Scientists at Broad MIT are working on a new feature-packed and "lightning fast" version of Admixtools that runs in R. It's already available via this link...
uqrmaie1.github.io/admixtools
I don't have access to a Linux machine right now, but since this thing runs in R then it also runs in Windows, and I do have a Windows computer here.
One of the most interesting and useful features in the new R package is arguably the
find_graphs function, which automatically searches for admixture graphs that reflect the observed f-statistics. That is, once the user chooses the samples and settings,
find_graphs runs an unsupervised admixture graph analysis.
Here are a couple of graphs that I knocked out with
find_graphs in about five minutes each. The commands and settings that I used are listed in a text file
here.
The two topologies above were among the most commonly seen in a series of about 50 runs with the same sample set. A couple of basic inferences based on the output:
- RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_En harbors GEO_Kotias-Satsurblia_HG-related ancestry, not IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N-related ancestry
- IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N and TKM_Geoksyur_En form a clade to the exclusion of GEO_Kotias-Satsurblia_HG.
The results are certainly in line with those from other types of analyses that I've done on this blog (for instance, see
here and
here).
Update 05/01/21: Robert Maier, one of the creators of Admixtools2, has left this message in the
comments below.
I'm glad to see that there is so much interest in Admixtools2! I very much appreciate any comments and suggestions on how to improve it and how to make it more user friendly.
Because it's still under active development, some things are likely to change in the future. For example, there is a faster successor to "find_graphs", called "find_graphs2", but in the future they will probably be merged into one.
I'm in David Reich’s group at Harvard and Broad and we are hoping to publish a paper describing Admixtools2 where we illustrate its value by using it to test how robust several previously published results are by exploring a large number of alternative models for each of them. If any of you use Admixtools2 to find graphs that are significantly better fits than published graphs and are also historically plausible - or if you find families of graphs that are equally good fits to the published ones but provide qualitatively different conclusions about population relationships - please contact us. That would be a meaningful contribution to the paper we write about this and we’d be open to including someone as a co-author based on identifying case studies like this.
380 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 380 of 380@CrM
CHG isn't just a simple mix of Dzudzuana + ANE. Neither is Dzudzuana identical to Anatolians, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zWcpml63ls&t=364s
It makes a lot of sense, considering the age of Dzudzuana, 15k years of continuity between Dzudzuana and AHG always seemed a bit too much for me. Personally, I think that Anatolians are a mix of Dzudzuana and Kebarans.
That's interesting, how did i miss that video!? I agree with you on that, they do seem to be their own distinct group
I doubt that the CHG of Steppe Eneolithic is something ancestral to Satsurblia or Kotia. I think Steppe Eneolithic has a CHG variety that will be found in Azerbaijan, around the Caspian.
Isn't south Caucasus currently ruled out? ever since Maykop aDNA came out?
@ Coldmountains
Hmmm not really.Then how do you explain the too low Anatolia N levels among South Asians? BMAC mix was what everyone (including me) expected, but the ancient DNA results did not support it. I do not contest mixing with IVC people, it is clear from genetics, but mixing with BMAC on the way to South Asia is not supported.You have to support your theory.Modern South Asians have low Anatolian Farmer admixture and even their limited ratios coming from their Steppe ancestors.
Vladimir, the genes for blond hair , far Eastern ancient Russia, and Volga hunter gatherer, coincidence?
@Ionnis Gavras
Of course there is EEF in South Asia this is already obvious because of all the EEF mtdna among people like Kalash or Kho and the preference of Steppe MLBA over Steppe EBA among South Asians. And BMAC ancestry is present among all Indo-Aryans argueing for a lack of BMAC in South Asia is like saying there is no EEF in North Europe. There are direct uniparental links between BMAC and modern day South Asians. Especially the Swat Indo-Aryans had a lot of BMAC often 2x times more than steppe.
Target: PAK_Loebanr_IA_o:I12138 (steppe rich sample from ancient Gandhara)
Distance: 2.5729% / 0.02572916
51.0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o (BMAC-like)
26.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
15.2 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
7.8 KAZ_Botai
Target: Ror
Distance: 1.5984% / 0.01598442
40.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
35.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
23.2 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o
1.0 NPL_Chokhopani_2700BP
Target: PAK_Udegram_IA
Distance: 1.5317% / 0.01531743
50.0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o (BMAC-like)
36.2 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
10.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
1.8 KAZ_Botai
1.8 NPL_Chokhopani_2700BP
Using the PAK_Loebanr_IA_o (1000 B.C) sample or Ror as reference for early Indo-Aryan settlers from BA Afghanistan/NW India many areas in South Asia show lot of replacement. Basically >40% for many Brahmins and Kshatriya. For NW Indians like Jatts and Ror even more. It is not a perfect reference and early Vedic Indo-Aryan settlers were probably diverse in terms of Steppe/BMAC/WSHG/ASI ratio so other Vedic samples surely will show more steppe but other bit less.
Target: Brahmin_West_Bengal
Distance: 1.8708% / 0.01870841
43.8 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
32.2 Paniya
23.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.4 NPL_Chokhopani_2700BP
Target: Brahmin_Gujarat
Distance: 2.0440% / 0.02044023
45.8 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
38.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
11.0 Paniya
4.8 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Target: Punjabi_Jatt
Distance: 2.5797% / 0.02579666
62.6 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
27.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
6.0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o
4.0 Paniya
Non-Brahmins and Non-NW Indo-Aryans still show around 20% of it in most cases.
Target: Gujarati
Distance: 2.0512% / 0.02051228
62.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
24.4 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
13.6 Paniya
Target: Bengali_Bangladesh
Distance: 2.1382% / 0.02138179
38.2 Paniya
34.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
20.2 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
7.0 NPL_Chokhopani_2700BP
@Rob
Thanks. Is the pottery Neolithic of the Levant an independent development like African pottery?
@coldmaintains “ Indo-Aryan migration had a really significant and high impact on some areas of India. We should not assume that early Indo-Aryans settling in India were still 100% Sintashta-like this is very unlikely and unrealistic. Most of them surely had significant BMAC, WSHG and even ASI admix because they arrived from Afghanistan”
But they didn’t! At least according to Narasimhan 2019, they had very trace of WSHG (Botai?) or BMAC. At least for Indians
@Iannis Gavras “ Imo Sumerians-Akkadians would have been very close to the samples we got from Syria(Ebla).As for 'pure' Sumer they definitely had Levant PPNB admixture.The Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period would have been rich in PPNB populations.”
I looked at the gif you shared and it confused me. Because the 2 main components are indeed PPNB and Cepetik-Ciftlik. Nevertheless, not so insignificant elements were Darj Daro (Iran_N) and no less than 10% CHG.
Analyzing the Cepetik-Ciftlik it was no Barcin (“pure”, early Anatolian farmers), but Anatolian farmers with a lot of later CHG introgression. Something more akin to Kura Araxes.
When analyzing PPNB, we know that it was a melange of Natufians (Dzudzuana-like + more Basal) with Anatolian Neolithics. Lazaridis mentioned the Peki’in population from 6,000 year ago having Anatolian roots and carrying Y-Dna T. PPNB was rich in mtDNA uniparental markers N and K, which were common among the LBK.
Conclusion: Sumerians, Halafians, Yarmulians, Hassuna and other archeological pre-historic Near Eastern culture were a 3- or 4- way admixture of Levant, Anatolian, Iranian and CHG, something mentioned in Lazaridis 2017.
But it does nothing to readily the mystery: where did the Sumerians, their language and their civilization come from, and were they related to any EEF historic culture?
@Robert Maier
Thanks for the comment. I posted the main comment in an update to the blog post so that it doesn't get lost in the chatter here.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/12/fully-automated-graph-exploration.html
@ Tigran
From a brief look, it seems independent. People used to working with clay for bricks, figurettes, etc, started making the occasional bowl as early as the PPNB. I wouldn't completely rule out contact with Central Asia, though, given the presence of bullet cores, etc
@ioannis
"BMAC mix was what everyone (including me) expected, but the ancient DNA results did not support it. "
Swat samples have as much or more bmac than steppe lol.. narsimhan paper is quite shoddy that way..
@Coldmountains
"specially the Swat Indo-Aryans had a lot of BMAC often 2x times more than steppe.
Target: PAK_Loebanr_IA_o:I12138 (steppe rich sample from ancient Gandhara)
Distance: 2.5729% / 0.02572916
51.0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o (BMAC-like)"
Alalakh is not BMAC!!! If you want to test for BMAC admixture use only BMAC populations and nothing else! Saying that Alalakh_MLBA is BMAC is like saying CHG is EHG.
It is not the Indo-Aryans are buried in the Swat inhumations.
Tales are told Rob about that pottery appeared in the Levant by itself simply unscientific. He just doesn't know anything.
@Andrzejewski
"Epoch “ While not exactly an answer: Ertebølle is WHG and not SHG. That chewing gum paper took effort to establish that.”
But others claim that PWC was SHG;"
So what? PWC doesn't have anything to do with Ertebølle.
"in any case, it’s hard to keep track about the changes from one culture to another: Post-Swiderian, Erteboelle, PWC and so forth."
Excluding the ill-defined or at least fuzzy label "Post-Swiderian", it isn't.
"Some researchers stress that the change from LBK to TRB in its northern range was due to increase in PWC admixture"
Bollocks. What researchers would claim any such thing? The appearance of PWC postdates that of TRB by almost a millennium.
"others would put it on Erteboelle."
It's looking increasingly likely that TRB doesn't derive from LBK at all, but from more westerly cultures like Michelsberg. Though TRB did replace a number of Northern and Central European cultures, including Ertebølle and some post-LBK groups, and likely absorbed their populations, so different TRB groups seem to have been genetically differentiated.
East Asia also has the R lineage in some modern cattle breeds. R is is an ancient European auroch lineage so it is interesting that it is found amongst East Asian domesticated cattle.
@Vasishta, have you heard anything about the Zamanbaba sample?
@ Coldmountains
The prolly non-IE-speaking BA Swat Valley samples require BMAC-like mix, but the later South Asians in general do not require any BMAC-like mix at all.Also,we are not sure if the swat samples are Aryans.There is a possibility to not have been IE speakers.With so little R1 haplogroups.So,i would suggest you to be more cautious.
Keep in mind that your models with Alalakh Outlier cannot be taken serious.As Archi told you,if you have to model serious these populations do it with BMAC samples.It would be more accurate!!!!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O-thyJnG1U-OFYvVvkyLeeZUPxVSAib3/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Dnbu6kf0iuW_ydOX3UPt-JhtMo8kt2oE/view
@ Andrzejewski
Barcin farmers moved to the west.They did not contribute to west asians and to populations of Mesopotamia and the Levant.That is why i am using 2 neolithic Anatolian sites to model.PPNB people spread farming pretty much everywhere in the middle east and people like ANF and Iran N adopted them.Imo, Sumer had ancestry from the previous Copper Age and Neolithic cultures of mesopotamia.They would have been either PPNB or some kind of ANF population or we are going to see Iran N/Copper Age like people.Later Akkadians prolly brought a genetic input similar to the Ebla samples that i shared above.Akkadians were east Semites,so i believe they would have been very close to other north Levantines of the period.But anyway.. we are just guessworking now.I hope we are going to see samples from Iraq in the future.
@ Angantyr
''It's looking increasingly likely that TRB doesn't derive from LBK at all, but from more westerly cultures like Michelsberg. Though TRB did replace a number of Northern and Central European cultures, including Ertebølle and some post-LBK group'''
TRB does;t really ''derive from '' Michelsberg. Certainly, the E1b in Michelsberg isn't very frequent in the LN. TRB is a heterogeneous horizon, and what distinguishes it is continued rise in WHG, and its introgression into Farmer society. So, rather than claiming TRB replaced Ertobolle, it seems that sections of Ertoboelle males married into Neolithic society accross a diffuse frontier, from east to West.
@ Archie
''Tales are told Rob about that pottery appeared in the Levant by itself simply unscientific. '''
LOL I had not realised you're a man of science.. You're incoherent ramblings certainly don;t give that impression.
But humour us, what Siberian admixture belies the Levant Neolithic, and why are the earliest Hassuna prototype ceramics found to its west, in Syria ?
This is pretty interesting https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/2/eabc4587?fbclid=IwAR0oupgBEIUTg2P0NNI4dksTbQO4ic08IZwS67Osn4HVIOibReYszmwTz8w
# kra001 potentially relevant for F-U ?
@ Coldmountains
You should choose IVC periphery, Sintashta and BMAC as the source pops for a proper test of BMAC ancestry in South Asians. In my models I did exactly that and found modern South Asians in general to show no or negligible BMAC-like mix.
Also check again my analysis and figure out:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O-thyJnG1U-OFYvVvkyLeeZUPxVSAib3/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Dnbu6kf0iuW_ydOX3UPt-JhtMo8kt2oE/view
@ Coldmountains
The only high WSHG Turan ancient DNA sample is the Gonur outlier and you want us to believe that it is exactly the kind of BMAC ancestry Aryans mixed with primarily on the way to South Asia. Do you think this makes any sense at all? Alalakh outlier is not high in WSHG and not so low in Anatolia N BTW.
Anatolian N levels of South Asians. Nothing to shown BMAC admixture.Its obvious that their limited ANF related adixture is coming from their steppe ancestors(witch BTW the Sintasta refrence eating it).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rhylaxf0QoQ-ERaJG8pDYzVFvQwieGr2/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NQOvIK-r9sHMv3pu4H11WkyQ0_wID5CG/view
If they have BMAC DNA then why they score so low on BMAC components?(with exception Iran N witch is mostly IVC like).
