Thursday, January 14, 2021
David Anthony on Y-haplogroup R1a
Archeologist David Anthony has a new theory which attempts to explain why Y-haplogroup R1a hasn't yet been found in any Yamnaya graves. Basically, he thinks that it was carried by Yamnaya men who weren't buried in kurgans, because they were part of a social underclass, and so their remains are now difficult to locate. See here.
This is an interesting attempt to find a socio-archeological solution to a genetic question, but it's unnecessarily complicated and, in fact, also unnecessary.
The important thing to understand about R1a is that it's rarely seen in the ancient DNA record before the rise of the Corded Ware culture (CWC). Moreover, the vast majority of the R1a lineages in the world today belong to the R1a-M417 subclade, which is a relatively young (Eneolithic era?) marker and closely associated with the CWC population and its rapid expansion.
Indeed, modern R1a lineages show a very strong star-like phylogeny indicative of a series of rapid and massive expansions starting from a handful of lineages only a few thousand years ago.
So if R1a was actually present in the Yamnaya population, then the obvious reason why it hasn't yet been found in any Yamnaya remains is because it was only carried by a very small group of Yamnaya men. Simple as that.
Its expansions from the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe, predominantly via the highly successful R1a-M417, may have coincidentally and rather ironically started in a socially disenfranchised Yamnaya clan.
But my view is that R1a-M417 just happened to be present in a small group of early Yamnaya or Yamnaya-related males who came up with an economic package that allowed them to expand out of the PC steppe like no one else before them, and so they did just that.
Anthony is currently collaborating on a new paper about the Eneolithic era on the PC steppe with scientists from Harvard's David Reich Lab (see here). I'm really hoping that they get this right.
See also...
Fatyanovo as part of the wider Corded Ware family
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
213 comments:
1 – 200 of 213 Newer› Newest»R1a at the time of Yamnaya is not a steppe marker, but a forest-steppe marker. We know for sure that at that time he was present in the forest zone, but was not widespread. Since the forest-steppe has not been tested at all, we accordingly do not see it.
CWC, Sintashta are by no means steppe cultures, but forest-steppe and forest ones.
Anthony's burial fantasy is nonsense.
R1a is very thinly scattered across Eastern Europe until the rise of the CWC.
It's always outnumbered by R1b something like 10:1 until that happens, and in the forests too.
No idea why.
But I know for a fact that it is found on the steppe just before the CWC.
Anyway, I also know that close to a hundred Yamnaya skeletons have been sampled from all over the steppe, and not all of them came from kurgans.
None of them belongs to R1a, so the underclass theory is not working out.
Based on what I've seen, it looks like both the upper class and lower class Yamnaya males were overwhelmingly R1b-Z2103.
The population density of forests and forest-steppe has always been less than in the steppe. In the Mesolithic, R1a was present at least in the northern part of the modern steppe, but then disappeared from there. In the Neolithic, everything is occupied by R1b, naturally, R1a should remain in the north. At the very end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Eneolithic, there is a massive movement from north to south and from east to west, at this time R1a could again penetrated the steppe. The advancement of the Middle Don culture to the west at this time is well recorded, it could carry R1a, before that, it also spread to the south. Again, the corded Dereivka culture was a forest-steppe and a sample attributed to it by dates from Alexandria, which was in the forest-steppe. With the disintegration of the Sredniy Stog-Dereivka block of R1a cultures, the steppes may well disappear, being preserved somewhere on the periphery, their place is taken by Yamnaya R1b. I believe that the migration to Central Europe of the CWC occurs somewhere from the Middle Don or maybe from the North Don, as long as no data contradicts this.
R1a belonged to a patriarchal lifestyle. Corded ware is a demonstration of the masculine principle, the kurgans in the steppe were erected purely as patriarchal burial grounds where the whole family of the patriarch was buried after the whole family had erected the kurgan, the kurgan is a demonstration of the emerging patriarchal clan, the power of a male and a father. The rise of battle-axes very well demonstrate this new power of males.
Sorry but you'll see for yourself that the R1a samples from the forest and even forest steppe can't explain Corded Ware.
They don't have near enough CHG, because the early R1a-M417 Corded Ware samples have a lot.
Why couldn't CHG spread to the forest-steppe? Look how far to the north it was distributed in Khvalynsk-Samara already in the very Early Eneolithic.
Dereivka was a north steppe and forest-steppe culture, why couldn't it have CHG? After the collapse of the Sredniy Stog-Dereivka block of cultures, the remaining North Steppe R1a could retreat to the north.
Because there's no significant CHG in the forests. None of the properly dated samples from there look anything like Corded Ware until Fatyanovo.
That's what I'm telling you.
Dereivka is not a forest culture, the Middle Don is not a forest culture. Khvalynsk was even north of these cultures, and there is CHG. There are no data from the Volga-Don forest-steppe, except for R1a + CHG from Alexandria. The Fatyanovo culture was much farther north of these cultures, and what was there before it, strictly speaking, was not tested at all, although in one sample of one study there is a hypothetical shift towards CHG. Fatyanovo is also a mixture with EEF, and not only with CHG, so of course no one there could look like Fatyanovo until Fatyanovo himself. So so far there is no reason to assert what was not there.
It's got nothing to do with latitude, but with the steppe boundary.
Khvalynsk from Samara is basically on the steppe, so no wonder some of the Khvalynsk samples have a lot of CHG.
But only some of them do. Most are largely EHG.
Early Corded Ware could only have come from a population with a lot more CHG than Khvalynsk.
Perhaps R1a-M417 originated from an Eneolithic EHG group west of Samara, somewhere in Penza perhaps, which then quickly obtained CHG heavy Steppe ancestry when going to the steppe. They then stuck around that forest-steppe area and then for some reason decided to expand further northwest.
The emergence of CHG in Khvalynsk can be said to be 2000 years older than the spread of Corded Ware westward to Europe. For 2000 years, a lot has happened in the steppe and forest-steppe.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
That's even more creative than David Anthony's tale.
No, there's not much CHG up there.
There are Eneolithic samples with R1a from the Don River area with varying levels of CHG. There's also an R1a in an Usatovo sample from western Ukraine.
I believe Anthony was always complicated!
He is always perplexing and puzzling things!
Just a friendly suggestion though:
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF ANTHONY TRIES TO STAY IN TERMS WITH THE DEADLINES OF THE JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES AND "BLESS" US WITH AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTICLE!!!
It would be the first after...7 YEARS!
Also it would have been nice if they can publish the journal TWISE PER YEAR as they should according to the journal refferee terms and not ONCE PER 8 MONTHS!!!
As for the lack of R1a haplogroup in the Yamnaya culture it would again be nice to tell us how many of the Yamnaya kurgans that are known has been excavated (sic. Not even the 35%!!!), from those excavated and had human remains what percentage was sampled for aDNA and finally why the hundreds of articles in Russian and Ukrainian archaeological journals are not translated in english?
It is unbelievable how nany journals from the former Yugoslavia, Chechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and other countries near the Baltic publish proto-IE articles in their native language that remain unknown because they are not translated in english!!!
Thus their findings remain unknown and either understudied or non studied at all by international experts in the Indoeuropean issues!
The historiography and theoretical framework established (e.g. about migrations, social networks, etc) is great, so is the take on GAC vs CWC in northern Europe. However, I don't think there is real evidence for D.A.'s contention here. As D.W. said, both elites & commoners in eastern Yamnaya are R1b-Z2013. Western Yamnaya also has I2a2 (mis-typed Ia2a in the article), for some reason we lack R1a so far, but areas of Yamnaya and pre-Yamnaya steppe groups remain unsampled. I don't think it's a case an emancipated R1a becoming elites in CWC. Some previous archaeogenetic deductions also need fine-tuning (E.g. the 'R1b' is Neolithic Ukraine is derived fom the Samara valley, R1b-V88 instead linking to southern Europe), some a tad anecdotal (that an individual with EEF buried the Dnieper rapids was a slave - on the basis of having EEF, otherwise buried in same posture and position as steppe individuals, with same Y-DNA).
Sure, there are going to be power structures, but evidence needs to be followed. Yamnaya is not an elite culture. Usatavo & Majkop are.
@Davidski
"There are Eneolithic samples with R1a from the Don River area with varying levels of CHG".
Objectively speaking this is the closest we have at the moment
The patrilineage still could have come from the forest after steppe ancestry formed.
Both Anthony and Reich came out with articles recently, but ones I did not really find very insightful.
Reich still very adamant that the Bell Beaker package originated in Iberia, while I still have seen not a single shred of evidence shoscawing that it did from the local Bell Beaker sites over here in swamps.
David W. Anthony slowly becoming a haploguru lol.
I've toyed with the idea of strong sample bias and founder effects murking the waters and making it hard to find R1a the Yamnaya. But I guess I worked with the idea that if we haven't people in spot X, they must've been in Spot Y or Z. But that doesn't need to be the case, Y-dna haplogroups can explode like crazy, and R1a-M417 definitely did that!
It seems possible that this was the case and that there may have been the same thing true for West European R1b within Corded Ware / Yamnaya. I would think there's some rational cause to kind of think that may be possible, if it reflects patterns seen in grave inventories (which haplo tends to be frequent in early graves) and you might expect out-migrants to be from less socially dominant group in a stratified patrilocal society.
I agree I don't think it is necessarily obviously required though. I think Anthony thinks it is able to save the day for his linguistic paleontology reconstruction of PIE as Yamnaya (not substantively earlier offshoot?).
At some point though there must have been a "switch around" on front of expansion happened in both cases, if it were the case (R1b in underclass in R1a dominated early CW, R1a in underclass in R1b Yamnaya).
Some of the points around distinction between early Corded Ware and "MN European" genetics during early phase is interesting. I wonder if this is based on new adna or not. Likewise he is still arguing for certain vectors of travel (along Carpathian mountains etc).
@Copper Axe
David W. Anthony slowly becoming a haploguru lol.
Not really though, and that's the problem.
David Reich needs to organize a crash course for David Anthony in this area of study.
Stuff like founder effects, subclades, star-like phylogenies, haplogroup expansion times, etc.
@Matt
There aren't any patterns like that.
Yamnaya is overwhelmingly R1b-Z2103 from the west to east, with a sprinkling of I2a-L699.
If R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 were in Yamnaya, then they're not being found because they weren't very common, and that's probably an understatement.
@Matt
"you might expect out-migrants to be from less socially dominant group in a stratified patrilocal society.
(R1b in underclass in R1a dominated early CW, R1a in underclass in R1b Yamnaya)."
Patriarchal societies were not at all stratified. There was no elite in them at all, all the people there were equal within their gender and age. Everything there was built on the power of the father of the family, that is, the power of the father over the sons and their wives and daughters, and the difference between gender roles in society.
Yamnaya culture is completely patriarchal, but at the same time it is completely egalitarian, there is no inequality and any social pressure on the strata of society. There are simply no classes. The same goes for CWC with the only exception that the role of a warrior is added there, which is different from a farmer.
