search this blog

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

Fully automated graph exploration


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.

385 comments:

1 – 200 of 385   Newer›   Newest»
Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

In qpAdm and now this graph it seems like that Steppe ancestry harbors more CHG than what can be seen on G25. Is this due to different SNPs in play?

Davidski said...

I'm not sure what you mean?

The qpAdm and qpGraph output I've seen shows that Yamnaya has around 40-50% CHG.

Of course, the Eneolithic samples from Progress and especially Vonyuchka have around 10% more CHG, but we all knew that since they were published.

CrM said...

But we know Yamnaya is about 35-40% CHG, as per Wang et al.

Also, this seems like a forever actual topic on Eurogenes, whenever there's Iran_N or CHG in Steppe, and evidently it is mostly the latter rather than former.
However, G25 clearly picks some Iranian related input in Progress.
While Geoksyur on G25 picks a Progress-specific type of CHG, on top of ANE, giving it some archaic Steppe-like signal.

https://i.imgur.com/uQTuNv9.png

Davidski said...

Any sort of Iranian-related input in Progress is due to overfitting. That is, the algorithm picks extra sources of ancestry because it lacks the true sources.

Actually, the graphs that I ran today showed that Geoksyur has some significant Western Siberian HG-like ancestry, about 15-20%. So this might be causing some problems.

Keep in mind also that graphs model related ancestry, via nodes close to the reference samples, while in the G25 you're trying to directly model the ancestry of the target samples with the reference samples. So ideally you need the exact and very proximal sources of admixture for the G25 to work really well.

And yeah, this is a never ending issue here, because so much total BS has been written about it, at all levels of the game, that it'll probably always remain a problem.

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,
"The qpAdm and qpGraph output I've seen shows that Yamnaya has around 40-50% CHG."

In G25, Yamnaya scores 40-50% Middle Eastern but about 35% CHG with the rest being Anatolian farmer. So they do score less CHG in G25.

Davidski said...

Nope, if you add EEF to qpAdm/qpGraph then Yamnaya can score ~35% CHG.

I was referring to models in which Yamnaya is modeled simply as a two way mixture between EHG and CHG or something like Iran_ChL.

Carlos Aramayo said...

@Davidski

Niraj Rai posted in twitter three hours ago:

"Massive migrations from Steppes to Bronze Age India was indeed a myth. We have gathered Ancient DNA evidence now. The findings will be out next year. Thanks to the great efforts of scientists from India, USA, UK and others. Warm Greetings for upcoming 2021!"
1:24 p. m. · 30 dic. 2020

https://twitter.com/NirajRai3/status/1344333524745166850

Does this mean there was a migration from the Steppes but was not massive as per the new paper on Sanauli?


Cy Tolliver said...

@David

Question on f-statistics in general - do such statistics only count derived allele sharing between populations, or does it also factor in ancestral allele sharing as well? For example, say you have an African population,
an OOA-Eurasian population, and a population that existed somewhere between the two phylogenetically that isn't closely related to any African group, but also didn't experience the OOA bottleneck that defines true Eurasians. So this pre-OOA group, while not particularly related to any Africans and not even sharing in any African-specific drift, might still retain a lot of ancestral alleles in common with Africans that drifted out of the OOA-Eurasian population. Would this make this non-African/non-OOA-Eurasian population appear superficially closer to Africans in any test based on f-statistics than they are to OOA-Eurasians?

Davidski said...

Yeah, all that R1a in India was female mediated.

Haha.

Archi said...

@Carlos Aramayo

This is a damaged phone from an autochthonist. Probably he dug up the times of Harappan in which there are no traces of migration, therefore there was no migration at all, after Harappan, autochthonists did not have anything at all.

Davidski said...

@Cy Tolliver

I don't understand your question because I don't understand your definition of "ancestral allele sharing".

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@Carlos

Hah! Rai can go kick rocks. He's as delusional as a climate change denier. The evidence for steppe incursion into India is overwhelming. I cannot believe how pathetically parochial some of these Indian "scholars" are. They are desperate for Indo-Aryan to be indigenous to India-- who knows why it should make any difference.

Is there some kind of religious dogma in Hinduism which would be threatened if Indo-Aryan were discovered to have come from the steppe? No? Then why the opposition? Why would any thinking person be threatened by something like that? It's just plain stupid. Indian ethnogenesis happened IN South Asia anyway, so who cares if their non-AASI ancestry came from outside South Asia in the Neolithic and Metal Ages? Why would any educated person be threatened by these facts? IE from the steppe shouldn't change anything important about the daily lives or philosophical/political/ethnic/religious identities of Indians, so what's with the resistance to the obvious? It's just so infuriating to see people slander THEIR OWN ancestors for absolutely no good reason.

Carlos Aramayo said...

@Michalis

"...Is there some kind of religious dogma in Hinduism which would be threatened if Indo-Aryan were discovered to have come from the steppe? No? Then why the opposition? Why would any thinking person be threatened by something like that?..."

One of the most appreciated traditions threatened is that of Krishna who is considered to have lived around 3,000 BCE, but of course other Hindu scholars give him different dates too, around 1,400 or even 800 BCE. In my view, the later two datings are more likely, but Hindu people want to be proud of what they are and think Western scholars distort their History. They feel Indus Civilization was part of the Hindu tradition as some steatite seals from it seem to show some kind of continuity to later times, like the Pashupati seal resembling Shiva, a thing confirmed by Asko Parpola. But what unfortunately they do not accept is the fusion of incoming Indo-Aryans from Central Asia with indigenous Harappan culture.

Cy Tolliver said...

@Davidski

I'm probably not using the technically correct terminology. Imagine a stat like this:

Chimp Non-OOA African OOA-Eurasian

Say the ancestors of Non-OOA and OOA-Eurasian separated from Africans 100,000 years ago, and both subsequently started drifting their own way from each other and also from Africans. Then 50,000 years ago we get the massive OOA bottleneck which prunes a large amount of alleles out of the OOA-Eurasian gene pool, both derived alleles uniquely accumulated to them post their 100,000 year divergence but also older alleles that they would have shared in common with Africans and Pre-OOA from the time all three groups shared a common ancestry from before 100,000 years ago when they were all still one population.

With a stat like the above, because OOA-Eurasian simply have much less diversity than the other two groups because of their great bottleneck, including common pan-Homo Sapiens alleles older than 100,000 years, would Non-OOA and Africans share an attraction to each other to the exclusion of OOA-Eurasians, because the former did not experience this great bottlneck and so the f-statistics would be able to pick up on all the common ancestral alleles they still share with Africans to the exlusion of the highly drifted OOA group, even if Non-OOA themselves never actually mixed much or had anything to with Africans either after their initial divergence 100,000 years ago?

I hope that word salad makes some sense.


HistoricallyCurious said...

@Michalis

"...Is there some kind of religious dogma in Hinduism which would be threatened if Indo-Aryan were discovered to have come from the steppe? No? Then why the opposition? ..."

There is no religious dogma involved that I am aware of. Politically, too, people who support Hindu causes, the originators of that movement, accepted "Aryan Invasion" (which was the belief in early 1900s) and still postulated their civilization state arguments. OTOH evangelicals (and earlier the British rulers) use steppe origin to justify themselves. and there is some political reaction among Hindus due to this.

Leaving aside religion and politics:
Some of the current (more sane) objectors are bothered by Indian non-genetic evidence. In particular, RgVeda is considered to have been preserved syllable-by-syllable from at least 1200 BC by pretty much everyone (including by people who support Steppe influx as being responsible for IE in India). RgVeda is also used typically to define what is PIE culture (because it is one of the oldest successor to PIE with large text.. 1000+ hymns). But dating of RgVeda by its internal chronology appears to strongly suggest dates before 1900 BC. (And this evidence is pretty strong.. See Talageri's work).

This creates a tension that many people in India respond to. I think if there is some way of resolving this that emerges over time, many of those people will accept large steppe infusion.

I think science will make inexorable progress irrespective of anyones wishes or beliefs anyway. Davidski's list of predictions for 2021 is pretty exciting.

Matt said...

Cool, though in this case not unexpected; in a model that limits admixture parameters to one edge, that is straightforwardly the most optimal pair of edges.

This could be more interesting to explore some more models where there is ambiguity and conflicting versions of the best fitting model and large numbers of populations and possible edges; e.g. ideas like whether Basal Eurasian is still most optimal or a legacy idea, the order and best fit of splits within East Eurasia, etc.

The Admixtools 2 page also has some interesting points present for general understanding and I'll have to have a read through this. The section on what SFS vs fstats can tell us is interesting.

@Cy, as I understand it, in that stat model, that OOA has a greater total numbers of frequency differences from Africa and nonOOA than they do from each other does not affect the fact that the total sum of nonOOAs frequency differences from the Outgroup (Chimp) is higher between nonOOA and OOA than nonOOA and African. Thus the stat is positive (and is unaffected by swapping OOA and nonOOA positions). This all because of additive properties of underlying f2 stats.

Worth checking out the f-statistics section of the Admixtools 2 page.

Davidski said...

@Matt

I'm not sure if that pair of admixture edges into Progress-Vonyuchka_En is the optimal solution for this dataset, because there were other graphs that had lower (better) scores with very different solutions.

The point I was making was that out of the 50 graphs that I ran, this was always the result that was obtained for Progress-Vonyuchka_En when it was picked as the mixed population by the algorithm.

That is, the pair of edges never originated very far from Karelia_HG and Kotias-Satsurblia_HG.

And keep in mind that in these sorts of analyses the algorithm can compensate for minor admixture from elsewhere by shifting the admixture edges significantly.

For instance, if Progress-Vonyuchka_En also had significant Geoksyur_En ancestry then we might expect the Kotias-Satsurblia_HG-related edge to come from a very different node.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Michalis,

Indian nationalism doesn't like Aryan invasion because they don't like anything about ancestors in India coming from the outside of India. I don't think it is specifically about Aryan invasion. It is just about proving they are actually Indian, indigenous to India, as every nationalist has to prove this to justify being a nationalist.

Indians who have commented on this blog are even against the idea of Indians having Neolithic ancestry from Iran. Which proves it isn't about Indo Europeans or "Western Imperialism."

They say IranN-like pops existed in India and Iran at the same time. Just like they say R1a Z93 existed in Eastern Europe and India at the same.

Archi said...

@HistoricallyCurious

"But dating of RgVeda by its internal chronology appears to strongly suggest dates before 1900 BC."

There is nothing in the Rig Veda that even in the slightest way indicates dating before 1900 BC.
The dating of the Rig Veda is definitely between 1600 and 700 BC, for different parts. Horseback riding appeared in this range, the Indo-Aryans know horsemanship, but do not know about cavalry, which was invented in the steppe sometime in 1100-1000 BC. Accordingly, at this time 1600-1000 BC there was an invasion to India.

Matt said...

David W: I'm not sure if that pair of admixture edges into Progress-Vonyuchka_En is the optimal solution for this dataset, because there were other graphs that had lower (better) scores with very different solutions.

E.g. CHG as admixed, with Piedmont_En as branching from clade with Karelia_HG?

Davidski said...

Not really. Both Kotias-Satsurblia_HG and Progress-Vonyuchka_En were usually shown as unadmixed and on the same set of branches.

Instead Karelia_HG/West_Siberia_HG or Ganj_Dareh_N/Geoksyur_En were shown as mixed.

Karelia_HG/West_Siberia_HG was a mixture between Progress-Vonyuchka_En and East Eurasians, Ganj_Dareh_N was a mixture between Kotias-Satsurblia_HG and a basal ghost, and Geoksyur_En was a mixture between Ganj_Dareh_N and West_Siberia_HG.

Matt said...

Hmm... Yes, those are other relationships which are well known to be ill-fitting relative to base topology in plots in post (ANE related and Iran_N related are not a clade relative to East Eurasians; Iran_N and CHG not strictly a clade relative to other populations). qpGraphs very sensitive to choice of framework populations. Any set of trees among population is necessarily going to be more complex than 1x edge.

Davidski said...

What really came through, though, was the strong relationship between Kotias-Satsurblia_HG and Progress-Vonyuchka_En on one hand, and Karelia_HG and Progress-Vonyuchka_En on the other. In all of the trees.

CrM said...

@Davidski

So as I understand, CHG might be ancestral to Iran_N, and not other way around? Because archeology points to a trail from the Zagros into the Caucasus, with CHG being the newly arrived Zagrosian population that replaced Dzudzuana (assuming Dzudzuana did not completely abandon the Caucasus during LGM).

I assumed that CHG is an archaic type of Iran_N that mixed with another ghost population somewhere near or Around the Caucasus. While Iran_N was subject to another mixing during that time.

HistoricallyCurious said...

@archie

"There is nothing in the Rig Veda that even in the slightest way indicates dating before 1900 BC."

Maybe I misspoke a bit: I think Talageri's points are internal chronology of RgVeda combined with cognates/overlaps in Mittani records and Avesta. Also.. there is horse issue on one side and Saraswati on the other side. I think it is possible for reasonable people not to be convinced of 1600-1000 BC based on this. If there are good refutations of Talageri's recent work, I'd like to read them.

In the end, I hope we/science will construct a story that is consistent on all dimensions. The beauty of the scientific method is that science makes progress in spite of the biases, motivations and beliefs even of its contributors.

Leper said...

Do we have a ready dataset to run this? Or we need to find one?

EastPole said...

@Carlos Aramayo
„Niraj Rai posted in twitter three hours ago:

"Massive migrations from Steppes to Bronze Age India was indeed a myth. We have gathered Ancient DNA evidence now. The findings will be out next year. Thanks to the great efforts of scientists from India, USA, UK and others. Warm Greetings for upcoming 2021!"
1:24 p. m. • 30 dic. 2020

https://twitter.com/NirajRai3/status/1344333524745166850”

Lazaridis’comments:

I have not seen new data from India, so looking forward to reading this, and any new ancient DNA data would be a very welcome addition to the record. Trying to read between the lines is the myth the "Bronze Age" timing or the "massive" aspect of the migrations?1/6
In two papers I was a co-author of (Lazaridis et al. 2016 and Narasimhan, Patterson et al. 2019) there are estimates of high steppe ancestry in various South Asian populations. So, I do think the amount was not trivial. Open questions are: proximate sources and timing. 2/6
Timing cannot be pre-Bronze Age under any scenario, as R-Z93 was formed only in the Bronze Age and its movement from precursors in the Corded Ware of central Europe via intermediate steppe cultures eastwards is by now very well documented. 4/6
This movement parsimoniously explains the close linguistic relationship of Indo-Aryan with Iranian languages and links both to the rest of the Indo-European languages family. Simply put there is no other link of the appropriate timeframe between Europe and South Asia. 5/6
Some kind of Indo-Aryans were already in the Middle East in the Late Bronze Age in the Kingdom of Mitanni. Were they also in India in force at the time or did they arrive much later, at the beginning of the Iron Age or even during the 1st millennium BC? 6/6

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1345065694698856448

Wise dragon said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos,

well it’s difficult to give up ideas and views when your entire identity is wrapped around them. Therefore, the belief that Aryans were indigenous to India is extremely important to Indians, not only to the Hindu-Nationalists. Ancestry and national heritage are a big deal. However, in the Western world the term "Eurocentric" is too often tossed around even by geneticists. The thing is, that Western people are not aware of Indo-centrists and Chino-centrists, too. That's why, Indian scholars who are Araynists try to dismiss the Aryan invasion theory as fake by pointing out its racist and colonialist undertones.

They altogether reject it. The problem is that even a racist scholar can produce legit researches with legit discoveries. For instance, Chinese scientists were shocked after discovering 4000 years old white, Caucasian Tarim mummies. They were in denial and suppressed the findings. According to Chinese tradition China had developed independently of the rest of the world, and was totally isolated from foreign influence. Because of this, the government was reluctant to bring the finds to the public attention. The thing is, that some discoveries can shatter religiously held views, it's threatening to people and scary. It's like losing your religion, losing  the ground below your feet. Hence, it's depressing when you have to come in terms with the fact, that what you once firmly believed is wrong, a myth. It's not easy to face unpleasant facts.

Wise dragon said...