Rob wrote,
"# kra001 potentially relevant for F-U ?"
kra001
Period: Bronze Age
Territory: Krasnoyarsk Krai
Beta or Ua ID: BETA-453083
Conventional Radiocarbon Age BP: 3790
SD: 30
Cal BP low, 95,4: 4286
Cal BP, high, 95,4: 4085
Cal BCE low, 95,4: 2336
Cal BCE, high, 95,4: 2135
District in Russia: Siberian Federal District
Territory: Krasnoyarsk Krai
Region: Krasnoyarsk Krai
Site/Burial: Nefteprovod-2 site, burial 1 (Krasnoyarsk Krai)
Material: tooth
d13C: -20.4
d15N: +13.4
Coordinate N: 56°11'41.05''
Coordinate E: 95°49'10.34''
Latitude: 56.194736
Longitude: 95.819539
Human Sequences: 45718190
Mean Read Length: 94.7695
Coverage: 13.6151
Coverage MT: 1124.38
Mt Seqs: 248890
X Seqs: 13273290
Y Seqs: 3570726
Biological Sex: XY
Mitochondrial Haplogroup: C4b
Mitochondrial haplogroup was reported in: Kilinc et al. 2018
Estimated HG: N-L392*(xVL29,Z1936) (ISOGG N1c1a1a)
PhyloTree derived state markers
Marker ID Haplogroup association Observed mutations
L1085 A0'1'2'3'4 8C
L1130 A0'1'2'3'4 5G
L1155 A0'1'2'3'4 6C
V168 A1'2'3'4 5A
V171 A1'2'3'4 2G
P108 A2'3'4 2T
V221 A2'3'4 7T
M118 A3 5T
M42 A4=BCDEF 5T
P97 A4=BCDEF 3T
M236 B 2C
M168 CDEF 5T
P143 CF 6A
M213 F 6C
M89 F 5T
P14 F 6T
F1329 GHIJKLT 5T
M578 HIJKLT 3T
CTS616 I 7G
M522 IJKLT 5A
M523 IJKLT 2G
M526 K 2C
M9 KLT 5G
F1206 N 8T
L392 N 5C
L708 N 7A
L729 N 2C
L735 N 6T
L839 N 8G
M178 N 5T
M231 N 8A
M46 N 2C
P105 N 4T
Z4762 N 3C
M214 NO 2C
L2 R 1T
Y40 R 3T
F549 X 1T
F650 X 4A
M2308 X 3T
ISOGG derived state markers within PhyloTree branch:
Marker ID Haplogroup association Observed mutations
Z548.1 N1c 2C
M2291 N1 7T
S323 NA 3A
V237 NA 1T
V234 NA 2T
M232 N 3T
Page91 N 8A
@ioannis
Heres where i show more BMAC in Swat samples than steppe ancestry using Vahaduo..
https://imgur.com/a/oi5qcKF
I have more than 100 qpAdm runs too, sadly none of the runs without bmac give close to acceptable p-value (even narsimhan paper does not have a satisfactory p value). So heres a challenge, plz post results of Swat samples which work without BMAC/Shahr-Sokhta-BA1 ancestry.
And Ioannis, Just to add, theres no direct Sintashta Steppe_MLBA ancestry in Swat samples.. It requires additional WSHG/Botai like ancestry which samples like Dali_MLBA have..
@ Vasista
How many times do I have to mention that Swat is not clearly IE/Aryan and its DNA is not representative of South Asians?Do you have proves or some kind of paper/study showing 100% that Swat were aryans? With such low R1 there? Who told you that IA Swat fits with South Asians? Swat IA is a dead end for modern South Asia. Modern South Asians are largely not descended from it and show much less if any BMAC-like mix than it. And BTW I cannot understand why you guys saying that G25 vadahuo does not gives accurate results and models. Personally i found them fine and I never had problems.But, anyway I don't even care. Believe whatever you want but this phenomenon that Aryans grabbed BMAC people on their way is far from proven and ofc some random posters in anthrofora are not enough to explain it.Btw take a look to Burusho people and realize that not everyone speaks IE or has an Aryan ancestry besides if he has steppe DNA.Also Iran N and WSHG can be found in IVC as well and not just in BMAC.
@Ioannis Gavras “ The only high WSHG Turan ancient DNA sample is the Gonur outlier and you want us to believe that it is exactly the kind of BMAC ancestry Aryans mixed with primarily on the way to South Asia. Do you think this makes any sense at all? Alalakh outlier is not high in WSHG and not so low in Anatolia N BTW.”
Narasimhan 2019 put an end to speculations about high BMAC and/or Botai levels in present day Indians or even Andronovo “Aryans”.
@Ioannis “
Barcin farmers moved to the west.They did not contribute to west asians and to populations of Mesopotamia and the Levant.That is why i am using 2 neolithic Anatolian sites to model.PPNB people spread farming pretty much everywhere in the middle east and people like ANF and Iran N adopted them.Imo, Sumer had ancestry from the previous Copper Age and Neolithic cultures of mesopotamia.They would have been either PPNB or some kind of ANF population or we are going to see Iran N/Copper Age like people.Later Akkadians prolly brought a genetic input similar to the Ebla samples that i shared above.Akkadians were east Semites,so i believe they would have been very close to other north Levantines of the period.But anyway.. we are just guessworking now.”
PPNB must’ve been the culture in which according to Lazaridis 2017 all the 4 previously distinct Ancient Near Eastern ancestry groups converged. It may have created the Semitic languages, and/or the Kura Araxes phenomenon. Dzudzuana must’ve been the extant AHG of the Middle East before ANE changed CHG markedly, and even more so pertaining to Iran_N. Dzudzuana was originally Villabruna-like mixed with Basal Eurasian (the latter component might explain the difference between ANF and WHG when the latter ones colonized Europe?). Natufians were created 15,000 YBP when a North African Berber-like tribe introgressed into the Levant (could it explain the link between North African ‘Hamitic’ languages with ME Semitic one within Afro-Asiatic macro family? Who knows). I believe it added an extra basal layer to distinguish Levant_N from ANF.
But I’m not certain at all that this gradual process of migration and mixture created the KAC, which is likely ancestral to the Anatolia Bronze Age, CHG elements in Minoans, and whether the Hattian language of Anatolia was an ANF language or a Kura Araxes one. Same goes to Kaskian along with Kartvelian languages and ethnogenesis.
https://imgur.com/a/29QfVrB
Heres the vahaduo run.. Swat samples Invariably choose Dali_MLBA over Sintashta_MLBA..
What is BMAC though?
Here a PCA of BMAC with neighbouring populations.
https://ibb.co/V2CMX30
X-dimension is drift differentiating Iran_N/Anatolian and ANE-derived populations (Botai, AG3, EHG).
Y-dimension is the drift differentiating Iran_N and Anatolian.
Steppe is close to a cluster of samples related to Steppe DNA but from various places and are mostly outliers.
BMAC is close to Iran_N but shifted towards Steppe, but specifically towards the Steppe outlier cluster.
qpAdm allows us to model BMAC with these steppe outlier samples along with Iran _N. I have seen good runs.
The Steppe outliers are on the Anatolian side of the two steppe groups, and main steppe cluster is on the ANE side.
These steppe outliers likely harbor ancestry from pre-BMAC Central Asia, Turkmenistan etc.
@ Andrzejewski
I would say that Semitic languages took place with J1 expansion and Iran N/Copper age related admixture in the levant.Natufian/PPNB people were prolly afroasiatic speakers.I agree pretty much about Dzudzuana(thought we need Lazaridis full paper to understand better).As for Kura-Araxes.Its a culture that indeed influenced Bronze Age anatolians and Minoans/Mycenaeans,but keep in mind that west asian related admixture(CHG/Iran N) can be seen quite early in the region of anatolia/aegean and Greece.For some reason west asians started to migrating westward even by neolithic times.We have neolithic samples from Greece showing west asian DNA.Anatolia as well,(thought the Barcin site is more clean).Kura-Araxes IMO spread languages like hurrian,urartian,hattian,kaskian, etc.Kartvelian is associated with Colchians(Western Georgians) and as we know from archeology kura-araxes did not reached western caucasus. Taking serious the genetics of western caucasians they are prolly associated with a culture/site very rich in CHG.Maybe the samples of Darkveti-Meshoko or a culture like Dolmen might be the answer(not sure).So,the Kartvelian dialects have prolly to do with a population rich in CHG? Kura-Araxes was a trading network and that is
the reason we seeing steppe DNA in west asia.From the Armenian samples to the Bronze Age Northwest Iranic sample.The Armenian sampes are prolly kura-araxes individuals who are mixed with steppe arrivals IMO.I am wondering btw if the highly steppe admixed sample from northwest Iran has to do with Kassites or with some kind of zagros mountain tribe?I think we are going to see some steppe DNA in mesopotamia besides Mitanni.
@ Ioannis
Can you please stop saying 'prolly'
@Ioannis Not sure about Semitic languages arriving with Iran_N because of this links to North African Hamitic ones. I would also think that the 45% Iranian element (+ CHG) in ancient Canaanites to modern day Lebanese stems from the KAC influence, with Hurrian kings like Arawna, itself an Indo-Aryan cognate. Jebusites might’ve been an off-shoot of Mitanni for all we know.
Levahy_N and Anatolians cluster on the same line, and farther than Iran_N, which likely means that the (ANE?) admixture and genetic drift were higher.
Nevertheless, it’s remarkable that the Copper age Mesopotamia was inhabited by various isolate linguistic communities- Sumerians, Elamite, Subarteans, Gutians, Kassites and others I forgot.
"Narasimhan 2019 put an end to speculations about high BMAC and/or Botai levels in present day Indians or even Andronovo “Aryans”."
Have you even bothered to look at narsimhan qpAdm models and p values?? It's in the supplementary 'book' buried deep in there.. do check it.
And while at it, I again ask ppl to provide a qpAdm model for swat which does not require BMAc/ SiS ba1 ancestry.. I tried everything which would make it work, but could not lol.. as far as qpAdm modelling of moderns goes, later papers have shown that modeling moderns with ancient samples is erroneous due to the differential rate of aDNA damage, even there the p values for North Indians were piss poor.
@ Andrzejewski
Kura-Araxes is a CHG shifting culture as we know(with decent ANF admixture) from the samples we got.The west asian influence in the Levant is Iran Chalcolithic like(increase in Iran N).Well,i am not going to be an absolute because i am not sure if the whole culture of Kura-Araxes was homogenous.We need samples from northwest Iran(Kura-Araxes) sites.But you are right about Hurrians.They mentioned even in bibble.Levant BA is Levant PPNB+Iran copper age.Increase in Iran N.Decrease in Levant N and almost invisible steppe.Its obvious that steppe admixture among levantines took place quite later(Even after the IA).Btw about Semites.If you want to look how proto-semites would have been like you can check the samples from Jordan EBA.This is IMO how they started in their pure form.Then expanded to north africa(Egypt),Levant,Arabia etc.
"Assessing the Performance of qpAdm: A Statistical Tool for Studying Population Admixture"
Éadaoin Harney, Nick Patterson, David Reich, John Wakeley
https://academic.oup.com/genetics/advance-article/doi/10.1093/genetics/iyaa045/6070149
@Ioannis “ Kura-Araxes is a CHG shifting culture as we know(with decent ANF admixture) from the samples we got.The west asian influence in the Levant is Iran Chalcolithic like(increase in Iran N).Well,i am not going to be an absolute because i am not sure if the whole culture of Kura-Araxes was homogenous.We need samples from northwest Iran(Kura-Araxes) sites.But you are right about Hurrians.They mentioned even in bibble.Levant BA is Levant PPNB+Iran copper age.Increase in Iran N.Decrease in Levant N and almost invisible steppe.Its obvious that steppe admixture among levantines took place quite later(Even after the IA).Btw about Semites.If you want to look how proto-semites would have been like you can check the samples from Jordan EBA.This is IMO how they started in their pure form.Then expanded to north africa(Egypt),Levant,Arabia etc.”
It would be intriguing to find out what really happened between LGM and IA in the Near East. From all I remember reading, Natufians and Barcin are two distinct population, although they cluster on the same cline. I think it’s like 1/3 Dzudzuana or ANF in Levant_N, but lots of the uniparenta Hap in current Middle East has affinities to South Eastern Europe - eg E1b1b, T , while J1 and J2 came with the CHG and/or Iran_N. Since both populations are rich in ANE, maybe J is originally an ANE y-dna? Come to think about it, it is possible, as Ydna J was found in Karelia HG (EHG).
The key to understanding the Southern Levant lays in North Africa: some assume it was Levant people migrating southwest, others assert the Iberomaurasisn introgression in the other direction that might’ve set Levant_N apart from Barcin-like Dzudzuana folks.
Further ties between extant populations and the EEF can be found in the spread of MtDNA N, K and T, which were commonplace within LBK Culture in contemporary middle eastern populations.
As for Elamites- if I’m not mistaken, the ancestors of the Dravidians were Iran HG (Hotu Cave?) and not Iran_N (Ganj Daro?), so it may seem that perhaps the Elamite language stemmed from a later language in situ in Iran whereas the ancestors of Dravidians spoke Iran_epipaleolithic derived languages?
I’m any case, the fact that India-Pakistan-Nepal still have speakers of language isolated: Burusho, Nihali and Kusunda- may indicate a much more complex picture here. And that ties in with-
@vAsiSTha We don’t know yet:
1. What language IVC spoke, and weather or not it was Dravidian or not.
2. What source(s) the alleged substrate in Rig Veda was.
3. Was BMAC close to Iran_N (=Elamite?) or did their language actually derive from Anatolians or even WSHG part of their culture.
4. Dravidian languages - maybe they descent from the India HG (Onge-like) and not the Iranian immigrants of the Neolithic?
5. How come both BMAC and Botai were so meager (no more than 8% in Andronovo), etc.
@Ioannis “ Kura-Araxes is a CHG shifting culture as we know(with decent ANF admixture) from the samples we got.The west asian influence in the Levant is Iran Chalcolithic like(increase in Iran N).Well,i am not going to be an absolute because i am not sure if the whole culture of Kura-Araxes was homogenous.We need samples from northwest Iran(Kura-Araxes) sites.But you are right about Hurrians.They mentioned even in bibble.Levant BA is Levant PPNB+Iran copper age.Increase in Iran N.Decrease in Levant N and almost invisible steppe.Its obvious that steppe admixture among levantines took place quite later(Even after the IA).Btw about Semites.If you want to look how proto-semites would have been like you can check the samples from Jordan EBA.This is IMO how they started in their pure form.Then expanded to north africa(Egypt),Levant,Arabia etc.”