"Basically, he thinks that it was carried by Yamnaya men who weren't buried in kurgans, because they were part of a social underclass, and so their remains are now difficult to locate"
Very weak argument..
"is because it was only carried by a very small group of Yamnaya men. Simple as that.""
Or, it wasnt present in yamnaya at all??
@Davidski
I was actually going to say maybe David Anthony should hang around the forums but then I thought about all the nonsense posted and I envisioned a future where he went full on Eupedia and I didn't like that thought.
I think he needs a crash course from someone who knows all the genetic knowithows, but also has a good understanding of how to apply it to the archaeological and genetic data we have on the steppes. Because like it or not his word carries a lot of weight and since his article of last year I noticed a decrease in the "Armenian/Iranian/Mesopotamian/Letsjustnameanycountryinthemiddleeast" theory being propogated on the webs, or maybe I just spend less time in horrid places.
Basically I'm saying a particular Aussie should be the one to hit him up. They all lurk here anyways.
From article - ''This reluctance to marry across the migrant-local [GAC - CWC] social divide would be consistent with hostile relations.''
But if they are exchanging material culture and co-existing for centuries, then surely it could be non hostile, perhaps even most of the time. What we are really seeing is 2 groups chosing to remain ethnically distinct, despite living in close proximity and adapting elements from each other. Furholt's point is pertinent here - not everything has to be about war & pillaging.
@ Davidski
''Yamnaya is overwhelmingly R1b-Z2103 from the west to east, with a sprinkling of I2a-L699.''
It's not a uniform sprinkling, but a bias of I2a-L699 in East Balkans & Carpathian basin, suggesting an earlier migration of an I2a-heavy steppe group.
Then there is R1a focussed in N. Europe, and Z2013 across the steppe. This suggests that Z2013 (i.e the main Yamnaya_Catacomb clan) is collateral to the others, not ancestral or necessarily the dominant group. Yes these are founder effects; but they are still informative; not just a symptom of how YDNA behaves
I think the genetic similtude of all these groups 'from Yamnaya' and the high founder frequencies of R1b in Yamnaya, is colouring the perception that R1b was the dominant Kurgan clan. Eg Andronovo-Sintashta are oft referred to as 'Yamnaya derived''. But that's denying agency to the group which is actually relevant for C-S Eurasia
The GAC disappeared without leaving a trace, its population exterminated. CWC has not disappeared, it has spread, it has left offspring in subsequent cultures.
@ Archi
There’s a ~ 20% frequency of GAC lineages in ancient & modern Germanic groups, so they were somewhere near Germanic ethnogenesis, which seems to have been quite complex (as predicted by linguistics).
This is some kind of extinct marginal group in the northwest, possibly the descendants of TRB. The main array of I2a from the GAC disappeared along with its culture, we already saw traces of the carnage in the article on genetics.
I’d say the warrior emerges in BB. In CWC he’s still at the Hero stage
Being R1a-L1029-YP445, I don't know what to think about that, but "Its expansion from the steppe, predominantly via the highly successful R1a-M417, may have coincidentally and rather ironically started in a socially disenfranchised Yamnaya clan", that is good. I like that, as an American that's what my country is all about. If that's our history, do it. Write it on parchment with gold ink.
Sorry to offtopic. I'm just a layman who's been trying to follow you all for a while, so pardon too the ignorance, but I have a quick question.
Are there any modern populations that have high levels of EHG, that didn't get it from the Western Steppe Herders?
I want to throw up every time I read that people were "pushed" off the Steppe because it sounds so corny and brainless. But we should remember that Z2103's expansion comes within a big, wide band of heavily patrilocal lineages that rarely tolerated other people's sons.
So while the underclass thing doesn't work for me, it is plausible that both R1a and L51 represent a somewhat Yamnaized or Yamna-related collection of localities, who for whatever reason, began expanding outwards. (perhaps even before the infilling of Z2103)
Really, it may not even be a situation of a founder effect, it's just little chucks of already distinct groups transplanting elsewhere. They must have been rather small too, because they just jump out of nowhere.
@bellbeakerblogger
Really, it may not even be a situation of a founder effect, it's just little chucks of already distinct groups transplanting elsewhere.
But we know from the star-like phylogeny of R1a-M417 that it was a founder effect.
@Spanked
Are there any modern populations that have high levels of EHG, that didn't get it from the Western Steppe Herders?
Nope.
The reality is:
Sredny Stog (migrated into)-> Cernavoda -> Usatovo -> Corded Ware
R1a = proto Dhalit has me laughing at your expense though
What is the difference between "socially disenfranchised Yamnaya clan" and "Yamnaya underclass"? Is it the difference between some village far up the hills, and some ghetto but still in the city wall?
@Darayvus
Dumb comment.
The difference is that if the massive R1a-M417 founder effect started in a small socially disenfranchised Yamnaya clan, then this was an ironic coincidence.
Anthony's theory actually relies on R1a-M417 already being common on the steppe in a lot of socially disenfranchised groups before the Corded Ware expansion.
So grow a brain.
@Davidski
"The difference is that if the massive R1a-M417 founder effect started in a small socially disenfranchised Yamnaya clan, then this was an ironic coincidence.
Anthony's theory actually relies on R1a-M417 already being common on the steppe in a lot of socially disenfranchised groups before the Corded Ware expansion."
Show this fantastic disenfranchised clan in Yamnaya culture! Or before. Show at least one disenfranchised clan there!
@ Romulus
how are you obtaining your deductions ? Pre-steppe lineages remain frequent in MittelEuropa , between Scandinavia & Hungary. And whatever the case, it is within the clan & family unit that the male founders were remembered as semi-mythical Heros.
Things change with BB, when the emergence of ''violence specialists'' becomes evident in the archaeological record
''Yamnaya is not an elite culture. ''
We should perhaps make the exception for the Novotitarovka variant, which faces off across Majkop-Novosvobodnaja. The presence of several wagons does make this Yamnaya variant stand out.
Novotitarovka culture is not a variant of Yamnaya, but a separate culture.
First its important to note how different Corded Ware was culturally from Yamnaya and add to that the paternal genetic difference and there is no way to reconcile that with "overlooked Yamnaya".
IN any case thats not the most likely scenario.
There were many steppe-Lower Don-Sredny Stog derived groups. My current scenario is that one culturally more Western and farmer influenced group got first influenced, then pushed into the forest steppe where they recombined the farmer with the Yamnaya package on a simple but effective level. That created Corded Ware and was related more to Usatovo-Cotofeni than Yamnaya. In this group a Western R1a clan got dominant by chance. Yes, patriarchal, they are more than a simple Yamnaya branch.
What was the genetic profile of the Usatovos? I predict those will be the closest CW relatives, just with more Neolithic admixture which they picked up on the way.
Yamnaya pushed and influenced the others but didnt create the most successful directly and exclusively.
Its only all Yamnaya if one lumps all the steppe groups up.
How long did it take to find an unquestioned R1b-L51 clan within a Corded Ware context in Poland? Five or seven years? Before that, one could have made the same assumption that Anthony does.
@zardos
My current scenario is that one culturally more Western and farmer influenced group got first influenced, then pushed into the forest steppe where they recombined the farmer with the Yamnaya package on a simple but effective level.
So how do you reconcile this theory with the fact that early Corded Ware samples from Central Poland and the Baltic states are identical to Yamnaya from around the Don?
@ Archi
''Novotitarovka culture is not a variant of Yamnaya, but a separate culture.''
Maybe in the past some scholars distinguished it, but it is formed by Yamnaya-Catacomb people, which are the same thing.
Even Don Yamnaya contain 16% Neolithic Farmer ancestry. Corded ware on average have more.
"Maybe in the past some scholars distinguished it"
It is now a separate culture, just once in old times, when it was just found, it was considered a variant of Yamnaya, but it has long been regarded as a separate culture. It was apparently formed by Yamnaya people at the local Majkop substratum, it is a fairly independent culture, with specific metalworking and ceramics. Yamnayans with carts formed the elite, the local population without carts was commoners. This, so to speak, is the very first advance of carts to the south, which will ultimately lead to the destruction of the Kuro-Araxes culture and the creation of the Mesopotamian states.
The important point is that early Corded Ware individuals have the same levels of farmer ancestry as Yamnaya.
Ergo, Corded Ware came from a population like Yamnaya.
The average level of farmer ancestry in Corded Ware is higher, but that's because of admixture with farmers outside of the steppe.
There were never any farmers in the Baltic and the best approximation for farmer ancestry in Baltic CWC is Hungary LN
@Romulus
"Even Don Yamnaya contain 16% Neolithic Farmer ancestry."
What nonsense?
@Romulus
That's because Baltic Corded Ware populations acquired their farmer ancestry from regular contacts with Central European Corded Ware groups.
@Archi
Wang et al. (2019) perform further analyses and conclude that the Yamnaya individuals are best modelled as a mixture of EHG, ICHG, EAF, and WHG, meaning that the two latter components most likely reached the steppe via Neolithic populations from Europe, e.g., individuals connected to Globular Amphorae or Balkan Neolithic groups. They quantify this potential European Neolithic element in Yamnaya populations at around 16%.
Wang et al. overestimated the level of farmer ancestry in Yamnaya.
In reality, Yamnaya has a higher level of WHG-shifted hunter-gatherer steppe ancestry than farmer ancestry.
And that's because Yamnaya is actually from the North Pontic/Don region, and it moved east to Samara where it rolled over Khvalynsk.
Exception are the Saami people.
Saami have excess SHG not EHG.
The EEF in the Sredny Stog sample certainly came from the Balkan Neolithic. We don't need a more roundabout explanation involving Yamnaya when that sample proved a perfect precursor to CWC.
@Romulus
Don’t use the word Don where it’s not. You didn’t write the truth, they didn’t write about any Don, they have 13% in Yamnaya, this Yamnaya Caucasus has 16% EEF. Their assessment is too exaggerated, there are no such figures there. It is important that they have EEF (Globular Amphora) in the Maikop culture, which shows the degree of fidelity of their models.
@Romulus
So the Sredny Stog sample is the perfect precursor to the late Corded Ware population with Central European farmer ancestry?
Surely this is just a coincidence though, considering that early Corded Ware samples are identical to Yamnaya instead.
Wouldn't you agree?
@Romulus
"The EEF in the Sredny Stog sample"
The sample of Alexandria is definitely not Sredny Stog, according to this dating, at best, it belongs to the Dereivka culture at worst to Сonstantinovka. But I am sure that the dating there is erroneous, we were not given a Bayesian posterior distributions of radiocarbon date diagram, we would probably have seen two peaks there, the second in place of the Abashevo culture.
I believe that the formation of Yamnaya type autosomal ancestry was widespread across the steppe before the formation of Yamnaya, by many many centuries. The presence of this specific ancestry doesn't neccessitate a descent or even a connection to Yamnaya. Likewise the y chromosomes support that there was not. The attempts to inject Yamnaya into everything are because they are the center of the steppe = pie theory, not because that is the best explanation based upon the data.
This SHG is overwhelmingly EHG and has nothing to do with Motala HG or Pitted Ware, but being much more connected to Combed and Asbesthos Ware.