@ Michalis Moriopoulos

The same goes for Egypt. The government is very protective of the Egyptian Pharaohs.  Hawass like most Egyptians dreads the mere possibility that some of their Pharaohs could be liked to Israel or to Jewish people. Hence, Egyptians not really trust Westerners scientists. In fact, they believe that Western geneticists are capable of manipulating DNA results, the data in order to make ancient Egyptians appear "Jewish". That’s why Egypt  never felt comfortable allowing  labs in Europe or the USA  to examine ancient Egyptian mummies. However, we shouldn’t be too arrogant and pretend that Western geneticists, researchers are free from bias, political affliction, and pet theories. Take a look at the Viking, Roman or the cheddar man studies where geneticists couldn't keep their political views out of their works and interviews. People who try to set the record straight for the sake of accuracy and prevention of dis- or misinformation are routinely accused of racism. That’s why the PIE homeland theory or  Aryan Invasion theory  is a minefield.  Present day scientists  can't bring themselves to admit the fact that the new data actually appears to validate the 19th century German scholars concerning the IE Urheimat. The understandable fear  of the rise of white nationalism gets often in the way of true science. It's quite sobering and disappointing to observe the lack of discernment among academics and scientists. They often throw the baby out with the bathwater. They just don't like to admit that actually the 19th century "racist" scholars got many things right, thus provided useful researches and discoveries. 






Archi said...

I agree with Lazaridis. Let me remind you that the Z93 sample attributed to the "Sredny Stog" most likely belonged to the Abashevo culture or there was contamination. A Glăvăneşti, Romania Z93 dated in the range of 5,450-3,050 BP, and not as it is erroneously indicated in the article.
The main thing is very unpleasant when rumors are spread in such an unpleasant form, rumor is not even worthy of discussion.

@HistoricallyCurious
"internal chronology of RgVeda combined with cognates/overlaps in Mittani records and Avesta. Also.. there is horse issue on one side and Saraswati on the other side."

The language style of the Avesta is very close to the Rig Veda; they were written in close times. It is known for certain that the Avesta was written late.
Many rivers were named Sarasvati, Amu Darya was also Sarasvati, its part called Uzboy dried up in the 2nd millennium BC.

EastPole said...

@Wise dragon

“Present day scientists can't bring themselves to admit the fact that the new data actually appears to validate the 19th century German scholars concerning the IE Urheimat. The understandable fear of the rise of white nationalism gets often in the way of true science.”

What are you talking about? The opposite is true. Nazi would be very disappointed about what new data actually appears to validate. It was not them.

Rob said...

Often there’s subtleties in wording, which as a diplomatic flavour to appeal to all sides. The invasion was not massive , perhaps , nor necessarily violent. The Swat valley data clearly shows a matriarchal society with modest steppe admixture . SPG was the cornerstone of the old kurgan-oid theory , as was Khvalynsk in Europe, for ex. And so in their shaking we need newer models. We can already explain why the former lack BMAC ancestry (which was a surprise to most of us); and so that tells us something about how & when they arrived further down to South Asia

Carlos Aramayo said...

@EastPole

Lazaridis’comment [6/6]: "...Some kind of Indo-Aryans were already in the Middle East in the Late Bronze Age in the Kingdom of Mitanni. Were they also in India in force at the time or did they arrive much later, at the beginning of the Iron Age or even during the 1st millennium BC?..."

I agree with most of Lazaridi's comments previous to this one. But why he seems to doubt the arrival time of Indo-Aryans to South Asia? This thing was already established by the estimation of Narasimhan et al (2019:11) to be from 1900 to 1500 BCE:

"...Specifically, we estimate the date of admixture into the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age individuals from the Swat District of northernmost South Asia to be, on average, 26 generations before the date that they lived, corresponding to a 95% confidence interval
of ~1900 to 1500 BCE. This time scale for the arrival of Steppe ancestry in the region is consistent with our observation of six outlier individuals in Turan who lived between ~2000 and 1500 BCE and carry this ancestry in mixed form..."

vAsiSTha said...

Yeah, all that R1a in India was female mediated.

R1a cannot be female mediated you noob.. lol.

But yeah the steppe in swat is indeed female mediated.. 😚

vAsiSTha said...

""well it’s difficult to give up ideas and views when your entire identity is wrapped around them.""

Haha.. it's funny to read all this nonsense. Figure out what your own identity is wrapped around.. and that of polish ppl like davidski..

Rob said...

“ They were in denial and suppressed the findings. According to Chinese tradition China had developed independently of the rest of the world,“
These days there are very good works by Chinese scholars on the development of bronzes and pastoralism in northern China, fully acknowledging the role of wandering Andronovans via Hexi corridor. But ultimately they conclude that it was adopted by local elites, not brought into the nascent Han state by exogenous people. And aDNA has shown them to be correct- the integration of Yellow & Liao river complexes by southerners from the Yangtze, with the ‘Chinese civilisation’ subsequently developed in its north

vAsiSTha said...

Questions which davidski has not been able to answer...
1. Why so less r1a in swat.. why is it not of the L657 tree of the R1a family.. what is steppe male signature almost absent??
2. Why so much steppe mtdna markers in swat samples?
3. Why is there not a single L657 marker found so far in steppe adna??
4. Why are r1a upstream markers found in modern SA going back to R1a??
5. Why is r1a not correlated with castes in modern day India, whereas steppe mtdna is??
6. Many more, but this will suffice for now.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Questions which davidski has not been able to answer...

Here you go...

1. Why so less r1a in swat?

Because it's an isolated, mountainous area. This affected the frequencies of Y-haplogroups in its population, so it wasn't representative of the populations that lived elsewhere in northern South Asia at the time.

2. Why so much steppe mtdna markers in swat samples?

Obviously because there was a massive expansion of steppe populations into South Asia during the Bronze Age.

3. Why is there not a single L657 marker found so far in steppe adna?

Because like many lineages that are common today, it went through a very rapid, successful expansion during the Bronze Age which started in a small group of steppe males.

4. Why are r1a upstream markers found in modern SA going back to R1a?

Because when populations expand to a new place they also take with them upstream markers. One day there will probably be so called upstream R1a markers on Mars, but no sane person will claim that R1a originated on Mars.

5. Why is r1a not correlated with castes in modern day India, whereas steppe mtdna is?

R1a frequencies and diversity in India do peak in Indo-European speaking and higher caste groups, so your question isn't legitimate.

Rob said...

@ Carlos

“ This time scale for the arrival of Steppe ancestry in the region is consistent with our observation of six outlier individuals in Turan who lived between ~2000 and 1500 BCE and carry this ancestry in mixed form..."

Independent of the estimates; I find this collateral evidence less convincing. The presence of “steppe” ancestry in BMAC 20/1900 BC is of a different character to later times, it is multifocal (eg not only Andronovo type); and “orchestrated” on ritual exchange
After ~1700 BC, the changing dynamic of social relations between steppe groups and a fragmenting BMAC resulted in different forms of admixture & mobility

vahaduo said...

@all
New Year - new updates:

g25views - regression lines are now being added by default. They can be turned off in the "gear" menu and their visibility can be controlled separately from labels and convex hulls via a dedicated Plotly button - "Toggle regression lines: show for visible projected groups / hide".

Regression lines in action: https://postimg.cc/gallery/Q9BXmp4

Admixture JS - new function in the SINGLE tab: "Reduce - 3/4/5 populations".

When active, it first tries to collect a limited set of potential source populations and then attempts to find a decent 3, 4 or 5-way model.

The runtime depends mostly on the number of populations selected in the first step and is unpredictable. It may be a few seconds, it may be several minutes. With the same set of SOURCES and with the same TARGET 3pop mode is the fastest, 5pop is the slowest one.

Depending on the complexity of the initial result the algorithm will return the same model every time OR it will fluctuate between several models OR it will turn itself into a generator of an endless stream of potentially plausible models.

To speed up calculations you can use averages as sources. They work quite well.

Treat this function as EXPERIMENTAL as this algorithm will be subject to change in the near future.

Sample output (modern samples excluding German_East and German in the SOURCE tab, German average as TARGET):

5 populations (150 seconds):
Target: German
Distance: 0.0042% / 0.00004183 | R5P
30.4 French_Alsace
28.2 Danish
22.0 French_Brittany
11.2 Serbian
8.2 Lithuanian_VA

4 populations (110 seconds):
Target: German
Distance: 0.0052% / 0.00005216 | R4P
38.8 French_Alsace
34.2 Irish
18.0 Ukrainian
9.0 Austrian

3 populations (70 and 76 seconds):
Target: German
Distance: 0.0052% / 0.00005212 | R3P
50.2 French_Alsace
34.6 Danish
15.2 Polish

Target: German
Distance: 0.0070% / 0.00006953 | R3P
40.8 Danish
33.0 French_Alsace
26.2 Austrian

Standard output:
Target: German
Distance: 0.0036% / 0.00003596
8.8 Irish
8.2 Danish
7.2 Dutch
4.4 French_Brittany
4.0 French_Alsace
3.6 Scottish
3.4 Polish
3.4 Belgian
3.0 English
2.8 French_Nord
2.8 Welsh
2.4 Icelandic
2.2 French_Occitanie
2.0 Swedish
+ 65 other populations below 2% each

Seinundzeit said...

Sam,

"Indians who have commented on this blog are even against the idea of Indians having Neolithic ancestry from Iran."

For what it's worth though, Indians really don't seem to evince any direct Iran_N admixture.

Rather, it seems that there's a unique stream of West Eurasian ancestry found only in South Asia (and the regions adjacent).

The relationship between this stream of ancestry and Iran_N is somewhat analogous to the relationship between Iran_N and CHG. Certainly related... but quite obviously distinct.

^ By way of contrast, Balochistanis have actual Iran_N-related admixture.

David,

"Karelia_HG/West_Siberia_HG was a mixture between Progress-Vonyuchka_En and East Eurasians, Ganj_Dareh_N was a mixture between Kotias-Satsurblia_HG and a basal ghost, and Geoksyur_En was a mixture between Ganj_Dareh_N and West_Siberia_HG."

In your own estimation, do you think this is a more plausible construal of the relationships (vs those older types of models which were usually along the lines of "CHG is Iran_N-related + EHG-related + Dzuzudana-related")?

vAsistha,

I mean yeah, sure... there's not much R1a in ancient Swat, coupled with a relative paucity of serious genome-wide Eurasian steppe admixture (with the very noticable exception of a single sample that appears to be approximately 40%-50% Central_Steppe_MLBA), alongside the presence of many steppe mtDNA lineages. Furthermore, as Rob noted, these people seemed to live under a matriarchal societal structure.

^ But why is this relevant to the question of Indo-Aryan ethnogenesis?

In the greater context of South Asia, the Swat valley is a peripheral region. It's about as Central Asian as it is South Asian... and we see that reflected in the ancient samples which we currently have.

For example, unlike the peoples of northern India, the samples have very noticeable levels of BMAC-related genetic ancestry (and hints of Sarazm_EN-related affinities). Among living populations, the Dardic-speaking Kohistanis are genetically indistinguishable from many of the SPGT (and the contemporary Kohistanis have very complex cultural affinities. They're arguably best construed as a people of the greater Near East).

^ What I'm trying to say is that the processes involved in peripheral areas like Swat won't necessarily be completely relevant to processes occurring in the Indo-Gangetic plains.

In South Asia proper, Eurasian steppe-related admixture does correlate rather well with levels of R1a (and Indians are well known to be rather lacking in steppe mtDNA lineages). And the Vedic Aryans are yet unsampled.

Based on the Vedas, we know that they were a people of the greater Punjab, with a patriarchal societal structure that depended a great deal on violence. And their direct descendants are still to be found in the greater Punjab (the Jats. The ones from Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh are best modelled as 40% Eurasian steppe).

Davidski said...

@Sein

In your own estimation, do you think this is a more plausible construal of the relationships (vs those older types of models which were usually along the lines of "CHG is Iran_N-related + EHG-related + Dzuzudana-related")?

They're both valid models but I wouldn't take either one too literally.

At this stage I still don't know how CHG and Iran_N formed and what they represent exactly.

The graphs that I ran didn't give any clear answers and didn't really show anything new.

Ramber said...

@Davidski

Can you upload these Khasi samples from Meghalaya from this study into Global25 datasheet please?:

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/28/2/1013/1220271

And also can you upload these Indonesian samples (Sumatra, Mentawai, Nias, Sulawesi, Sumba, Flores, Lembata, Pantar and Alor) from these studies into your G25 spreadsheet please?

https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2012154
https://www.genomicus.com/files/publications/Kusuma_2016_QuatInt_v416_p243.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201788?WT.feed_name=subjects_genetics

Thank you very much. I would greatly appreciated it. I want to see how much West Eurasian ancestry do the Khasis and these Indonesians have.

Thank you very much and Best regards,

Davidski said...

@Ramber

I can try to add them eventually if you give me the links to the data.

HistoricallyCurious said...

@archi
"The language style of the Avesta is very close to the Rig Veda; they were written in close times. It is known for certain that the Avesta was written late..."
Yes, and Talageri's point is Avestan language, names, etc., as well as Mittani evidence are categorically identifiable with *late* Rigvedic Mandalas (the research is quite exhaustive and compelling). Which, (assuming Rigveda wasn't composed on the way to India before even reaching Afganistan etc., which is clearly impossible based on geographical/fauna/flora evidence) implies a deeper timeline and reverse immigration direction.

But now with that I have reached the end of my ability to explain. If Davidski permits, here is a link that some may find useful.
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/07/ (scroll to section " "The Actual Date of the Rigveda").

My limited point earlier was: among the people (many Indians) who argue for non-steppe (maybe indo-iranian) PIE, there is a subset of people not motivated by religion, politics or xenophobia. A significant subset of that may be motivated by the above argument. It'd be wise to not assume the worst of people.

Rob said...

At the moment, although becoming smaller due to new finds, there still remains something of a hiatus between the Barodostian (formerly 'Zagros Aurignacian") and the Epipaleolithic Zarzian, which arguably led to the pre-Neolithic Iran.
But it does seem that the idea of a failed OOA evet ~ 100kya is waning, and that the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins did not become extinct, or only did so at the northern limit of their extension (~ Israel). Others taking refuge in 'green Arabia' before dispersing further as it then became dessicated.
In looking at Epipaleolithic data which does exist, we know there must be some west Asian refuge of people, which is not the Levant-north African cluster (Y-hg-E founder effect), nor Anatolia (Y-hg C, mtDNA U3, U8). Could be Mesopotamia, Persian Gulf, Zagros-Urmia-Van region, south Caspian belt. Any or all.

Ramber said...

@Davidski

Here is the link to supplementary data for the study that have the Khasi samples from Meghalaya, India:
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/28/2/1013/1220271#supplementary-data


Here are the links to the supplementary data that should contains the genomes of the Indonesian samples from different islands all over the country:
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2012154#Sec9
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/27/8/1833/988857#supplementary-data
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201788?WT.feed_name=subjects_genetics#Sec9

Please let me know if it worked or not. Thank you very much.

Seinundzeit said...

David,

I think that's a very fair assessment. As was often said here a few years back: we need more aDNA!

But on a related note, for quite some time I've been wanting to hear your thoughts on another matter: the question of "Basal Eurasian".

Do you think that the construct will eventually find empirical flesh (in some actual ancient population)?

Davidski said...

@Ramber

You can probably get help to look for the links to the genotype data here.

https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?22-Autosomal-(auDNA)

Matt said...

David: In all of the trees.

On this, it seems like potentially if there is a new, quick method for running large numbers of trees, and we want to visualize what the main features of the trees are which replicate stably, well, Densitree could be a good piece of software to turn to.

See - https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~remco/DensiTree/

DensiTree basically allows overlaying of large numbers of tree topologies, with the diffusion/density of branches visualising their replication in multiple runs.

It's useful for visualising attempts to resolve language trees using phylogenetics, where you get much tree topologies and there is often low replication in the higher branches (e.g. Turkic - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-DensiTree-for-the-Turkic-family_fig3_339297095 - see the high confidence lower branching contrasted with the unstable and diffuse higher branching).

With the sort of set of the populations in the post and the described results, I'd guess you'd see a DensiTree where the consensus branches connecting this triple Karelia_HG, CHG, Piedmont_En is very dense while that connecting Ust_Ishim would be much more diffuse (as replicates in different positions).

I'm not sure about whether DensiTree can handle admixture edges though.

In a way that seems better than having to present a single all-or-nothing, "best" tree.

Really for thoughts of Nick Patterson or Robert Maier if they are reading. Previously this sort of thing didn't seem to me to matter so much, as the number of trees tuned by hand fairly small and not necessarily representative of the entire set of possible trees. If there is now an automated method to run large numbers of trees that are representative, then it seems worth exploring how you can summarize that visually with a consensus tree.

Davidski said...

@Sein

Yes, I think there will be an ancient population linked to the Basal Eurasian concept, but I don't know how exactly yet.

Archi said...