It would be intriguing to find out what really happened between LGM and IA in the Near East. From all I remember reading, Natufians and Barcin are two distinct population, although they cluster on the same cline. I think it’s like 1/3 Dzudzuana or ANF in Levant_N, but lots of the uniparenta Hap in current Middle East has affinities to South Eastern Europe - eg E1b1b, T , while J1 and J2 came with the CHG and/or Iran_N. Since both populations are rich in ANE, maybe J is originally an ANE y-dna? Come to think about it, it is possible, as Ydna J was found in Karelia HG (EHG).
The key to understanding the Southern Levant lays in North Africa: some assume it was Levant people migrating southwest, others assert the Iberomaurasisn introgression in the other direction that might’ve set Levant_N apart from Barcin-like Dzudzuana folks.
Further ties between extant populations and the EEF can be found in the spread of MtDNA N, K and T, which were commonplace within LBK Culture in contemporary middle eastern populations.
As for Elamites- if I’m not mistaken, the ancestors of the Dravidians were Iran HG (Hotu Cave?) and not Iran_N (Ganj Daro?), so it may seem that perhaps the Elamite language stemmed from a later language in situ in Iran whereas the ancestors of Dravidians spoke Iran_epipaleolithic derived languages?
I’m any case, the fact that India-Pakistan-Nepal still have speakers of language isolated: Burusho, Nihali and Kusunda- may indicate a much more complex picture here. And that ties in with-
@vAsiSTha We don’t know yet:
1. What language IVC spoke, and weather or not it was Dravidian or not.
2. What source(s) the alleged substrate in Rig Veda was.
3. Was BMAC close to Iran_N (=Elamite?) or did their language actually derive from Anatolians or even WSHG part of their culture.
4. Dravidian languages - maybe they descent from the India HG (Onge-like) and not the Iranian immigrants of the Neolithic?
5. How come both BMAC and Botai were so meager (no more than 8% in Andronovo), etc.
@Rob
"This is pretty interesting https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/2/eabc4587?fbclid=IwAR0oupgBEIUTg2P0NNI4dksTbQO4ic08IZwS67Osn4HVIOibReYszmwTz8w
# kra001 potentially relevant for F-U ?"
This paper is actually pretty huge in understanding the early migrations of N1c. We finally have Neolithinc N-L708, found in the Trans-Baikal region and Yakutia. As well as LN/EBA N-L1026 (kra001) found north of the Altai near Krasnoyarsk.
If I were to guess kra001 was at the very least, closely related to the PU population that migrated further west, if not a speaker himself.
A quick google search suggests that the Nefteprovod-2 site which kra001 was from, belonged to the Karasuk culture, although it existed on an earlier Glazkovo cultural layer which is more in line with the age of kra001 (ca. 2295-2140 calBC).
You guys should request the genotype data for kra001.
@ Vasista
Dude,you can believe whatever you want i am off.I got my problems with Greeks trying to explain their Slavic and west asian genes...i have not time to mess around with SouthCentral Asian genetics.If you think Swat people were Aryans or even that Aryans grabbed BMAC admixture on their way then good for you.I have my own position on it and you cannot change it.
@ Andrzejewski
Look.J is coming from Haplogroup IJ.If you want my honest opinion i think it has the same roots with I.I do not believe it is ANE connected.R,Q are way more ANE.I think I and J have the same ancestor but we need the Dzudzuana paper to understand better what exactly happened in west asia.Natufians are north african(iberomaurusian like)+Dzudzuana.What it makes me wonder is about Pinarbasi HG.It is dzudzuana with Basal.But G2a,T and H lineages seems to replaced the PInarabasi like lineages.I mean,what happened with C lineages?They kicked out don't you think?I am G2a...where my ancestor has come from?What component he was carry?It seems anatolia was not that different from the EU genetically.But different ydna markers come to dominate this land as it happened in EU.Dzudzuana has basal right?But these people G,T,H brought maybe even more basal?I don't know it seems weird.As for Elamites i am not sure what language they used to communicate but if you ask me i think they were genetically Iran Copper Age and during the Bronze Age they received steppe admixture like the hajji firuz sample.Iran during the bronze age started to received steppe DNA prolly from caucasus somewhere.I think we are going to see Kassites,Elamites and other northwest Iranics with some steppe DNA.I am not sure about the Elamo-Dravidian theory but south asian DNA in Iran is more frenquent in the Balochistan province.About what languages IVC and BMAC used to communicate...this is going to be very hard with so many components/admixtures they had.We cannot even say for Minoans and the pre-IE aegean/anatolian people who they were mostly ANF+Iran N/CHG!!!!!!!
@Rob @Anthony Hanken “ This paper is actually pretty huge in understanding the early migrations of N1c. We finally have Neolithinc N-L708, found in the Trans-Baikal region and Yakutia. As well as LN/EBA N-L1026 (kra001) found north of the Altai near Krasnoyarsk.
If I were to guess kra001 was at the very least, closely related to the PU population that migrated further west, if not a speaker himself. ”
It would be interesting. I’m not sure why lots of people on the other hand mistakenly attribute EHG to Uralic. N1c is indeed Trans-Baikal, from the other side of the lake. Ulchi/Devil’s Gate is closer to this population much more than the ANE which begat the EHG (and to a lesser degree - also CHG). Now, Beringians are about 60:40 Ulchi (East Eurasian) : Ma'lta.
On the deep ancestry then, there may be some merit to the (now largely debunked) “Turanic” theory, in other words the existence of a large “Ural-Altaic” macro-family. If both Uralic and Altaic speakers originated more or less from the vicinity of each other, everything is now possible (I’m thinking a time frame of 15,000 BC, pre-LGM).
On the genetic vein, aren’t the pop up popular closest to the East Eurasian ancestry component in American Indians the Ulchi-like nomadic tribes which used to harass the Han Empire in Classical and Medieval times? Ruan Ruan, Proto-Turkic, Mongolian? The most proximate contemporary population I would link the East Eurasian genetic heritage in Native Americans would be the Tungusic people. To boot, Native Americans have both uniparental Hap Q1a (ANE) but also C and D (Altaic, Korean and Japanese affinity).
I am still by the way fascinated by the Paleo-European substrate (up to 1/3 of vocabulary according to several linguists, chief among them Haakinen). This is a window in time to some EHG/WHG and/or SHG relic language.
The data was submitted to ENA but is being processed by the database it seems.
I meant the genotype data.
As for kra001 with dates 2200-2000 BCE, it is obvious that this is a subclades N1a-Y16323 which remained in Siberia and subsequently joined the ranks of the Xiongnu. New here for me is only that I thought that N1a-L1026 broke up in Western Siberia, but apparently it broke up in central Siberia and further west subclades Z1936 and CTS10760 were already on their own. Although it is possible that N1a-Y16323 returned to the Yenisei from Western Siberia.
@andrze
@vAsiSTha We don’t know yet:
1. What language IVC spoke, and weather or not it was Dravidian or not.
2. What source(s) the alleged substrate in Rig Veda was.
For that matter we don't know what the sintashta language was.. you don't have any deciphered PIE ancient inscriptions do you??? Is there anything apart from some wheel impressions and dead horses and some chariot parts??
Andrzejewski wrote,
"To boot, Native Americans have both uniparental Hap Q1a (ANE) but also C and D (Altaic, Korean and Japanese affinity)."
Indigenous populations of the American continent possess mtDNA haplogroups C and D4 (as well as A2, B2, and X2).
On the paternal side, indigenous American Y-DNA haplogroups include C-BY63635 (a branch that forms the most basal division within C-L1373, the "Northern" branch of C-M217), which has been found in South America and in Texas, and C-P39, which has been found with sometimes quite high frequency in populations of northern North America (especially Canada and Interior Alaska). Y-DNA haplogroup D, on the other hand, has never been observed in a pre-Columbian American.
As for mtDNA haplogroups C and D, it is true that both are found among indigenous Americans, and they also often co-occur in populations of Eurasia, but one should be careful not to conflate the two haplogroups. Some populations (notably those of Japan) have a great deal of mtDNA haplogroup D (this is, in fact, the most frequently observed mtDNA haplogroup in Japan, and it also exhibits extremely high diversity among them) while having essentially zero mtDNA haplogroup C.
@vAsiSTha
““We don’t know yet:
1. What language IVC spoke, and weather or not it was Dravidian or not.
2. What source(s) the alleged substrate in Rig Veda was.”
“For that matter we don't know what the sintashta language was.. you don't have any deciphered PIE ancient inscriptions do you??? Is there anything apart from some wheel impressions and dead horses and some chariot parts??””
Forget Sintashta language. We will never know. Look at PCA and try to guess the languages spoken in Bronze Age Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan for example by people from cultures like KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul, KAZ_Kairan_MLBA, KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA, KAZ_Shoendykol_MLBA_Fedorovo, UZB_Kashkarchi_BA, UZB_Kokcha_BA, TJK_Dashti_Kozy_BA etc.
https://postimg.cc/0ztBB1Rd
They have nothing to do with PIE, because they are not similar to the steppe or not even to Corded_Ware_POL_early. They are similar to Corded_Ware_POL which mixed with Globular Amphora in Poland.
You may be right. Indo-Iranian languages and religions originated as a result of CWC related cultures migrating to India and Iran and mixing with BMAC and IVC.
What were the languages and religions of those CWC related cultures in Bronze Age Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan before they mixed with BMAC and IVC people?
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-020-09153-x
Mobility and Social Change: Understanding the European Neolithic Period after the Archaeogenetic Revolution
Martin Furholt
Abstract
This paper discusses and synthesizes the consequences of the archaeogenetic revolution to our understanding of mobility and social change during the Neolithic period in Europe (6500–2000 BC). In spite of major obstacles to a productive integration of archaeological and anthropological knowledge with ancient DNA data, larger changes in the European gene pool are detected and taken as indications for large-scale migrations during two major periods: the Early Neolithic expansion into Europe (6500–4000 BC) and the third millennium BC “steppe migration.” Rather than massive migration events, I argue that both major genetic turnovers are better understood in terms of small-scale mobility and human movement in systems of population circulation, social fission and fusion of communities, and translocal interaction, which together add up to a large-scale signal. At the same time, I argue that both upticks in mobility are initiated by the two most consequential social transformations that took place in Eurasia, namely the emergence of farming, animal husbandry, and sedentary village life during the Neolithic revolution and the emergence of systems of centralized political organization during the process of urbanization and early state formation in southwest Asia.
New study "Human population dynamics and Yersinia pestis in ancient northeast Asia" has some bits about pottery
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/2/eabc4587
"The region around Lake Baikal, particularly the Trans-Baikal, serves as another unique area to study post-LGM human population dynamics in northeast Asia since the region carries the earliest evidence of post-LGM human activity indicated by pre-Neolithic pottery (8). The appearance of pre-Neolithic ceramics ~13,000 to 11,000 years ago in this area was associated with possible migration from southeast Asia"
Lake Baikal pottery is concerned ancestral to Steppe pottery from several papers i have come across, cord-marked ceramics with pointed egg-bottom. It would make sense that it came with ANE/WSHG and ended up in Samara/Volga and around Caspain.
@ Rob and Vladimir
I googled on Nefteprovod-2. There is even a whole article available: http://oaji.net/articles/2017/5754-1526295728.pdf
There seems to be a kind of contradiction between the dating of the site and the date of the sample. If the ancient individual belongs to an earlier phase than the site itself, it seems to be under the influence of the Okunevo culture. Krasnoyarsk Krai is close to Yenisei while Glazkovo is in the Baikal area on Angara. Moreover. we already have three early Okunevo samples from Khakassia with N-M178 (kh12, kh13, kh15), while all Glazkovo samples are yDNA Q.
On this map (https://xn--80aaaa1bhnclcci1cl5c4ep.xn--p1ai/cd4/28-30/28-30.html), we see that during the EBA period Nefteprovod belongs to a border area between Okunevo (8) and a contact zone between Eastern and Western Siberia (5).
Maybe KRA001 is a migrant from Okunevo and a predecessor of a culture that becomes Nefteprovod-2 as explained in the article. This sample is probably related to a population that formed later on either the Turkic or the Chukchi branch of Y16323/B197.
Has it occurred to someone else that WSH spoke neither an EHG language nor a CHG one at their inception? I’m thinking now that it’s increasingly plausibly the Progress and Vonyuchka bands that were formed via the integration of EHG rich antecedents with CHG-like (emphasis on CHG *LIKE*) at the foothills of the Caucasus mountains north of it and north of Black Sea lost memory of their respective origins and came to regard themselves as something brand new. To wit, all WSH people spoke some kind of a para-pre-PIE variation. The % of EHG/CHG-ish may have changed over time and space, although Western Steppe Herders formed its own unique language that was a process of rendering their own nomadic pastoralistic lifestyle. Just like Etruscan, Basque (?), Northwest Caucasus (?) languages all formed their own independent Macro-families in site of all being (probably) mostly EEF/ANF descendants - by the same token I am confident that the very initial wave of anything resembling or ancestral to PIE speech spoke a Language Isolate.
Therefore, IMO any efforts to link Indo-European with either EHG or CHG ( nor with any other known, unknown, extinct or current/modern languages or macro families) is doom to fail.
Any takers?
Matt,
An update, if there's a chance you're wondering about how things are going:
So far, IND_periphery (in my case, Shahr_Sokhta_BA_2) has yet to be modeled as admixed (in a broader Eurasian context).
^ It keeps getting construed as a very divergent/deeply rooted group within the greater Iran_N/Sarazm_EN/CHG family.
Then again, there's a good chance that this could be chalked up to a need for more admixture edges. The highest I've tried is 9; we'll see if 11 or 13 can do the trick.
I've seen some interesting patterns though: Denisova admixed with something very divergent (Erectus-related admixture?), Villabruna as Pinarbasi_HG-base (Dzuzudana-related?) with admixture from UP Europeans and ENA, etc.
I'll keep exploring, and eventually I'll look into different questions.