It seems like the most Siberian ancient Saami actually prefers pure EHG outright. Perhaps modern Saami get Baltic drift too often and it gets harder to figure out their true HG composition?
Target: VK2020_NOR_North_VA_o1
Distance: 3.9593% / 0.03959317
31.7 kra001_scaled
26.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
22.6 VK2020_NOR_South_IA
11.6 Baltic_EST_IA
5.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
2.3 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
0.0 Baltic_LVA_MN
0.0 RUS_Ust_Belaya
0.0 SWE_Motala_HG
0.0 VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
I think that Bolshoy Oleny Ostrov represents only a small subsection of the northeast European genotype of the Bronze Age. Saami may have lived further down south but be genetically similar to these people.
Target: VK2020_NOR_North_VA_o1
Distance: 3.3736% / 0.03373572
51.2 RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov
21.2 VK2020_NOR_South_IA
14.1 Baltic_LVA_BA
13.5 kra001_scaled
0.0 Baltic_EST_IA
0.0 Baltic_LVA_MN
0.0 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
0.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_Ust_Belaya
0.0 SWE_Motala_HG
0.0 VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
I completely agree with Romulus on that. Yamnaya and the Western groups were the same stock which just split along the paternal lineages and evolved on culturally in different directions.
The farmer influence was for the most part cultural and genetically only significant in the border provinces. These people were related, but the admixture didn't reach at significant levels the woodland group from which Corded Ware developed.
They were simple people, you can see the lower technical level than in Usatovo or Yamnaya. But the package they developed was ideal for a mass settlement, a slower and more work intensive, but also more lasting and complete colonisation.
It was a founder effect indeed, but not just of the yDNA. With more fine grained analyses this will become absolutely evident.
If they had Yamnaya admixture, whats possible, it was not primarily male mediated.
D. Anthony's greatest misses:
-Dereivka stallion is from Sredny Stog>Nope. Was actually a Scythian deposition.
-Plains Indians model easily applies to Yamna culture>Highly questionable at best based on available horse remains from the horizon.
-Corded Ware is Not a 1:1 migration>WRONG. It was.
Amazes me that Reich is actually willing to put Anthony's name on his papers let alone that he still has a job at times. Can't wait to see how this latest Anthony theory plays out.
Speaking of which, how many aDNA samples from the western part of the Yamna culture (between the Dnepr and Carpathians) do we have analysis for?
@zardos
What you're claiming applies to Usatovo, but not to Corded Ware.
When the Corded Ware expansion happens there's only Yamnaya on the steppe, and as I keep telling you early Corded Ware is identical to Yamnaya.
And not western Yamnaya, but actually Don Yamnaya.
@JJ
I can't remember what's coming up from the western end of the Yamnaya horizon. But I know it's fairly standard stuff.
That is, mostly Z2103 in Hungary, western Ukraine and eastern Balkans, also with some I2a in the latter.
I'm not sure where they should be looking for the R1a Yamnaya samples, but I guess somewhere between Poland and the Don.
Actually, there are so called Yamnaya samples with R1a, but they haven't been dated properly, and early indications are that these individuals might be Sarmatians instead.
@Davidski
Hmmmm....I would have thought western Yamna for sure for R1a. Oh well. One thing I learned from following all these aDNA studies and results over the years is that surprises can pop up here and there. We are still missing a fair share of samples, and have alot of gaps. Time will tell.
The SSC core came from the Don region and its possible the forest groups stayed largely unmixed.probably you are right, but the final proof is still not there yet.
The only way that Anthony's theory would possibly be supported is if no other male haplogroups were found within kurgans other than R1b-Z2103. Then one could say the same for non R1 haplos. However, don't we already know that I2-M223 was found within kurgans?
It could be that R1a was not part of Yamnaya, but somewhere else. I haven't seen the 100+ Yamnaya results, but it sounds like he's saying most are R1b of some sort. Obviously Anthony is privy to some information, but he might have arrived at the incorrect conclusion.
It seems like Anthony is trying to save the Danube route.
But Hungarian Yamnaya isn't ancestral to Corded Ware.
Corded Ware must have originated from a steppe population rich in R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 that went north of the Carpathians.
Anthony is wasting our time when he comes out and tries to contextualize the CWC as it relates to Yamna. CWC is not his area of expertise. He's really a 'steppe archaeologist' or you could say he understands what is going on east of the Dnepr to about the area where Sintashta and Arkaim is fairly well/competently. And yes I'd agree, it comes off like he's trying to save what will be yet another CWC fail: that Danube theory paper he did a couple of years ago.
Anthony's interpretations regarding CWC in relation to the IE debate have been pretty feeble even disastrous I'd say. Remember Anthony in JIES 2008?: Pre-Germanic = Ustatovo culture sans migration via a complex convergent process. No, just no. We need someone who is a specialist on the more westward CWC cultures to be interpreting this stuff. Not Anthony. I think Piotr WÅ‚odarczak would be a good candidate here and alot of his papers on CWC are way more on the mark.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244872 - some more SGC adna out.
R1b subtype is basal to both Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 and common R1b-L51.
Sidebranch to M269, like Khvalynsk and Piedmont Steppe Eneolithic R1b. Rare today, not common.
Have some steppe ancestry, not very high levels.
Dating of samples is largely in similar timeframe to earliest dated Bell Beakers in GBR and NLD. Not much earlier.
Shotgun adna.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244872
They found an R1b V1636 in SGC.
Unfortunately, the Single Grave culture was located in a part of Europe where very few ancient skeletons were preserved due to the unusual soils.
But eventually we'll see more samples like this with R1b, including R1b-L51.
@Davidski
A while back you mentioned there would be a surprise find with SGC genomes, is this V1636 find the surprise you were talking about?
I think it's pretty interesting that we found this particular lineage in a very western CWC context, and from samples which are quite young. Really makes you think what the actual diversity of Y-dna haplogroups was like and how much of said diversity we can actually uncover with archaeology and aDNA.
You talked about the Single Grave data you've seen and that it included L51, I'm guessing these samples have no relation to what you have heard/seen?
Yes, there are more surprises on the way in regards to the SGC.
@ davidski
how much was Yamnaya whg shifted according to the data available?
Well, significantly compared to Khvalynsk, which is already clear anyway.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_1JSbHXbClQ/Xq4uK-zNO0I/AAAAAAAAI3k/DUF3ACaBGHMhwD00c-FPIRvp3_rQH16ogCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Eneolithic_steppe_PCA2.png
Any new info about R1b-PH155 only found in BMAC 1600bce and later xiongnu around 0ce last i checked
It is all speculation. One of the possible explanations can be as follows: R1a were losers on the steppe but did very well in the forest zone. Why? Possible explanation is that they mixed with somebody who was not only a good farmer but also good hunter, i.e. adjusted to climate and knew forest very well. There were Neolithic farmers in Poland, Romania, Hungary who were mixed with HG:
https://postimg.cc/8stYQT3D
https://postimg.cc/ftWvB9Md
After admixture with HG-Farmers, CWC-early in Poland became strong enough to compete with GAC, TRB men and attract many farmer women. In this way Indo-Slavic population grew and later expanded east, west and south.
https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?study=ERP121113
The Cycladic, the Minoan, and the Helladic (Mycenaean) cultures define the Bronze Age (BA) of Greece. Urbanism, complex social structures, craft and agricultural specialization, and the earliest forms of writing, characterize this iconic period. We sequenced six early to middle BA whole genomes, along with 11 mtDNA genomes, sampled from the three BA cultures of the Aegean Sea. The Early BA (EBA) genomes are homogeneous and derive most of their ancestry from Neolithic Aegeans, contrary to earlier hypotheses that the Neolithic-EBA cultural transition was due to massive population turn-over. EBA Aegeans were shaped by relatively small-scale migration from East of the Aegean, as evidenced by the Caucasus-related ancestry also detected in Anatolians. In contrast, Middle BA (MBA) individuals of northern Greece differ from EBA populations in showing ~50% Pontic-Caspian Steppe-related ancestry, dated at ca. 2,600-2,000 BCE. Such gene flow events during the MBA contributed towards shaping present-day Greek genomes.
I am just wandering what these Yamnaya or Yamnaya related kurgan burials hide inside them in terms of aDNA!!!
These are fresh news guys:
http://www.z-studarch.ro/2020_34/3_Franculeasa.pdf
R1b V1636
Holy Shit! WEIRD! That's almost like, what, 1 of 2 or 3? Makes you wonder if Z2103 was in SGC too.
@Davidski
David happy new year!
I have sent today, the 15th of January 2021, the same comment twice and although it was accepted and pending for approval i have not seen it published!
Is there anything wrong or amissed?
Gjerrild burial, Well what a burial Singles Graves? In this burial there is nothing from the CWC, there are no battle axes, only arrows, which is not a sign of the CWC, there is no characteristic pottery, it is collective, megalithic, it is very late, and in general, as we know, the BB lived there at that very time.
See https://i.ibb.co/ysMC0zL/Centum-IEgroups.png
Reading the archeological description in the SGC paper is interesting
-200 year hiatus between FBC and SGC settling in the region
-hostile relationship with PWC
Many similarities in the material of SGC and GAC (flint axes, etc.).
Again, these people were farmer admixed prior to arrival in Denmark.
I've said for a long time all of Yamnaya is going to be basically R1b Z2103 (ok also with I2a2)
I did switch recently to say Corded Ware must derive from Western Yamnaya populations. Because there just seems to be no other possibility. But now that seems impossible.
Where did Corded Ware come from? It is not making any sense.
''50% Pontic-Caspian Steppe-related ancestry, dated at ca. 2,600-2,000 BCE.''
haha. Bye bye KMK theory (not that it actually exists)
Yeah, finally irrefutable evidence of Steppe migration into Greece. They say individuals not one sample,
So sounds like they found a Steppe rich population in Northern Greece right before it really expanded and admixed with native populations.
Hopefully Davidski can upload this new Bronze age Greek DNA soon.
@Romulus
But in the Netherlands we see FBC continue until 2700 BC exactly in an area where SGC also settled (As the Dalfsen cemetery showed) and Vlaardingen Culture, which is likely one of the latest continuous HG derivates, right up to 2500 BC. Harry Fokkens showed that Vlaardingen sites adopted SGC pottery and others cultural traits.
Pribislav's calls for the new BA Greece samples:
Pta08; 2849-2621 BC; Petras; Greece; Minoan_EBA; G2a2b-L30>CTS574>CTS2488>P303>pre-L140 (PF3337+, L140-)
Kou01; 2464-2349 BC; Koufonisi; Greece; Cycladic_EBA; J2a1a-L26>Z6064>Z6055>Z6057>Y7013>Y7010>Y13128>Z36834
Mik15; 2890-2764 BC; Manika; Greece; Helladic_EBA; (female)
Log04; 2007-1915 BC; Logkas; Greece; Helladic_MBA; (female)
Log02; 1924-1831 BC; Logkas; Greece; Helladic_MBA; (female)
Kou03; 2832-2578 BC; Koufonisi; Greece; Cycladic_EBA; (female)
Regarding the MBA Logkas samples (probably from Corfu unless there's another Logkas somewhere): no surprise. If these are indeed ethnic Greek samples, they might represent what the Proto-Greeks that moved south were like before being assimilated by the local Minoan-like people of the Aegean. What will be interesting is whether this profile persisted in Northern Greece in the Iron Age.
