Tuesday, July 21, 2020
The oldest R1a to date
My popular map of the oldest instances of Y-haplogroup R1a in the ancient DNA record has a new entry: PES001 from the recent Saag et al. preprint. PES001 comes from a burial site in what is now northwestern Russia and is dated to a whopping 10785–10626 calBCE.
Indeed, I'm not aware of any R1a samples older than PES001 among the treasure trove of thousands of ancient samples waiting to be published. So it's likely that this individual will remain the oldest member of our R1a clan for some years to come.
See also...
Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health
Like three peas in a pod
The mystery of the Sintashta people
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
229 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 229 of 229@Slumbery
a while back I tried removing the AG3 from MA1. I know it's anachronistic but I was curious how will the sample end up. If anything, That "CHG" signal in MA1 is more related to Iran_N.
Target: MA1_noAG
Distance: 7.9776% / 0.07977610
34.8 IRN_Wezmeh_N
22.4 Simulated_AASI
17.0 CHN_Tianyuan
13.0 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
9.8 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
3.0 GEO_CHG
0.0 BEL_GoyetQ116-1
0.0 IND_Great_Andamanese_100BP
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 RUS_Kostenki14
0.0 RUS_Sunghir
0.0 RUS_Ust_Ishim
0.0 RUS_Yana_UP
Target: MA1_noAG
Distance: 9.7445% / 0.09744456 | ADC: 0.5x
52.8 RUS_Kostenki14
18.8 RUS_Ust_Ishim
12.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
11.4 Simulated_AASI
4.4 IRN_Wezmeh_N
Target: MA1_noAG
Distance: 12.1668% / 0.12166774 | ADC: 1x
51.6 RUS_Kostenki14
25.4 RUS_Ust_Ishim
19.8 RUS_Yana_UP
3.2 IRN_Wezmeh_N
@CrM
"a while back I tried removing the AG3 from MA1. I know it's anachronistic but I was curious how will the sample end up."
In general, such things are meaningless, but we just need to remind you that these guys came from Siberia earlier.
Iran Ganj Dareh [I1954 / GD41] 8294-7992 calBCE (9000±40 BP, Beta-436170) M R2a
Iran Ganj Dareh [I1946 / GD20] father.of.I1947_father.of.I1952 8250-7850 BCE [father of I1947 at 8210-7845 calBCE (8860±30 BP, Beta-432800), father of I1952 at 8219-7761 calBCE (8850±50 BP, Poz-81114)] M R2a
Iran Ganj Dareh [I1947 / GD22] 8210-7836 calBCE (8860±30 BP, Beta-432800) M R2a
Iran Ganj Dareh [I1952 / GD40] son.of.I1946_brother.of.I1947 8219-7761 calBCE (8850±50 BP, Poz-81114) M R2a
Iran Ganj Dareh [I1945 / GD 16] 8000-7700 BCE M P1 (xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b, R1a1a1b1a3a, R1a1a1b2a2a)
Everyone knows that the Iranian component has ANE and Onge partes.
@Tigran
It seems to be a mixture of the local version a Kostenki14 related ancient population (that contributed ancestry to CHG and Iran-HG) + something proto-AASI related. A completely unsampled ancient population that can be only approximated.
@CrM
I'd say that it can be described in a sense as Iran_N minus the Natufian-related ancestry of Iran_N plus something extra from the general direction of the Indus. Iran_N has a lot of Natufian-related ancestry that is completely absent in MA1. So maybe an eastern branch of the ancestors of Iran_N, before they got mixed with the Natufian-related part.
In general I just made a lot of test to see what populations have affinity to KO14, etc. The idea that KO14 is some ancient WHG that also expanded into Siberia/Central Asia and formed ANE as a mixture "WHG" and ancient East Asians is completely wrong. KO14 represents a different population. Villabruna picks 100% Goyet over KO14, while AG3, MA1, CHG, Iran_N picks KO14 and no Goyet (or Villabruna in other tests). This suggest that the population represented by KO14 is _not_ a main ancestor to the Villabruna cluster. If anything, it is the "opposite". It is a subgroup of a general West Asian - East European population that already drifted away from the proto-WHG groups and probably went extinct in Europe during the LGM.