@Carlos Aramayo

"I agree with most of Lazaridi's comments previous to this one. But why he seems to doubt the arrival time of Indo-Aryans to South Asia? This thing was already established by the estimation of Narasimhan"

Narasimhan's assessment is probably wrong. This is just an estimate.

vAsiSTha said...
" Questions which davidski has not been able to answer...
1. Why so less r1a in swat.. why is it not of the L657 tree of the R1a family.. what is steppe male signature almost absent??
2. Why so much steppe mtdna markers in swat samples?
3. Why is there not a single L657 marker found so far in steppe adna??
4. Why are r1a upstream markers found in modern SA going back to R1a??
5. Why is r1a not correlated with castes in modern day India, whereas steppe mtdna is??
6. Many more, but this will suffice for now.
"

All these questions have already been answered for you a lot of times.
1. Indo-Aryans were cremated. Only cremated. It is not the Aryans who are buried in Swat.
2. Because it is Dasya or Shudra, the subordinate population. There were no castes yet; coalitions were built through matrimonial ties and wars against violence against women.
3. Should it? Why? If this mutation occurred somewhere in the region of Tajikistan. The parent R-Y2 is completely out of the steppe.
4. Because they came from the steppe.
5. Varna appeared late in the Iron Age, and Jati in general in our era. R1a correlates with varnas, mitoDNA correlates with jati.
6. nonsense can be reprinted for the hundredth time this is a typical style of nationalists.

@HistoricallyCurious

Talageri falsifies primary data. The Mitanni were not Indo-Aryans, their language is something between Indo-Aryan and Iranian, in science it is called Mitannian Aryan, but not Indo-Aryan.

There is no reason to link the spread of Mitanni with the spread of the Indo-Aryans, these are different peoples. The Mitanni knew only chariots, they did not know how to ride, although it is possible that they could mount on chariot horses in a chariot.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

So basically you have no evidence for your claims..

Find me r-y3 and r-y2 or downstream in steppe adna and then we talk.. till then I don't find wasting my time here worthwhile..

@sein
"For what it's worth though, Indians really don't seem to evince any direct Iran_N admixture.

Rather, it seems that there's a unique stream of West Eurasian ancestry found only in South Asia (and the regions adjacent)."

Thank you for being sane..

vAsiSTha said...

@historicallycurious

"My limited point earlier was: among the people (many Indians) who argue for non-steppe (maybe indo-iranian) PIE, there is a subset of people not motivated by religion, politics or xenophobia. A significant subset of that may be motivated by the above argument. It'd be wise to not assume the worst of people."

You would not find that here.. you see according to people here. south asia had no languages which survived.. steppe brought sanskrit, Iran or some such absurd place brought Dravidian.. and tibeto burman and Munda came from outside (which is actually true)..

Plus the 1900bce warrior chariot burial at sanauli before any steppe autosomal ancestry means nothing to them. It goes into ignore list..

Same with bustan necropolis which has 0 steppe mix in adna. That necropolis dated to 1400-1500bce has 3 vedic type altars belong to late vedic grihyasutras. But.. it goes to ignore list.

vAsiSTha said...

@sein

"In the greater context of South Asia, the Swat valley is a peripheral region. It's about as Central Asian as it is South Asian... and we see that reflected in the ancient samples which we currently have."

No it is not.. Suvastu region being Vedic is very clear..
Gandhara was a completely vedic region with matrimonial ties with east punjab west Ganga region vedic kings..

Ramber said...

@Davidski

The ones I posted to you are the not the links to the genotype data?

Thanks. I will ask them for help.

Genos Historia said...

@vAsiSTha,

It is not possible for "Iranian" populations to have existed in India and Iran at the same time. It is not possible for R1a Z93 to have existed in Europe and India at the same time.

If Indians had East Asian ancestry you would argue East Asian populations are indigenous to India and East Asia.

IranN's roots are in Southwest Asia. R1a Z93's roots are in Europe.

IranN so far belongs to mtDNAs U7, J1, T2, HV all lineages which have close relatives in other Southwest Asian populations. Its roots are in Southwest Asia.

There's 11,000 year old R1a samples in Russia and Ukraine. R1a Z93 had a many R1a M417 relatives in Corded Ware. Its roots are in Europe.

Archi said...

@sein
"For what it's worth though, Indians really don't seem to evince any direct Iran_N admixture.

There were herders farmers in Iran 8000BC that are not Zagros Iran_N it is Ganj Dareh who were ancestral to the Indian R2a. They ~belong to the population that brought to India and farming and R2a and Iranian ancestry, but not the Zagrosian.

@vAsiSTha
"Plus the 1900bce warrior chariot burial at sanauli before any steppe autosomal ancestry means nothing to them. It goes into ignore list."

This is not true at all, this is not a chariot at all, it is just an ordinary carriage of the Sumerian type, but not the chariot.

"That necropolis dated to 1400-1500bce has 3 vedic type altars belong to late vedic grihyasutras."

This is just your interpretation and nothing more.

vasistha said...

Lol can i mute "if its not r1a its because r1a aryans were cremated" archi please? thats reaching higher than mount everest as far as 'science' goes.

@samuel
"It is not possible for "Iranian" populations to have existed in India and Iran at the same time. It is not possible for R1a Z93 to have existed in Europe and India at the same time."

It is indeed possible. you just need a group of stragglers who travelled long back in time and spread both places. There is absolutely 0 male adna from South asia proper. So id rather wait for it. the ones from pakistan sadly failed to prove ''male mediated invasion' however much you guys try to spin it.

"IranN so far belongs to mtDNAs U7, J1, T2, HV all lineages which have close relatives in other Southwest Asian populations. Its roots are in Southwest Asia."

Im not claiming IranN is from south asia. Im saying that the south asian admxture which looks like IranN diverged a long time back from IranN, theyre siblings.. their common ancestor origin is yet unknown (from Shinde/Reich paper).

"There's 11,000 year old R1a samples in Russia and Ukraine. R1a Z93 had a many R1a M417 relatives in Corded Ware. Its roots are in Europe."

True. Sadly theres 0 R-Y3/R-Y2 in those male samples which number more than 100. The formation and spread date of these is much before your putative 'aryan invasion' so basically, show me the R-Y3 in steppe aDna and i will shut up.

Matt said...

@vahaduo, wonderful tools as always. Odd question, but is it possible to add "vanilla" Global 25 (not reprocessed) into your custom PCA.

The visualization tools you've added are just so good in and of themselves that I feel they'd be useful on just plotting PC1 vs PC2 of Global 25, etc as well. (Not just on derived secondary PCA).

Having parsimony (n-populations only) versions of the Vahaduo distance minimising algorithms is great as well.

@Sein and vAsiSTha, I get the impression that, if there were a hard split between Iran_N like ancestry of present day Iranians/Middle East and South Asia that long predated the early neolithic (as in 5,000-10,000 years), then it seems like it really *should* be very evident in modern day PCA and whole-genome analysis, simply on large numbers of modern day genomes, and maybe with Iran_N projected on, without any ancient dna evidence being required from South Asia itself.

I am not sure how much this is the case at all.

And it's not like projecting onto Global_25 reveals that the Indus_Periphery samples are sharply distant from Iran_N / BMAC in the end point of their cline, etc. When I generate a ghost estimated to be without AASI from the Indus_Periphery samples, the differentiation of this estimate in G25 looks pretty low from Iran_N samples (like G25 scaled distance 0.06, roughly equivalent Fst 0.003, similar to that between the TKM_En and Iran_N).

I know Vagheesh Narasimhan talks about this being the case in his data, and I don't rate that as having zero weight, but I just don't really believe this separation would *not* show up clearly in projected PCA, if it exists.

If Iran_N like ancestry in South Asia is sharply different from that in Iran and Near East, then there should be dimensionality captured in the G25 which captures this, because there is a good set of modern samples from these places used to generate the G25. (We're not talking about populations like Sunghir and Ust Ishim who basically do not have any descendents represented in the panel!). Then that dimensionality should be enough to show high differentiation between a "Indus Periphery 0 AASI" ghost and Iran_N... Doesn't seem to really be there. Again, I'm not closed to the idea at all, just doesn't make sense to me that this would not be very self-evident when projecting onto PCA (assuming the Indus_Periphery are who Narasimhan thinks they are).

Copper Axe said...

I love how despite the flag of India having a spoked wheel, Indians will still pretend that the Sanauli wagon was some sort of Vedic chariot lol.

Tigran said...

Is the idea of a Mesolithic Iran_N in South Asia actually true? and what to make of the western affinities of y H which had 3/4 Subclades found mostly in South Asia (H0,H1,H3)? That might be the best candidate for early West-Basal Eurasian admixture in South Asia? But I would guess the y G, J2a, J2b, L, T came from West Asia much more recently (Neolithic to Bronze Age)?

EastPole said...

@vAsiSTha

""well it’s difficult to give up ideas and views when your entire identity is wrapped around them."

Haha.. it's funny to read all this nonsense. Figure out what your own identity is wrapped around.. and that of polish ppl like davidski..”

Polish identity is not wrapped around false Aryan myths like yours or Germanic people.
When in XIX century it was discovered that Slavic, Vedic and Avestan languages were closely related and religious terminology was identical, it was explained by Slavic migrations from India. This explanation was wrong. We don’t have any Indian DNA. Later explanation was that Slavs assimilated Scythians and Sarmatians from the steppe, and got religion and language from them. But now we know it was also not true. We don’t have their DNA and there was no assimilation. Moreover their language and religion was not known.
The only reasonable explanation of Slavic and Indo-Iranian similarities in language and religion now is the migration of CWC from Poland to India:

https://i.postimg.cc/jT38BjhD/BS-II.png

https://postimg.cc/1gfRR44G

You should accept the best explanation that exists and have peace of mind.

Matt said...

I mean, to restate from last comment: If modern Iranians have like 40-60% ancestry from Iran_N_related_A, and northern South Asia reaches like 40-60% ancestry from Iran_N_related_B, and then A and B are deeply diverged populations (5-10ky), how then is a high dimension PCA like G25 that is made with these populations *not* finding a very clear indication of that divergence? When we project on samples that are putatively supposed to be purely Iran_N_B and AASI? It seems like this is well past the threshold of things that the PCA should detect...

(% estimates somewhat imprecise but in the neighbourhood of what is being implied).

Using Vahaduo's rather splendid new cline visualization tool to visualize whether my extended cline estimates lie: https://imgur.com/a/HVZPKVH

(That is really useful tool for visualizing how population clines can subtly differ btw: https://imgur.com/a/76XODeT).

Unknown said...

@vAsiSTha

"Plus the 1900bce warrior chariot burial at Sanauli before any steppe autosomal ancestry means nothing to them."

That's just because that's not a "chariot". It has solid wheels. To endlessly repeat that "war chariots" were excavated from Sanauli burials (c. 1900 BCE as per their recent carbon dating) is just propaganda. The Sanauli solid-wheel vehicles were labeled so by Hindu nationalists in order to make uninformed people believe that the full war-chariot package appeared in South Asia before the Indo-Aryans brought it there as per mainstream theory.

J.S. said...

@ALL
A bit of topic, but it might interest you guys. Claire-Elise Fischer's thesis on Iron Age Gauls is online.

Apports de l’archéogénétique à l’étude des groupes du Second âge du Fer en France: Approche multi-scalaire

https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03092247/document

Andrzejewski said...

@Michalis “ Is there some kind of religious dogma in Hinduism which would be threatened if Indo-Aryan were discovered to have come from the steppe? No? Then why the opposition? Why would any thinking person be threatened by something like that? It's just plain stupid.”

Because they were ruled by the British. Therefore, they have an anti-colonialism, maybe translated as anti-European mentality.

Rob said...

Talageri’s writing suggests that all the correspondences between Mitanni Aryan are matched by names found in later books of the Vedas, meaning that it could not be early Indo-Aryan. If Mitanni Aryan is late IA; he argues that IA existed since 2500 or even earlier; and the localities mentioned in the early Vedas place them in India . Hence ; he suggests, there was a movement out of India (although only sparing greferences are made to non-linguistic evidence, Eg Zebu cattle moving out ~2200BC)

Have correspondences been criticised , or are they contrary to other revived views ?

Andrzejewski said...

@CrM “ So as I understand, CHG might be ancestral to Iran_N, and not other way around? Because archeology points to a trail from the Zagros into the Caucasus, with CHG being the newly arrived Zagrosian population that replaced Dzudzuana (assuming Dzudzuana did not completely abandon the Caucasus during LGM).

I assumed that CHG is an archaic type of Iran_N that mixed with another ghost population somewhere near or Around the Caucasus. While Iran_N was subject to another mixing during that time.”

Isn’t it that both Iran_N and CHG are both Dzudzuana-like populations (basically, similar to Barcin), who have admixed with ANE circa 13,000 YBP? With the only difference is the percentage of ANE, ie Iran being 50% ANE while CHG was more like 35%?

Vara said...

Unbelievable, I come back, and supernord is still yapping about the Uzboy that had nothing to do with the Sarasvati nor dried up in the 2nd millennium BCE.

There are many problems with the Andronovo theory. Like HistoricallyAccurate says, I remember many steppe theory supporters that commentated on this blog also believed that Indo-Aryans made their way from the Steppe in the 3rd millennium BCE.

To list the main problems:

1. The definition of Indo-Iranian and Indo-European cultures, in general, is mostly based on 19th-century research. Wilhelm Rau and the rest of these old school Germans did not know what modern scholars know, i.e., much of Iranian and Avestan histories are late fabrications by the Achaemenids and Sassanids; thus they based their original anti-Zoroastrian Indo-Iranian savage warriors on Achaemenid and mostly Sassanid propaganda.

2. Linguistic
Indo-Iranians are supposed to have interacted with the Zagros and Mesopotamia by the late 3rd Millennium according to Harmatta and Witzel.

3. Archaeology
Almost everything Indo-Iranian in archaeology goes back to Eastern Iran hence the Kurturkugel models by Mallory and Parpola. On the other hand, the bypass model of Kuzmina that ignores all of that requires Swat to be the earliest and most important site of the Indo-Aryans. Now the goalpost changed and somehow Swat isn't important.

4. DNA
The 1900-1500 BCE estimations are unconvincing and flat out wrong. The neighbors of Andronovo BMAC and post-BMAC barely have any steppe ancestry and are mostly dominated by J2, as are all the oldest IE speakers. Besides, there is now a problem with R1. To the people who predicted that the Indo-Aryans were going to be 70% steppe and mostly R1a well, there's only 1 R1a in Swat! Hell, if someone told me that there would be little R1a in Swat a few years ago, I wouldn't have believed it.

5. Politics
Anyone who has been following Islamic studies already knows that the reality is this whole Indo-European mess will never be properly solved. People are still going about where the Islamic homeland is, where its roots lie in Manichean, Arian, or Judaic traditions and whether the Ummayads were Christians or something else. Why? Politics and jobs on the line.

Well, that's just a sneak peek. I was almost done before covid hit, so I hope this year turns out to be much better than the last.

Samuel Andrews said...

My next video on ancient DNA will be my best.

It'll be on immigration in Viking age Scandinavia.

I've figured out that almost all the immigrants came from France and Kievan Rus (Russia).

Definitely from Viking setllements in both countries.

Andrzejewski said...

@Vara “ The 1900-1500 BCE estimations are unconvincing and flat out wrong. The neighbors of Andronovo BMAC and post-BMAC barely have any steppe ancestry and are mostly dominated by J2, as are all the oldest IE speakers.”

I thought BMAC was almost completely E1b1b, a legacy of Anatolian and/or Levant_N markers. If affirmative, the BMAC reflects Iran_Chl more than Iran_N.

Nevertheless, BMAC along with Botai, have made negligible contributions to Andronovo and Sintashta and hence - to modern Indo-Iranians.

Archi said...

vasistha said...
"Lol can i mute "if its not r1a its because r1a aryans were cremated" archi please? thats reaching higher than mount everest as far as 'science' goes."

LOL. Don’t lie, I didn’t write that R1a Aryans were cremated, I wrote that Indo-Aryans were cremated, such is the Vedic religion and scientific data, there is simply no other data in nature. I am the voice of science, your voice is pure pseudoscience. You disgraced yourself again. The Swat Valley is full of burials with cremation, which becomes the main burial ceremony in the 1000-800BC range. Cremation appears there since 1200BC, possibly a little earlier.

@Vara

Your set of words is meaningless as always. Uzboy is the dried up part of Sarasvati, you can wipe yourself off.

There are no problems with Andronovo's theory, Andronovo ceramics of the Alekseevo type are found in Pakistan, Afghanistan, south of the Indus river it is not, but this is because the Indo-Aryans already penetrate there later.

1. Senseless as always with you.
2. Nonsense disagrees with anyone.
3. This is not so, Kuzmina always wrote about the complex nature of the Swat Valley, that the Indo-Aryans were sharply different from the local population and adhered to other traditions, and that only cremation burials can be added to them. Anthropological remains of the Anronovo type in it are very rare due to cremation.
4. There are two R1a. Once again, test the huge number of burials in Swat that are cremated and you get 100% R1a.

Francesco Brighenti said...


