small sized populations going their own way, and they are connected by a chain of relatedness, that leads to some shared culture with groups to the west and to the south but there's not much genetic turnover.

But then that changed in late Antiquity again, which is when this area becomes a lightly defended highway for more competitive groups to get to this huge Greco-Roman empire and participate as mercenaries and overlords and so on in its northern wars. Then its quite easy to sweep over the small populations and you see extensive turnover.
How this whole area changed linguistically and was influenced by other Indo-Iranian groups to the south in the intermediary is inevitably going to be a bit more mysterious.

It could be quite a bit or not very much. Language family internal change probably doesn't necessarily really evolve much like genes. There are some notional models mooted on here on here (I'm thinking of Eastpole) that language doesn't change in the absence of genetic admixture (and he has a lot more, to me, rather circular reasoning around this), but we know from models of how languages evolved in Austronesian, and the historical evidence within Indo-European from Greek, and so, for instance that this is likely false. Unlike genetics where most locii evolve neutrally, and so drift is very slow except in the presence of very small group size, and so in the absence of drift then changes in autosomal structure only happen in presence of admixture, languages are almost completely unalike. It looks like innovations often arise more often in larger scale groups and spread as a motivated emulation to distinguish between groups of same genetic ancestry and emulate status. Innovations are also interlinked, so there's a chance element where changes in phonology or grammar in one part of language can lead to side changes that spread and extensive shared set of innovations.

vAsiSTha said...

This is formal qpAdm proof that Pokrovka_sarmatian samples do not need any ancestry from north caucasus or sintashta_o2 at all. This is done by adding these competing sources to right pops. If they are required as sources, the model should fail or at least see a severe reduction in tailprob. This is as per rotating strategy listed out in Harney et al preprint on qpAdm best practices.

Right Pops
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Russia_HG_Karelia
Tyumen_HG
Jordan_PPNB
Serbia_Mesolithic_IronGates
Anatolia_N
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Kolyma_M.SG
ONG.SG
Botai
Russia_North_Caucasus_MBA
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta_o2
Fofonovo_En_Oss

left pops:
Russia_IA_EarlySarmatian

Russia_Tagar.SG: 19.7 +- 9
Uzbekistan_BA_Bustan: 17.1 +- 2.8
Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali: 63.2 +- 9

tailprob: 0.299
result https://pastebin.com/QPctg5vb

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

Great insights Matt. Thank you.

Davidski said...

@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar

I wouldn't take Matt's comments too seriously. His contributions here are more like light entertainment if anything.

Believe it or not, over at Anthrogenica he actually tried defending Carlos Quiles' model, claiming that Fatyanovo may have been Uralic speaking. That's how kooky this guy is.

I mean, look how that turned out. Haha.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

Davidski:

"I wouldn't take Matt's comments too seriously."

Acknowledged.

Matt said...

No problem Mayuresh.

vAsiSTha said...

Matt is absolutely right when he says you don't necessarily need genetic changes for language changes. One does not need a 1000iq to know that is the truth.

Davidski said...

Maybe genetic exchange wasn't always needed for language shifts, but most of the time it was, especially in areas that weren't under any sort of state control.

But anyway, my real point about Matt was that he posts about 90% of serious, useful content here, and the other 10% is basically trolling of some sort, usually pushing very unusual Quiles-like theories:

- eastern Corded Ware switched between Uralic and Indo-European languages, or some stupid crap like this

- Corded Ware may not have been Indo-European at all, but perhaps Uralic, because no one really knows

- Corded Ware in Western Europe was rich in R1a rather than R1b, and R1a was replaced there during the Bell Beaker expansion

- Indo-Iranians moved into South Asia via the Caucasus rather than Central Asia.


Now, this isn't an issue for most of the regulars here, most of whom are already aware of this, but my concern was that the newbs might get confused.

Rob said...

@ Vasistha

''Matt is absolutely right when he says you don't necessarily need genetic changes for language changes. One does not need a 1000iq to know that is the truth.''