If no one has asked for genotype data by Monday I will send an email.
@Vladimir
Kra001 may indeed be N-Y16323, or some dead lineage basal to N-L1026. This is probably as far east as we can expect to see N-L1026 at this time considering Cis-Baikal was pretty much universally Q1a and ANE rich during the EBA.
In regards to my previous comment, I can't seem to find any specific burial information on kra001 (Burial 1, Nefteprovod-2 site). Glazkovo doesn't seem correct as it is closely associated with the Cis-Baikal, ANE/Q1a population mentioned above.
there you have it
:
While almost all male individuals from Yamnaya burials share the haplogroups R1b-Z2103 and Q1a2 (Wang et al. 2019), the great majority of all Corded Ware males share a different haplogroup, R1a (Mathieson et al. 2018). R1b, but of a different variant (P312), is the most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup among male burials from Bell Beaker contexts (Olalde et al. 2018). Thus the core of the Kristiansen et al. narrative—Yamnaya males migrating into central Europe and constituting the new Corded Ware complex—is contradicted by the data. The majority of males buried in Corded Ware graves are not descendants of the Yamnaya males of which we know. The question then is from where did the R1a lineages that are the majority in Corded Ware burials come. We find R1a in Majkop graves, as well as in individuals connected to the so-called eastern European Forest Neolithic and the “Ukrainian Eneolithic” populations (Haak, personal communication 2019). This indicates that Yamnaya is not the only source of “steppe ancestry” in individuals associated with central European Corded Ware. An alternative scenario assumes that Yamnaya burials were reserved for a few selected families in the steppe, while those who migrated belonged to other, disenfranchised lineages from the same region. While such a scenario is thinkable, it is also far from an Occam´s razor-like model usually preferred in the migration debates.
LOL
There's no Q1a2 in Yamnaya and no R1a in Maykop (there might be one R1a in a Steppe Maykop outlier).
That guy should stick to denying migration. At least he has an audience for that.
let me know when your paper is coming out, oh wait it isn't because you're a nobody
Well, at least I don't publish garbage with basic errors in it.
He should've got someone to proof read his awesome paper because obviously Y-haplogroups aren't his strong point.
didn't expect that comment to go through haha, good on you
what I think is interesting about that blurb is that the reference about neolithic R1a comes from a personal communication with Haak. I think it's foreshadowing the source of R1a in Corded Ware and it isn't going to be Yamnaya.
I had a personal theory for a long time that one of the key researchers, like maybe Wolfgang Haak, confused the R1a mtDNA in Maykop for its Y-DNA, and that's why we've been hearing so much about Maykop being Proto-Indo-European and ancestral to Corded Ware.
Furholt's quote suggests that my theory may well be correct.
We find R1a in Majkop graves, as well as in individuals connected to the so-called eastern European Forest Neolithic and the “Ukrainian Eneolithic” populations (Haak, personal communication 2019).
But anyway, it's been obvious for a long time that R1a-M417 came from a steppe population that was basically identical to Yamnaya. It may have been a Yamnaya group that hasn't been sampled yet or a closely related population.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-battle-axe-people-came-from-steppe.html
This is what makes Furholt's argument shallow and that's why his paper won't change anything.
@old europe
"Martin Furholt"
Furholt is an old aggressive militant autochthonist. He always denied by all means of forgery that the CWC were aliens from Eastern Europe. Now he is furious that everyone can see that all his texts about the origin of the Central Exhibition Center are simply fakes.
Specifically about Malak Preslavets, the inclusion of female hunter-gatherers is clearly visible.
About CWC it pisses him off that CWC has assimilated local population groups, in the Netherlands, Switzerland, the Baltic States, Norway genetically different from him. This is somehow not according to LBK - which he regards as an example of migrant archaeological culture. Well, they say, a cultural and historical community such as CWC, consisting of many regional variants, cannot differ from a monophilic LBC.
The citation of the work in which only the GAC and no one else was considered as a hypothetical source for ANF in the Caucasus Yamnaya is generally useless. On this shaky foundation, he builds all his assumptions.
How many inventions and non-existent contradictions he brings to preserve at least the remnants of autochthonism. Only one banal remark that the Steppe is not the same as Yamnaya, which were identified in early works on genetics.
Well, to associate the spread of CWC with the emergence of states in Mesoptamia is something. It was rather the opposite, the appearance of carts from the Steppe led to the emergence of great mobility and, as a defense against it, the emergence of states.
@vAsiSTha
Bustan and Shahr-i-Sokhta are not BMAC! Your model is not correct, you do not understand how the models are made, this is not just a certain set of sources, but also the correct set of right populations, proof of the correctness of the model and taking into account the composition of components and missing components.
BMAC has a clearly visible separate Anatolian N component, it is clearly visible (in models and etc), but it is not in Swat samples!
The general connection may simply be older than BMAC.
@Rob
"Go to Oxcal, and insert all figures , excluding those from shells. CLick multiple plot regression / bayesian modelling. Exclude isolated outliers in either direction, and see what the models show
That's the only way you'll learn"
Why all this? It is a teaching to an ignoramus who has no idea about scientific method, radiocarbon dating. You just written words whose meaning you do not understand.
"You're incoherent ramblings certainly"
If I ignore your nonsense in every message. then I'm just too lazy to refute your incoherent nonsense every time.
"why are the earliest Hassuna prototype ceramics found to its west, in Syria ?"
The Hassuna culture is poorly dated, there are few dates. Nobody believes your claims, you never give true confirmation of your words.
------------------
It is shown that N1 around Lake Baikal was present already in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic 8000-7000BC.
David and other european members can you explain to me why modern Balto-Slavs do not clushter first in Corded and Yamnaya while some Finno-Ugric or Scandinavian populations plotting closer?Is there any specific reason for it or simply because Balts and Slavs have come in contact with other populations,thus they become more distant?
@Ioannis
It depends which plots you're referring to.
Finno-Ugric populations plot closer to Corded Ware samples in the basic West Eurasian PCA because they're pushed east due to their Siberian ancestry, while of course the Corded Ware samples are more eastern due to their elevated steppe ancestry. So this is a coincidence.
In more fine scale PCA, like those focusing on Europe or Northern Europe, most Corded Ware samples plot with or near Scandinavians, and this is also something of a coincidence, because Scandinavians aren't as genetically drifted as Balto-Slavs, while of course most of the Corded Ware samples lack modern drift because they're so old.
But there is one Corded Ware sample that shows strong Balto-Slavic-specifc drift, and this is likely to be an individual that one way or another came from the population that eventually gave rise to Balts and Slavs. Check out Spiginas2 on this plot.
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#Europe2
Corded_Ware_Baltic:Spiginas2,0.12862,0.118817,0.099937,0.117573,0.054164,0.040718,0.008225,0.008077,0.013703,-0.034078,0.01429,-0.013938,0.030475,0.022983,0.001357,0.010077,0.006389,-0.000887,0.002514,0.014132,0.011729,-0.005317,-0.008381,-0.027715,0.002395
Furholt: "In addition, the fixation on Yamnaya as the source for Corded Ware formation is not a result, but rather a premise to the earlier aDNA studies that discussed third millennium migrations (Furholt 2018b, p. 168). Other eastern European source populations are possible, and the new genetic element could be connected to the Forest Neolithic or Pitted Ware complexes, all of which connected eastern and central Europe prior to and in the third millennium BC."
Pitted Ware? Yeah, a 0% CHG, 100% Y-DNA I2 population looks like a great candidate for a Corded Ware source.
@David
Once their Siberian ancestry is compensated for, do Finnics share the same ancestral drift as the Balto-Slavs? Or is it just coincidental that they plot on the same side of the Northern Euro PCA as the Balts and Slavs?
Most Finnic groups have a significant Baltic substrate, so it's not a coincidence that they show a relatively close relationship with Balts.
@Kristina
@Anthony Hanken
Yes, I agree. This is a peripheral group with Posolskiy-type and Ust-Belsky-type ceramics. The main group formed the Krokhalevo-Odin group and the Samus group and the elunino-krotovo group. All this formed the Seima-Turbino group. Of course, by 2000 BCE, the N1a-L1026 group had already mixed very strongly with both C2 and Q and apparently with the J Chemukchek culture, so ST would probably be quite a syncretic culture. But in general, the movement of N1a over 15,000 years is now clear. Amur River-Zabaikalie (Vitim plateau) - southern Yakutia-Lena-Angara plateau-middle Yenisei (Kansk plateau) - Achinsk-Mariinskaya plain-Baraba plain-Kulunda plain-Tobolsk-Ishim plain - Ural. That is, they went along the route where the Siberian cities of Russia are now located: krasnoyarsk - kemerovo - novosibirsk-omsk-tyumen-yekaterinburg. This harmonious picture is still disturbed by the findings of flat-bottomed ceramics in Baraba steppe 6500 BCE. I have a hypothesis that the early separated subclade N1a is Y9022.
@Andrzejewski
"Just like Etruscan, Basque (?), Northwest Caucasus (?) languages all formed their own independent Macro-families in site of all being (probably) mostly EEF/ANF descendants"
Northwest Caucasians are mostly CHG descendants, they'd have the highest CHG ancestry in the world if not for their Steppe ancestry. You also need to understand that East and West Anatolians likely spoke completely different and divergent languages.
https://i.imgur.com/uh68BVT.png
Why isn't anyone discussing this article: genome sequencing and analysis of human, wolf, and bison DNA from 25,000-year-old sediments? It's interesting. A person of 25,000 BCE in the Caucasus is autosomally close to Villabruna. What could it be? Group I not reached Europe or route to Europe R1b-P297* (V2219)?
You mean SAT29?
Not close to Villabruna at all. Close to Dzudzuana2, as expected.
Yes, thank you. Or maybe it's something like I2a-pre-Y16649?
@Davidski
Which Corded Ware samples do you consider culturally Indo-Slavic i.e. early speakers of Indo-Slavic language possessing religion which explains similarity of Slavic and Vedic religions? Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians originated from common Corded Ware group. Could you mark this group on PCA map.
@David
In the F3 stats Villabruna tops the list and this F4 stat is in the Sup Info:
Dzuzuana2 Villabruna SAT29 Mbuti -0.004202 0.004553 -0.29 1954
But I suppose that is possibly due to the better coverage of Villabruna.
What I found interesting is that f4 stats show that SAT29 also doesn't prefer Dzudzuana2 over Ostuni1. This is all lower coverage, and Ostuni1 also showed affinity to AHG in the AHG paper with a Z score higher than 3.
Dzuzuana2 Ostuni1-HG SAT29 Mbuti -0.001887 0.007509 -0.251 1369
@epoch
Hunter-gatherers almost always top f3 shared drift stats because of a statistical artifact that causes samples to be attracted to the extremes of mixture clines.
@EastPole
I don't think any of the Corded Ware samples currently available spoke Indo-Slavic, if by Indo-Slavic you mean the precursor language to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.
It's obvious that we need Corded Ware samples from the Middle Dnieper and surrounds to find this population, which will surely be rich in R1a-Z645.
@David
Come to think of it: The whole of the F4-stats from the paper hardly ever reaches |Z| = 2.5 so maybe I shouldn't read too much into it. However, Ostuni1 still is a very interesting sample due to its clear affinity to AHG, being a sample from 28.000 BP.
It's often very difficult to get significant Z scores with only a handful of markers.
Matt,
You mentioned that modern humans basically have Neanderthal DNA in the same places in the genome, but see this..
Resurrecting Surviving Neandertal Lineages from Modern Human Genomes
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e084/f228ed6b5c2b4ba0da235ac025101f1e3686.pdf?_ga=2.41566117.661359820.1610276290-846706368.1610276290
We identified Neandertal lineages that persist in the DNA of modern humans, in whole-genome sequences from 379 European and 286 East Asian individuals, recovering more than 15 gigabases of introgressed sequence that spans ~20% of the Neandertal genome (false discovery rate = 5%).
We hypothesized that a substantial amount of the Neandertal genome may be recovered from the analysis of contemporary humans despite the limited amounts of admixture, as introgressed sequences may vary amon individuals (Fig. 1A).
This study shows that the fragmented remnants of the Neandertal genome carried in the DNA of modern humans can be robustly identified, allowing, in aggregate, substantial amounts of Neandertal sequence to be recovered.
So all they need to do is run the same analysis on South Asians vs Europeans on Steppe DNA as a reference and see how the results compare.
No one cares, because it should be obvious even to an average 10 year old that Eastern European steppe ancestry moved into, not out of, South Asia.
Here's a map.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-oldest-r1a-to-date.html
Further, South Asians should have additional Steppe DNA from it's supposed Iran_N ancestry, while the Anatolian Neolithic ancestry of Europeans is more distant to Steppe DNA. Yet, all Europeans show more Steppe DNA than all South Asians.
@Ioannis, genetic drift plays a role.
One way to visualize the effects of greater drift on G25 distance from a population X is as follows:
- Take a G25 outgroup (for example Baka or Papuan, African or Oceanian)
- Work out distances
- Then subtract (DistanceOutgroup)-(DistanceX)
Examples:
1: https://imgur.com/a/4PkacAP
2: https://imgur.com/a/nOo5XL8
The higher a population is on the line, the more likely its inflated distance due to drift, while the lower, unaffected by drift/affected by outgroups.
Populations that break clines tend to be more affected by genetic drift... or by admixture from outgroups.
You can see large offsets in the above where Baltic populations (Lithuanians and Latvians) tend to have inflated distance to CWC later and earlier in absolute distance, compared to Finnic populations (some of whose tendency to extreme drift may not totally be captured), which is much reduced when distance to Baka is taken into account to control for drift.
This doesn't really change too much for other European populations (though the Sardinians and Basques who are also drifted in ways captured by G25 also change a little). For Lithuanians and Latvians, the contribution of genetic drift plays a role in affecting their raw distance from ancient Steppe EMBA and MLBA populations under G25, but this is not too important for most populations.
The Baka-X value should be closer to a "net of total genetic drift" index of population differentiation (e.g. differences that are more attributable to phylogenetic structure).
@mzp, that does not mean that is all that is in theory recoverable.