@Rob

"Have [Talageri’s] correspondences been criticised, or are they contrary to other revived views?"

Best confutation in Witzel 2001, here:

https://tinyurl.com/y7oj77lf

Talageri's version of the "Out-of-India" theory is faulty from the start as he assigns imaginary dates to the various Books of the RV. No Vedicist has followed him (who is not a Vedicist) in this novel layering of the RV.

vasistha said...

@unkown said
"That's just because that's not a "chariot". It has solid wheels. To endlessly repeat that "war chariots" were excavated from Sanauli burials (c. 1900 BCE as per their recent carbon dating) is just propaganda. The Sanauli solid-wheel vehicles were labeled so by Hindu nationalists in order to make uninformed people believe that the full war-chariot package appeared in South Asia before the Indo-Aryans brought it there as per mainstream theory."

It doesnt matter what you think. It was buried with warriors as a war weapon along with swords, arrows, helmet, shield. So no it was not a goods cart, or a transport carriage haha..

It was a war weapon, and i will call it a chariot.

Open Genomes said...

In OpenSuse 15.2 with R v3.5.0 and likely in OpenSuse in general, there are some non-obvious system package prerequisites for the the installation of devtools and Admixtools2, which can be satisfied by running the following commands:

sudo zypper in libgit2-devel
sudo zypper in libxml2-devel
sudo zypper in gcc-fortran

Please make sure that these system packages are installed first.

Archi said...

@vasistha

"It was a war weapon, and i will call it a chariot."

No, it's called a tank. You must use the word tank and the man in it is the pilot. Your bow is called a cannon; you call a fork for eating a spear.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

In the early Swat valley samples there seems to be over 25% Sintashta related ancestry and quite a lot of INF ancestry. Perhaps Indo-Iranian was spread by a BMAC profile.

vasistha said...

@copperaxe

"I love how despite the flag of India having a spoked wheel, Indians will still pretend that the Sanauli wagon was some sort of Vedic chariot lol.

please do not show your ignorance here. the 24 spoke wheel in indian flag is the Ashoka Chakra and has no direct connection to the Vedas.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

On G25 INF seems to be more archaic East Eurasian and prefers Natufian over Pinarbasi.
Distance: 27.6454% / 0.27645363
Target: IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
43.6 Levant_Natufian
37.4 RUS_AfontovaGora3
15.2 CHN_Tianyuan
3.8 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG


Distance: 27.1672% / 0.27167162
Target: GEO_CHG
40.4 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
39.6 RUS_AfontovaGora3
14.9 Levant_Natufian
5.1 CHN_Tianyuan

Perhaps some admixtools graphs could help with this.

Davidski said...

@Norfern-Ostrobothnian

BMAC doesn't work.

For one, it doesn't link Europe to South Asia, while Sintashta obviously does. Also...

What Language Was Spoken by the People of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex?

https://brill.com/view/book/9789004438200/BP000002.xml

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

"Same with bustan necropolis which has 0 steppe mix in adna."

Distance: 4.8932% / 0.04893190
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA
74.1 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
25.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.3 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Post-BMAC then, after they admixed with Andronovo people, or something with the same signature.

vasistha said...

@andre

"Nevertheless, BMAC along with Botai, have made negligible contributions to Andronovo and Sintashta and hence - to modern Indo-Iranians."

Almost None of the swat samples can be modeled without BMAC ancestry. So i really dont know what you are saying.

@Matt
We need pre 5000bce samples from Punjab and compare them with Ganj Dareh to answer your question.. But it surely is not as distant as CHG is from IranN. i see the end cline as closer to shahr-sokhta than ganj dareh, but that also depends on the actual AASI, rather than a proxy or a ghost.

vasistha said...

@norfern

absolutely not..

Target: UZB_Bustan_BA
Distance: 1.5896% / 0.01589560
53.4 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
24.4 TJK_Sarazm_En
10.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
7.2 TUR_Barcin_N
4.0 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
0.8 TUR_Barcin_C
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA

Andrzejewski said...

@Nortfern “ Post-BMAC then, after they admixed with Andronovo people, or something with the same signature.”

But they didn’t. They got destroyed by Sintashta or Andronovo and vanished. Just like Botai.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski @Norfern “
What Language Was Spoken by the People of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex?

https://brill.com/view/book/9789004438200/BP000002.xml”

From genetic and archeological findings it seems that BMAC were close to Elamites. Am I right?

There’s also a theory linking Elamites to Dravidian speakers, so perhaps the similarities in words in the article point to the same linguistic macro-family? (If it’s true that IVC derives from Iran HG).


Carlos Aramayo said...

Niraj Rai, 15 hours ago, commented this in twitter:

"Good to see our last statement reaching a lot of people. I would like to clarify a few things:

1. Our upcoming work doesn't contradict much from what we have already published (Narasimhan, Patterson et al. 2019, Shinde et al. 2019).

2. It is also in agreement with ancient Indo-Aryan textual data & South Asian archaeological data.

https://tinyurl.com/yapeq6qp

Happy 2021 everyone!"

Rob said...

I looked at Central Asia (broadly) as a homeland a few years ago. BMAC is different to Majkop, which is different to Anatolia EBA. It would require I.E. languages 'jumping' from one distinctive network to another. Sure, there is BMAC ancestry in IAMC & Tian-Shan Sakae.

Open Genomes said...

@David

Any idea why the combined Reich Lab genotypes files are password protected? What's the username and password?

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data-compiled-published-papers

Seinundzeit said...

Matt,

"I get the impression that, if there were a hard split between Iran_N like ancestry of present day Iranians/Middle East and South Asia..."

In conceptual terms, I don't think that's necessarily the best descriptive approach. I know you're not trying to convey the impression of "tree-like branching" in a completely literal sense... but I think you're still partaking of it.

In this case, I really don't believe in actual hard splits; it seems that CHG, Iran_N, and IND_periphery belong to a family of peoples among whom the relationships appear to be structured in relatively clinal patterns. There's a shared "core" (for lack of a better term) of genetic ancestry across all three groups (and all three "groups" are certainly abstractions from what would've been more or less continuous genetic variation across space), but the affinities that differentiate them are clearly a function of geography.

Brass tacks though, IND_periphery sans "AASI" is much less "basal" than Iran_N, and about as "basal" as CHG. But the non-"basal" genetic affinities are quite unlike CHG, but very similar to Iran_N, with the only distinction from Iran_N being a stronger shift towards MA1/AG3.

^ That's really it; it didn't split off from Iran_N... it just has a very different ratio of "components" (there are much better/more technically accurate ways to say what I'm trying to convey, but I'm a tad bit lazy today), due to being from the very eastern edge of the range for this family of ancient peoples, and thus closer to the geographical source for the non-basal ancestry seen in the ancient Iranian plateau (southern Central Asia).

^ For what it's worth though, this is all assuming there's a true model out there of Indus_perhiphery sans AASI. It might not be so simple.

For example, the Dzudzuana pre-print has Iran_N as being partially Onge-related.

To me, this is an indication that "AASI" isn't as simple a concept as we've tended to think. There's a lot going on here, and we simply don't have the aDNA to even begin a solid appraisal of the relationships.

Speaking of G25 though, a while back I constructed a West Eurasian ghost based entirely on Indus_perhiphery... and it was quite distinct from Iran_N, and produced very tight fits for South Asians.

^ I'd be interested in comparing our ghosts, to see how they differ. We could post the scaled coordinates?

PS: There are West Eurasian mtDNA lineages in South Asia not found in Iran, nor in the aDNA record. These are all very, very deeply rooted (based on the estimates we have). And as Tigran noted, yDNA haplogroup H obviously has West Eurasian affinities, and yet it's wholly restricted to South Asia and surrounds (with the exception of the lineage seen in Neolithic Europe). So the uniparental data does gel with the notion of IVC-related West Eurasian distinctiveness (in relation to Iran_N).

Archi said...

Carlos Aramayo said...
"Niraj Rai, 15 hours ago, commented this in twitter:
1. Our upcoming work doesn't contradict much from what we have already published (Narasimhan, Patterson et al. 2019, Shinde et al. 2019)."

In normal language speaking, he has nothing only a bare statement that the Aryan migration to India is a myth. He just trolled the people.

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

I don't know, but based on those emails I just got from you and Robert Maier, it seems that Robert is looking into it.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

You're right I suppose, but there still are bronze age samples close by that are steppe MLBA.
Distance: 1.5856% / 0.01585575
Target: UZB_Kashkarchi_BA
89.1 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
7.7 RUS_Tyumen_HG
3.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

JohnnyOla said...

I am going to put it as simple as i can and without mocking Indians.Their opinions and how they react to aryan invasion is ridiculous taking serious their comments in various anthroforas.

Indian nationalists cannot escape from their results. They will have to accept the Aryan invasion and the female domination of South Asian women by the Aryan invader warriors on chariots with R1a-Z93 and Sintashta/Andronovo-like genetics.Aryan invasion of South Asia is a largely male-driven invasion. Steppe mtDNA is rare in South Asia whereas steppe Y-DNA (specifically R1a-Z93) is quite common there, especially in the north or the high castes.They have to duel with it.End of story!!!!

Tigran said...

@Sein

What mtdna lineages are those?

Tigran said...

@Ioannis Correct-Nobody besides dardic groups has much steppe mtdna.

Carlos Aramayo said...

Based on the Niraj Rai's assertion that:

"...Our upcoming work doesn't contradict much from what we have already published (Narasimhan, Patterson et al. 2019, Shinde et al. 2019)..."

I will risk to make a comment, it seems to me they did not find y-haplogroup R1a or subclades in the two samples from Sanauli.

JohnnyOla said...

@ Tigran


Indeed.What happened pretty much in South Asia is a similar case with Iberians in Latin America.A largely male-driven invasion with non-stop.They arrived almost with no BMAC mix or with a very little bronze age central asian related admixture.Aryans simply bypassed the BMAC lands when invading to South Asia.As for Swat Valley is a kinda weird situation IMO.I am not sure if these people were 100% Aryans for example.They might not have been even IE speakers prolly, just mixes with them on their maternal side. Unlike Aryans, they buried their dead rather than cremating them. They may be the ancestors of the Burusho people, their geography fits. Burusho speak a non-IE language.They have an isolated dialect(thought they are highly R1a).In general i got my back for Swatt Valley.

Andrzejewski said...

@Ioannis “ They may be the ancestors of the Burusho people, their geography fits. Burusho speak a non-IE language.”

Burusho, Nihali and Kusunda are 3 language isolates in the India/Nepal/Pakistan/Bangladesh horizon. It’s going to be interesting to find out who’s descendants of whom

Davidski said...

@Samuel

I hope you're not going to claim that the Polish-like Vikings in Denmark came from Kievan Rus.

Obviously, they got their Slavic DNA from nearby Polabia and Poland.

See here, for instance...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Awi%C4%99tos%C5%82awa

Kouros said...

@ Ionnnis ,

The formal models of Vashiste and Chad present last year had significant BMAC ancestry and the Steppe outlier , Vashista posted in particular had a big amount of it. The people look very much like modern people of the Punjab . Analogy with Latin America is incorrect, as these people were not wiped out by disease like many Amerindians which allowed for more European ancestry to proliferate far more. The tombs at one Gandhara site dominated by E1b, so it is likely there was another clan of R1a which settled in Indie Nord and proliferated far more because of better farming resources and fertile land.

This link David posted reflect Chad and Vasishta's formal models

It seems therefore worthwhile to seriously consider another scenario.13 It
seems attractive to assume that the southward movement of Indo-Aryans was
simultaneous with the decline of the BMAC and was even triggered by it, since
the profound changes in the economy of the BMAC would have forced the Indo-Aryan pastoralists to look for new markets. In the situation of an economic
and political crisis, it is only to be expected that in their movement, the IndoAryans were joined by a sizable group of the BMAC people, who would bring
their culture and the agricultural lifestyle with them.
This scenario may account for the prolonged contacts of the Indo-Aryans
and the BMAC people in the Swat valley and the Punjab and, consequently, for
a large number of loanwords when the Indo-Aryans started to get settled and
to learn agriculture. At the same time, it perfectly explains the fact that “intrusive BMAC material is subsequently found further to the south in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”14 As we know from major people movements of the past,
they often were multiethnic, and a joint movement of Indo-Aryans and the
BMAC people would not be surprising at all.

Though David is correct, one R1a tribe was very successful in proliferating.







vAsiSTha said...

@ioannis

" Steppe mtDNA is rare in South Asia whereas steppe Y-DNA (specifically R1a-Z93) is quite common there, especially in the north or the high castes."

R1a y-marker is as common in high castes as in low castes, unlike west eurasian mtdna, which correlates with caste rank. Also steppe mtdna is very common in north india, and higher castes. Kindly dont comment if you know nothing about it.

"The paternal ancestry of Uttarakhand does not imitate the classical caste system of India"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299513303_The_paternal_ancestry_of_Uttarakhand_does_not_imitate_the_classical_caste_system_of_India

"However, contradictory conclusion were drawn for the roles of males and females in shapingthe caste stratification.19,43,54,55 When comparing with the previousanalyses,43,52 our data showed significant (unpaired t-test Po0.0001)higher proportion of West Eurasian-specific lineages among traditionally higher caste (Brahmin and Kshatriya) populations for maternal lineages, although it was non-significant for the paternal ancestry (unpaired t-test P=0.5468)."

"Interestingly, the maternal structure of this region was in congruent with the classical social system, where distance from Brahmins to other groups was following a social ladder type structure (Figure 3a). However, the male line of descent did not reveal any kind of such local structure"

CrM said...

I've made an "IVC Iran_N Ghost" by subtracting the AASI component from one of the IVC diaspora samples. My guess is that the Iran_N component in IVC split shortly after Hotu and Belt Cave samples.

First, a PCA, as you can see it doesn't differ too much from the current Iran_N cluster. It seems to be between Hotu and Ganj Dareh, possibly because of its ANE component which is slightly above Ganj Dareh but below Hotu, it's also pulled a bit further to the North, probably to the hypothesized AASI cline.
https://i.imgur.com/VjDuyUb.png

Second, a model for modern and ancient Iranians/Indians using the mentioned simulated Iran_N sample and two normal ones (Wezmeh and Ganj Dareh). You can see a clear preference of the simulated Iran_N in Indian populations, but Iranians pick a mix of both. Ancient Iranians only want Wezmeh and Ganj Dareh though.
https://i.imgur.com/WVvi9WW.png

Third, the Eneolithic Central Asian and later BMAC samples, they too prefer a mix of current Iran_N and the IVC Iran_N ghost, but it also depends on the samples themselves.
https://i.imgur.com/MO7LTEn.png

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

One day you'll have to accept that Z93 isn't native to India and that it arrived in South Asia with Indo-Aryans.

You surely know this as well as I do.

So try and be reasonable. You're obviously not retarded, so stop acting like an idiot.

epoch said...

@vAsiSTha

"1. Why so less r1a in swat.. why is it not of the L657 tree of the R1a family.. what is steppe male signature almost absent??"

If R1a is indigenous to India, why so less R1a in Swat? Why is it not of the L657 tree of the R1a family? Etc etc.

See? Whatever theory you like to adhere to, Swat's Y-DNA poses a problem.

Simon_W said...

Vahaduo's new population reduction function looks like an interesting attempt to automatize the hampering of the algorithm's propensity to overfit. Some unexpected interesting models I obtained:

Target: ITA_Proto-Villanovan
Distance: 1.2490% / 0.01249033 | R4P
30.2 DEU_Singen_EIA
30.0 HUN_Prescythian_IA
27.0 UKR_N_o
12.8 ARM_Areni_C

60.2% quite eastern European DNA. This gels well with the eastern Hallstatt affinity of the Proto-Villanovan culture. But in case this is true, the Proto-Villanovans didn't leave a big genetic impact in Italy.

Target: DEU_Roman
Distance: 1.2825% / 0.01282451 | R3P
51.4 ITA_Sardinia_EMA
25.6 DNK_BA
23.0 VK2020_POL_Krakow_MA

The DEU_Roman, a mix of Germanics, Slavs and Sardinians? Can this be possible? I guess it could. But whether it's likely is another question.

Target: CHE_IA
Distance: 1.3226% / 0.01322624 | R5P
26.6 ITA_Villanovan
22.0 ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA
20.4 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
19.6 DEU_Lech_MBA
11.4 CHE_FN_steppe

I've always argued for an autochthonous origin of this woman, based on the C14 dating. However, judging from this model she could be a mix of Roman Mediterranean people and locals.

Archi said...

@epoch

"If R1a is indigenous to India, why so less R1a in Swat? Why is it not of the L657 tree of the R1a family? Etc etc.
See? Whatever theory you like to adhere to, Swat's Y-DNA poses a problem."