@EastPole
"It is all speculation. One of the possible explanations can be as follows: R1a were losers on the steppe but did very well in the forest zone."
You must understand that no one can live long in the steppe, all steppe populations are always exterminated by aliens. All steppe populations are always newcomers. In general, 3-4 centuries and someone newcomer carves out the Aborigines of the steppe as these aborigines, being aliens, themselves carved out the previous aborigines. Look at how the cultures in the steppe have changed since the Eneolithic, these cultures are all alien: Azov-Dnieper, Sredniy Stog, Dereivka, Konstantinovka etc., Repin, Yamnaya, Catacomb, Babino, Srubnaya, Sabatinovka, Rolled Pottery, Scythian, Sarmatian, Alanian, Huns, Pechenegs, Polovians, Rus', Golden Horde, Crimean Tatars, Russia.
@Rob
"Bye bye KMK theory (not that it actually exists)"
It does not affect in any way, since it is known that the Luwians and Hetto-Luwians lived in the north of Greece - Ezero culture etc. Remember that the Luwians lived in Greece, and they are from the steppe. So it is death to suppose they are Greeks.
The fact that the steppe inhabitants lived in Greece before the arrival of the Greeks was always known, but this population has nothing to do with the Greeks, they are the Luwians. You just do not know the banal archaeological facts, although I wrote to you many times. I even gave pictures of the habitation of those Luwians.
So they date to 2000 BC. That is late of a 50% Steppe population to exist deep in Southern Europe.
Nice to see the Armenian migration theory soundly debunked. That was never going to work.
EBA Aegeans were shaped by relatively small-scale migration from East of the Aegean, as evidenced by the Caucasus-related ancestry also detected in Anatolians.
Anyway, ~50% steppe ancestry is a lot for that area, but maybe their ancestors only got there around 2,000 BC?
Log04; 2007-1915 BC; Logkas; Greece; Helladic_MBA; (female)
Log02; 1924-1831 BC; Logkas; Greece; Helladic_MBA; (female)
Those greeks must have been desperate to pick up a steppe woman, nobody wanted those. 🤣
@ Archi
'' since it is known that the Luwians and Hetto-Luwians lived in the north of Greece - Ezero culture''
The proto-Anatolians were leaving Balkans as early as 3300 BC.
The 2500 BC wave were proto-Hellenes.
As for separate back-migration of Luwians into Greece, some possible toponyms and some sherds of grey Minyan ware do not make a concrete theory. Although, one can understand the appeal of these sorts of less-credible theories to philologists from yesteryear
What is the Greek mtDNA?
@Matt
"https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244872 - some more SGC adna out."
The very first SGC aDNA, even. RISE61 does not count.
@Archi
"Gjerrild burial, Well what a burial Singles Graves? In this burial there is nothing from the CWC, there are no battle axes, only arrows, which is not a sign of the CWC, there is no characteristic pottery,"
Not everything is unique for SGC, but it's all typical for late SGC on Jutland. What's wrong with the pottery? What culture would you assign it to?
"it is collective, megalithic, it is very late, and in general, as we know, the BB lived there at that very time."
No, the Gjerrild megalith (generally like other stone cist of the Bøstrup type) was built before BB times. But the R1b-V1636 guy is dated to the period of BB presence.
The name Single Grave Culture does get a bit awkward when they started building collective graves though. This is SGC on its way to mutate into the Nordic LN culture.
@Romulus
"-200 year hiatus between FBC and SGC settling in the region"
No, a 200 year hiatus between PWC and SGC. FBC/TRB disappeared from northern Djursland (then an island) 300 years earlier. Other locations on Jutland didn't see such gaps though.
Anyway, this article has some really weird groupings of individuals in figures 4 and 5.
- BattleAxe_EBA, what's that? When did Middle Neolithic Battle Axe become Early Bronze Age? And it includes the Late Neolithic RISE98?
- Sweden_LNBA includes the Middle Neolithic oll007?
- Denmark_LNBA includes the Middle Neolithic RISE61?
- PWC_EN? Etc..
@ Romulus
Do you know how her husband or her familly were genetically?Greeks btw were people who arrived from a steppe related culture and they speaking an IE dialect.It is not impossible or something crazy to see such a high steppe profile.During the MBA-LBA transition is when Greco-Phrygians and Macedonians started to arrived in balkans and more specific in northern Greece.Btw David we are going to see any of these samples in G25?
@Rob
"The proto-Anatolians were leaving Balkans as early as 3300 BC.
The 2500 BC wave were proto-Hellenes."
These are just your personal fantasies, they have no scientific basis. Absolutely none. Linguistics, archeology, anthropology, history, all are categorically against such a fantastic, unsubstantiated scheme.
It is a fact that the first Hittite-Luwians began to penetrate the coast of Anatolia no earlier than 2400-2000BC.
The first Greeks appeared in Greece not earlier than 1600BC.
Preliminary G25 coords...
Scaled
Cycladic_EBA:Kou03,0.108132,0.159438,-0.02225,-0.07106,0.013233,-0.032351,-0.00517,-0.006231,0.000409,0.045377,0.005359,0.015586,-0.022299,-0.002477,-0.024565,0.003713,0.026468,0.00076,0.007416,-0.006878,-0.008859,-0.001484,0.002218,-0.001084,-0.006227
Helladic_EBA:Mik15,0.108132,0.173656,-0.000754,-0.08721,0.03139,-0.031236,-0.00658,-0.006692,0.026793,0.064876,0.002761,0.008842,-0.019326,0.00234,-0.03108,-0.0179,0.008214,0.004561,0.00817,-0.016383,-0.009733,-0.000124,-0.001849,0.00735,-0.002515
Helladic_MBA:Log02,0.117238,0.153345,0.01961,-0.019057,0.02739,-0.013945,-0.00235,-0.003461,0.003068,0.025878,-0.000162,0.005695,-0.015015,0.000275,-0.014251,-0.012596,-0.005476,0.00152,0.00264,-0.002126,-0.010357,0.000989,0.006286,-0.000602,-0.002754
Helladic_MBA:Log04,0.117238,0.140143,0.027907,-0.001292,0.01908,-0.000837,-0.00611,-0.002308,-0.007158,0.008565,0.003735,0.015137,-0.01219,0.001514,-0.003664,-0.010342,-0.004042,-0.002407,0.009553,-0.014007,-0.011605,0.003462,0.004067,0.007109,-0.00491
Raw
Cycladic_EBA:Kou03,0.0095,0.0157,-0.0059,-0.022,0.0043,-0.0116,-0.0022,-0.0027,0.0002,0.0249,0.0033,0.0104,-0.015,-0.0018,-0.0181,0.0028,0.0203,0.0006,0.0059,-0.0055,-0.0071,-0.0012,0.0018,-0.0009,-0.0052
Helladic_EBA:Mik15,0.0095,0.0171,-0.0002,-0.027,0.0102,-0.0112,-0.0028,-0.0029,0.0131,0.0356,0.0017,0.0059,-0.013,0.0017,-0.0229,-0.0135,0.0063,0.0036,0.0065,-0.0131,-0.0078,-0.0001,-0.0015,0.0061,-0.0021
Helladic_MBA:Log02,0.0103,0.0151,0.0052,-0.0059,0.0089,-0.005,-0.001,-0.0015,0.0015,0.0142,-0.0001,0.0038,-0.0101,0.0002,-0.0105,-0.0095,-0.0042,0.0012,0.0021,-0.0017,-0.0083,0.0008,0.0051,-0.0005,-0.0023
Helladic_MBA:Log04,0.0103,0.0138,0.0074,-0.0004,0.0062,-0.0003,-0.0026,-0.001,-0.0035,0.0047,0.0023,0.0101,-0.0082,0.0011,-0.0027,-0.0078,-0.0031,-0.0019,0.0076,-0.0112,-0.0093,0.0028,0.0033,0.0059,-0.0041
@Agantyr
Yes you are right, my mistake, 200 year Hiatus between PWC abandoning thr area and it being settled by SGC.
Archaeological implications and interpretations
The timing of the SGC arrival in Denmark can be corroborated by pollen analyses. Of particu-
lar significance for understanding the Gjerrild site is the fact that PWC activity on northern
Djursland ended around the 28th century BCE, followed by an almost complete hiatus in
archaeological finds in the area [21, 80]. This hiatus came to an end around the time of the ear-
liest Gjerrild burial, which we have now dated accurately to the 26th century BCE. In a high-
resolution pollen diagram from Fuglsø bog in northern Djursland, some 12 kilometres west of
Gjerrild, we can observe this 200-year hiatus in farming activity, allowing the forest to regener-
ate [81]. When SGC arrived in Northern Djursland, the forest was once again opened, now
mainly for permanent grazing. An increase in dust dispersal can also be observed as indicative
of open fields, but less pronounced than during the earlier TRB farming regime. The Gjerrild
barrow thus marks a time of renewed settlement in the area after approximately two centuries
of ‘dark ages’ [21:482].
Thank you David.
David do you agree that their steppe profile is Yamnaya like rather than CWC with this paucity of WHG?I would like to read your opinion about what type of steppe these specific samples got.One of them scores a very tiny WHG admixture btw.But in general they seem mostly EFF+STEPPE(thought one of them scores some weird exotic NA mix).
I'm about to run different versions of these samples. So let's see how that turns out.
Thanks Davidski for uploading them so fast.
They have very low levels of WHG. The MBA samples chose early Neolithic Hungary as main ancestor. Including Log04 who has 44% Steppe ancestry.
This means their Steppe ancestor is not Corded Ware and therefore not from R1a M417 population.
Davidski you've been saying proto-Greek might be from R1a m417 Corded Ware derived pop, right? Doesn't seem this is the case.
@Genos
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/main-candidates-for-precursors-of-proto.html
Alright, I stand correct. But ou still had R1a Z93, Sintashta-related as a possibility in that thread. But you chose Bulgarian Yamnaya as most likely source. Which does make sense.
If we had access to the Bronze age samples from Serbia, dating roughly to same time as these samples in Greece, we might be able to confirm proto-Greeks came from Western Yamnaya in Serbia, Croatia, Hungary area.
New preliminary G25 coords...