@David
"Hunter-gatherers almost always top f3 shared drift stats because of a statistical artifact that causes samples to be attracted to the extremes of mixture clines."
You mean WHG, because Dzudzuana and Ostuni were also hunter gatherers. Is this really a statistical illusion?
Because it seems to me that the individuals in the Villabruna cluster are the most genetically "drifted" from sub-Saharan Africans, and that inflates any f3 statistic.
@Davidski
“I don't think any of the Corded Ware samples currently available spoke Indo-Slavic, if by Indo-Slavic you mean the precursor language to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.”
Thank you for answer.
I put this question to vAsiSTha but for some reason he was afraid to answer. So I will put this question to you:
Look at PCA and try to guess the languages spoken in Bronze Age Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan for example by people from cultures like KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul, KAZ_Kairan_MLBA, KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA, KAZ_Shoendykol_MLBA_Fedorovo, UZB_Kashkarchi_BA, UZB_Kokcha_BA, TJK_Dashti_Kozy_BA etc.
https://postimg.cc/0ztBB1Rd
Don’t you think they could speak some languages derived from Indo-Slavic, Indo-Iranian dialects for example?
From Narasimhan et al. 2019:
“The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.”
“Another lineage deriving from the westward spread of the Yamnaya mixed with European farmers and is likely responsible for the shared linguistic innovations between Balto-Slavic in Europe (spread by the Corded Ware complex) and Indo-Iranian languages in South Asia (spread to Kazakhstan with only a small amount of mixture with local groups before spreading into South Asia with substantial mixture).”
“Our observation of the spread of Central_Steppe_MLBA ancestry into South Asia in the first half of the second millennium BCE provides this evidence, which is particularly notable because it provides a plausible genetic explanation for the linguistic similarities between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian subfamilies of Indo-European languages, which despite their vast geographic separation share the “satem” innovation and “ruki” sound laws.”
Above mentioned populations in Bronze Age Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan have nothing to do with PIE, because they are not similar to the steppe, not even to Corded_Ware_POL_early. They are similar to Corded_Ware_POL which mixed with Globular Amphora in Poland.
That mix of steppe with Globular Amphora that we see in Corded_Ware_POL “spread to Kazakhstan with only a small amount of mixture with local groups before spreading into South Asia with substantial mixture”.
Don’t you think that ancestors of Balto-Slavs were also similar to populations in Bronze Age Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and therefore similar to Corded_Ware_POL on the above PCA and population like Corded_Ware_POL were indeed Indo-Slavs?
Indo-Slavs originated in Poland as a result of mixing of the steppe populations similar to Corded_Ware_POL_early with Globular Amphora. Corded_Ware_POL_early could be proto-Indo-Slavic IMO. Later some groups similar to Corded_Ware_POL moved east to Central Asia and became proto-Indo-Iranians, groups which remained in Poland and expanded from Poland were proto-Balto-Slavs.
Well, I would be interested to know what you guys think of this...
f4s
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Kalash|Greek) = -3.91
(Russia_MLBA_Sintashta|Chimp.REF);(Kalash|Greek) = -9.24
Infact, Steppe picks every Euro population over every South Asian population.
So do you agree that all Euros have more Steppe DNA than all South Asians? Even the Greeks have more Steppe DNA than Kalash and Ror which are some of the highest in South Asia.
When people say stuff like "Kalash/Ror has 30%-40% Steppe DNA" it doesnt seem to agree with the above f4.
@EastPole
I'm not seeing any direct connections between Corded_Ware_POL and Slavs or Indians, especially not in terms of Y-DNA lineages.
@mzp1 “ Further, South Asians should have additional Steppe DNA from it's supposed Iran_N ancestry, while the Anatolian Neolithic ancestry of Europeans is more distant to Steppe DNA. Yet, all Europeans show more Steppe DNA than all South Asians.”
No. You are conflating CHG ancestry in WSH groups (most likely CHG-related or CHG-like) with Iran_N.
@EastPole
"I put this question to vAsiSTha but for some reason he was afraid to answer. So I will put this question to you:
Look at PCA and try to guess the languages spoken in Bronze Age Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan for example by people from cultures like KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul, KAZ_Kairan_MLBA, KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA, KAZ_Shoendykol_MLBA_Fedorovo, UZB_Kashkarchi_BA, UZB_Kokcha_BA, TJK_Dashti_Kozy_BA etc.
Don’t you think they could speak some languages derived from Indo-Slavic, Indo-Iranian dialects for example?"
This is all the Andronovo culture, the fact that these samples were not marked with the word Andronovo for some unknown reason does not mean anything. You ask some trivial questions. Andronovo spoke Indo-Iranian languages.
Central European Cordids are Cordids, they spoke Indo-European. Poland was not at all the area of distribution of the CWC, it spread closer to the Carpathians.
It was already clear that both the Proto-Slavs and the Proto-Aryans came from this area.
@mzp1
Again, you don't understand the f4 statistics, you output the Z-value that does not show the distance between populations, but shows the reliability of the result, how well it is calculated, the equivalent of the P-value. It is impossible to estimate the distance from it. Further, it is pointless to use Chimpanzee, it is equally distant from everyone, you use it only to deceive us with large Z-values. Take Macaque, there the Z-value will be ten times more, so what?
@Davidski
“I'm not seeing any direct connections between Corded_Ware_POL and Slavs or Indians, especially not in terms of Y-DNA lineages.”
Were there not some R1a-M417 in Polish Corded Ware? TMRCA 5300 ybp for R1a-M417 fits formation of proto-Indo-Slavic on the steppe.
There aren't any specifically Slavic or Indian subclades of R1a-M417 in Polish Corded Ware yet.
@ Vlad
'Or maybe it's something like I2a-pre-Y16649?''
Hhm. All these E & M UP data from Crimea (Buran Kaya) & Caucasus seem to bare dead-end lineages.
@Archi,
The negative Z value tells us Afanasievo shares more alleles with Greek than with Kalash, so Greek has more Steppe DNA than Kalash. Z is negative because d is negative. d is an aggregate, it is negative because on aggregate there are more abba (Afanasievo=Greek) than baba (Afanasievo=Kalash) sites.
It is the same with f3..
(C=Chimp.REF, A=Russia_Afanasievo, B=English) = 228
(C=Chimp.REF, A=Russia_Afanasievo, B=French) = 227
(C=Chimp.REF, A=Russia_Afanasievo, B=Greek) = 226
(C=Chimp.REF, A=Russia_Afanasievo, B=FIN.SG) = 228
(C=Chimp.REF, A=Russia_Afanasievo, B=Russian) = 228
(C=Chimp.REF, A=Russia_Afanasievo, B=Kalash) = 225
(C=Chimp.REF, A=Russia_Afanasievo, B=Ror) = 225
(C=Chimp.REF, A=Russia_Afanasievo, B=Jatt) = 224
Steppe is closer to all Euros than all South Asians, inc Greeks.
Chimp is the best population to be used as outgroup, no one uses Mbuti/Yoruba anymore, exactly because as you say Chimp is equally distant to all human populations.
the f4 again, just looking at Kalash and Greek
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Kalash|Greek) = -3.91
The full result for that calc is
d=-0.0082, srdErr=0.0021, z=-3.91, baba=6925, abba=7039, snps=97554
and all the calcs I did
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Kalash|English) = -10.4
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Kalash|French) = -8.43
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Kalash|Greek) = -3.91
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Kalash|FIN.SG) = -11.4
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Kalash|Russian) = -11.4
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Ror|English) = -6.94
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Ror|French) = -5.05
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Ror|Greek) = -2.11
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Ror|FIN.SG) = -7.18
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Ror|Russian) = -6.91
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Jatt|English) = -6.26
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Jatt|French) = -4.96
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Jatt|Greek) = -2.92
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Jatt|FIN.SG) = -6.41
(Russia_Afanasievo|Chimp.REF);(Jatt|Russian) = -6.15
- Z scores for all.
Even if running qpadm we get 30% or so for Kalash, we can see that Kalash has fewer Steppe alleles than Greek, this must be because that 30% refers to something that happened a long time ago, hence drift over time has caused Kalash and other South Asians to have far fewer Steppe alleles than Euro populations.
The Steppe connection with South Asians must be much older, and more distant, than to that with Europeans.
Matt,
What I'm suggesting is that the ancestors of Steppe peoples were connected to South Asians which is why we see Steppe DNA in South Asians. Steppe groups are quite homogenous, so they have shared drift, because every individual shares that drift, every individual has lost the same alleles/sequences that were common with South Asians. These then are new alleles in Steppe DNA that you will never find in any South Asian. Then, you will not be able to recover the complete Steppe genome from South Asians.
While, for Europeans, Steppe DNA admixed into Europe, so it should be possible to recover the whole, because the admixture source is not much drifted from the reference sample we wish to recover, and there is comparatively little shared drift affecting all Europeans after admixture.
So I believe it should be possible to use the method in that paper to end the debate without need of aDNA from South Asia.
@ Archi
''The Hassuna culture is poorly dated''
You're poorly dated (i.e. expired)
'' It is a teaching to an ignoramus who has no idea about scientific method''
But you're scientific method entails twisting evidence upside down and imagining that which does not exist. How do you be expect to be taken seriously, let alone be imbued with the role of Scholar-Teacher ?
Btw, any luck with those Mesolithic Baikal R1a, for your Siberia-Onega-Steppe PPIE theory ?
@Rob
One can read on the intranet claims that steppe Majkop is ancestral to CWC.
Yes, claims by mentally unstable people.
I'm assuming Furtholt isn't mentally unstable, and if he is then he shouldn't be putting out any papers.
@Rob
“ Hhm. All these E & M UP data from Crimea (Buran Kaya) & Caucasus seem to bare dead-end lineages.”
We can say that the dead-end lines, but we can assume that they mark the route of Group I: the Caucasus-Crimea-and then up the Danube to the center of Europe, for example, Krems, Vestonice. After all, Anatolia could be occupied by Group G2 and therefore Group I could go through the eastern coast of the Black Sea, especially since the sea of 25000 BCE was much smaller than it is now.
@EastPole,
Norway is a R1a M417 hotspot.
Majority of Viking age samples in Viking age South Norway belong to R1a Z284. Many of the Viking age samples in Iceland also belong to R1a Z284. But in Greenland yHG I1 is much more common.
Farose islands are small 'inbred' population founded by Norwegian Vikings & Irish/Scottish. In the Medieval Farose samples, their Irish Y DNA founder effect is R1b L21 and their Norwegian Y DNA founder effect are R1a Z284 and R1b U106.
In FTDNA, Norweigan samples are 25% R1a Z284. But I tend to think some provinces may have a lot more R1a Z284 than others, considering the high frequency of R1a Z284 in some of the Viking sub populations.
There is no young R1a Z284 founder effect in modern Norwegian samples. Meaning the high frequency in the Norwegian Viking samples is due to a high amount of Battle Axe Corded Ware ancestry not a Y DNA founder effect.
Norwegians aren't part Slavic. R1a M417 predate anything Balto-Slavic.
@All,
Y DNA shows ancient variation in Scandinavia.
Norwegian Vikings mostly R1a Z284 and R1b U106. Swedish, Northern Norwegian Vikings mostly I1.
There are strange Y DNA percentages which hint to ancient purity, like samples in Southern Norway and Ireland being over 50% R1a Z284. And samples in Sweden Viking ship being 60% I1 and 0% R1b U106.
Whatever population I1 came from, Viking age Swedish and Northern Norway pops have the highest amount of ancestry from that population.
@ Vlad
hg I might have come via Caucasus into Central Europe. The distantly -related Hg J one sees around the Caucasus and Iran supports it.
It might be linked with a para-VB like ancestry, but the current Vestonice samples are attenuated representations
I don’t think G2a is very ancient in Anatolia . I think greece and Anatolia were hg C1a . G2a probably arrived with the Neolithic perhaps from the Zagros region.
Genos...
https://postimg.cc/DmGLNP9z
David, if the Polish CWC would not be related to the Slavs and Indians, how are we to imagine it all...? Would there be a CWC wave back from Eastern Europe to Central Europe?
@ambron
“David, if the Polish CWC would not be related to the Slavs and Indians, how are we to imagine it all...? Would there be a CWC wave back from Eastern Europe to Central Europe?”
I think it is Carlos’ theory. Uralic R1a CWC came from Eastern Europe and mixed with PIE R1b Bell Beakers in Poland and then migrated east. This is how Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians originated.
@mzp1
Listen, uneducated, I'm explaining to you that the Z-value is not a measure of distance! Generally speaking, it is random, since it depends on the randomly calculated value of the standard error, which is a measure of the quality of the compared samples. Don't you understand English words? All your messages are completely meaningless, you just don't understand the results at all. Therefore, you do not bring the full output of the results to us in order to deceive everyone.
(Learn, d is the distance (statistics) between the samples, Z is only the probability of the correct calculation of the distance (d/std.error)).
"The Steppe connection with South Asians must be much older, and more distant, than to that with Europeans."
The distance between populations does not change from time to time! It changes only from the introduction of impurities into the population. Your stupidity does not understand that in Europe the main mixing of the steppe component took place in the CWC, in South Asia it was not the steppe component that was mixed with the local components, but the already mixed CWC. That is, there was a two mixing in South Asia.
We have already gotten your senseless messages from a person who does not understand at all what he is doing, shamefully does not know how to read the results at all, and writes complete nonsense here.
@Rob
"Btw, any luck with those Mesolithic Baikal R1a, for your Siberia-Onega-Steppe PPIE theory ?"
You confuse me with your friend Tigran, he claims that R1a is from East Asia from Baikal.
Btw, any luck with those Mesolithic Balkans R1a, for your Paleolithic Balkan PPIE theory?
"You're poorly dated (i.e. expired)"
As you would expect about the dating of the Hassun culture, you have nothing to say, you just scream by a troll as always.
@Davidski
"I'm assuming Furtholt isn't mentally unstable, and if he is then he shouldn't be putting out any papers."
Furtholt is old.
Max Planck:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
@ambron
Slavic migrations from the east. And that's not Quiles' theory.