As one Out-of-India preacher wrote in all seriousness, they did a genetic test for themselves, and whoever was R1a then was burned, the rest were buried, and R1b was simply cut out and not buried. And so for 10,000 years.

@Kouros

"Vasishta's formal models"

They are all wrong.

epoch said...

@David

Did you try find_graphs on other populations as well? For instance, WHG or EHG origins?

vAsiSTha said...

@epoch

"If R1a is indigenous to India, why so less R1a in Swat? Why is it not of the L657 tree of the R1a family? Etc etc.

See? Whatever theory you like to adhere to, Swat's Y-DNA poses a problem."

It does not pose any problem if you stop making R1a the centre piece of this puzzle, which it is not..

So far the only r-L657 adna has been found in roopkund lake sample dating to 800ce, the sample is like a paniya/pulliyar(i forget which), but it has ~0 steppe admixture.

Matt said...

Sein: Speaking of G25 though, a while back I constructed a West Eurasian ghost based entirely on Indus_perhiphery... and it was quite distinct from Iran_N, and produced very tight fits for South Asians ^ I'd be interested in comparing our ghosts, to see how they differ. We could post the scaled coordinates?

Sure, here's my one: https://pastebin.com/DDyKRuk8. Method's nothing special; use PCA to generate a variable X for position on population's internal cline, then generate a linear regression from that and enter parameters until the resulting. It's not one I'd stand by as best, just one I generated ad hoc for the questions in these comments.

Here is where they sits on Global 25 PC1 vs PC2 vs PC3: https://imgur.com/a/lhEzF69

Still a bit unclear to me if the Indus_P samples are exactly who Narasimhan's paper thinks they are (varying points on a single cline between one broadly West Eurasian source and one broadly East Eurasian source, with no local admixture from Iran). E.g. significant dispersal between I11041 and I2123 on PC1 vs PC2 (though this does not contribute to them having a very high overall distance). But this regression is assuming that is true.

I'd definitely underline that it's the low distance between the simulated point and Iran_N/SIS_BA1 that seems like it indicates against a very long divergence (high single digit to double digit thousands of years) between Iran_N like ancestry in South Asia and Iran_N ancestry elsewhere. (If there was this long differentiation, should be significant differentiation which should be captured by G25, since this is not supposed to be a population which was v. long ago / descendants not captured by G25). Whether strictly a tree like split or not (e.g. if some geneflow after split, and some pre-existing substructure so population doesn't totally coalesce before the split).

Simon_W said...

@J.S. re: Claire-Elise Fischer's thesis

A pity the new samples are low coverage again. They won't make it to the G25, I fear.

Judging from the qpAdm models in figure 65, the Iron Age Gauls had a higher proportion of steppe ancestry than the modern French from the respective regions (at least according to G25 models), suggestive of a slight southward shift in the meantime, e.g. due to Roman influence.

On the other hand, according to the PCA in figure 60, the bulk of the Iron Age Gauls clusters around the middle of the modern French cline, with many modern French plotting more northerly than the northernmost Gauls. In particular, the Gauls from the Paris basin plot in the middle of the cline, in spite of the northern geographic position of the Paris basin. This would suggest a slight northward shift afterwards due to Germanic migrations.

How shall we explain these conflicting observations? Maybe it's because G25 models cannot be neatly compared to qpAdm models, so my first observation about the southward shift may be incorrect.

In any case, the PCA shows the Gauls from Urville-Nacqueville (Normandy), Attichy (Picardy) and SCPG/Gendarmerie (Alsace) to be the most northern ones. Plotting with them are a few more individuals from other sites in the Alsace and Picardy, from the Paris Basin, and even one from Occitanie, though the bulk of them plots more southern. On the other hand, there are no Gauls from Northern sites who plot genetically very southern. This imbalance suggests that northern individuals rather migrated southwards than the other way round. In addition to the northern outlier from Occitanie, several of the Occitan samples plot around the middle of the cline.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha

"So far the only r-L657 adna has been found in roopkund lake sample dating to 800ce, the sample is like a paniya/pulliyar(i forget which), but it has ~0 steppe admixture."

This is another outright lie.

Target: IND_Roopkund_B:I3345
Distance: 0.8110% / 0.00810957
29.4 TUR_Arslantepe_LC
22.0 TUR_Barcin_N
20.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
18.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
5.8 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
2.8 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o

1.2 IND_Roopkund_A
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_IA
0.0 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
0.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN
0.0 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Steppe_Maykop_o
0.0 RUS_Tagar
0.0 TUR_Barcin_C
0.0 TUR_Boncuklu_N

Target: IND_Roopkund_B:I3345
Distance: 2.3973% / 0.02397253
67.8 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
27.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
5.0 IND_Roopkund_A
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_IA
0.0 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
0.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.0 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
0.0 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Steppe_Maykop_o
0.0 RUS_Tagar

Kouros said...

@Archi,

Absolutely Disagree, he linked them here, its the formal stats , it is pretty definitive and valid.


https://pastebin.com/BrUaLkQB


Though I agree , R1a mediation via creole Steppe population in Central Asia, which derive from Forest Steppe groups in Russie is how Indo Iranien languages profuse.Thats the only logical path.

Davidski said...

@epoch

Nope, I only really looked at what you see in the blog post above.

I was hoping that since this version of Admixtools is available on Windows at least some of you would try your own graphs.

Archi said...

@Kouros
"Absolutely Disagree, he linked them here, its the formal stats , it is pretty definitive and valid.
https://pastebin.com/BrUaLkQB"

This is absolutely wrong, you are completely wrong, a person does not understand what the left and right populations are. I explained to him, explained to him both the authority and the original papers, but he did not understand, but recently he could understand. If you do not understand what the errors are, then you also do not understand at all how to build qpAdm models. So you do not need to invent that he has something accurate if you do not understand his mistakes and how, by definition, qpAdm models are built.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi said

"This is another outright lie.

Target: IND_Roopkund_B:I3345"

What a cheat. This sample is not Indian, it is 1600ad RoopkundB.. We are bothered about the RoopkundA indigenous samples which are 800ad. Stop vomiting here.. I stop replying to you now..

Roopkund A I6941
R1a1a1b2a1a1a1f~ Y928

Target: IND_Roopkund_A:I6942
Distance: 2.2962% / 0.02296175
100.0 Pallan
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA


Target: IND_Roopkund_A:I6942
Distance: 2.0009% / 0.02000890
56.6 Pallan
25.4 Paniya
18.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.0 Pulliyar
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA

Francesco Brighenti said...


@vAsiSTtha

"It was a war weapon, and i will call it a chariot."

Try to go to battle on a solid-wheel carriage drawn (most likely) by a pair of oxen (not horses, for which there is no evidence whatsoever in Sanauli burials). Just like the famous Daimabad model cart, or the similar BMAC ox-drawn cart (not useful in battle, probably a ceremonial wheeled vehicle). Sumerian solid-wheel battle wagons were very different, they were drawn by asses, had four solid wheels, and were used to carry soldiers quickly to the battle site. You drive one of those slow-moving Sanauli vehicles to a battle site, and you are automatically dead! On the contrary, the high-tech spoke-wheeled chariots described in the Vedas are real war-chariots akin to Tutankhamon's chariots. That's the reason why I said the term "chariot" is used by Hindutva-minded archaeologists for the vehicles excavated at Sanauli with the aim of persuading gullible people that "chariots" were present in South Asia at 1900 BCE, that is, before any postulated Aryan migration fron the steppes (Sintashta chariots are dated to 2000 BCE).



Archi said...

vAsiSTha said...
" "This is another outright lie.

Target: IND_Roopkund_B:I3345"

What a cheat. This sample is not Indian, it is 1600ad RoopkundB.. We are bothered about the RoopkundA indigenous samples which are 800ad. Stop vomiting here.. I stop replying to you now..

Roopkund A I6941
R1a1a1b2a1a1a1f~ Y928

Target: IND_Roopkund_A:I6942
Distance: 2.2962% / 0.02296175
100.0 Pallan
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA


Target: IND_Roopkund_A:I6942
Distance: 2.0009% / 0.02000890
56.6 Pallan
25.4 Paniya
18.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.0 Pulliyar
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA"

You are an arrogant cheater, you are using the modern population to arrogantly claim that there are no ancient populations in it. Everything you print is pure deception, you are just a lying troll, you should be banned purely with your lies. Everyone who believes you is simply disgraced.

Target: IND_Roopkund_A:I6942
Distance: 8.8787% / 0.08878727
29.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
25.8 TUR_Barcin_N
17.8 RUS_Tagar
13.0 TKM_Geoksyur_En
9.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
4.4 TUR_Boncuklu_N
0.0 CHN_Tanshishan_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_IA
0.0 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
0.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.0 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
0.0 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Steppe_Maykop_o
0.0 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.0 TKM_Geoksyur_N
0.0 TUR_Arslantepe_LC
0.0 TUR_Barcin_C


I6941 R55 1 Roopkund_A M J1b1a1 J1b1a1 is not assigned in source, by a rumor it is R2a2b1.

I6942 R57 1 Roopkund_A M P4b1 R30b2a is not assigned in source, R1a1a1b2a1a1a1f is a rumor only.

Stop cheating about this unverified result.

Not counting your nonsense that it was allegedly discovered only at 800 CE, it is your gap that India is not tested for ancient DNA. Not tested at all.

LBA / IA Pakistan Swat Valley, Loebanr [I12457 / Grave 65, Individual 2 (A) in a double burial , 594 ] 1044-922 calBCE (2830±20 BP, PSUAMS-5280) M R1a1a1b Z93>Z94, Y2?

LBA / IA Pakistan Swat Valley, Butkara II [I12450 / Grave unrecorded (25?), Individual 1/?, ID 3542, 587 ] 824-792 calBCE (2630±20 BP, PSUAMS-5279) M R1a1a1 Z93>Z94, Y26+? Y2?

Pakistan Swat Valley, Saidu Sharif [I2955 / I6891 / Grave 11, single burial , DA-SIM0317-005 ] 431-168 calBCE [431-381 calBCE (2346±21 BP, CIRCE-DSH-6526), 361-168 calBCE [361-168 calBCE (2180±30 BP, PSUAMS-3984), 358-181 calBCE (2185±20 BP, PSUAMS-4424)] M R1a1a1b

vAsiSTha said...

Correction above:

Roopkund A I6941
R1a1a1b2a1a1a1f~ Y928 should read

Roopkund A I6942
R1a1a1b2a1a1a1f~ Y928.. I6942 is the only L657 adna sample found so far.

@fransesco said
"Sumerian solid-wheel battle wagons were very different, they were drawn by asses, had four solid wheels, and were used to carry soldiers quickly to the battle site. You drive one of those slow-moving Sanauli vehicles to a battle site,"

Except the sanauli chariots had only 2 wheels, not 4. They were light framed for faster speeds, and carried only 2 people the charioteer and the warrior. (not useful for mass trasnport of soldiers lol). it also has poles for fixing canopy/flag staff..

Sanauli region is 100km from kurukshetra, the battlefield of the mahabharata, and these burials of warriors are therefore highly significant..

"That's the reason why I said the term "chariot" is used by Hindutva-minded archaeologists...."

Thats why I keep saying 'aryan' 'invasion' being true is held and propogated by white supremacist europeans since centuries..



Tigran said...

@ Ioannis

I mean given that SWAT had E1b and I2 and those are pretty much non existent in South Asia it is stupid to base any theory off SWAT. Its also a limited sample. So even if the steppe ancestry in SWAT was female mediated it was the exception not the rule. And obviously a SWAT like population was not responsible for the mass cucking of the IVC castizos.

JohnnyOla said...

@ Kouros


No,You Are Wrong.

Post-Aryan invasion South Asians would have higher Anatolia N mix otherwise as BMAC was high in Anatolia N input.South Asian Anatolia N input is quite low and all of it is explained with the Anatolia N part of their Sintashta/Andronovo-like ancestors.There is no room for any BMAC mix.Not any.Aryans simply bypassed the BMAC lands when invading South Asia.They came from the Kazakh steppe very quickly.With no stop on the way.It Is time For You indian nationalists to accept and face the reality and your west eurasian conquer. I know that You dont Like it, but genetics are here to prove You all Wrong.

Ramber said...

@Davidski

I have asked for some help on Anthrogenica to find the links to the genotype data and some users me help assist me in finding them.

I hope it works this time. Here are the genotype data for the Khasi and other Austroasiatics.

The genetic legacy of continental scale admixture in Indian Austroasiatic speakers: https://evolbio.ut.ee/munda/

Population Genetic Structure in Indian Austroasiatic Speakers: The Role of Landscape Barriers and Sex-Specific Admixture: https://evolbio.ut.ee/Tatte_2019/

And these two links below are the ones for the Indonesian populations and other Austronesian and Oceanian groups:

Multi-layered population structure in island South-East Asians: https://evolbio.ut.ee/SEA/


Population Prehistory in Island Southeast Asia:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE80534

Please let me know if these data could be uploaded to G25 this time.

Thank you very much and regards,

J.S. said...

@Simon_W

Tableau 13, page 198_199: snp's for each sample, not so bad for low coverage genomes

Main results of the study
• For the necropolises of Urville-Nacqueville, Barbuise and Gurgy, we were able to obtain 12 low-coverage genomes. The collaboration with M. Pruvost allowed us to constitute the largest corpus for the Iron Age in Europe, with 41 low-coverage genomes.
• The analyses performed (ACP, f-statistics, qpAdm) highlight :
∘ a genetic continuity between the French Iron Age and the modern French population ;
∘ a genetic shift between Neolithic and Bronze and Iron Age groups and a noticeable genomic continuity between Bronze and Iron Age populations in France, supporting the hypothesis of a Bronze- Iron age transition related to economic, political changes rather than a massive influx of allochthonous groups.
• The 41 low-coverage genomes obtained have been divided into 5 regional groups : Alsace, Paris Basin, North, Normandy and Occitania. The various analyses carried out highlight :
∘ a strong genetic affinity between England and Normandy as well as between Occitania and the Iberian Peninsula ;
∘ a north-south gradient for the « Yamnaya » (Steppes) component ;
∘ an important Neolithic component for the Paris Basin group, consistent with the data obtained on
mtDNA ;
• The tests conducted to date do not allow a clear genomic distinction to between men and women from
French Iron Age.

J.S. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JohnnyOla said...

@ fasista

Read carefully what i wrote and stop humiliate yourself(it is for your own good).I said:Steppe mtDNA is rare in South Asia whereas steppe Y-DNA (specifically R1a-Z93) is quite common there.The reason for it,is simply because the invasion is a largely male-driven invasion.I never mention that there is not steppe mtDNA,but you like it or not, it is not in the numbers of steppe yDNA especially R1a-Z93.You have to understand that steppe people(even the later nomadic Turks,Huns,Mongols) they were traveling by big groups and these groups were largely male folks(with a very small number of females).This is pretty much what happened in South Asia as well.Its an attitude of steppe people(even from the bronze age period until to middle ages) to traveling for days and nights to distant lands seeking for better opportunities.

Andrzejewski said...

@CrM @Davidski “ But we know Yamnaya is about 35-40% CHG, as per Wang et al.

Also, this seems like a forever actual topic on Eurogenes, whenever there's Iran_N or CHG in Steppe, and evidently it is mostly the latter rather than former.”

Yamnaya was something like at least 40% EHG, at least 40% CHG and up to 20% EEF. Sredny Stog and Early Corded Ware may have had a slightly higher Anatolian and WHG proportions.

Assuming that PIE arose on the Steppes and was NOT an Anatolian-based language (like Cucuteni or GAC), we can’t be sure whether it was originally an EHG or a CHG one. Nonetheless, the ANE component was close to 50% in Repin and early stage Yamnaya, owing due to 75% ANE ratio in EHG plus 35% ANE in CHG.

Complicating matters is the factor that CHG is basically Dzudzuana plus ANE, and EHG had 25% of its ancestry made up of mostly WHG but also a bit of CHG thrown into the mix.

Therefore, statistically speaking, PIE being originally a language spoken by Ancient North Eurasians groups is 1/2, but then it could’ve been a Neolithic Farmer (mediated via West or through Dzudzuana), or even a tiny odd of being a WHG derived one, either because of the 10%-25% WHG within Cucuteni to GAC, or because after all - EHG were 1/4 WHG.

Any thoughts?

Salden said...

I wait for the Old Egypt DNA to spread. Judging from here, there'll be hordes of Hoteps/Black Nationalists acting up here and on social media.

Aleph said...