Scaled
Cycladic_EBA:Kou01,0.113823,0.176702,-0.018479,-0.088179,0.02462,-0.039602,-0.00094,-0.007154,0.011249,0.053942,0.008119,0.013788,-0.017542,0.012799,-0.026601,-0.016574,0.004955,0.004561,0.01169,-0.016133,-0.007736,-0.002968,0.000123,0.00723,-0.000479
Cycladic_EBA:Kou03,0.108132,0.159438,-0.02225,-0.07106,0.013233,-0.032351,-0.00517,-0.006231,0.000409,0.045377,0.005359,0.015586,-0.022299,-0.002477,-0.024565,0.003713,0.026468,0.00076,0.007416,-0.006878,-0.008859,-0.001484,0.002218,-0.001084,-0.006227
Helladic_MBA:Log02,0.117238,0.153345,0.01961,-0.019057,0.02739,-0.013945,-0.00235,-0.003461,0.003068,0.025878,-0.000162,0.005695,-0.015015,0.000275,-0.014251,-0.012596,-0.005476,0.00152,0.00264,-0.002126,-0.010357,0.000989,0.006286,-0.000602,-0.002754
Helladic_MBA:Log04,0.119514,0.141159,0.026776,-0.001292,0.01908,-0.001673,-0.00611,-0.002538,-0.007567,0.008018,0.003573,0.014687,-0.011744,0.001651,-0.003529,-0.011535,-0.004042,-0.002154,0.008799,-0.014632,-0.010606,0.004451,0.003451,0.005784,-0.005029
Helladic_EBA:Mik15,0.110408,0.176702,0.001131,-0.084949,0.030159,-0.031794,-0.002585,-0.004615,0.029042,0.065605,0.003085,0.009292,-0.019475,0.003716,-0.03013,-0.017502,0.008736,0.005194,0.009302,-0.017884,-0.009234,0.002349,-0.001849,0.006868,-0.004071
Minoan_EBA:Pta08,0.112685,0.168578,-0.018102,-0.089471,0.026774,-0.034861,0.00282,-0.003461,0.022702,0.057404,0.009256,0.008542,-0.018434,0.007569,-0.033251,-0.024529,0.000261,0.003421,0.009176,-0.009004,-0.008235,0.007543,-0.005053,-0.003253,0.002515
Raw
Cycladic_EBA:Kou01,0.01,0.0174,-0.0049,-0.0273,0.008,-0.0142,-0.0004,-0.0031,0.0055,0.0296,0.005,0.0092,-0.0118,0.0093,-0.0196,-0.0125,0.0038,0.0036,0.0093,-0.0129,-0.0062,-0.0024,0.0001,0.006,-0.0004
Cycladic_EBA:Kou03,0.0095,0.0157,-0.0059,-0.022,0.0043,-0.0116,-0.0022,-0.0027,0.0002,0.0249,0.0033,0.0104,-0.015,-0.0018,-0.0181,0.0028,0.0203,0.0006,0.0059,-0.0055,-0.0071,-0.0012,0.0018,-0.0009,-0.0052
Helladic_MBA:Log02,0.0103,0.0151,0.0052,-0.0059,0.0089,-0.005,-0.001,-0.0015,0.0015,0.0142,-0.0001,0.0038,-0.0101,0.0002,-0.0105,-0.0095,-0.0042,0.0012,0.0021,-0.0017,-0.0083,0.0008,0.0051,-0.0005,-0.0023
Helladic_MBA:Log04,0.0105,0.0139,0.0071,-0.0004,0.0062,-0.0006,-0.0026,-0.0011,-0.0037,0.0044,0.0022,0.0098,-0.0079,0.0012,-0.0026,-0.0087,-0.0031,-0.0017,0.007,-0.0117,-0.0085,0.0036,0.0028,0.0048,-0.0042
Helladic_EBA:Mik15,0.0097,0.0174,0.0003,-0.0263,0.0098,-0.0114,-0.0011,-0.002,0.0142,0.036,0.0019,0.0062,-0.0131,0.0027,-0.0222,-0.0132,0.0067,0.0041,0.0074,-0.0143,-0.0074,0.0019,-0.0015,0.0057,-0.0034
Minoan_EBA:Pta08,0.0099,0.0166,-0.0048,-0.0277,0.0087,-0.0125,0.0012,-0.0015,0.0111,0.0315,0.0057,0.0057,-0.0124,0.0055,-0.0245,-0.0185,0.0002,0.0027,0.0073,-0.0072,-0.0066,0.0061,-0.0041,-0.0027,0.0021
I would like to see a model of the Myceneans using these new EBA samples as well as Greek Neolithic & Minoan.
Compared to Helladic EBA, they are pulled toward Balkan Yamnaya, but also within the variation of steppe-inclined Hungarian BB
https://imgur.com/LyHo2gP
That is to say; Helladic mba are pulled toward Balkan yamnaya compared to early Helladic
By the Mycenaean period; they shift back toward Greece - Anatolia.
This tells us that Hellenes arrive ~2500 BC; then by 1600 they become incorporated into Aegean elite networks
What ever happened to I6423? Probably that and ANI163 are related to the source of Steppe ancestry in Helladic MBA.
@Rob,
"That is to say; Helladic mba are pulled toward Balkan yamnaya compared to early Helladic
By the Mycenaean period; they shift back toward Greece - Anatolia."
Yeah that seems to be the case. Mycenean and a few ancient Greeks come out Helladic MBA+Cyallic MBA/Aegean.
Greek Spain colony....
Helladic MBA (most Steppe one): 28%
Cyallic_EBA (most CHG one): 39%
Peloponnese_N_o: 20%
Minoan: 12%
Btw SZ19 from Lombard Hungary is a Greek person dating 500 AD with no Slavic admix. As is one of the Medieval outliers from Germany.
There is even a possibility that these are not Luwians, but Illyrian women. Naturally, these are not Hellenes.
The interesting thing is that the Helladic_MBA samples don't have any recent Kura-Araxes-like Near Eastern ancestry, while the Helladic_EBA and Cycladic_EBA obviously do.
So there was no mixing between this MBA population and the locals from the time that they showed up in the region.
In that case they might well be very recent arrivals.
@Archi
You'll eventually learn that there's very strong genetic continuity between these samples and those from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period in this part of the Balkans.
So no, these are not Luwians or whatever. They're very likely to be early Greeks.
The only question is where their ancestors came from, but we'll need male Helladic_MBA samples to get a better idea about that.
@Davidski
No, this is precisely what is not Hellenic by origin. This is a fact.
Herodotus,1,56
"When he heard these verses, Croesus was pleased with them above all, for he thought that a mule would never be king of the Medes instead of a man, and therefore that he and his posterity would never lose his empire. Then he sought very carefully to discover who the mightiest of the Greeks were, whom he should make his friends. He found by inquiry that the chief peoples were the Lacedaemonians among those of Doric, and the Athenians among those of Ionic stock. These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far. For in the days of king Deucalion1 it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian."
146
"For this reason, and for no other, the Ionians too made twelve cities; for it would be foolishness to say that these are more truly Ionian or better born than the other Ionians; since not the least part of them are Abantes from Euboea, who are not Ionians even in name, and there are mingled with them Minyans of Orchomenus, Cadmeans, Dryopians, Phocian renegades from their nation, Molossians, Pelasgian Arcadians, Dorians of Epidaurus, and many other tribes; and as for those who came from the very town-hall of Athens and think they are the best born of the Ionians, these did not bring wives with them to their settlements, but married Carian women whose parents they had put to death."
It is a fact that at that time the Luwians lived there, the Illyrians probably lived nearby, the Hellins were not there. Most of the Athenians&Ionians were of Pelasgic origin.
I carry the voice of mainstream science, not self fantasy like Rob. It's bad that we are guessing at the presence of the Achaeans' data.
Quick dump of preliminary coordinates on Vahaduo West Eurasia PCA and Europe1: https://imgur.com/a/xTSqTKS
(Anyone can do this and probably should for themselves, but just for a quick "look". Not exhaustively added all relevant local pops (e.g. Balkans), just some "frame" populations.
The Helladic MBA two (from Northern Greece per abstract) overlap with some present day Bulgarian and Albanian in basic WE PCA. So interesting they're pretty similar in this very broad sense.
Though there probably are more differences in the structure of components if we get into the detail (just as Mycenaeans overlap less with some present day populations and are more purely CHG+AnatoliaN than their position tends to suggest. In the above link when these samples are dumped on Europe1 PCA, which better distinguishes the ancient Aegean samples from present day people, the Helladic MBA cease to really overlap Bulgarians.
Using Vahaduo and using Sintashta as source and the rest as Minoan, the two Helladic_MBA samples get a median of 48% ancestry from that source. While with Yamnaya_Samara/CWC Baltic Early around 35% with worse fit. (If I force it to use Progress_En with even worse fit, about 33%).
So 50% "steppe ancestry" as per abstract seems about right, if = MLBA (and not EMBA). (Don't look to have 50% Steppe_EMBA-like ancestry in the sense that North European populations have today.)
Not a proximal model and I can't say much about whether that's a real possible working model.
Minoan like source seems to work OK in Vahaduo and seems OK visually eyeballing the Vahaduo West Eurasia PCA... But may not work in high depth analyses.
Right, so as I suspected, in the paper the source of steppe ancestry will be something like Sintashta rather than Yamnaya/Catacomb, otherwise the 50% steppe ancestry figure wouldn't be possible.
But Minoan_EBA sounds like an unusual choice for the non-steppe half in these Helladic_MBA samples, considering that we have more proximate populations from the Balkans.
Yeah, ppl who really want to get deep in the weeds can definitely try some different models and see what works; I have no strong view on that point really.
Looking at the two Helladic_MBA samples comparing against the BGR_EBA samples, the "cline" looks slightly different to me, not "pointing" at the same place (pointing more to a place with no WHG and more in the neighbourhood of Helladic EBA and Minoan, while the BGR_EBA set seems to point to a point on cline of EEF populations with some WHG, albeit very low WHG!)... But its preliminary data and two samples so again I don't have too strong a view on that.
@Davidski
Sintashta and Corded Ware are not at all close to them.
Distance to: Helladic_MBA:Log04
0.02434071 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.02668483 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5524
0.02718695 HRV_EBA:I3499
0.02776112 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3529
0.02807187 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4885
0.02853822 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5017
0.02954065 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5529
0.02959037 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.02976642 HUN_BA:I7040
0.03060049 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7275
0.03129824 HUN_BA:I7043
0.03167302 Yamnaya_BGR:Bul4
0.03191222 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4896
0.03202905 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5520
0.03219255 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:E09538
0.03373826 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3590
0.03411510 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4888
0.03458829 Bell_Beaker_FRA_C:I3874
0.03571876 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4889
0.03602957 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.03645833 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I6591
0.03665801 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4945
0.03713206 Bell_Beaker_CHE:I5759
0.03735800 TUR_Barcin_C:I1584
0.03737031 Bell_Beaker_England:I5379
Distance to: Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.02346465 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5524
0.02348404 HRV_EBA:I3499
0.02366432 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.02473075 HUN_BA:I7040
0.02564430 HUN_BA:I7043
0.02668820 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.02867054 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5017
0.03055520 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4885
0.03058513 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:E09538
0.03082012 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3594
0.03132954 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2364
0.03241867 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5520
0.03403351 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5529
0.03472535 BGR_EBA:I2176
0.03477039 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.03511965 TUR_Barcin_C:I1584
0.03545194 Bell_Beaker_CHE:I5759
0.03549620 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7044
0.03570224 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3529
0.03583462 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I5015
0.03592325 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3590
0.03683640 Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2478
0.03756647 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7275
0.03779669 HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA:I2788
0.03787862 BGR_Krepost_N:I0679_d
So do these samples and their timing explain the Greco-Aryan connection?