His theory, which he apparently changes on a weekly basis to try and plug all the holes, is that the R1b-rich CWC samples from southeastern Poland were Proto-Slavs.
Haha.
@ Kristiina
''There seems to be a kind of contradiction between the dating of the site and the date of the sample. If the ancient individual belongs to an earlier phase than the site itself, it seems to be under the influence of the Okunevo culture. Krasnoyarsk Krai is close to Yenisei while Glazkovo is in the Baikal area on Angara. Moreover. we already have three early Okunevo samples from Khakassia with N-M178 (kh12, kh13, kh15), while all Glazkovo samples are yDNA Q.''
We'd have to look at it in greater detail & assimilate all the data which has been coming in from Siberia. I;m not sure Im there yet.
But it seems that the Pottery Neolithic came to the Baikal with hg N lineages (Paleo lineages: Y-hg C, Q1), along with a genome-wide shift toward northeast Asian populations. The broad zone of China looks to be linked.
Then, there is a population collapse of this ceramic hunter-gatherer population, but perhaps some migrated north & northwest, due to a crisis.
After a gap , a new type of hunter-gather population appears. These people are called 'Bakal-Bronze Age', although calling them 'Bronze Age' is a bit ambitious. And, even Afansievo individuals arrive. These new populations also are fisher-hunter-gatherers for the most part, but have different demographic profiles (in terms of sex, age, health parameters, etc) c.f. to the earlier ones. They are richer in ANE, and a/w hg Q1-L56. These guys are similar to the Khvosgol people, as well as Okunevo. These are probably people of the Yenesi-Angara complex, and Ust-Ida LN (3500 BC) are the earliest representations in the record.
If the variant calling on the .bam file doesn't result in the weird "multi-allelic" positions, would you take in my PLINK files of kra001? Maybe someone will get better files for all the samples eventually, or perhaps we could get PLINK files from the author himself.
@Archi,
You are very simply wrong. f4 stats can tell us which of two populations are closer to one as it tests for shared alleles, this is the outgroup f4, which is what I used (outgroup=chimp).
f4(A=Reference, B=Chimp);(A=Pop1, B=Pop2)
A positive value for Z means Reference is closer to Pop1 than to Pop2, a negative value means the inverse. The absolute value of Z is the confidence that you are talking about.
I also showed this to you using f3 which were consistent with the f4.
"The distance between populations does not change from time to time!"
LOL sorry for the language but this so retarded. Clearly any two separated populations will drift away from each over time, the longer the time the greater the drift and hence distance.
So yeah, Greek has more Steppe DNA than Kalash, deal with it.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Just request the genotype data.
@mzp1
"The absolute value of Z is the confidence that you are talking about."
you write platitudes from the text on running f4 statistics. In your case, the sign is the same everywhere, so it doesn't matter, you measure only the distance. Your allegations are based on the fact that you are always fiddling with a Z-value that is irrelevant, that is, you simply admitted that you are simply maliciously deceiving us on purpose.
"So yeah, Greek has more Steppe DNA than Kalash, deal with it."
There is a genetic drift but it does not change the proportion of the components, it is too insignificant. Resign yourself to the fact that those components from South Asia were mixed with the Aryans, but they were not mixed with the Greeks! You will have to come to terms with this and no amount of genetic drift will help you.
@ mzp1
You're just posting Z values. Where are the F4 ?
Rob, Archi,
I dont mind posting all the data, it is easier for me, but it is hard to format it, so I tried to make it look clean, but here is the full output
The only 'fiddling' I've done is to merge 1240K dataset with Pathak so I can use the Ror and Jatt samples, that is why the number of snps is only 95K or so.
You can see that all the d values are negative meaning Steppe is closer to the Euro sample than the South Asian one. It's the same for Sintashta_MLBA.
W X Y Z D stderr Zscore BABA ABBA nsnps
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Kalash English -0.0235 0.00226 -10.4 6814 7143 97554
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Kalash French -0.0171 0.00203 -8.43 6868 7107 97554
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Kalash Greek -0.0082 0.0021 -3.91 6925 7039 97554
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Kalash FIN.SG -0.0237 0.00208 -11.4 6819 7149 97554
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Kalash Russian -0.0224 0.00197 -11.4 6824 7137 97554
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Ror English -0.0218 0.00314 -6.94 6795 7097 97158
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Ror French -0.0153 0.00302 -5.05 6846 7058 97158
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Ror Greek -0.0064 0.00301 -2.11 6913 7002 97158
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Ror FIN.SG -0.0219 0.00304 -7.18 6800 7104 97158
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Ror Russian -0.0206 0.00299 -6.91 6800 7087 97158
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Jatt English -0.028 0.00448 -6.26 6734 7122 96939
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Jatt French -0.0217 0.00437 -4.96 6775 7076 96939
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Jatt Greek -0.0127 0.00435 -2.92 6857 7033 96939
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Jatt FIN.SG -0.0282 0.0044 -6.41 6726 7117 96939
Russia_Afanasievo Chimp.REF Jatt Russian -0.0269 0.00438 -6.15 6736 7109 96939
@Archi,
"In your case, the sign is the same everywhere, so it doesn't matter, you measure only the distance."
What are you talking about. Ofcourse the sign is important in f4. Didnt you read what I posted. If the sign is negative, its not meaningless, it's the most important output of f4, this is basic. In all my calcs the negative value shows that Steppe is closer to Euros than South Asians, for any Euro/South Asian combo in my calcs.
Yes, of course steppe MLBA and EMBA show more affinity to Europeans than to South Asians.
Europeans generally have more steppe ancestry than South Asians, while South Asians have indigenous South Asian ancestry, which is highly divergent compared to anything in Europe and it wasn't carried by any steppe EMBA/MLBA populations.
Also, steppe MLBA or EMBA did not carry any ancestry from Neolithic Iran or South Asia, but rather really ancient Caucasus ancestry. So there's no way that South Asians should be closer to steppe EMBA/MLBA than Europeans indirectly or directly.
Ergo, this discussion is pointless, since we already knew all of that.
Once again I declare that you absolutely do not understand what value you are measuring and what it means, you do not understand at all what the results mean.
Take a closer look:
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash Sindhi_Pakistan -0.001257 -8.316
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash English 0.002130 12.308
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash French 0.001607 10.888
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash Greek 0.000779 5.008
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash FIN.SG 0.002410 15.523
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash Russian 0.002201 14.808
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Sindhi_Pakistan English 0.003387 21.068
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Sindhi_Pakistan French 0.002864 21.717
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Sindhi_Pakistan Greek 0.002036 14.200
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Sindhi_Pakistan FIN.SG 0.003667 26.992
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo English French -0.000523 -5.451
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo English Greek -0.001351 -10.990
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo English FIN.SG 0.000280 2.592
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo English Russian 0.000071 0.692
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo French Greek -0.000829 -9.713
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo French FIN.SG 0.000803 11.124
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo French Russian 0.000594 10.140
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Greek FIN.SG 0.001631 16.337
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Greek Russian 0.001423 15.905
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo FIN.SG Russian -0.000209 -3.254
https://export.uppmax.uu.se/uppstore2018029/share/Kilinc_2021_HO_merged.tfam
Here they are.
@Archi,
LOLOLOL, obviously if you swap round Chimp and Afanasievo, then the sign will flip too, in your first bolded the + number still means Greek is closer to Afanasievo than Kalash is, the sign flipped cos u flipped the first clade without flipping the second.
Understand why Davidski is not making the same argument as you, he understands and atleast his arguments make sense, for now.
I think everyone knws understand you are way off here so I wont be continuing this weird argument with about how f4 works.
@Rob
Although considerably later than this "bronze age" migration, it is interesting and perhaps telling that the Proto-Yeniseian homeland as proposed Edward Vajda seems to be north of the Altai, South of the Angara and west of lake Baikal based on hydronymy.
This is interesting given the theory that Yeniseian languages had a presence in the Xiongnu confederation, since we see this type of ancestry enter Mongolia by way of deer stone making horse pastoralists.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Do you happen to have the 1240K dataset with the rs encoding?
@mzp1
I didn't answer you about the sign, but about your results "January 11, 2021 at 3:46 AM". The Z-value sign is always the same as that of the d stat itself. The sign in your examples is not important, since you are demonstrating Z-values with one sign, it is important when you need to understand who is closer to whom, and not the degree of this closeness. You demonstrate the degree of closeness and even the wrong parameter.
"Once again I declare that you absolutely do not understand what value you are measuring and what it means, you do not understand at all what the results mean.
Take a closer look:
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash Sindhi_Pakistan -0.001257 -8.316
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash English 0.002130 12.308
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash French 0.001607 10.888
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash Greek 0.000779 5.008
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash FIN.SG 0.002410 15.523
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Kalash Russian 0.002201 14.808
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Sindhi_Pakistan English 0.003387 21.068
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Sindhi_Pakistan French 0.002864 21.717
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Sindhi_Pakistan Greek 0.002036 14.200
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Sindhi_Pakistan FIN.SG 0.003667 26.992
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo English French -0.000523 -5.451
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo English Greek -0.001351 -10.990
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo English FIN.SG 0.000280 2.592
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo English Russian 0.000071 0.692
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo French Greek -0.000829 -9.713
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo French FIN.SG 0.000803 11.124
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo French Russian 0.000594 10.140
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Greek FIN.SG 0.001631 16.337
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo Greek Russian 0.001423 15.905
Chimp.REF Russia_Afanasievo FIN.SG Russian -0.000209 -3.254"
You have pointless remarks, from this example it is clear that the further south you go, the less the steppe component.
I have a tabulated file of the SNPs and their rsids from the 1240K dataset. I could annotate this or upload the file here.
Yes, rsids would be good, but more markers would be even better.
I'll ask for them. Maybe it is a business secret but maybe you could request genotype files for Global25 SNPs from the author. I think these samples should cover most of them if not filtered through 1240K.
David, I still don't understand... If we define Indo-Slavs by R1a, it must be Z645 and below. We have had such R1a in abundance in Central Europe since the early Bronze Age. If it didn't come with CWC, then with whom? With the Slavs? When?
@mzp1
"So yeah, Greek has more Steppe DNA than Kalash, deal with it."
The point is not that the Greek have more steppe admixture than Kalash, the point is modern Indian populations have steppe admixture whereas the ancient IVC samples don't.
“The return of the Beaker Folk? : Rethinking migration and population change in British prehistory” Armit, Ian and Reich, David
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/169610/
One my videos was shared by Survive the Jive. It has 6k views. My channel is growing.
"Ancient DNA shows Vikings killed in St. Brice's Day Massacre came from Denmark and Normandy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rluws2BJgfE&ab_channel=GenosHistoria
I'm making three more videos on Viking ancient DNA this week. Which will be much better than the ones I have made so far. Subscribe and hit the bell to watch them.
@EastPole,
That is good, but of course it is still going to be an extremely ambiguous and political correct interpretation of what Bell Beaker is.
Here they are in rsids. I didn't get a response on 1240K data yet.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/ui0s5wgsrv8f18n/Kilinc_2021.zip/file
This question about Beaker folk or 'CW ''culture'' isn't really about political correctness - in current terms of social justice, privilege & oppression (which is just just the classical Marxist 'worker & burgouesie' narrative re-dacted by the Frankfurt school as they infiltrated western academia), but about rejection of culture-history, which ''presupposes a strict congruence between material culture, ethnic identity, and biological descent (or in his words, race); archaeological cultures were defined as representing socially bounded, culturally uniform groups of people who occupied a clearly delineated, continuous territory. They were, literally, seen as the precursors of modern European nation-state peoples, projected into prehistory.''
Further, F. suggests ''Despite having been challenged, deconstructed, and rejected, the concept of the archaeological culture has shown a remarkable resilience among the vast majority of archaeologists in Europe.''
The problem is, how could they have desoncstructed it before aDNA ? Many previous tenets are purely theoretical, and constructivism hinges on the observations of modern anthropologists , eg, Barth, of African or central Asian tribes ''switching ethnicity''. But who's to say what works for selected cases of 19th century African tribes holds true for everyone else. Each horizon or 'archaeoloigcal culture' merits its own line of investigation, without a priori blanket rejection nor affirmation.
Y DNA frequencies from Viking ancient DNA shows significant variation.
Norway, Denmark, Sweden have different proportions of ancestry from the same Corded Ware sub populations.
Sweden=39
Denmark=70
Norway=22
Estonia (Swedish Vikings)=34
I1 %
Sweden=62%
Estonia (Swedish)=59%
Denmark=44%
Norway=23%
R1b U106 %
Denmark=44%
Norway=27%
Sweden=14%
Estonia (Swedish)=0%
R1a Z284
Norway=50%
Denmark=17%
Estonia (Swedish)=12%
Sweden)=10%
@eastpole
"What were the languages and religions of those CWC related cultures in Bronze Age Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan before they mixed with BMAC and IVC people?"
Im not an expert in deciphering language spoken from autosomal adna or its ydna or mtDna. You will find others here who are experts in that 'science'..
I rely more on solid evidence like inscriptions, oral literature etc and how it relates to arch finds.
I believe BMAC was already of indo iranian culture as concluded by Sarianidi given his extensive digs in the region. Sarianidi was also proven correct later with Dna when he concluded that steppe contribution to BMAC was minimal, as opposed to steppe proponents who always claimed otherwise.
As far as the Slavic language closeness with indo iranian goes, I believe it is due to extensive reign of iranic speaking scythians, sarmatians and later Alans in the region..
However, CWC is interesting because you find many mtDna haplos in modern Indians which are found in CWC aDna, more than what you would find in Sintashta aDna. But, this is only by looking at the aDna database, so i dont know how deeply they have checked the markers. Unlike Y dna where I have myself checked the more interesting R1a samples for highest resolution Y calls.
@Rob,
Exactly. I say political correctness because geneticists at Harvard walk on egg-shells with these people. Their view of connection between race and culture in archeaology is in large part a political/ideological view. So few are brave enough to offend them.