@Matt

Check out the difference between western Iran neolithic samples and the eastern Iran mesolithic sample. You will definitely see a difference: the mesolithic eastern Iran sample has noticeably more ANE. It also prefers AG3 over both MA1 and WSHG. I suspect that the type of ANE in western Iran, though less than Hotu, is also AG3, or at least more like AG3 than any other known ANE sample/ANE-rich sample. This is probably why Iran_N used to be modeled as part EHG: because EHG is WHG + ANE and Iran_N is WHG + Basal + ANE and so things seem to fit that way early on in the mid 2010s, though the proportions are different and there is no actual EHG ancestry in Iran_N or Iran_M.

Kouros said...

@ Archi, comprehend basic math or enroll in some stat lecture, your making an idiot out of yourself , Vashishte's model is correcte here.

@ Vashishte, that sample look modern, 800 CE? If R1a is there , 2-2.5 millenia by then for Pallan , Steppe ancestry neutered. It actually depicts how prolific it was and likely spread by other Indien groups who accrued it from Steppe creole populations. I verified the Pallan have R1a too in small percentage.

Andrzejewski said...

@ALL I need to find articles pertaining to the Pitt-Ware (SHG?) vis-a-vis the Combed (Ceramic?) Ware. I come across contradictory information, for instance, that the PWC are mostly WHG although the Combed W were mostly EHG, adding that the latter ones rendered the transition from Kunda to Narva Cultures. To me it’s significant because Narva was essentially the “Baltic HG” ethnogenesis that got subsumed into CWC when Corded invaded the Baltics.

Moreover, I have read research papers claiming that the Saami are not the descendants of SHG but actually that currently Scandinavians have OTOH some trace SHG/PWC indirectly because of assimilated Funnel Beakers. So, is Erteboelle PWC, or was it WHG?

There was a hypothesis that Saami were the descendants of “Post Swiderian” culture post LGM who were later came under influence of Siberian N1c1 carrier Uralic speakers, leading them to lose the majority of their original vocabulary. Thus, are the pre-Uralic traces in Saami WHG or SHG in nature?

I remember Haikinnen writing that the (much scarcer) Baltic- and Volgaic- pre-Uralic substrate are vastly distinct from one another. Is that due to the former being a WHG relic whereas the latter was EHG/Combed Ceramic one?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Finno-Ugric_substrate

Davidski said...

@Ramber

This will take me a couple of weeks.

vAsiSTha said...

Kouros

"@ Vashishte, that sample look modern, 800 CE? "

Yeah roopkund had 2 groups of people who died at the same spot. 800ce, a group of indians and 1600ce a bunch of foreign tourists. I6942 is not just R1a, but R1a-L657+ the south asian marker. the only one found so far.

"If R1a is there , 2-2.5 millenia by then for Pallan , Steppe ancestry neutered. It actually depicts how prolific it was and likely spread by other Indien groups who accrued it from Steppe creole populations. I verified the Pallan have R1a too in small percentage."

Steppe ancestry neutered no way to test or prove this.. so you may believe it if you wish to.

who accrued it from Steppe creole populations No R1a-Y3+, L657+ in any sample we have found so far in steppe or any other place. So I wont buy this claim until we find it in adna.

The fact that so far, R-L657 has been found in a sample with minimal steppe (plus likely a dravidian speaking Tamil farmer) is ironic and quite funny to me..

Tigran said...

@Saiden

The new argument will be we only have Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom samples and not dynastic samples.

And when the Egyptians do turn out as 90% West Eurasian the argument will shift to ANA/E1b being indicative of SSA character of Egypt's founding population.

Archi said...

vAsiSTha said...

"Except the sanauli chariots had only 2 wheels, not 4."

Don't be bullshit, there were two-wheeled carriages in Sumer, but fantasies that two people could fit in them are just your fantasies, they were all for one person. as well as the carriage in Sanauli. They were never used for war, they were exclusively personal transport of the highest ranks.

https://i.ibb.co/mJDjssL/Shumer-Ur-2650-2550-BC.webp
https://i.ibb.co/YNXQ5WK/Tel-Agraba-2650-2550-BC.webp

The dates are conditional.

Kouros said...
"@ Archi, comprehend basic math or enroll in some stat lecture, your making an idiot out of yourself , Vashishte's model is correcte here."

You look like a complete idiot, I know very well the statistics and I know perfectly well how qpAdm works, but you have no idea how it works and what its parameters mean. All of you nationalists are just shameful uneducated deceivers.


@Andrzejewski
"@ALL I need to find articles pertaining to the Pitt-Ware (SHG?) vis-a-vis the Combed (Ceramic?) Ware."

Malmstrom, H. et al. (2009), Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians, Current Biology, vol. 19 (Nov 2009), pp. 1?5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.09.017
Malmström, H. et al. (2015), Ancient mitochondrial DNA from the northern fringe of the Neolithic farming expansion in Europe sheds light on the dispersion process, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, vol. 370, no. 1660, 20130373.
Brandt, G. et al. (2013), Ancient DNA Reveals Key Stages in the Formation of Central European Mitochondrial Genetic Diversity, Science, vol. 342, no. 6155 (2013), pp. 257-261.
Skoglund, P. et al. (2012), Origins and genetic legacy of Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers in Europe, Science, vol. 336, no. 6080 (April 2012), pp. 466-469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1216304
Skoglund, P. et al. (2014), Genomic diversity and admixture differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian foragers and farmers, Science, Published Online April 24 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1253448
Coutinho, A. et al. (2020), The Neolithic Pitted Ware culture foragers were culturally but not genetically influenced by the Battle Axe culture herders, Am J Phys Anthropol. 2020;1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2378-6

JohnnyOla said...

@ Tigran

I do not even care about swat valley.As i mention above...all cases are open.Until now it seems like a mystery.They might not have been aryans indeed.Bad in the end who cares?For me, it matters that west eurasians contribute to South Asia(even if the steppe ratios are quite low).The good is we have R1a at the big majority of the population(from high caste people to plebs).They communicate with each other using IE dialects(another good achievement).Their religion is mixed with IE elements.The first civilization there and one of the first that humanity ever saw(indus valley) was largely Iran HG/N like.What else?

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski

"Yamnaya was something like at least 40% EHG, at least 40% CHG and up to 20% EEF."

Only Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o and Yamnaya_Bulgaria have such a thing, the rest have always at least 60-55% EHG, and it remains unchanged regardless of whether ANF or EEF is added. Here CHG drops by 5-12% depending on the addition of ANF/EEF.

Wise dragon said...

@EastPole "What are you talking about? The opposite is true. Nazi would be very disappointed about what new data actually appears to validate. It was not them."


Seriously? You didn't my point at all. I was talking about the 19th century scholars, who believed that the Aryans originated in the south-west Eurasian steppes(Russia, Ukraine). These scientists reconstructed the Aryan invasion from this part o to India. The Nazis just hijacked their ideas to push their own made up Aryan race myth, thus interpreted the Aryan invasion in racist terms. However, I politely ask you, to stop reducing German history to 12 years Nazi-rule.   

Tigran said...

@Ioannis

Agree. Iran_N and Steppe_MLBA were the forces behind South Asian civilization. South Asians need to understand that.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

SHGs from Norway were mostly EHG apparently.
Target: VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
Distance: 0.0443% / 0.04429495
78.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
22.0 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso

Angantyr said...

@Andrzejewski

Your questions are extremely confused, but I'll give it a try...

"@ALL I need to find articles pertaining to the Pitt-Ware (SHG?) vis-a-vis the Combed (Ceramic?) Ware."

Archi gave you a list of PWC papers; for CCC (Comb Ceramic Culture, Combed Ware Culture, Pit-Comb Ware Culture... they've got many names) I'd add:

Jones, E. et al. (2017), The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early European Farmers, Current Biology, Volume 27, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 576-582, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.12.060
Saag, L. et al. (2017), Extensive Farming in Estonia Started through a Sex-Biased Migration from the Steppe, Current Biology, Volume 27, Issue 14, 2017, Pages 2185-2193.e6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.022
Mittnik, A. et al. (2018). The genetic prehistory of the Baltic Sea region. Nat Commun 9, 442 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-02825-9

"I come across contradictory information, for instance, that the PWC are mostly WHG"

Genomically, the PWCs were seemingly SHG + a bit of WHG-rich EEF. If you split up those components you could argue that they were mostly WHG, but that would be misleading if you want to trace their origin as they didn't come from a pure WHG group.

But it should be noted that we currently only have PWC genomes from Gotland (plus a few mtDNAs from elsewhere). These might not be representative.

"although the Combed W were mostly EHG,"

That appears to be true.

"adding that the latter ones rendered the transition from Kunda to Narva Cultures."

What does that mean? The CCC appears in the Baltic later than Narva. Narva did pick up ceramics from further east though, and that may have been from a proto-CCC population.

"To me it’s significant because Narva was essentially the “Baltic HG” ethnogenesis that got subsumed into CWC when Corded invaded the Baltics."

(A subsumed ethnogenesis...?)

"Moreover, I have read research papers claiming that the Saami are not the descendants of SHG"

The Saami are definitely not the direct descendants of the Mesolithic Scandinavian HGs, no. But they may have absorbed some SHG, if there were still such HGs around, when they expanded through northern Scandinavia.

"but actually that currently Scandinavians have OTOH some trace SHG/PWC indirectly because of assimilated Funnel Beakers."

What does that mean? The PWCs do have some ancestry from TRBs (Funnel Beakers). The Nordic LN (Late Neolithic) people, very similar to today's Scandinavians, may in turn have absorbed some PWCs. And the Nordic Bronze Age people, likely mostly descending from the Nordic LN ones, may then have absorbed some further "direct" SHG in northern Scandinavia. But overall not much.

"So, is Erteboelle PWC, or was it WHG?"

This doesn't make sense, Ertebølle and PWC are archaeological cultures, WHG is a genomic profile. Ertebølle went extinct hundreds of years before PWC appeared. There is currently only one possible analysed Ertebølle genome (the Syltholm chewing gum girl from Jensen et al. 2019), and that one is WHG.

Andrzejewski said...

@Wise dragon “ The Nazis just hijacked their ideas to push their own made up Aryan race myth, thus interpreted the Aryan invasion in racist terms.”

Not accurate.
Western Euro White Nationalists starting with Renan and Gabineau saw the Nordic race and Germanic tribes (including Franks, ancestors of modern French) as the purest Indo-Europeans. In addition they attributed racial purity in lieu of natural selection and genetic drift to fair skin and hair, eye colors. Then in the 1920s the Thule Society promulgated the hypothesis that Proto-Indo-Europeans came from the Arctic Circle.

Vara said...

"I am the voice of science, your voice is pure pseudoscience."

Bahahahaha.

Oh my god, supernord, you're killing me. Sometimes I'd like to think that you're not that delusional that you're probably some dude from LA who likes to troll and get an intellectual beatdown every now and then, but unfortunately, we both know that's not true.

But tell us, greatest of the prophets of science, in which ancient scripture did you find about this forbidden knowledge of the Uzboy that cannot be found in any paper?

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi “ Only Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o and Yamnaya_Bulgaria have such a thing, the rest have always at least 60-55% EHG, and it remains unchanged regardless of whether ANF or EEF is added. Here CHG drops by 5-12% depending on the addition of ANF/EEF.”

So, do you agree with Anthony 2019 that PIE was at its root an EHG which was subsequently changed profoundly by contact with Maykop, Neolithic farmers to the west and CHG?

Reading the blog entry Davidski posted a few months ago regarding WHG/ANF/WSH/Siberian, it turns out that Saami are mostly WSH, even though their IE vocabulary in their speech is close to nil. What substrate do you attribute their non-IE pre-Uralic vocabulary? EHG or WHG?

Cy Tolliver said...

Has anyone here actually tried using this new Admixtools version? Judging by some comments on Anthrogenica it doesn't sound like it's been a very smooth install for the ones that have given it a shot.

vahaduo said...

@all

Target: VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
Distance: 0.0443% / 0.04429495
78.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
22.0 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso


If you see anything like than on any forum, please inform other users that they're using de facto illegal and intentionally BROKEN copy of my tool stolen from my portfolio.

This went way too far and I've officially lost my patience right now.

JohnnyOla said...

@ Tigran


South Asians and more specific Pakistanis and Indians are quite smart.They are actually one of the smartest people worldwide.It is not by lack that they got very high positions in the western world.They are very smart and they know very well what exactly happened with steppe people and how R1a clades ended up there.It is the nationalist attitude that makes them dumb.South Asian genetics have been solved for me.Indus Valley,BMAC and the later civlizations took place mostly by western eurasian folks.Now we have to focus with Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations.I hope we are not going to see high SSA among the Egyptians of the old kingdom.As for Sumer,you will hear and see south asians,africans and negritos claiming it.

Ramber said...

@Davidski

Thank you very much. Kindly appreciated your generosity to upload more samples.

Seinundzeit said...

Matt,

Yeah, those are quite distinct from mine:

Eastern_West_Asian_Cline,0.06559125,0.039098375,-0.1483925,0.06254075,-0.1260675,0.054628125,0.013338,0.004731125,-0.04409775,-0.036812,-0.000446375,0.0040095,0.002099875,-0.016750875,0.0249385,0.020137875,-0.014607875,0.0010925,0.00047175,-0.025669,0.001123,-0.02300475,-0.0012925,-0.020724875,0.003831875

AASI,-0.021845125,-0.26865475,-0.2075425,0.178993125,-0.0037375,0.052156375,-0.01136475,0.01203225,0.146478375,0.094653,-0.0014175,-0.0007825,-0.0092175,0.027319625,-0.044483625,-0.047146,0.039489,-0.002577875,-0.00178025,0.061957375,0.003929875,0.002795013,-0.0161175,0.02044825,-0.01215525

But anyway....

Thanks to David's generous assistance, I'm playing around with qpGraph (finally had time today to get things started).

It's interesting stuff. I'll try to explore the topic we've been discussing.

Francesco Brighenti said...

@vAsiSTha

“Sanauli chariots had... 2 wheels... They were light framed for faster speeds, and carried only 2 people the charioteer and the warrior... It also has poles for fixing canopy/flagstaff... Sanauli region is 100km from Kurukshetra, the battlefield of the Mahabharata, and these burials of warriors are therefore highly significant.”

Now I understand why the great Kurukshetra battle related to in the Mahabharata was a hecatomb: precisely because during that battle warriors fought driving ox-drawn vehicles with solid wheels like the Sanauli one, i.e. like this:

https://tinyurl.com/y6vkg9d5

They must have provided an easy target to archers from the enemy camp! (Notwithstanding the heroic efforts of the two oxen, which tried their best to run as fast as they could...)

[I had written:] “That’s the reason why I said the term ‘chariot’ is used by Hindutva-minded archaeologists...”

[vAsiSTha replied:] “That’s why I keep saying ‘Aryan invasion’ being true is held and propagated by white supremacist Europeans since centuries...”

The difference is that you seem to be as Hindutva-minded as the aforesaid Indian archaeologists, whereas I am by no means a white supremacist.

Archi said...

@Angantyr
"Narva did pick up ceramics from further east though, and that may have been from a proto-CCC population.Э

Pottery came to Eastern Europe through Siberia quite early, so Narva could get pottery from anyone. Pottery in northern China in Nanzhuangtou near Lake Baiyangdian (10,800–8,700 bc) and Donghulin near modern Beijing (10,800–8,700 bc); across Japan at Odai Yamamoto, Kubodera-Miniami, Taisho III and many other sites between 15,200 and 11,900 bc (Yamahara 2006); in the Russian Far East, along the Amur River, at sites such as Khummi, Gasya and Gromatukha, between 14,900 and 10,200 bc; and in the Transbaikal, between 12,300 and 10,200 bc, at sites such as Ust’-Karenga and Studenoe (Boaretto et al. 2009; Kuzmin and Vetrov 2007; McKenzie 2009; Razgildeeva et al. 2013; Zhao and Wu 2000; Yang et al. 2012).
At the western edge of Siberia, early dates for pottery-bearing layers from several sites have now been published, such as Sumpan’ya IV (12,200–8,200 bc; Fig. 1.4(p)), Andreevskoe Ozero XVIII (8,500–8,300 bc) and Amnya I (8,600–7,200 bc) (Kuzmin and Vetrov 2007; Kosintsev et al. 2004). West of the Urals, in the middle Volga region, this pattern is repeated at sites like Chekalino IV (8,400–4,800 bc; Fig. 1.4(l)) and Lebyazhinka (7,900–5,486 bc).

mzp1 said...

Shouldn't geneticists be able to determine whether the relationship between Steppe DNA and South Asians is due to steppe dna moving in or moving out of South Asia?

If that 30% of steppe dna in south asia is due to inward migration then it means the full steppe genome entered south asia so different modern individuals will have different parts of the steppe genome but the whole genome should be there in different parts.

If steppe dna is related to south asians due to dna moving out and drifting then we should see that south asians share the same segments in that 30% or so and so the other 70% will not be found in south asians.