Dont forget the Steppe Hypothesis requires the Steppe ancestry in Greece to have come from the East, not North, to maintain the connection with Indo-Aryan.
@Archi
"...the chief peoples were the Lacedaemonians among those of Doric, and the Athenians among those of Ionic stock. These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. (...) Most of the Athenians&Ionians were of Pelasgic origin. I carry the voice of mainstream science"
So, according to mainstream science, people like Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Socrates, Plato, Phidias, Pericles, etc. were not Greeks? :D
@Simon_W
Is Martin Luther King American or African? Is George Washington an American or an Englishman?
mzp1
A population such as Sintashta could only form where there were combined Neolithic, Yamnaya and CWC sites. So no further east like western Ukraine. We have already established that the homeland of such a population should be found somewhere in the vicinity of the northern Carpathians.
The Steppe in Log04 appears to be very Steppe_EBA, while the Steppe in Log02 is more similar to Yamnaya Bulgaria.
https://i.imgur.com/5ZEd3a6.png
@Davidski
"The interesting thing is that the Helladic_MBA samples don't have any recent Kura-Araxes-like Near Eastern ancestry, while the Helladic_EBA and Cycladic_EBA obviously do."
Log02 might though, especially something related to Maykop. You can see a similar sign in Yamnaya Bulgaria.
Cycladic_EBA has more Anatolia_BA-like admixture than the Minoans:
Target: Minoan_EBA:Pta08
Distance: 3.0916% / 0.03091644
59.4 TUR_Barcin_N
39.0 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Target: GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res
Distance: 3.0424% / 0.03042387
72.8 TUR_Barcin_N
24.0 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Target: GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
Distance: 2.0959% / 0.02095863
62.2 TUR_Barcin_N
37.8 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
vs.
Target: Cycladic_EBA:Kou03
Distance: 2.2008% / 0.02200799
52.4 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
40.4 TUR_Barcin_N
Target: Cycladic_EBA:Kou01
Distance: 3.1876% / 0.03187633
55.6 TUR_Barcin_N
43.4 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Helladic_EBA has much less, but it's also there:
Target: Helladic_EBA:Mik15
Distance: 2.6704% / 0.02670373
78.0 TUR_Barcin_N
15.2 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Helladic_MBA:Log04 and Helladic_MBA:Log02 could come from the steppe but also could be a mix of steppe and some CWC/Unetice, (maybe Nitra?)
Models with steppe and CWC/Unetice included are slightly better:
Target: Helladic_MBA:Log02
Distance: 1.3745% / 0.01374462 | R5P
25.0 Corded_Ware_CHE
21.6 Cycladic_EBA
20.8 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
17.6 Corded_Ware_DEU
15.0 Helladic_EBA
Target: Helladic_MBA:Log04
Distance: 1.4416% / 0.01441593 | R5P
26.6 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
22.2 Cycladic_EBA
21.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
17.2 POL_Unetice_EBA
12.4 RUS_Afanasievo
Models with steppe only without CWC/Unetice are also good, but the lack of R1a-Z93 in Greek population makes it less probable:
Target: Helladic_MBA:Log02
Distance: 1.4608% / 0.01460805 | R5P
39.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
25.0 Minoan_EBA
20.2 Helladic_EBA
8.0 Cycladic_EBA
7.0 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
Target: Helladic_MBA:Log04
Distance: 1.5088% / 0.01508800 | R5P
25.6 Cycladic_EBA
25.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
23.0 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
16.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
10.2 RUS_Afanasievo
Models with CWC/Unetice but without the steppe are also possible:
Target: Helladic_MBA:Log02
Distance: 1.3745% / 0.01374462 | R5P
25.0 Corded_Ware_CHE
21.6 Cycladic_EBA
20.8 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
17.6 Corded_Ware_DEU
15.0 Helladic_EBA
Target: Helladic_MBA:Log04
Distance: 1.5424% / 0.01542404 | R5P
32.2 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
27.8 Corded_Ware_DEU
16.4 Cycladic_EBA
13.4 Corded_Ware_Proto-Unetice_POL
10.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
Modelling the two Helladic_MBA (scaled) on Vahaduo, I obtain better fits with Yamnaya_BGR as the steppe source, than using Sintashta or Corded_Ware_POL - no matter if the other part is Barcin_N or BGR_N.
@CrM
There's no Maykop in Yamnaya Bulgaria.
It's basically a 50/50 mix between Yamnaya and Bulgaria Chalcolithic.
If the Longos samples really are proto Greeks, then this would push the arrival of the Mycenaeans back by 400 years, which would contradict the archaeological data we currently have (wouldn't be the first time this happens, and does not mean the archaeogenetic results are not valid).
However, how can we exclude that these are not preGreek IE speakers, which may very well have existed in the region based on toponymy?
For those so inclined, you may check if actual source is yamnaya/sintashta/corded ware etc by using a rotating qpAdm model with one of the options as source and other in right pops and see which model is best.
@Davidski
"There's no Maykop in Yamnaya Bulgaria."
"It's basically a 50/50 mix between Yamnaya and Bulgaria Chalcolithic."
There's some extra CHG in Yamnaya Bulgaria that is not absorbed by Yamnaya Samara.
https://i.imgur.com/4fRyoiT.png
@CrM
You're overfitting your model with Globular Amphora, which doesn't improve the fit significantly, but makes it possible for the algorithm to push in some Maykop ancestry.
@Davidski
First thing I tried was doing the same model without GAC, there's still some Maykop. There's also the extra CHG with a simple Farmer + WHG + Yamnaya model.
Target: Yamnaya_BGR
Distance: 3.2768% / 0.03276832
53.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
39.8 BGR_Middle_C
6.8 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Target: Yamnaya_BGR
Distance: 3.2768% / 0.03276832 | ADC: 0.25x RC
53.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
39.8 BGR_Middle_C
6.8 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Target: Yamnaya_BGR
Distance: 3.3284% / 0.03328426 | ADC: 0.5x RC
53.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
39.4 BGR_Middle_C
7.0 RUS_Maykop
Target: Helladic_MBA:Log02
Distance: 1.4472% / 0.01447164
45.0 BGR_C
28.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
13.8 BGR_Middle_C
8.8 BGR_Late_C
4.4 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Target: Helladic_MBA:Log02
Distance: 1.4908% / 0.01490826 | ADC: 0.25x RC
48.8 BGR_C
27.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
18.4 BGR_Middle_C
5.2 RUS_Maykop_Late
Target: Helladic_MBA:Log02
Distance: 2.2204% / 0.02220432 | ADC: 0.5x RC
68.2 BGR_Middle_C
21.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
10.4 RUS_Maykop_Late
@Leonidas
By archeological data do you mean chariots, horse cheek pieces, and so on?
The Mycenaean cultural package may have come together a few hundred years after the proto-Greeks arrived as a result of new impulses from the steppe, which, for instance, may have left Indo-Iranian influences in Greek.
But I don't know for sure. It's possible that the proto-Greeks did arrive after the Helladic MBA.
@CrM
There might be some extra CHG, but it can be explained in better ways than Maykop influence.
For instance, there may have been extra CHG from Yamnaya like Yamnaya Caucasus, or from a Balkan population similar to Cycladic_EBA.
@Michalis Moriopoulos
"the MBA Logkas samples (probably from Corfu unless there's another Logkas somewhere)"
A Logkas with a Helladic archaeological site is this one, near Elati in Western Macedonia:
https://justpaste.it/9lzld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elati,_Kozani
@Davidski
Where are the Greeks?
https://i.ibb.co/Y3cQn47/Helladic-MBA-PCA.png
@Davidski
"For instance, there may have been extra CHG from Yamnaya like Yamnaya Caucasus, or from a Balkan population similar to Cycladic_EBA."
Perhaps. The best match that I could find so far for the extra CHG in Yamnaya BGR is simply CHG, followed by Maykop Novosvobodnaya.
https://i.imgur.com/e2kMrpn.png
Made another set of X: G25 distance, Y: Time Plots, to compare distance to present day population averages for Greek populations against these ancient samples.
G25 Distance Across Time Plots: https://imgur.com/a/QgXC1jY
Key: Previous Greece/Aegean samples: Black; Minoan EBA: Forestgreen, Cycladic EBA: Blue, Helladic EBA: Purple, Helladic MBA: Red. Other samples coloured according to broad region.
(Used dates from Human Origins .anno, plus the dates extracted from the ENA files for these, plus from papers where required. Ideally, I've got these all correct).
Hopefully be useful to put the dates of these samples into some context with other samples from the Aegean region. (Their Minoan EBA sample for'ex appreciably a good chunk earlier than Lazaridis's samples, if I've got the date conversion right).
It seems that the Helladic MBA turn out to be closer to present day Greeks, in general, than both the preceding populations, and the Mycenaean and Greek colonist populations that are dated after them.
Looks like some variance by Greek subpopulation, where Greek_Crete for ex is about as close to both the Mycenaeans and to Helladic_MBA.
This probably reflects ongoing geneflow with the north after the time of Mycenaean and Greek colonies (inc. relatively sudden pulses like Slavic demographic population boom?).
The abstract mentions that they identify a particular admixture date for the samples, so let's see what evidence they have for that (ALDER?).
Is the Yamnaya_BGR you guys are talking about the same as Yamnaya Ozera?
Davidski do you remember just a few months ago I was modelling Euros with Yamnaya Ozera and you said it was an outlier, but I said that ancestry will work better for Greeks and Southern Euros, and I was right, and now everyone can see Yamnaya BGR is a better fit for Greek Steppe ancestry.
and this I posted here Jan 7
What is BMAC though?
Here a PCA of BMAC with neighbouring populations.
https://ibb.co/V2CMX30
X-dimension is drift differentiating Iran_N/Anatolian and ANE-derived populations (Botai, AG3, EHG).
Y-dimension is the drift differentiating Iran_N and Anatolian.
Steppe is close to a cluster of samples related to Steppe DNA but from various places and are mostly outliers. BMAC is close to Iran_N but shifted towards Steppe, but specifically towards the Steppe outlier cluster.
qpAdm allows us to model BMAC with these steppe outlier samples along with Iran _N. I have seen good runs.
The Steppe outliers are on the Anatolian side of the two steppe groups, and main steppe cluster is on the ANE side.
These steppe outliers likely harbor ancestry from pre-BMAC Central Asia, Turkmenistan etc.
I didnt use Yamnaya_BGR in that PCA but as far as I know it is similar to the Steppe Outlier samples.
So it seems Greeks and also BMAC have this special form of Steppe ancestry which seems mostly found in outliers, having less EHG and something more like Anatolian, CHG, Iran_N.