Except I am happy with how bold David Reich is in saying what the DNA shows without caring what people think. Some archaeologists were angry at him for what he said about Corded Ware. But he said it anyways. And he is not backing down on Steppe invasion in India.
It is obvious Bell beaker was an invading, conquering force in Western Europe and is almost the worst nightmare of the ideologies in archeaology.
Beaker folk were a real ethnic group/genos.
The old archaeologists were right.
@Genos Historia
Y-haplogroup frequencies aren't an accurate way to gauge ancient ancestry proportions because they're susceptible to founder effects, and indeed extreme founder effects.
So even if different Viking groups had very different proportions of, say, R1a-Z284, I1 and R1b-U106, all or almost all of their Late Neolithic ancestors may have been from the same populations.
@vAsiSTha
"I believe BMAC was already of indo iranian culture as concluded by Sarianidi given his extensive digs in the region."
He did not say this, he spoke about the similarity of the BMAC elements with Zoroastrianism. This is explained by the influence of the BMAC culture on the Zoroastrian Iranians. Zarathustra was an enemy of the traditional Indo-Iranian religion, he considered the BMAC religion as a model.
"Sarianidi was also proven correct later with Dna when he concluded that steppe contribution to BMAC was minimal, as opposed to steppe proponents who always claimed otherwise."
Never claimed.
"As far as the Slavic language closeness with indo iranian goes, I believe it is due to extensive reign of iranic speaking scythians, sarmatians and later Alans in the region."
Sheer nonsense, completely unscientific. Any linguist in the world will faint at such a statement from a layman.
@Davidski
"So even if different Viking groups had very different proportions of, say, R1a-Z284, I1 and R1b-U106, all or almost all of their Late Neolithic ancestors may have been from the same populations."
No, they didn’t.
@archi the lunatic shows up again
"Sarianidi was also proven correct later with Dna when he concluded that steppe contribution to BMAC was minimal, as opposed to steppe proponents who always claimed otherwise."
Never claimed.
Sarianidi 1998: 42, 1990: 63 has long been adamant that the steppe presence in Margiana and Bactria during the BMAC has been much overstated, noting that “pottery of the Andronovo type does not exceed 100 fragments in all of southern Turkmenistan.”
"As far as the Slavic language closeness with indo iranian goes, I believe it is due to extensive reign of iranic speaking scythians, sarmatians and later Alans in the region."
Sheer nonsense, completely unscientific. Any linguist in the world will faint at such a statement from a layman.
According to Matasović (2008), "solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic, their distribution and relative chronology, is one of the most important tasks of modern Slavic studies".[3] Slavs in the era of the Proto-Slavic language came into contact with various Iranian tribes, namely Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans, which were present in vast regions of eastern and southeastern Europe in the first centuries CE. The names of two large rivers in the centre of Slavic expansion, Dnieper and Dniester, are of Iranian origin, and Iranian toponyms are found as far west as modern day Romania.[4]
The iranian speakers literally left a language behind in the region lol.. ossetian.
And what did Balts have to do with Alans, Scythians and Sarmatians? Nothing much.
Anyway, this theory is nonsense, because the relationship between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages is deep.
No one from the mainstream is ever going to accept it.
@vAsiSTha the lunatic shows up again
"Sarianidi 1998: 42, 1990: 63 has long been adamant that the steppe presence in Margiana and Bactria during the BMAC has been much overstated, noting that “pottery of the Andronovo type does not exceed 100 fragments in all of southern Turkmenistan.”"
You read what you want and how you want. Read learn "during the BMAC". Andronovo appeared there after 1600BC, that is, after BMAC.
"According to Matasović (2008), "solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic, their distribution and relative chronology, is one of the most important tasks of modern Slavic studies".[3] Slavs in the era of the Proto-Slavic language came into contact with various Iranian tribes, namely Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans, which were present in vast regions of eastern and southeastern Europe in the first centuries CE." (Wikipedia)
Read learn: "loanwords", these are contacts, not influence. These contacts struck only between the Eastern Slavs and Alans. Abaev proved this and that the influence was on the Ossetian language of the East Slavic language. The rest of your quote from Wikipedia is just the garbage of a certain layman, which is just his personal fantasy.
The Balts borrowed an order of magnitude more words from the Iranian languages of a very ancient stage.
The proximity of languages is determined not by borrowing, but by a very ancient general vocabulary, up to the point that there are mutually understandable texts in Sanskrit and Slavic and general grammatical and phonetic phenomena that are so ancient that they cannot be borrowed.
We have framed two competing hypotheses that might explain the genetic changes. If the Beaker Colonisation hypothesis is correct, future DNA analysis can be expected to reinforce a clear genetic disjunction between those associated with Beaker Complex burial rites and those who are not; it should further indicate a sudden and widespread appearance of steppe ancestry in Britain from around 2450 BC. By contrast, if the Steppe Drift hypothesis is correct, future work should reveal indications of steppe ancestry in some culturally and/or chronologically Late Neolithic individuals. Inhumations dating to the period from around 2600‒2200 BC are thus at an absolute premium for aDNA analysis.
If Reich suddenly comes out with a new hypothesis it means that he already has results that support it.
It looks that we will have M269 and some steppe ancestry in English neolithic samples.
@Arza
It looks to me like Reich is trying to make sure that his opponents understand the key genetic issues so that they don't shift the goal posts, and thus this debate can finally come to an end.
@archi
Read learn "during the BMAC". Andronovo appeared there after 1600BC, that is, after BMAC.
Thank you for making the point for me. Even so, Bustan aDna is 1600-1300bce, no steppe admixture there, just so you know in that 3 million iq brain of yours.
let me make it simpler..
1. BMAC - Gonur, Dzharkutan - fire temples, fire altars etc > Sarianidi calls it indo iranian culture, zoraoastrian culture. In case you are still confused, zoroastrianism is still late indo iranian.. >> No steppe admixture here..
>>ergo, steppe had no genetic influence on indo iranian language/culture.
2. Bustan Necropolis (1600-1300bce): No steppe admixture here.. aDna same as BMAC proper..
"Three bonfires were made for each cremation act. Their traces were found at the level of buried soil south, west, and east of the incinerators . These finds are closely paralleled by the Vedic texts, where cremation, described as an offering to the sacred fire carrying the body to heaven, is said to be made in three open fires (Rigveda X, 16, 18; Atharvaveda XVIII, 2, 7; Asvalayana-grihyasutra IV, 1, 2)."
http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/annotations-of-issues/arheologicheskie-vesti.-spb-1995.-vyp.-4.-annotacii
From narasimhan supplement
"Archaeological investigations at Bustan Burial Mound have revealed a complex funerary ritual related to the usage of fire. On top of the graves there were piled rocks, showing the influence of Steppe traditions. There were inhumation as well as cremation burials. There was a dedicated chamber for cremation of bodies at Bustan, including multi-usage hearths and altars. The altars were functionally classified into ones used for libations, ones used for meals, and ones used for sacrifices. The funerary rite documented at Bustan, specifically in relation to the role of fire, is not known at this time from any other site Iran, South Asia, or the Central Eurasian Steppes."
“Our data also reveal the co-existence of individuals with no to significant Yamnaya-related ancestry within Grotte Basse de la Vigne Perdue. This and the absence of Yamnaya ancestry inferred in one contemporary Bell Beaker individual from the nearby site from Dolmen des Peirie` res (individual PEI2)16 support a complex genetic composition of Bell Beaker groups in southern France involving non-ubiquitous admixture with individuals related to steppe herders. This is in line with previous reports in Central Europe but contrasts to Britain, where 90% of the local gene pool was replaced by steppe-related ancestry by the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE.”
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(20)31835-2.pdf
Complex genetic composition of Bell Beaker groups suggests some complexity in the origin of Western European languages IMO.
@AsiSTha
Bustan is a city. Andronovo is a nomadic steppe culture, it did not live in cities. Bustan is not BMAC, 1600-1300bce is the total estimated age, the actual age of these finds is 1880-1697 calBCE (3465 ± 20 BP, PSUAMS-2774)
1662-1521 calBCE (3315 ± 25 BP, PSUAMS-6198)
1613-1509 calBCE (3280 ± 20 BP, PSUAMS-4605), not 1600-1300bce.
1. Zarathushtra lived somewhere in 1200bce, not earlier. Zarathushtra was a revolutionary, he was the enemy of everything Iranian, but he lived among the Iranians. The fire is not an indicator that the BMAC is Indo-Iranian, the Aryans did not monopolize fire.
2. Steppe nomads lived near Bustan, they burned their dead. What is the problem? There is directly written mound, steppe traditions. They did not populate Bustan, in the end they simply destroyed it. Bustan does not belong to the Andronovo culture, why should Indo-Iranians live there? Bustan is just what was destroyed by the Indo-Iranians, they could not destroy themselves.
Sapalli culture is not BMAC, read carefully "Sapalli society in late 2nd millennium ВС." As always, you skip the most important parts of the text. The text describes what appeared in the late 2nd millennium BC. This culture is synchronous with the late Andronovo culture. This culture is a ~(half)thousand years later than the tested Sappali samples. Learn to read.
@arza, Reich sometimes does make statements he doesn't have data to directly test though? There is a fair bit of text about how hard it is to find samples and I don't *think* that's just a performance (so we can subsequently be amazed when The Amazing David pulls them out of his hat!). If you are right and he is putting that forward, on the basis of having more samples in interval 2700-2400 BCE then I would be pleased to see it.
As for the paper, I think it is a good treatment of the features and outstanding questions we have here noted and discussed on Olade's paper and how this synthesises with wider archaeology on population density, signs of continuity, possible fine grained scenarios of migration per generation in the interval, etc. Notwithstanding the arguments about whether there even was a "Beaker" material culture shift out of Iberia, or if this is a zombie idea, which is for more intensely archaeologically involved minds than mine to consider. (Genetically will say I still don't like using the generally later Netherlands samples to quantify ancestry in generally earlier British ones, but in absence of absolutely direct references of earliest steppe bearing migrants I guess it is still arguably decent practice).
Add as well that there seems to be upswell of interest from Reich's group in using adna to directly test changes in population size over time. So any cache of burials in the above interval would likely be subjected to such analysis to try and see if late Neolithic population decline could be detected (although techniques may not be up to this fine scale!).
@ Genos
Its interesting that Norway preserves R1a-Z284 to highest frequency, given that the BAxC wasnt very dense there, just some finds in eastern Norway. It might be that I1 expanded in Sweden in the LNBA, diminishing the frequency of R1a
@ Genos
I1 % Denmark=44%
R1b U106 % Denmark=44%
R1a Z284 Denmark=17%
44+44+17>100
@archi
"Steppe nomads lived near Bustan, they burned their dead. What is the problem? "
haha archi... The problem is that the same Bustan necropolis had cremations and burials.. and there is no steppe aDna in those burials at all. Quit making fantasies in your mind.. Im sure you have a movie running in your head which neatly sidesteps all issues which are plain for others to see.. Also, read the huge volume on Bustan necropolis by Avanesova, which i have.
"Zarathushtra lived somewhere in 1200bce, not earlier"
Did he say hello to you?
There were migrations from Unetice into Scandinavia after the Corded Ware era, these were what led to proto Germanic and the Nordic Bronze age. In the beginning Scandinavia got it's metal from Unetice until they started making their own, but that was quite late.
Yes archi we get you..
If we dont find steppe aDna in BMAC Bustan etc, it is because they were present (of course) but were cremated so we cant have their samples. If steppe samples are found in sites like Kashkarchi Kokcha etc in Uzbekistan from burials and not cremations, it means that they were "______________" (fill in any random explanation)..
@vAsiSTha
You have only ignorance in your head driven by ridiculous fantasies. You look disgraceful everywhere. The practice of cremation in the Andronovo culture began in the Petrovka culture, and was present throughout the entire area of the Andronovo culture, although it became basic only by the end of this culture. To you in English, the author to whom you refer wrote that nomads of the steppe lived near Bustan and you ignore it shamefully. Cremation is not a monopoly of the Aryans, this rite could be adopted by anyone and at any time when Bustan existed. The same samples in Bustan are most likely earlier than the Aryans in general appeared there, most likely they date back to the time when the Andronovo culture did not reach Bustan. You look completely funny.
The Seguin-Orlando is a pretty cool study focussed on LN - BA transect. There is not huge detail about the BB contexts, given that the caves were excavated in 1920s. But these southern French para-BB contexts are interesting - cave burials. As per usual, they had been used since the Neolithic.
In Grotte des Tortues, however, there is no BB material to be noted. In the Supp Info, the study sugests ''Individual TORTE (2,839-2,500 cal. years BCE) belongs to the classical phase of the Veraza culture (final Neolithic), predating the Bell Beaker phenomenon while the individual TORTC (2,578-2,472 cal. years BCE), also attributed to the classical phase of the Veraza culture, could correspond to the timing of the first intrusions of early
Bell Beaker individuals (maritime/international style). The individual TORTF (2,008-1,825 cal. years BCE) corresponds to the postBell Beaker Early Bronze Age period. ''
All these people were I2a1. Only the B.A. individual (TORT-F) has central European/ post-Steppe ancestry, and sure, TORTC lived when the earliest BB were circulating, but calling it a BB burial would be difficult.
Grotte Basse de la Vigne Perdue is interesting because BB ceramics and V-perforated buttons were found. Again, this was a cave burial with all the bones (mostly skulls) heaped in the corners. One individual (GBVPK) was R1b1b1. I wonder if the pre-Beaker bones were intentionally cleared off to the sides, and then re-used for the male Bell Beaker. It would be ideal to know where exactly he was positioned in the cave . e.g. separate to the rest of the bones
BB burials in France, esp north & east were usually pit-graves. However, they could also re-use dolmens. The only other BB cave -like burials abalysed so far is from Marlens - Sur les Barmes in Olalde 2018 Also a cave-like burial in the Alps, of an R1b-/ steppe male.
Hard to know what this means, but seems like incoming BB would appropriate all previous burial sites. In at least some (? most) cases, the careful heaping of bones shows respect to older inhabitants. They then must have done some cleansing or re-clamation ceremony, and deposited one of their own males, or his skulls, then closed the sites. All the others would be buried in more typical BB pits.