Sure, language change can occur in absence of large scale shifts, but such a generic remark in itself means little and lacks explanatory power
Its up there with 'pots aren't people' and 'genes dont speak languages''. Yeah okay, but lets connect it with specific chain of arguements and contexts

Rob said...

@ Apostolos

''Herodotus used the term Sarmatian (Sauromatian) for a population in Southern Russia.
Russian archeologists used the term Sauromatian for a culture in Southern Urals?

How do you use the term?

There are 4 ? studies that have sampled 'Sarmatians' Unterländer et al. 2017, Damgaard et al. 2018, Krzewińska et al. 2018, Järve et al. 2019
Do you think the term Sarmatian is used in a consistent and meaningful way?''



Yes exactly !

That is why I keep raising the issue ''outline phases, demographic transitions and archaeogenetic correlates of Scythians and Sarmatians...'' and warn against catch-all models

Similarly there is initial/ prescythian CImmerian; Classic Scythian; Late Scythian phases beforehand; with attendendt georaphic and settlement shifts

Nobody has delved into this level of analysis. ALl the data needs to be co-analysed with a simialr methdology, with absolute scrutiny to context, chronology and locale, and then tentative conclusions made



Apostolos said...

@Rob

I would have preferred to not use it.

Because, during classical antiquity it is used for a population in Southern Russia (between Lower Don and Lower Volga, north of North Caucasus), during Late Antiquity for a population as far west as modern day Poland (east of Vistula) and Romania (north of Danube?), while some archaeologists decided to use the term Sauromatian for a culture in Southern Urals implying in some way that there is the.. homeland? That creates confusion, imo.

If I go by the ancient sources, I would assume that the people who were originally called Sarmatians descended primarily from the Iron Age population of the Lower Don?? At least the elites, considering there's were the so called by Greeks 'Royal Scythians' were placed?

Tigran said...

So Scythio-Siberians absorbed loads of ENA and WSHG admixture when they moved into Siberia and the Kazakh steppe? What did Sakas and Tocharians absorb in the Tarim Basin? Also ENA? Or WSHG?

Also I read Proto Indo-European has a word for apple. But apples are native to Eastern Kazakhstan so how does that make sense?

Rob said...

@ Apostolos

Yes, it's just a heuristic clasificaiton which might or might not be correct, but it is the basis of existing frameworks. More objective scehma might be on basis of radiometric dating, geography and other anthropological details (e.g. burial postures).
It is during the Middle Sarmatian period that Central Asia influences (viz Alani) are said to appear.


''If I go by the ancient sources, I would assume that the people who were originally called Sarmatians descended primarily from the Iron Age population of the Lower Don?? At least the elites, considering there's were the so called by Greeks 'Royal Scythians' were placed?''

The transition is still mirky & non-linear, as you're probably quite aware

Ric Hern said...

@ Tigran

From the Lower Don Westwards you find the Crabapple. The Crabapple contributed significant towards the formation of many modern day Apple Cultivars...so basically native to the Northern parts of Europe.

Ric Hern said...

@ Tigran

Malus Sylvestris

Onur Dincer said...

Do not know much about Sarmatian archaeology, but the existing "Sarmatian" genomes seem to display a relatively homogeneous genetic profile:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZNoBnTVF60TKcI2yBrxSrYW9SN1bxyUK/view?usp=sharing

I* welcome interpretations of these results, especially from those knowledgeable in archaeology.

* I have not read most of the comments on this thread, so might have missed some useful info on this subject.

vAsiSTha said...

https://enacademic.com/pictures/enwiki/66/B%C5%82a%C5%BCowski_POL_COA.svg

Does anyone know the history behind these peacock feathers in the coat of arms of some Polish nobility?

I dont believe peacocks are there in europe. whats the story?

mzp1 said...