David, when are you going to explain the genetic discrepancy between Northeastern and Northwestern Europeans? You know, the one that people believe is due to Baltic Hunter-Gatherer admixture, whereas you believe it is due to genetic drift? You ought to make a post about this issue at some point, because a lot of people are wondering what's causing the differences.
https://i.ibb.co/Y3cQn47/Helladic-MBA-PCA.png
Judging by this PCA, it supports the scheme: Luwians -> Troy -> Etruscan -> Tuscany.
@Davidski
Yes, I mean the appearance of archaeological artefacts like the ones you describe for the arrival of the Mycenaeans. The scenario you describe makes quite some sense, and is plausible.
However, what I had in mind are the numerous pre Greek substrate words, such as the toponyms Parnassos, Zakynthos, Hymettus etc. which are found throughout Greece and the shores of what is now Turkey, and many scholars argue for a Luwian affinity/etymology.
If that is true, then there may have been IE populations inhabiting Greece prior to the arrival of the Greeks in the Helladic region. The Mycenaean archaeological package may have been concurrent with the arrival of Greeks, or at a later date, like you postulate.
Other substratum words related to flora and spinning machinery have been assigned a Hurrian/protoKartvelian affinity (and some of them quite convincingly). This would make sense, as we see a clear genetic shift towards West Asia/the Caucasus in the middle Neolithic of Greece and Crete.
I think the only way to test these linguistic theories would be with sequencing loads of ancient samples from all the critical time frames.
Did someone check the mtDNA? Is it time we consider a female-driven dissemination of the Yamna component in Europe? R1a, J2b, J1a, G2, all with steppe heavy components, yet none of those show up in Yamna.
PIE could have just been a mixture of EHG/EEF men in Central/Eastern Europe who took steppe wives, possibly to form alliances.
@Matt
I can't read the text in the images you posted, the resolution is too low.
@DragonHermit
R1a-M417 is definitely from the steppe, even if it's not from Yamnaya.
So your point that R1a-M417 wasn't associated with the spread of the steppe component in Europe because it's not found in Yamnaya doesn't make any sense.
In fact, the two most common Y-haplogroups in Europe today, R1b-L51 and R1a-M417, are both from the steppe.
There never was an EHG/EEF population in Europe. It doesn't show up in any ancient DNA and it won't, because these components never met in exclusion to others.
The association between the spread of the steppe component and R1a-M417 has been demonstrated in several studies, and it's not something that is ever questioned outside of some fringe circles online.
@ CrM
''Log02 might though, especially something related to Maykop. You can see a similar sign in Yamnaya Bulgaria.''
I'm getting almost 2% for BGR_Yamnaya, which would be noise, and ~ 0% with something like qpADM
Although i do find it a bit suprising for a lack of additional CHG_rich in Bulgarian BA.
But really it only appears in BGR_IA, by way of Anatolia. (although it probably first making its way in MLBA)
@ Archi
''Herodotus,1,56''
What does Herodotus have to do with it ? He was writing 2,000 years after all this happened.
In any case, your interpretation of Herodotus, as with all data (arch, DNA) is methodological primitive in the extreme, because you don;t understand the concept of authorial purpose and the leitmotif of autochthonicity and migration in the discourse of ancients' origo gentis.
Anyway, you shouldn;t be surprised the KMK theory never worked out. Nobody serious has ever mentioned it. Kuzmina's chronology is too old now, her treatment too simplistic, and this area is beyond her expertise. The fact that you take one fringe theory as gospel just shows how uneducated you are around these topics, not to mention stubornly chauvanistic in your ''theories''(if you can call them that, because any ape can just doodle Y-hg R1a over every IE branch and say 'voila''. Is read ! )
@ SimonW
''A Logkas with a Helladic archaeological site is this one, near Elati in Western Macedonia:
''
Makes sense. Path of southern Macedonians (e.g. "Greeks''), as per Hammond & Gimbutas.
I am not denying that R1a was involved in spreading the steppe component. The point is how did it receive it in the first place? The Yamna component was created along the border of the Caucaus, where R1a does not exist, only R1b. So R1a had to have picked that component someplace else. So far, it seems to be female-spread.
And as for EHG/EEF, isn't EHG just WHG + ANE? We already have WHG/EEF mixtures and WHG/EHG mixtures in eastern Europe.
@ Leonidas
''However, what I had in mind are the numerous pre Greek substrate words, such as the toponyms Parnassos, Zakynthos, Hymettus etc. which are found throughout Greece and the shores of what is now Turkey, and many scholars argue for a Luwian affinity/etymology.''
These are too vague. Some claim these words are are non-IE. The arcchaeoological correlate is the Minyan ware i mentioned (e.g. a/p Mellart), but recent studies have suggested the phenomenon of Minyan ware is in far more complex http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/index.php?p=article&id_art=5
In any case, people treat toponyms too simplistically. They are not simply a mirror ethno-linguistic reality, but a reflection of complex sociological processes of name0giving
@Romulus, just retried to check and should be OK on a computer, unless you're accessing on a phone in which case imgur seems to downsample the images to phone optimize and the labels become unreadable.
However, assuming that's the problems, stuck a few on postimage for flavour: https://postimg.cc/gallery/WjNNfs7
If that's a no-go on phone and you can't look on computer then IDK.
@Romulus, alternatively, save this - https://pastebin.com/XfNqnTwH - as a .dat file and open in PAST3 and just cross plot directly.
@DragonHermit
The Yamnaya component wasn't created along the border of the Caucasus. It was created well to the north on the steppe.
We know this, because Yamnaya, even Caucasus Yamnaya, is a mixture between EHG, CHG and also WHG-rich EEF, which didn't exist near the Caucasus.
And, of course, R1a was present on the steppe since the early Mesolithic, so there's no problem.
Take a look at the earliest samples with R1a-M417 in Poland and the Baltic states. They're not even close to being EEF/EHG. They're basically identical to Yamnaya.
@Davidski
The steppe is a huge area, but the CHG component has a very specific area of the steppe where it could be disseminated to, since it had to be close to the Caucaus. R1a was too far up north and it's hard to see where they would directly mix with CHG people. There is 0 evidence of that so far. R1b was a giant buffer zone between R1a and CHG.
The "fusion" area I'm talking about would be either in modern day Ukraine, right north of Cucuteni, not the Baltic or Poland. Here we already have WHG/EEF + some Yamna mixtures. This MBA dude had G2a2b, which was found in Cucuteni.
@Matt
Thanks!, I do use a phone primarily. Postimage worked.
@DragonHermit
The Khvalynsk Eneolithic samples that we have actually show a mixing process happening between a CHG-rich population and an EHG population on the steppe far to the north of the Caucasus, and R1a is present in these samples.
That's not to say that R1a-M417 is from Khvalynsk, because it isn't, and neither is Yamnaya.
But this mixture process between CHG-rich populations and hunter-gatherer populations with varying ratios of EHG and WHG was happening in many parts of the steppe, probably from central Ukraine to the Kazakh border.
R1a was present here and it was involved in these mixture processes, and obviously R1a-M417 meshed with the archetypal Yamnaya genotype somewhere in this area and only then it moved out of the steppe.
You'll see this confirmed when many more samples from the steppe are finally published, hopefully this year.
I don't understand your point about the Cucuteni G2a2b sample, but obviously there was no EEF-rich and R1a-rich population northwest of the steppe that became Yamnaya-like due to female gene flow.
@Rob
"What does Herodotus have to do with it ? He was writing 2,000 years after all this happened."
Don't talk nonsense, you don't know anything about Greece. He here describes the situation in which he lives, the Pelasgians lived in Greek cities during his lifetime. You do not know the structure of Greek society, each Greek belonged to a phratry and a fillet, this is a clan-tribal structure that knew everything about their ancestors, everyone knew who he was in the past, Pelasgus, Leleg, Carian, Dorian, Achaean, and so on. He perfectly describes how in his time the Greeks conquered the islands on which the Carians used to live.
"Anyway, you shouldn;t be surprised the KMK theory never worked out. Nobody serious has ever mentioned it. Kuzmina's chronology is too old now, her treatment too simplistic, and this area is beyond her expertise. The fact that you take one fringe theory as gospel just shows how uneducated you are around these topics, not to mention stubornly chauvanistic in your ''theories''(if you can call them that, because any ape can just doodle Y-hg R1a over every IE branch and say 'voila''. Is read !"
The ravings of autochthonists are categorically rejected, no one takes it seriously. KMK is the only scientific theory at present that is simply not confirmed due to poor testing of the Greeks and Anatolians, as well as KMK. You are out of date. you write funny things two centuries ago, which science has already rejected. Kuzmina is fully confirmed without exception, what you write is completely rejected without exception. You just don't know anything about this topic as well as about any other.
You just give out your own fantasies about the relevance of this or that theory without knowing anything on the topic.
@DragonHermit
"And as for EHG/EEF, isn't EHG just WHG + ANE?"
Not at all.
"The steppe is a huge area, but the CHG component has a very specific area of the steppe where it could be disseminated to, since it had to be close to the Caucaus. R1a was too far up north and it's hard to see where they would directly mix with CHG people. There is 0 evidence of that so far. R1b was a giant buffer zone between R1a and CHG."
This is absolutely not the case. CHG is already in the earliest Eneolithic in Khvalynsk, this is Samara, which is in the north on the border with the forest. Khvalynsk has R1a.
@mzp1,
The most Steppe samples in Northern Greece have low levels of CHG/IranN ancestry, the most Steppe one has almost 0%.
They're basically Yamnaya+Anatolia farmer. They do have some CHG/IranN but not a lot.
Myceneans have more CHG/IranN. This can be explained by their non-IE ancestry being from Eastern greece/Aegean.
@Rob
"Herodotus,1,56 What does Herodotus have to do with it ? He was writing 2,000 years after all this happened."
Croesus lived not 2000 years before Herodotus, as you are talking nonsense, but 60 years before Herodotus.
@D
My point about Cucuteni, is that both Greek samples have non-steppe Y-DNA (1 found in Cucuteni) but are heavy in steppe ancestry. What is the explanation for this? If this is part of a greater pattern, this is obviously female-mediated steppe ancestry. (Should check mtDNA to make sure this is the case).
There was a massive collision of cultures/people at the border of Sredny-Stog, Cucuteni and Yamna. We have evidence of intermixing between EEF/Steppe people there. These Greek G2a/J1a samples could be their direct descendants. Just chucking it up to "R1a got CHG wives like R1b and moved west" is obviously an incomplete picture. Steppe ancestry could be BOTH paternally and maternally mediated.
@DragonHermit
You were basically claiming that R1a-M417 came from an EHG/EEF population that then acquired CHG via female mediated admixture with Yamnaya.
So I pointed out that it must have initially been found in an EHG/CHG population that then acquired more and more EEF ancestry, because that's what the ancient DNA shows.
I never claimed that steppe ancestry was solely male mediated in Europe.
Indeed, when these populations rich in R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 moved out of the steppe they didn't just clear the land of the people who were there before them.
In many cases they would've eventually formed alliances with their indigenous neighbors and there would be female exogamy between them, leading to the formation of populations rich in steppe ancestry but with local Y-haplogroups.