RE timing of BB transition in Iberia, sure, as has been pointed out, grosso modo it was as long as 700 years. However, that is taking the upmost and lower most C/Is in radiometric dates. More specific timing requires looking at individual sites, where the transitions were often within a generation or two. E.g. Cerdanyola , the pre-BB layer was levelled off within a generation. The rich pre-Beaker tholoi in Los Millares area seem to cease 2400 BC, pretty early. Camino de YSeras has several pre-Beaker, non-Beaker but contemporary to BB, and BB burials. However they are all buried in different parts of the site, so exact coincidences cannot be established (C14 is too coarse for such an attempt; and given the lack of vertical relations, archaeological inferencing is difficult too).
More BBs without steppe ancestry , how many do we have now?
I am aware of: Hungary, Siciliy, and I believe Sardinia and Iberia too?
Some deny they are BBs, I don't see why, doesn't contradict steppe theory that the BB material culture originated with farmers.
@All
This is a reply that I gave in another thread to someone trying to start the Shiny Admixtools2 app:
If you want the run_shiny_admixtools() function to work, and you don't have a powerful computer, try this...
Create a PLINK data file (named data) with the populations/samples of interest and generate f2 stats from it, like this...
prefix = "C:/Users/Davidski/Documents/Admixtools2/data"
my_f2_dir = "C:/Users/Davidski/Documents/Admixtools2/f2-stats"
extract_f2(prefix, my_f2_dir)
Then after calling the run_shiny_admixtools() function you'll get asked for the path to the f2 stats. This is what you must copy paste into the relevant field.
C:/Users/Davidski/Documents/Admixtools2/f2-stats
Admixtools2 will then automatically fit a graph to the observed f2-stats, and you can go from there.
Keep in mind, though, there are quite a few options available, and you have to become familiar with all of them to generate solid graphs.
David, returning to the theme of the Indo-Slavs...
"One of the most interesting questions still waiting to be answered by ancient DNA is where exactly did the ancestors of the present-day European and South Asian bearers of Y-haplogroup R1a part their ways? Indeed, the answer to this question is likely to be informative about the place and time of the split between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian language families.
Of course, both S11953 and I0432 belong to Y-haplogroup R1a. Moreover, S11953 belongs to a typically Balto-Slavic subclade of R1a, while I0432 belongs to a closely related subclade that is dominant nowadays among the Indo-Iranian speakers of Asia.
S11953 is younger than I0432, but this doesn't necessarily mean that his ancestors arrived in East Central Europe from deep in Russia during the Bronze Age. Indeed, the opposite is more likely to be true. That is, I0432 is probably the recent decedent of migrants from somewhere near the North Carpathians, because he shows elevated European Neolithic farmer ancestry compared to earlier ancients from the Samara region (see here)".
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/like-three-peas-in-pod.html
Right, so we need to find a population rich in R1a-Z645 somewhere near the north Carpathians.
@All
Heaps noisy...
kra001_scaled,0.003415,-0.397072,0.142552,-0.001615,-0.144027,-0.074743,0.041127,0.019384,0.027406,0.00656,0.091262,0.002997,0.01665,-0.056425,-0.036509,-0.027048,0.002347,0.025338,-0.001634,-0.001126,0.021587,-0.000124,0.004437,0.006868,0.008502
kra001,0.0003,-0.0391,0.0378,-0.0005,-0.0468,-0.0268,0.0175,0.0084,0.0134,0.0036,0.0562,0.002,0.0112,-0.041,-0.0269,-0.0204,0.0018,0.02,-0.0013,-0.0009,0.0173,-0.0001,0.0036,0.0057,0.0071
@Davidski
Thanks so much!
@Davidski,
New ancient DNA from France. No rush.
Heterogeneous Hunter-Gatherer and Steppe-Related Ancestries in Late Neolithic and Bell Beaker Genomes from Present-Day France
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?22700-Heterogeneous-Hunter-Gatherer-and-Steppe-Related-Ancestries-in-France
@Davidski
“Right, so we need to find a population rich in R1a-Z645 somewhere near the north Carpathians”
I am wondering how easy will it be to find a population rich in R1a-Z645 but not in R1a -Z283 or R1a -Z93. Looking at TMRC there were not many men with R1a-Z645 when R1a -Z283 started to expand:
R1a-M417 formed 8700 ybp, TMRCA 5300 ybp
R1a-Z645 formed 5300 ybp, TMRCA 4900 ybp
R1a -Z283 formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybp
R-Z282 formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybp
R1a -Z93 formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp
In my opinion R1a-M417 was Indo-Slavic and started to expand from the steppe before 3000 BC and from Poland CWC after 3000 BC i.e. after mixing with Globular Ampora.
For Italo-Celto-Germanic ancestors we have to search for in R1b rich steppe cultures and BB.
Re: your remarks to vAsiSTha:
“And what did Balts have to do with Alans, Scythians and Sarmatians? Nothing much.
Anyway, this theory is nonsense, because the relationship between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages is deep.
No one from the mainstream is ever going to accept it.”
vAsiSTha knows it very well, I have given him links, quotes, explanations from scientific literature many times. He is just trolling.
One of the oldest samples of Z645, pcw250, comes just from the northern Carpathians.
"vAsiSTha knows it very well, I have given him links, quotes, explanations from scientific literature many times.
No i dont know haha. I believe what is actually recorded in literature.. which tells us of the presence of iranian speakers in the pc steppe. We also know because it left an Iranian language behind, and names of many important rivers etc. So this interaction is a 100% legit, and i know why you guys downplay it as if it is irrelevant.
As far as your 'ancient connections' between balto slavic and indo iranian go, whats the oldest recorded balto slavic literature or inscription?
You want reference?
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4415432/mod_folder/content/0/Cambridge%20Language%20Surveys/Sussex%2C%20Cubberley%202006.%20The%20Slavic%20Languages.pdf?forcedownload=1
660 page book on Slavic languages -
Sussex, Cubberley 2006. The Slavic Languages
pg 24
"The Slavs were in direct contact with the Iranians in the south from about the seventh century BC to the second century AD. Not enough is known of the phonology of Scythian or Sarmatian, the Iranian languages in closest contact with the Slavs, but some broad-scale phonological correspondences between Slavic and Iranian (and often with Baltic as well) can be established.
A phonological feature which may stem from this contact is the change of /s/ to
/x/ in certain contexts (between /i, u, r, k/ and V; also known as the ruki rule). We have seen above (1.2.1) that Baltic (and also Iranian and Indic) apparently shared part of this change (Baltic after /u, k/ only), and also that the Baltic result was /sˇ/, not /x/. It could well be that the frequency of /x/ in Iranian languages contributed at least to the last step in Proto-Slavic, as it provided other sources of /x/ also, e.g. Rus xorosˇ- ‘nice’, possibly from the Iranian root xors- ‘Sun God’ (but refuted by Vasmer, 1964–1973, s.v. xorosˇij)."
Also "Initial *x- in Slavic revisited - Jan Bičovský"
There have also been attempts to explain initial x- in Slavic as a result of
an Iranian adstratum and borrowing. Attempts have been made to explain
even the very phonetic process of the ruki-rule as being of Iranian origin
(Sussex 2006: 24 among others). Since it is universal in Indo-Iranian, the
ruki rule must have been at least of Proto-Indo-Iranian antiquity (the unity
of these dialects is variously dated between 2000 and 2500 BCE), and failed
to apply at some stage to the newly developed Iranian *s < *, in the same
manner as it did not apply to PSL *s < PIE *
So how does any of this explain the similarity between Baltic languages and Indo-Aryan ones, especially Sanskrit?
I'm not seeing any links.
Maybe Balto-Slavic is merely really archaic Indo-European. If they hardly moved around for millenia that would explain it.
Baltic peoples were less affected by more recent Steppe (later) Iranian peoples therefore it has more of an ancient substratum which can only be connected to Sanskrit.
But why is Baltic not so close to Greek and Italo-Celtic, while Sanskrit is, if it was the home of IE?
I've also noticed that Baltic have less of an aquiline nose which seems to related to IE peoples quite strongly.
@Ramber
I was able to run these for now. Others are duplicates or relatives, or I was getting weird results. But I was in a rush so I'll have another look at those datasets soon.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KdQMZbSg46aXDiSmKmwYlD61RtS136UM/view?usp=sharing
@Davidski
Thank you very much. Greatly appreciated it!
What does "GRC" or "GA" in the labels for the samples mean?
I don't know.
They weren't labeled properly, so you would have to go through the accompanying spreadsheets and match each individual ID to its relevant population code.
@vAsiSTha
Nobody cares what an uneducated Sussex, Cubberley, thinks. RUKI-law, it is in all Satem languages, it is a law common to all Satem languages, it is more ancient than satemization itself. To associate him with the Iranians is nonsense. About x there is also nonsense, there are no words with this sound going back to Iranian words, just as long ago, all fantasies about xorosho from some Iranian god were categorically rejected by everyone, this is phonetically impossible.
@Davidski
You mean the accompanying spreadsheets from the papers that I got the samples from?
Yes, that's what I mean.
@Davidski
Ah I see.
Btw I want to ask something off topic. Do you know how much EEF/Anatolian Neolithic do Uralics like Saami, Udmurt or Mari have?
They do have the lowest amount among modern day groups in Europe?
@Davidski
For example here is the Saami average. Around 18% Anatolian_N or should they score lower than this?
Target: Saami
Distance: 3.5569% / 0.03556894
31.6 VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
22.4 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
18.2 TUR_Barcin_N
17.8 Nganassan
5.4 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
4.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
These two Saami individuals seem to score the lowest Anatolian Farmer. Do you think they should have lower Anatolian_N than what they are score at 15.6% and 15.2%?
Target: Saami:GS000035025
Distance: 4.6161% / 0.04616127
30.0 VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
22.0 Nganassan
15.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
15.6 TUR_Barcin_N
10.4 RUS_Progress_En
4.4 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
1.8 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
Target: Saami:saami2
Distance: 3.8026% / 0.03802579
25.4 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
20.8 Nganassan
15.2 TUR_Barcin_N
14.8 VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
9.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
7.6 SWE_Meso
6.4 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
0.2 RUS_Progress_En
These also seem to be two ancient Saami individuals who score at 15% and 12.6% Neolithic Farmer.
Target: VK2020_NOR_North_VA_o1
Distance: 4.1427% / 0.04142693
29.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
26.6 Nganassan
20.8 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
15.0 TUR_Barcin_N
4.2 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
4.2 VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
Target: FIN_Levanluhta_IA:DA238
Distance: 4.1103% / 0.04110336
25.8 VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
25.0 Nganassan
17.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
12.6 TUR_Barcin_N
11.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
4.6 RUS_Kolyma_Meso
3.2 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
What I want to ask is how much Neolithic Farmer do the Saamis really have? Are my models correct or not really? Do I need to include Yamnaya?
Target: Saami
Distance: 4.3350% / 0.04334978
36.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
26.8 SWE_Motala_HG
23.2 Nganassan
10.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
2.6 Han
@Davidski
So only 10.8% Anatolian Farmer?
Doesn't Yamnaya sample themselves have some Neolithic though? Wouldn't that hide the more amount of Anatolian in the Saami?
Yes, but the steppe ancestry in the Saami is Yamnaya-like not Khvalynsk-like.
@Davidski
I see. Thank you for correcting me. Since Yamnaya also contain some Neolithic, how do I find out the total amount of Anatolian in the Saami?
Also do you know how much Anatolian other Uralics like Udmurt and Mari have?
You have to break up the Yamnaya component, probably with Progress Eneolithic for the time being until more relevant samples come out.
@Davidski
Ok. Does the Progress Eneolithic have any Anatolian?
So I should break up the Yamnaya into EHG+CHG+Progress Eneolithic+Anatolian Farmer?
Also I found out that Yamnaya_Mereke seem to have lower Neolithic than other Yamnaya samples? Can any Yamnaya pop be used to model Euros or must be only some samples like Yamnaya_Samara or Yamnaya_UKR?
Pardon me for asking but I'm pretty much a novice layman in European genetics.
@Davidski,
Also you mentioned that for the samples that I sent, others were duplicates or relatives and that you were getting weird results? Can you have look at them again please?
Moreover, were there some samples that you cannot upload to G25?
Thank you very much and regards
As Robert's colleague at Reich's lab I'd like to add that indeed I find find_graphs an extremely powerful tool. But in order to approach a global optimum for a reasonably complex graph (let's say, including 8-10 groups), one needs to run the find_graphs function for thousands of iterations and then find the best graph according to the likelihood score (in the latest version of Admixtools2 there is only one find_graphs function). That rigorous approach is hardly possible if one has no access to 100 or more CPU cores. Another caveat is distinguishing between global optima found for graphs of different complexity. Let's say, for those with n or n+1 admixture events. Sometimes the global optimum for n events does not fit site frequency spectra (a different, richer, type of data), but the global optimum for n+1 events fits.
But the package has also a multitude of other interesting functions that were never implemented in the original Admixtools. And some of those are possible to explore on a regular laptop.
Because religion comes from the divine and so civilization also (like the divine legitimisation of pharaoh or european royalty). If the sacred is undermined it only leaves the profanum. If texts & sacred language would originate from "steppe barbarians" than the whole religious ortodoxy (actually promoted as panindian) crumbles and elite looses own origin myth and with it also legitimisation to rule, educate/indoctrinate, manage social hierarchy. It's like killing the chinese emperor, proving egyptian captivity false or saying that Jesus didnt really died on cross or that buddist meditation & praying is just a waste of time to legitimize regular rice donations for a nihilist elite (or that tv was made to keep people desinformed & focused on irrelevant celebrities). When you are leading a billion strong nation being educated or making this population educated and eager to question things is not your objective, actually it is the thing you would be shitlessly scared of... westerners and people or modern enlightening are really oblivious about the real world mechanics and dynamics. You may not even consider what China could do with this in future. We all have so many ancestors to choosing from that the last argument doesn't have much sense either.
Post a Comment