Make sense right?

Rob said...

The earliest pottery in elshanka is ~ after 6000 BC; which is when WSHG ancestry appears in the Samara region

Davidski said...

@mzp1

Shouldn't geneticists be able to determine whether the relationship between Steppe DNA and South Asians is due to steppe dna moving in or moving out of South Asia?

Steppe DNA definitely moved into South Asia and this has already been determined on multiple levels. For example...

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

So you need to get a new hobby, because obviously this one isn't working out for you.

Archi said...

@mzp1

"Shouldn't geneticists be able to determine whether the relationship between Steppe DNA and South Asians is due to steppe dna moving in or moving out of South Asia?"

Genetics has unambiguously determined everything and without options, you just do not want to perceive it.

Rob said...
"The earliest pottery in elshanka is ~ after 6000 BC"

It is not true. The early pottery of Elshanka starts around 7000BC, it is proven.

mzp1 said...

You guys are not answering my question and i think your too smart to not understand.

Two populations can be related two ways.

Phylogenetic: both populations have the same ancestor populations and eqch has drifted away over time from the ancestor and each other.

Admixture: different populations mixed, resulting in a mixed population.

I am saying Steppe DNA in South Asia is of the first type and you say the second.

It is easy to check though...

In the case of the first, because drift happens at population level, south asian individuals will share the same subset of snps with steppe. Therefore you will only find SOME steppe snps in south asians even if you look at 1000s of individuals.

In the second model south asians would have recieved the whole steppe genome from each individual invader/migrant and they would have mixed with different south asian groups in different mixing events. Descendants can have steppe ancestry on any snp. Therefore, the whole steppe genome can be reconstructed given enough modern south asian samples.

Rob said...

@ Archi

''It is not true. The early pottery of Elshanka starts around 7000BC, it is proven''


All those early dates are wrong - from shells with > 1000 year reservoir effects.
For example:

№ Стоянка Лаб.индекс Возраст ВР Возраст ВС Материал
1 Чекалино IV Le – 4781 8990±100 2σ 8450-7750 Раковины
2 Чекалино IV Ki – 14688 5870±80 2σ 4940-4540 Керамика
3 Чекалино IV Le – 4782 8000±120 2σ 7300-6600 Раковины
4 Чекалино IV Gin – 7086 7950±130 2σ 7250-6450 Раковины
5 Чекалино IV Spb – 424 7660±200 2σ 7050-6050 Керамика
6 Чекалино IV Poz – 42051 7250 ±60 2σ 6230-6010 Уголь
7 Чекалино IV Spb – 1731 7127±150 2σ 6400-5700 Керамика
8 Чекалино IV Spb – 2249 5807±120 2σ 4948-4441 Керамика

Even the carbon form pottery crust is liable to reservoir effect. The optimal method is to use terrestrial animals for dating. All these dates produce dates after 6000 BC

Russian Neolithic archaeologists are finally becoming acquainted about the problems of reservoir effect - eg. Vybornov & Vasilieva (2017) now date Elshanka in 'the 6th to 5th millenium BC' .

Finally, as I said, the ancient humans have spoken. WSHG ancestry appears in the Volga-Ural area in the mid sixth cc.
Make the effort to understand these things instead of pretending to be an expert

Archi said...

@mzp1

1. There are no basal R1a1s in South Asia / India.
2. There are no EHG ancestors in South Asia / India.
Therefore, in this universe, they could not possibly get out of South Asia / India.

Rob said...



Futher-

Mihalovic & Alekseev (2017) come to the same conclusions ''The radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic culture of the area of interest demonstrate their rather ancient age in the eastern part of the area (6200 ВС) and rather smooth transition to younger (5900 ВС) in the western zone. There is a combined chronointerval for the monuments of Elshanka and Ertebølle cultures.''

For the West Urals ''The emergence of pottery among Stone Age hunter-gatherer societies of Eurasia constitutes one of the major open questions in Old World prehistory. Located halfway between the earliest Late Glacial cores of pottery production in East Asia, and Eastern Europe with forager ceramic starting around 6000 cal BC, the Urals and West Siberia are a key region in various scenarios currently under discussion. A lack of reliable absolute dates has been hindering an in-depth understanding of the temporal and spatial scales of the initial spread of the ceramic innovation. A Russian-German dating programme has now created a more reliable chronology of the early pottery phase, based
on 28 AMS dates from across the study region. Taking freshwater reservoir effects into account, we can show that the earliest reliable evidence for pottery stems from the West Siberian forest steppes and Urals foothills, dating to the end of the 7th millennium cal BC.'' (i.e. ~ 63/62000 calBC; fig 8)
(The emergence of hunter-gatherer pottery in the Urals and West Siberia:New dating and stable isotope evidence; 2020)


As a final point, all highlight the role of the Aral-Caspian region in inflencing steppe pottery, it is not simply a transition from CHina through Siberia, regions which often have little, if anything, to do with steppe pottery.

Matt said...

@Mzp, if I'm understanding you, in principle I guess you could use accumulation of a given frequency class of rare SNPs particular to a population as an extra check of the most likely direction of admixture and it's date. E.g. generally rarer SNPs are younger, so if you identify a set of rare SNPs that can be dated around 4000 kya in a Population A and then Population B later has only a subset then perhaps that indicates a direction of admixture (from A->B).

But in practice adna work doesn't work this way; in practice it looks at frequency shifts (i.e. largely f2 statistics and their products) across a predetermined set of common variants ascertained in the most diverse human populations. This is because of the expense of whole genome sequencing large numbers of ancient specimens is way too prohibitive. So you would not be able to do anything much with rare SNPs unless you got large sample numbers of whole genome ancient DNA, which is not possible on current costs.

I'm a bit confused about if this is what you're asking though. The only other thing I could think was that you might be suggesting that local ancestry inference (where admixture shows up across the genome) would be different under a different directional scenario of admixture. But this isn't the case; e.g. with Neanderthal where admixture is only low % , the distribution across the genome is similar, except where selection may have had an effect (which would be way less of an issue comparing full sequence modern DNA). So yes, in principle just as you could reconstruct the entire Neanderthal genome, less effect of selection, you could reconstruct the genomes of Steppe MLBA related population entering S Asia. But computationally this would be beyond current technology.

Of course patterns across genome can be used to date admixture, which is what the Rolloff stuff by Priya Moorjani is about, but can have problems doing so precisely for various reasons.

a said...

There are many points to take into consideration when comparing Samara Hunter Gatherer pottery, Amur river basin and other Eastern Hunter Gatherer pottery. Some are--
1)Composition.
2)Size.
3)Wall thickness.
4)Shape, Hunter gatherer conical strong versus flat base farmer
5)Decoration.(plain,etched,rope/cord,ochre etc....)
6)function, cart transportation, boat transport, food collection, water/milk, ochre storage, burial, ceremonial etc....

An example would be Jomon hunter gatherer point based cylinder with corded top decoration.

Archi said...

@Rob

All those early dates are wrong - from shells with > 1000 year reservoir effects.
For example:
Make the effort to understand these things instead of pretending to be an expert "

Don't be fancy, shells have nothing to do with ceramics and charcoal, all these your dates are from different layers. The reservoir effect in ceramics is unlikely to exist at all, if it is there, then it is extremely low, as in general for river systems of 100-200 years. This is not like in Greece and the Middle East where the reservoir effect reaches 1000-2000 years, because the marine reservoir effect is many times stronger than the river one. The river effect is generally denied by many because it is extremely insignificant. It's just that the whole problem is that only in Russia the reservoir effect is measured, and in other places it is not measured at all.

The reservoir effect of> 1000 years occurs only in the Marine reservoir effect. This is a common reservoir effect in Greece and the Middle East, in Denmark, the Netherlands, and in general by the sea; rivers and lakes do not have such an effect, only if you are a whole shellfish living for a hundred years, the Fresh Water reservoir effect is several times less, because the carbon there is much younger than in the sea.

You don't know anything about Elshanskaya culture, so don't pretend that you are an expert.

The texts of some deceivers who write about the absence of reliable dates cannot be convincing, since these dates have long been published.

Officially published Elshanskaya culture's dates with pottery:

7660±200 7052–6101 cal BC Spb-424 pottery Chekalino IV
8020±90 7181–6652 cal BC Le-2343 Bones Ivanovka
7930±90 7061–6610 cal BC Ki-14568 pottery Ivanovka
7780±90 7022–6446 cal BC Ki-14631 pottery Ivanovka
7680±90 6733–6374 cal BC Ki-14567 pottery Ivanovka
7560±70 6566–6248 cal BC Spb-587 pottery Ivanovka
7613±120 6750–6200 cal BC Spb-1733 pottery Bolshaya Rakovka II

It's just that the position of these subjects is known, they in any way want to tie the appearance of ceramics to the arrival from the Middle East where it appeared very much, and even their early dates cannot be trusted at all, so they adjust the dates. All their opinions are fake. Elshanskaya culture existed before the Middle Volga culture, which appeared somewhere in the range of 6500-6200BC, which already had ceramics from the very beginning. Therefore, she could not appear later as they write.
Their position is delusional, pottery could not have come from the Middle East since it came to Eastern Europe without a Neolithic farm package and is extremely similar to the early Siberian one.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

EHGs seem like an obvious stepping stone, and CCC dominated all non-Steppe EHGs at one point.

Guy said...

@Mzp and @Matt, what you are looking for are Site Frequency Spectrum (SFS) related methods. Which are then used to drive visualizations such as Rarecoal. The issue (I guess) being you need to use high quality shotgun sequenced genomes to drive the data analysis, which are rare in aDNA. These techniques can be used on modern genomes. "Genomic Insights into the Demographic History of Southern Chinese", Xiufeng Huang, 2020 is recent example.

SLMD said...

@CrM

Wang et al. study shows there is no CHG in the steppe. Eneolithic steppe had something that was "ancestral" to CHG, not CHG itself. Hopefully Dzudzuana paper will shed some light on better proxy for CHG-like ancestry in steppe.

Looking at where Eneolithic steppe samples plot, I highly doubt there is much CHG-like admixture in them. Eneolithic steppe all plot with EHG-heavy populations in Volga. Yamnaya and Cordered shift a bit more west since they absorb some farmer ancestry while moving further west

1. Eneolithic steppe VS Moderns

PCA plot : https://imgur.com/sUp5R4H

2. Yamnaya steppe VS Moderns

PCA plot : https://imgur.com/wDmEaLH

3. Corded Ware VS Moderns

PCA plot : https://imgur.com/On0llGQ

vAsiSTha said...

@mzp1

"I am saying Steppe DNA in South Asia is of the first type and you say the second."

I do not understand. We have adna from IVC an Niraj rai said the new sample is more of the same (ie 60-80pc Iran like + rest AASI like). later Swat samples + modern samples show additional 3rd northern component..

so what am i missing in what you are saying? are you saying a hidden steppe type population was sitting somewhere in southasia? thats next to impossible, or at least not to be believed till actual adna proves it.

Matt said...

@Sein, having a chance to look at your simulation, myself I would not say so distinct actually; distance between your proxy and my proxy is only 0.051 (less than between either and Iran_N and converted to an estimated Fst around 0.002!). It's still pretty limited levels of differentiation I'd say.

I think the "West Eurasian" start points of the cline are fairly similar, though I think I have pushed mine more towards the intersection of Iran_N + SISBA1 on PC1 vs PC2 (as a means to intersect with "West Eurasia"). More difference in the "AASI" point, though the "AASI" point I've assigned is really just to illustrate the cline (not necessarily the AASI point)

Visually: https://imgur.com/a/djowIlv

Good luck with Admixtools!

mzp1 said...

Matt,

It's a bit like the Neanderthal example you mention.

Maybe this helps. In admixr I can group together different populations to run ADMIXTOOLS.

relabel(merged2, EUR=c("English", "Italian_North", "FIN.DG", "Greek", "Ukrainian", "Russian"), SA=c("Kalash", "Jatt", "Ror", "GujaratiB", "UBR.SG"))

and then run an f4..

f4(Russia_Afanasievo, Chimp.REF)(EUR, SA)

I get Z=+17.3

d,stderr,z,baba,abba,snps
(0.0256 0.00148 17.3 7468 7096 101207)

+ 17.3 is a big number. It happens because we have combined populations for the groups EUR and SA, and the SA populations have more of their Steppe DNA in the sample place, so for lots of the genomes there is just no match with steppe. However, the EUR populations match the steppe dna in more different places, so we get a high + score.

Salden said...

Indo-European languages with associated DNA didn't come from India or the "Middle-East."

Rob said...

@ Archie

“ Their position is delusional, pottery could not have come from the Middle East ”

Lol . Shows that you don’t even read, because they never said pottery came from the Middle East . The Aral Sea isn’t in the Middle East, and it's broadly part of the Eastern tradition
Moreover, you're using their (outdated, now corrected) data to claim they're wrong.


“ You don't know anything about Elshanskaya culture, so don't pretend that you are an expert.”

I know enough that Russian scholarship has finally caught up on the matter. Which is why Russian scholars now date it to 6000 BC, as quote above. Your complaints are irrelevant here. In fact, its probably even later than that ! I say 5500 BC. Im right , of course I am , i am right, It is proven !



@ A

'Jomon pottery'

Has nothing to do with steppe pottery . It's a contra-lateral offshoot of Far Eastern pottery

Archi said...

@ Rob
"Lol . Shows that you don’t even read, because they never said pottery came from the Middle East . The Aral Sea isn’t in the Middle East"

Lol. Do not be bullshit, you certainly did not omit the title of the article for nothing Andreev & Vybornov (2017) "EARLY NEOLITHIC POTTERY FROM CENTRAL ASIA TO DENMARK", since the title already says where they bring ceramics from. They write about Jebel (Kelteminar) which they link with Iran.

Moreover, you misrepresented their names to confuse us more in "Mihalovic & Alekseev (2017) January 4, 2021 at 4:30 AM".


Tigran said...

Is there any examples of pottery in West Eurasia that don't ultimately come from an ANE source (which itself seems to have ultimately come from an East Eurasian source)?

mzp1 said...

I dont think the above was fair as I had 6 pops for EUR and 5 for SA so just doing it again more evenly.

EUR=English, Italian_North, FIN.SG, Greek, Ukrainian
SA=Kalash, Jatt, Ror, GujaratiB, UBR,SG

First we can run f4s with just the individual populations. EUR X SA. So 25 rows

https://ibb.co/zRmQRwv

Just looking at averages
d= 0.024056
stdErr= 0.0028148
Z= +9.3228

Now, looking at the combined f4,

f4(Russia_Afanasievo, Chimp.REF), (EUR, SA) = + 18.2
(It is higher than before as I had a typo in FIN.DG, should be FIN.SG)

d=0.027
stdErr=0.00146

So it can be seen that the d number is a bit higher but interestingly the stdErr has shrunk alot, halved, and hence we have a much greater Z score of 18.

stdErr is lower because by combining EUR populations we increase the likelyhood of EUR matching steppe DNA on any position, but not so for SA, as they mostly match steppe in the same places.

The effect of combining the subpopulations of EUR and SA shows that the steppe DNA in South Asia is much less uniformly distributed across the genome than in Europe.

Rob said...

@ Archi

I'm not going to belabour the point, because it is beyond your capacity to understand or assimilate scientific data
Suffice it to say, these revised dates are from the Russian scholars themselves which produced the erroneous over-estiamted dates in the first place.

Ano no, they don't claim that pottery is from the Middle East. That is, yet again, your inability to understand scientific text


@ A

''An example would be Jomon hunter gatherer ''

Jomon pottery has nothing to do with steppe pottery. It is a contral-lateral developement of Eastern pottery traditions. You have some bizare ideas sometimes

a said...

Salden, that is a reasonable post, with all the samples that have been collected. I would like to see ancient pottery from Samara, I read it was in some instances between 3 and 4 mm thick.The same for the craftsmanship of Fatyanavo metal, or Sintashta swift spoked chariots. It would be nice to do a side by side comparison of similar Indian artifacts.

EastPole said...

@vAsiSTha @ mzp1

I have modeled some samples from Bronze Age Asia, which seem to have similar origin in Poland as a result of mixing some early CWC found in Poland and Baltic countries with Globular Amphora Culture found in Poland. These samples come from Bronze Age Uzbekistan, Krasnojarsk MLBA and Sintashta MLBA.

My question is: what languages did they most likely speak in your opinion?