@Vasistha,

I dont know, it may be similar to the ancient 'Iranian' flag, Darafsh-E-Kayani (The Kayanian Banner) found on top of the British crown...

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Persian-Kaviani-flag-on-the-Queen-Elizabeths-crown

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

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

Regarding peacock feathers in Coat of Arms

They are supposed to represent wisdom.

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

"It was used by several szlachta families in the times of the Kingdom of Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth."

Speculation abounds about the origins of the Szlachta.

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


"The first theory involved a presumed descent from the ancient Iranian tribe known as Sarmatians, who in the 2nd century AD, occupied lands in Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. The second theory involved a presumed szlachta descent from Japheth, one of Noah's sons."

If the Sarmatian theory is accepted, then that is going to lead back into the contested discussion about who these people were genetically, how far and wide were they spread out, and which languages they spoke.

vAsiSTha said...

The yazidis of the middle East also revere the peacock, the peacock angel being one of their 7 holy beings. Afaik peafowl is only present in South asia, se asia and African rainforests like in Congo.

Tigran said...

@Ric Hern

Thanks. That makes sense. I didn't know of that species.

The link also say modern apples have ancestry from Malus sieversii. is that later Silk Road stuff or did Indo-Europeans have massive trading networks early on?

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

The Polish nobility didn't revere the peacock you idiot. It was just a fashion.

They had a myth about Sarmatian origins, but this wasn't true. It was only a tactic to differentiate themselves from the peasants.

Most of the theories about the supposed links between Iranians and Slavs are false. They're based on myths from the Middle Ages, like the Polish Sarmatian myth, or bad scholarship.

vAsiSTha said...

"The Polish nobility didn't revere the peacock you idiot. It was just a fashion."

You could just say that you dont know how it happened lol.

There is a lot more clarity on how it spread(not just as 'fashion', but also with cultural significance) from ancient persia to middle east and greeks and roman cultures.

"The Peacock is one of the birds sacred to Hera. The feathers are a tribute to the hundred eyed Giant Argus who once guarded Io when she was transformed into a Heifer."
They also pull Hera's chariot.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...


Peacock Motifs in Rig Vedic Hymns and Hungarian Folksongs

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=csearticles

"The peacock motif already caught the attention of Kodály
as something special in Hungarian folk music [5]. The
present work traced the origin of peacock motifs back to
some Rig Vedic hymns. "

The peacock motif cuts across language families, so taken by itself, it is amenable to many interpretations.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

No problem, hang your hopes on peacock feathers and folk legends.

Meanwhile reality will keep coming at you, and you won't be able to stop it.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/fatyanovo-males-were-rich-in-y.html

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-oldest-r1a-to-date.html

vAsiSTha said...

Meh. Keep screeching fatyanovo and abashevo as its something new. Same old same old z93 with no L657 orior parent in sight. as I had predicted.

Davidski said...

Well, obviously L657 is derived from Z93 and R1a.

And there's no R1a or Z93 in Asia prior to the Fatyanovo expansions.

So I don't know what you're hoping for, probably a miracle.

Haha.

Coldmountains said...

@basiert

Modern das Indo-Aryans and Indians have also a lot of Z2124 and especially Z2123. Kalash for example are entirely Z2123. The Z2123 clades in South Asia are mostly specific for South Asia and Afghanistan but were absent among later Saka groups and modern day people north of Afghanistan so they were very likely brought by Bronze Age Indo-Aryans from Afghanistan. For example R1a-Z2123>Y47 looks like an Indo-Aryan marker. Z2123 was already found in Poltavka_O an Sintashta so we have already a proven trail of Indo-Aryan Z2123 clades to Corded Ware. The same will be proven for L657. Indian R1a is a subset of Bronze Age Indo-iranian R1a from Afghanistan and many Indian R1a clades have basal related clades in Arachosia/Gedrosia.

vAsiSTha said...

I'm waiting for at least 20-30 male eba and bronze age samples from india. Right now we have 0.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 536 of 536   Newer› Newest»