By the way, Anatloians have both kind of ancestry, probably from different time depths.
Also, EHG very clearly pick AG3 over all the ancient whatevers and with a good fit. It is indeed a relatively fresh (post LGM) mixture of Late Paleolithic West Siberians and WHG/proto-WHG, not just appears to be because of lingering ancient populations.
Edit: a very important "not" was missing from the former version of this post.
@Archi
Does the Onge come from the maternal component?
@Slumberry
Would it make sense to say KO14 represents proto ANE or the western/west eurasian portion of ANE? Do you think KO14 like populations also originally carried K2,P and I in addition to C?
@ Tigran
“ Also is there a chance that there is a ghost population that contributed to both East And West Eurasians that might explain the affinity?”
No ghost population is required. This is a real population that lived in the near east and moved rapidly towards the north 45,000 BP carrying similar technologies ranging from central Europe through to Siberia Mongolia northern China
A few thousand years later there was another dispersal of Proto West Eurasians maybe from a similar place or somewhere further along towards Iran. The ancestors of Yana would be included here
@Rob
How would you characterize the first population? Mostly KO14 like with some Onge?
And the second would be promo ANE and the ancestor of the non Tianyuan portion of Yana?
@ Tigran
I don’t think CO14 is part of that first dispersal
@Rob
According to the studies with WHG samples such as a recent thesis from Cassidy, and I believe several with mesolithic WHG from Iberia this was hypothesized and to some degree demonstrated. A subset did pass ancestry through EEF, but the majority did not.
Take for example the rates of certain I2 branches in western Europe and it becomes obvious they did not pass much on. ie: I2-M284, I2-L161.
Populations with small effective size will be more inbred than those who are not. Not sure why you are arguing this point.
@Rob
The key is a small subset obviously hopped to the neolithic communities somehow, and became dominant at least in western Europe as we see with a few I2 branches I mentioned above. I think it's still a mystery how exactly that happened, and why the G2a/F guys were not the majority by the late Neolithic period. There were hundreds of mesolithic bands who simply died out who would have happened to share the I2 haplogroup. Loschbour comes to mind, as does Cheddar Man.
@ AWood
Well, your explanations tend to be rather generic.
How do you know Loschbour man became extinct ? Maybe he personally did, but I-M423 L161 is quite widespread throughout western Europe Neolithic, from Iberia to the Baltic.
The reason why WHG ancestry is so high in later Neolithic populations is exaclty because they did not become extinct; but continued living in their main zones; and ''became farmers' by interacting with (& marrying) Anatolian-derived folks who lived in the loess zone
This was a widespread process, not a limited to a 'key subset'
... Iberia & Britain are exceptions because they’re beyond the Neolithic frontier . They were even beyond the Mesolithic frontier
@Tigran
"Would it make sense to say KO14 represents proto ANE or the western/west eurasian portion of ANE? Do you think KO14 like populations also originally carried K2,P and I in addition to C?"
KO14 is closer to ANE than to the main ancestors of WHG groups. That specific sample do not really represent proto-ANE however, more like a population that related to it, and in a way intermediate between Siberian/Central Asian groups and western groups.
I would refrain from guessing their Y-Hg with the exception that I think Y-Hg I in that population is unlikely. That is a WHG haplogroup (in the wider sense of WHG) and also the estimated TMRCA of the existing subbranches is younger than KO14, so it was probably not very widespread at the time.