You can see them on West-Eurasia-PCA and North-Eurasia-1-PCA as located between early CWC and Globular Amphora together with some Polish and Baltic CWC samples:

https://i.postimg.cc/0N6Qp5Sb/Vahaduo-Global-25-West-Eurasia-PCA-3.png
https://i.postimg.cc/MZ0G0Fnb/Vahaduo-Global-25-North-Eurasia-1-PCA-2.png

Their models seem to be good and similar to Polish and Baltic CWC which also are modeled as a mix of early CWC and Globular Amphora:

Target: UZB_Kokcha_BA:I12499
Distance: 2.2146% / 0.02214632 | R3P
74.4 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242
8.4 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1248
5.8 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1165
3.8 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1166
3.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629
2.4 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1170
1.6 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81

Target: UZB_Kashkarchi_BA:I4153
Distance: 2.7419% / 0.02741877 | R3P
42.4 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81
18.4 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp
18.4 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629
16.8 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1248
2.6 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1252
1.4 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242

Target: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1022
Distance: 2.3242% / 0.02324216 | R3P
39.6 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81
30.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242
22.4 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1165
5.4 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp
2.0 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1163


Target: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0986
Distance: 3.3152% / 0.03315174 | R3P
47.4 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242
27.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629
25.4 POL_Globular_Amphora:I2403



Target: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0989
Distance: 3.1891% / 0.03189103 | R3P
31.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp
30.4 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81
17.8 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1246
15.4 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242
5.2 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1248


Target: RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA:I1851
Distance: 3.2165% / 0.03216486 | R3P
35.4 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81
27.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629
18.6 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1249
12.8 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp
5.4 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1246
0.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242

Target: RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA:I6718
Distance: 3.2356% / 0.03235582 | R3P
46.4 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629
30.4 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1246
23.2 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81

Target: RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA:I1856
Distance: 3.5826% / 0.03582634 | R3P
42.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629
32.2 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81
25.8 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1246



Target: Corded_Ware_POL:N45
Distance: 2.1231% / 0.02123108 | R3P
48.6 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81
16.0 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1248
16.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629
14.2 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1165
5.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242


Target: Corded_Ware_POL:N44
Distance: 2.3115% / 0.02311451 | R3P
61.8 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81
14.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp
12.4 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1246
11.2 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1165

Target: Corded_Ware_Baltic:Kunila2
Distance: 3.1126% / 0.03112640 | R3P
69.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp
19.0 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1246
7.2 Corded_Ware_POL:N49
3.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629
1.6 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1252


Target: Corded_Ware_Baltic:Plinkaigalis241
Distance: 3.2625% / 0.03262517 | R3P
25.0 Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81
19.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242
18.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp
14.4 POL_Globular_Amphora:I2403
11.4 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1254
10.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629
1.0 POL_Globular_Amphora:RISE1250

Archi said...

@Rob

"''pottery stems from the West Siberian forest steppes and Urals foothills, dating to the end of the 7th millennium cal BC.'' (i.e. ~ 63/62000 calBC; fig 8) (The emergence of hunter-gatherer pottery in the Urals and West Siberia:New dating and stable isotope evidence; 2020)"
"Suffice it to say, these revised dates are from the Russian scholars themselves which produced the erroneous over-estiamted dates in the first place."

Rob said...
"The earliest pottery in elshanka is ~ after 6000 BC"

You are a direct liar, this work does not mention the Elshanka culture at all, but even these unrespected and unknown authors write that no later than "pottery stems from the West Siberian forest steppes and Urals foothills, dating to the end of the 7th millennium cal BC." 6500!-6000 calBC; fig 15. They have no after/later than 6000 years, as you fantasize. They do not make any adjustments to the data on the Elshanka culture. They do not calculate anything, they simply ignore all the data of Elshanka culture. Moreover, they are not dealing with questions of the reservoir effect in ceramics. All their nonsense is aimed at one thing, to show that the ceramics came from the Kelterminar culture, so they draw it older than it should be, and in fact, claiming that these sea fish eaters at sea did not eat fish at all, they say they do not have a High Marine reservoir effect.

I think they are all fake. That's the unbiased truth Jordan, P., Gibbs, K., Hommel, P., Piezonka, H., Silva, F., Steele, J., 2016. Modelling the diffusion of pottery technologies across afro-eurasia: emerging insights and future research questions. Antiquity 90, 590–603.

See https://i.ibb.co/LrVw1sT/Jordan-pottery-spread.png Elshanka >6500 BC, so I wrote only strictly scientific truth established in the scientific world, I have never invented anything, unlike you. You are generally infinitely far from the scientific method and any kind of honesty. It is useless to explain anything to you.


Salden said...

https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1346203102702141442

https://twitter.com/shatrubhanja/status/1345262157013733376

https://twitter.com/shatrubhanja/status/1345255153004285952


https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1345827954711027717

Summing up the anti-AIT.




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

Anyhow, I better answer Andrzejewski about the Baltic also


'' I need to find articles pertaining to the Pitt-Ware (SHG?) vis-a-vis the Combed (Ceramic?) Ware."''

As Angantyr said, SHG isn't Pitted Ware. SHG are Mesolithic hunter-gatherers without pottery. PWC are later (~ 3000BC), and have some neolithic farmer admixture, probably from TRB
Secondly, there is nothing special about CCC. Its just a Neolithic pottery koine in far northeastern Europe. PWC do not derive from CCC, although the name Pit-Comb ware may make people think it does.


''EHG, adding that the latter ones rendered the transition from Kunda to Narva Cultures''

The transition from Narva to Kunda is not due to EHG. Firstly, it represents a trasition from HGs without pottery, to pottery-using HGs. Maybe Narva is slightly more WHG-shifted than Kunda (c/w with appearance of I2a1b), but more Narva genomes are needed. Pottery diffused into the Baltic via pre-established HG networks, using the rivers from south of , and eastern, Eastern Europe.
As it is now clear, pottery begins to apear in Eastern Europe after ~ 6200 BC. This coincides with the 8.2 ky event which c/w aridization, hence HGs needed new ways to prepare & store food. There are 3 major centres of pottery in E.E. - the lower Volga-Capsian (influenced by Keltaminar styles), middle Volga - Elshanka (influenced via West Siberian styles) and the Bug-Dniester style in the West. Creolizations of these styles led to other styles further north (e.g. the Baltic)

In the E Baltic, Narva continues on in the south (Lithuania, Latvia), whislt in the north (~ Estonia) it is replaced by CCC ~ 4000 BC.

I dont know if it is Narva which is in Baltic LBA , or something like Dubicai, Neman , Zedmar cultures . Given the poor fits with current genomes, it might be somethign not yet sampled.

Andrzejewski said...

Anyone else starting to think that ancient Sumerians were an eastern offshoot of Anatolian Neolithic folks?

It’s starting to make sense now; Iran_Chl is Iran_N with lots of ANF and Levant_N introgression. The Semitic conquest of the Sumerian kingdom provided mostly a Natufian/PPNB element which blended with Iran_N and later on carried it back to the Levant to create the Canaanites (who were roughly 50% indigenous Pre-Pottery Neolithic folk comprised of Natufians and Anatolian farmers and 50% Iranians). The Old Testament myth about so-called “Abraham” may have been some echo to Kura Araxes and other Iran/Caucasus foothills migrating to the Levant. Moreover, it was found out the many of the customs described in the book of Genesis were actually Hurrian and not Semitic.

So we have a pendulum movement and back migration of Iranian and Levant elements in the Bronze —> Iron Age.

Then that leaves us the Anatolian farmers as the only reasonable ancestry component to account for the Sumerians; their language had no resemblance to the nearby Elamite/Haltamtu civilization which was native to Iran and therefore was in all likelihood Iran_N.

Am I the only one who thinks Sumerians were Anatolian migrants?

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ As Angantyr said, SHG isn't Pitted Ware. SHG are Mesolithic hunter-gatherers without pottery. PWC are later (~ 3000BC), and have some neolithic farmer admixture, probably from TRB
Secondly, there is nothing special about CCC. Its just a Neolithic pottery koine in far northeastern Europe. PWC do not derive from CCC, although the name Pit-Comb ware may make people think it does.”

So what do we know about the Saami, except that they are close to 55% Yamnaya (surprise!), have an excess of MtDNA V (otherwise quite rare originally Neolithic farmer marker, common among Berber and Basques but not mainstream modern Europeans), lack another rare Anatolian mtDNA uniparental (I) which is OTOH common among their Finnish neighbors and fellow Uralics), and speak a Uralic language which contains up to 1/3 of its vocabulary from oblique obscure non-IE pre-Uralic sources?

I’m fascinated about the possible ancient substrate in Lapp language and I wonder whether it’s origin is WHG, SHG or EHG?

Vladimir said...

@Rob “ As it is now clear, pottery begins to apear in Eastern Europe after ~ 6200 BC. This coincides with the 8.2 ky event which c/w aridization, hence HGs needed new ways to prepare & store food.”


In itself, aridization is hardly an incentive for the invention of ceramics. Apparently, the same thing happened here that happened in Mesopotamia. Aridization has encouraged or forced people to migrate to more northern areas. Thus, the population of Central Asia, according to Vybornov of the Kyzylkum district, migrated to the north. Apparently, this population brought with it the skills of making ceramics, which they had long been able to do. So the connection to East Asian ceramics may well be mediated by people of haplogroup Q, who in Central Asia passed on these skills to the R1b-Y13200 group. And already this group brought these skills to the Middle Volga and further to the Baltic States

CrM said...

@Andrzejewski, SLMD
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.

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.

epoch said...

@Andrzejewski and Angantyr

"So, is Erteboelle PWC, or was it WHG?"

While not exactly an answer: Ertebølle is WHG and not SHG. That chewing gum paper took effort to establish that.

Rob said...

@ Vladimir.
Sure, that makes sense.

@ Andre
I don't know more about Saami over what has already been said. It would be good to see further resolution of their Y-DNA, which seems to be similar to Finns (R1a, I1, N1a), but in different drifted %s.

Archi said...

@Rob

"For the West Urals ''(The emergence of hunter-gatherer pottery in the Urals and West Siberia:New dating and stable isotope evidence; 2020)"
January 4, 2021 at 4:30 AM

Rob again, stop cheating, all your words are pure deception, you wrote that they are considering the Western Urals when they did not even touch on this topic. They considered only what is east of the Urals, part of Western Siberia.

https://i.ibb.co/znSCTC3/image.png

And do not talk nonsense about some multinational groups, it does not matter and they did not touch on the topic of Europe at all. They did not correct anything from Jordan et al. since they did not consider anything except a few sites in Western Siberia only and look at the dates of their proposed correction, it is 200-300 years no more.

"As it is now clear, pottery begins to apear in Eastern Europe after ~ 6200 BC."

This is a lie. I gave you direct radiocarbon dates and pottery and animal bones, but you keep lying.

Vladimir said...
"Central Asia Apparently, this population brought with it the skills of making ceramics, which they had long been able to do."

Anti-scientific nonsense.

"So the connection to East Asian ceramics may well be mediated by people of haplogroup Q, who in Central Asia passed on these skills to the R1b-Y13200 group. "

Only Q is a Siberian haplogroup, if it came to Central Asia, it was from Siberia that it brought ceramics to Central Asia, the Kelteminar culture is definitely later than the East European ones with ceramics.

Joe Agneya said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrzejewski said...

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; in any case, it’s hard to keep track about the changes from one culture to another: Post-Swiderian, Erteboelle, PWC and so forth. Some researchers stress that the change from LBK to TRB in its northern range was due to increase in PWC admixture - others would put it on Erteboelle.

As for Sumerians- I’ve even read that some scientists speculated them coming from across the Zagros mountains, ie - from Kelteminar or perhaps Steppe Maykop, but I just can’t see them as WSHG population. Anatolian farmers fits the bill more, I think.

a said...

The Samara conical hunter gatherer pottery style can also be found in Japan's Jomon culture from an early age is there a connection with other conical pottery like Krasnaya Gorka or Amur river basin or rather all independent innovations?
Early pottery in Transbaikal Siberia: New data from Krasnaya Gorka
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314166946_Early_pottery_in_Transbaikal_Siberia_New_data_from_Krasnaya_Gorka

BTW Afanasievo came to the Transbaikal region later and also had conical style pottery.

Matt said...

@Guy, yes, SFS methods are part of that. Of course do need some set of representative ancient genomes with high coverage shotgun.

One question that may be useful to analyze is when the genetic drift that characterises different Northern European populations came about. At the moment it is unclear if drift that defines e.g. Baltic, Finnic populations came about in low post admixture population, or happened intensively in some subpopulations which then admixed (e.g. in Finnic, some East Asian related population, Baltic some Euro HG related population). F2 statistics graph models don't seem very useful to reliably figure this out.

SFS models including admixture (momi2, etc), combined with some present day high coverage genomes and a few high coverage ancients, might be the best tool to tackle this question.

Vladimir said...

@Archi
“Only Q is a Siberian haplogroup, if it came to Central Asia, it was from Siberia that it brought ceramics to Central Asia, the Kelteminar culture is definitely later than the East European ones with ceramics.”

Siberia is big. Perhaps from Siberia, and maybe from northern China or Mongolia, where there was also Q, where these people came into contact with both C2 and N1a and O2. Roughly speaking, two types of ceramics can be distinguished in Siberia. The first, just the one we are talking about, which appeared in Elshanka and the second, which is most fully discovered in Baraba. I have a suspicion that the second type of ceramics marks the N1a group.

vAsiSTha said...

@joe

vikramraj12344321@gmail.com

vAsiSTha said...

@archi said

"Target: IND_Roopkund_A:I6942
Distance: 8.8787% / 0.08878727
29.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
......"

This 8.87% result is not even worth wiping my dogs arse with.

Archi said "I6942 R57 1 Roopkund_A M P4b1 R30b2a is not assigned in source, R1a1a1b2a1a1a1f is a rumor only.

Stop cheating about this unverified result."

Here is opengenomes on this post.. https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/08/roopkund-lake-dead.html
And i have extracted Y calls from I6942 eigenstrat file myself, unlike you who knows nothing..

Opengenomes Y calls link for Roopkund paper https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_53CE_Q5vpjvpngSo3JMX_SSp6UuaD3msDc1bJNmtBc/edit#gid=821671095

"Open Genomes said...
Finally, here we have the first R1a-L657 in ancient DNA, I6942 R-Y928 (mtDNA R30b2a)
:

Harney et al. (2019) Roopkund Y-SNPs

R-Y928 on the YFull tree

I6942 Y-DNA R-Y928 mtDNA R30b2a on the Global25 Ward's distance-squared clustering tree

The date is 770-887 CE. Autosomally he clusters with Pallar (Pallan), Mala, Madiga, Maratha, Hakkipikki, and North Kannadi. These are South Indian Tamil castes.

A fascinating coincidence is that Diana, Princess of Wales, and her sons Princes William and Harry are also at least mtDNA R30b.

August 25, 2019 at 4:41 PM"

Opengenomes should assist you in admitting yourself to a mental asylum..

Regarding Swat, exactly 0 of swat samples are R-Y3+, leave aside Y2 or L657+.. Same for steppe samples.

Tigran said...

@Vlad

Didn't ceramics come from East Asia to Siberia to Central Asia (and then Iran/Levan/Anatolia)?

Vladimir said...

By the way, if iran_n (ganj_dareh_n) can be modeled as iran_hg (belt_cave_m) plus ANE, then it is quite logical to assume that the skills of making ceramics from Central Asia to Mesopotamia bring R2 with an admixture of ANE in the period from 8000 - 7000 BCE. It would be logical to assume that during the same period R2 penetrated into India. As I understand the first ceramics in India on the site of Lahuradeva appears about 7000 BCE. R2 leaves Central Asia for the same reason-aridization.

Ric Hern said...

So it seems the ANE admixture into the Caucasus population to form CHG were female mediated ?

Robert Maier said...

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.

@Matt I can't comment on DensiTree directly, since I'm not familiar with it, but I can say that each admixture graph can be seen as a combination of all trees that result from removing admixture edges. In Admixtools2, the function "graph_splittrees" returns these component trees for each admixture graph. The reverse (combining different trees into one graph) is a trickier, because usually there is not one unique way to do it.

Salden said...

https://twitter.com/dhiroalta/status/1343493623770304514

https://twitter.com/GhorAngirasa/status/1343501015597735938

https://twitter.com/huntersrolinson/status/1343538974585802752

https://twitter.com/huntersrolinson/status/1343948768257966082

https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1346279451047436288

https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1346202930504998912

OITs and other enemies of AIT are more or less the South Asian version of Creationists. Rejected by non-fringe researchers with the relevant fields. Largely operating from constructivist/conspriatorial narratives of actual science. The OIT crowd also has an imaginary version of Indian history where South Asia was one "people" before the Muslims and Euros showed up.

Bob Floy said...

@Andrzejewski
"Am I the only one who thinks Sumerians were Anatolian migrants?"

No, I've been thinking that for awhile now, and I also think that one or more EEF languages may have been related to Sumerian.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 385   Newer› Newest»