@JuanRivera
"How does AG3 herself model as?"
there was some attempts on this above. If we firmly stick to older populations it models as 100% Yana, but the distance is rather high. If we take out Yana and try a look from further away, it models as 100% KO14, but with even worse distance. There are the results in G25 nMontes (I included Yana to show the difference):
"sample": "RUS AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3",
"distance": 30.5181,
"RUS_Kostenki14": 100,
"RUS_Sunghir": 0,
"CHN_Tianyuan": 0,
"Ust_Ishim": 0
"sample": "Yana UP:Average",
"distance": 4.5342,
"RUS_Kostenki14": 41,
"RUS_Sunghir": 29.5,
"CHN_Tianyuan": 29.5,
"Ust_Ishim": 0
The above results are the reason why I said earlier that Yana might be really a relatively fresh west-east mix population, but that does not mean that AG3 and generally ANE is that way too. Yana and AG3 actually rather different and AG3 models as 100% Yana only because there is nothing better in the data.
@Tigran
"Would it make sense to say KO14 represents proto ANE or the western/west eurasian portion of ANE? Do you think KO14 like populations also originally carried K2,P and I in addition to C?"
Nothing. The ANE and Kostenki are completely different populations that are not part of each other and none of them is ancestral to the other. And neither one comes from the Middle East. All they have in common is that they are West Eurasians and nothing else.
You see, it's about very many thousands of years of difference between all them and thousands of kilometers.
@Slumbery
I keep writing that Villabruna cluster from which WHG comes neither from Kostenki, nor from Gravettian cluster of Vestonica, nor from Sunghir, nor from Aurignacian cluster of Goyet.
Neolithic West Europe has hunter gatherer Y DNA but 70-80% Anatolian farmer ancestry. So, looks like assimilation of hunter gatherer males in the process of replacing hunter gatherer populations. All of Neolithic Europe can be explained as colonization in which most hunter gatherer pops including in Western Europe assimilated and replaced.
Poles between Belarusians and Mordowians on PCA plot according to Estonian Biocentre:
https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41431-020-0699-4/MediaObjects/41431_2020_699_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-020-0699-4/figures/1
Very interesting but is this science?
@A Wood said-We have but a small snapshot of people who have taken the BigY or equivalent test so I don't believe you can arrive at a conclusion with such a small sample.
Yeah, obviously we have few samples and all our conclusions are provisional but at least we have L51 ancient subclades in southern France while that lineage is absolutely missing in eastern Europe which is very strange. For all haplogroups (except for R1b-L51) the variability and age of their subclades in one region is clear evidence of their origin
@A Wood said-The Neolithic data from southern France we do have are all non-R1b, so an age of 5700 ybp in France doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Where was he hiding out?
Well you have Iboussieres, a WHGs in the French Mesolithic that may have been a direct ancestor of M269, and you have ATP3 in northern Iberia (3,500 BC) indicating that R1b-hunter-gatherers survived into the Neolithic. You have to bear in mind that we are talking about a bottlenecked clan and that at the beginning of Chalcolithic there was a massive founder effect by P312- Hiding out?-In any case, with the data we have so far, we cannot say that it was hidden in the steppes. Maybe in the Balkans, the Baltic countries and even Scandinavia (There are some rumors about it, I don't know if Davidski has heard anything, but it could be a major game changer)
@A Wood said- Keep in mind that by the time the R-M269+ guys come into history, they are not hunter-gatherers, but patrilocal pastoralists who took diverse wives over long distances. A complete contrast to western hunter-gatherers.
1-WHGS have also been shown to be patrilocal clans (see results in Ireland and Iberia)
2-The only M269 subclade we can link with the pastoralists is Z2103, nothing more.
3-We already have several Swiss R1b buried in megaliths that have nothing to do with a pastoralist production system but with European Neolithic cultures
4-From my point of view the Balkan and Baltic WHGs (P297 and V88) migrated to the steppes towards the end of the Mesolithic. IF M269 and its subclades originated there, the CWC only brought them back home.
@Gaska
"WHGS have also been shown to be patrilocal clans (see results in Ireland and Iberia)"
What results about WHG? There are speculations about the final Neolithic.
"IF M269 and its subclades originated there, the CWC only brought them back home."
What a complete nonsense, you dare not link the origin of CWC to M269.
@ Sam
''So, looks like assimilation of hunter gatherer males in the process of replacing hunter gatherer populations. All of Neolithic Europe can be explained as colonization in which most hunter gatherer pops including in Western Europe assimilated and replaced.”
This is incorrect, because you have complete ignored archaeology or demographics. Indeedd, some chapters of the MPI Labs spin this false claim too (eg Feldman et al)
The relative population size difference between LBK and hunter-gatherers was in the order of 10:1 or 20:1. So 30% g-w & 90% + Y-hg introgression is actually huge
And come 5500 BC, that H-G population was concentrated in the Atlantic & Baltic, whislt tge the LBK core zone was almost devoid of native HGs
The Neolithic is best described as a steady state; not replacements
Samuel Andrews said...
Neolithic West Europe has hunter gatherer Y DNA but 70-80% Anatolian farmer ancestry. So, looks like assimilation of hunter gatherer males in the process of replacing hunter gatherer populations. All of Neolithic Europe can be explained as colonization in which most hunter gatherer pops including in Western Europe assimilated and replaced.
I am not 100% sure how you see this, but what I think most likely is that fishing communities (hunter gathers), were more mobile and traded high value sea products, for cereal crops and domestic animals from the farming communities. The more successful HG traders gradually acquired farmer wives, and the wives in turn kept and feed young animals until they grew bigger and planted seeds that they did not immediately consume. Demographic growth of the mixed farming families and migration of farming relatives to safe areas would have completed the process. This would explain why farming spread to areas where is less suited (i.e. Ireland) before fully saturating suitable areas in France, and it would explain the dominance of HG Y-Dna in Spain, Ireland and Britain.
looking forward to the qpfstats thread, I'm still not exactly sure how to use it effectively with qpAdm
I'm even more confused now.
What's the relation of Goyet, Villabrana, KO14, Ust Ishim/Oase, Sunghir and Inge as it relates to ANE and WHG? The relationship between Tianyuan, Yana, Malta, AG3, Iran_N, CHG and EHG is just as confusing. Are there any models/graphs for these components and populations?
@Tigran
True. I should have used the term East Eurasian. I think these people looked different than early West Eurasians so still foreign.
Sure, no doubt about that, and they did not remain phenotypically stable, so diversified/evolved/diverged further.
@Onur
That's if the theory of K2P/P coming from SE Asia is right. I don't think we can rule out a NE Asian or West Eurasian population although the latter doesn't seem likely to most people except Archi.
Either way this is a very interesting topic.
@Tigran
That's if the theory of K2P/P coming from SE Asia is right. I don't think we can rule out a NE Asian or West Eurasian population although the latter doesn't seem likely to most people except Archi.
Those deep origin scenarios related to Y-DNA haplogroups are still waiting to be tested through ancient DNA tests. We were talking about them 10 years ago too, but today we have much more advanced archaeogenetics, we can test them directly through vigorous ancient DNA testing.
@Onur
What would you guess though? It really would be something if the culture upon which European, Armenian, Iranian and Indian culture ultimately derives from a population on the eastern side of West-East Eurasian split and from island SE Asia at that. I have my doubts personally though.
@Tigran
What would you guess though? It really would be something if the culture upon which European, Armenian, Iranian and Indian culture ultimately derives from a population on the eastern side of West-East Eurasian split and from island SE Asia at that. I have my doubts personally though.
Even if true, those are too early dates and also autosomally have very little relevance, if at all. I know ANE has some eastern autosomal connection, but the nature of that connection is far from established due to the lack of samples directly relevant to its formation. We cannot say at this point with any degree of sureness that it is an East Asian- or SE Asian-related connection.
Sensation!!! Foreign geneticists have identified the genes of the Arpads(hungarian roxal Dynasty) in Hun tombs in Mongolia (tamir ulan koshuu TUK). You can watch a video about this at the link below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9ajGzgmHVY&t=70s
Pretty sure after vodka every existing one :)
That's the exact date of the end of the Glaciation
Post a Comment