That sort or female swapping was an important way for patrilocal groups to bond socially and form political ties.
@DragonHermit
"both Greek samples have non-steppe Y-DNA (1 found in Cucuteni) but are heavy in steppe ancestry."
You are wrong about the samples. You are drawing conclusions from mistaken. Both samples with steppe ancestry are women. You just look at the wrong samples.
"These Greek G2a/J1a samples could be their direct descendants."
These samples have no steppe ancestors at all.
@Genos Historia,
I'm talking about the samples that people are saying have Yamnaya Bulgaria like Steppe ancestry. Yamnaya Bulgaria is similar to Yamnaya Ozera, Steppe Maikop outlier, SS outlier 4 from this PCA.
https://ibb.co/MkmhQdm
You can see that all those samples are closer to Anatolian and GanjDareh whereas the main Steppe cluster is closer to ANE populations.
We dont knw if these 'outliers' have Anatolian admixture or if Yamnaya/Afanasievo has ANE admixture. Either way one group has more Southern (Anatolian, Iranian, CHG) affinity while the other is more ANE.
A few months ago I found that Southern Euros modeled better with the Southern type of Steppe ancestry vs the Yamna/Afanasievo type with more ANE.
@Davidski,
That's a convincing theory. It makes sense of Corded Ware Switzerland with 56% Steppe ancestry but with Y DNA I2a. It also makes sense of Y DNA I1.
Another mystery, for Corded Ware, is why Steppe ancestry dropped from 70% to 50% so quickly from 2400 to 2000 BC. Most samples in Northern Europe in 2600-24000 BC are 70% Steppe, none are 70% Steppe after 2000 BC.
I wonder if it means there were "castes" of some kind, and the 70% Steppe samples come from Upper Castes. And by 2000 BC, the castes disappeared which significantly lowered Steppe ancestry.
Or maybe farmer/hunter gatherer populations survived in Northern Europe for 100s years as neighbors of Kurgan populations until 2400-2000 BC when they were finally all melted together.
@Archi
How would you explain kum4?
I've made a mistake in giving the Kilinc2021 samples rsids. Now they've been properly annotated.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/zru19gbopa0mnne/Kilinc_2021_fixed.zip/file
Yes, I know. I used my own annotation to run kra001 in the G25.
I bet these samples give the best fits for the steppe ancestry in Helladic_MBA , better than Yamna Bulgaria.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-corded-ware-related-proto-greek-from.html?m=1
@Romulus
"I bet these samples give the best fits for the steppe ancestry in Helladic_MBA , better than Yamna Bulgaria."
Target Distance RUS_Karelia_HG GEO_CHG TUR_Barcin_C TUR_Barcin_N WHG
Cycladic_EBA:Kou01 0.01666589 0.4 2.2 36.4 61.0 0.0
Cycladic_EBA:Kou03 0.01150464 2.6 11.6 22.8 63.0 0.0
Helladic_EBA:Mik15 0.01193443 3.2 0.0 24.4 72.4 0.0
Minoan_EBA:Pta08 0.01042696 2.6 4.6 20.0 72.8 0.0
Helladic_MBA:Log02 0.01380643 22.2 13.4 4.0 60.4 0.0
Helladic_MBA:Log04 0.02111795 24.6 8.6 29.2 37.6 0.0
Yamnaya_BGR:Bul4 0.02267415 33.0 28.2 0.6 38.2 0.0
Good to hear! However, I dare to believe that these genotypes have now been called properly: https://www.mediafire.com/file/su38omanfirdn7o/kra001.zip/file
I reloaded the hg19.fasta and it looks far better than what I was previously producing. All the positions with proper SNPs (not insertions or deletions) seem to be annotated properly.
OK, I'll try this tomorrow.
@Archi
I don't get it
Well, here you go...
NO_kra001_scaled,-0.009106,-0.482376,0.146323,0.008398,-0.159414,-0.093707,0.019271,0.023307,0.037019,-0.006196,0.092561,0.00015,0.020812,-0.050783,-0.044652,-0.032352,-0.002086,0.0019,0.004022,-0.006128,0.030321,0.005441,0.001232,0.01217,0.013412
NO_kra001,-0.0008,-0.0475,0.0388,0.0026,-0.0518,-0.0336,0.0082,0.0101,0.0181,-0.0034,0.057,0.0001,0.014,-0.0369,-0.0329,-0.0244,-0.0016,0.0015,0.0032,-0.0049,0.0243,0.0044,0.001,0.0101,0.0112
Hi Davidski,
What do you think are the Greek samples, especially the Helladic_MBA low or rather high quality? Besides, the Minoan,Mycenaean samples core tiny late Mar_Neo,IBM, some also a bit Steppe or Natufian. Are these small to tiny admixture, real or rather noise?
Their quality is OK, but they need to be processed in the same way as most of the other genomes in the G25 to get the best results out of them.
I wouldn't pay much attention to components that score a few per cent, especially in complex models.
on this ^ NO_kra001 projects beyond ancient Baikal samples & modern Nganassan, but not in the direction of Devils gate nor Paleo-Americans. But it appears to sit on a cline with Karasuk, Baikal_BA, Nganassan & Mezhovkaja (?)
These coordinates seem to be less noisy but I find them to be a bit unrealistic. I will try filtering low quality (<30) reads in the mpileup as was done in the study.
I hope this yields results that make more sense: https://www.mediafire.com/file/67fokhog2geedrk/kra001_alt.flt.zip/file
kra001_altflt_scaled,-0.006829,-0.484408,0.146323,0.008075,-0.160645,-0.095102,0.019976,0.023307,0.036814,-0.006743,0.093211,0.00045,0.02111,-0.05092,-0.045059,-0.03275,-0.001304,0.002407,0.003645,-0.006753,0.030197,0.004946,0.001232,0.011568,0.012813
kra001_altflt,-0.0006,-0.0477,0.0388,0.0025,-0.0522,-0.0341,0.0085,0.0101,0.018,-0.0037,0.0574,0.0003,0.0142,-0.037,-0.0332,-0.0247,-0.001,0.0019,0.0029,-0.0054,0.0242,0.004,0.001,0.0096,0.0107
@Archi
"https://i.ibb.co/Y3cQn47/Helladic-MBA-PCA.png
Judging by this PCA, it supports the scheme: Luwians -> Troy -> Etruscan -> Tuscany."
No, it doesn't. That's a very simplistic interpretation of yours. First of all, Etruscans were not very similar to Tuscans. Across all 25 G25 dimensions they're closest to North Italians from Lombardy. And secondly, even though Helladic_MBA works pretty well for modelling Etruscans (if the other source is local Italic), HRV_LBA/IA works better, and Protovillanovan again better. I can't run and copy&paste any models right now, but that's what I obtained. And thirdly, Helladic_MBA works only so well because it lacks Anatolia_BA-like CHG related admixture! (The one that is present in Cycladic_EBA and in Minoan_EBA.) If the ancestors of the Etruscans were Luwians who migrated to Troy they would sure as hell have picked it up before going to Italy. But they didn't.
BTW I'm not an autochthonist of any sorts, I used to be open to Herodotus' account on Etruscan origins and I sympathized strongly with the idea (my idea) that the Pelasgians of Dionysius Halicarnassus were in fact the proto-Etruscans. But I'm following the ancient DNA evidence, which made me change my mind.
@Archi, re: the idea that the Athenians were Pelasgians, rather than Greeks: well, their native language was Greek, an Attic dialect. And their culture, as well as their religion is called Greek, no matter that it had mixed origins, like every culture. Thucydides wrote that at his time there were still Pelasgians on Acte. That may well be true, but it also shows that he didn't consider himself a Pelasgian, nor the contemporary Athenians. At best, there were small remnants of the Pelasgians left in remote areas, during the classical age. Few people would deny that the ancient Greeks had a lot of ancestry from the pre-Greek locals, which may be called Pelasgians. But if this makes them non-Greek, then you could just as well say that Iranians are not really the true Iranians or that South Slavs are not Slavs, or that Ashkenazi Jews are not Jews, following that same logic. But strangely you only apply this to the Greeks, which comes over as quirky.
Well that's interesting, check this out:
Distance to: ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03019271 Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.03075080 HRV_IA
0.03261159 Helladic_MBA:Log04
0.03624360 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03746699 Scythian_MDA
0.03974373 ITA_Etruscan
0.04016056 HRV_EBA
Among all ancient samples, the Proto-Villanovan female is closest to Helladic_MBA, and to HRV_IA.
Now let's try to model the Etruscans, limiting the output to three pops. I first use only these ancient Italian samples as possible sources:
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
ITA_Monte_San_Biagio_CA
ITA_Olmo_di_Nogara_MBA
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
ITA_Proto-Villanovan
ITA_Remedello_BA
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
ITA_Villanovan
And I obtain:
Target: ITA_Etruscan
Distance: 1.6751% / 0.01675061 | R3P
53.0 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
27.4 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
19.6 ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA
-> The authochthonists are wrong, the Etruscans score nothing pre-Italic (CA, MBA, BA). But they differ from the Italics by some substantial Proto-Villanovan admixture.
Now let's add Helladic_MBA:Log02 (which is particularly close to the Proto-Villanovan) to the source pops. The result:
Target: ITA_Etruscan
Distance: 1.4732% / 0.01473164 | R3P
49.4 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
31.2 Helladic_MBA:Log02
19.4 ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA
A better match than with the Proto-Villanovan!
Adding HRV_IA to the source pops doesn't change anything, the model stays the same. We still don't know how typical that single Proto-Villanovan female was for the Proto-Villanovans as a whole. But if she was typical, and if a population similar to Helladic_MBA from Logkas persisted in Epirus until the LBA, then the proto-Etruscans might well be derived from Epirote Pelasgians who picked up Urnfield influence on their way to Italy. Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote about Argive Pelasgians first migrating to Thessaly and subsequently to Epirus, where they stayed for a prolonged period (and presumably admixed). Afterwards they supposedly sailed north in the Adriatic, up to the Po delta, from whence they colonised the Etrurian coast. Later on, they were all of a sudded struck by an awkward series of bad luck and dispersed and died out, the autochthonous Etruscans taking over their lands. The latter twist in the story always seemed very dubious to me.
I cannot agree with these coordinates being correct for such a sample. I believe that there has been too many post-mortem transitions or something the likes of that.
My final take is to simply leave in the 1240K sites exclusively. This should cover about double the amount as the Human Origins panel had.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/6m5l0hc2v08tt8e/kra001_1240K.zip/file
@Archi,
So early Greek fits as ancestor of Etruscans. I know you know this doesn't confirm Archi's Aegean origin because Anatolia BA ancestry is low in EBA North Greece. EBA NortH greece is similar to Bronze age West balkans.
So still seems more likely still that Etrusucans came from Western Balkans. While Italic tribes came from Germany.
@Simon_W
All that you have written is a completely meaningless set of words without the slightest proof. You have received nothing. because you do not know how to model and everything that you write is just an error. Protovillanova has nothing to do with the Etruscans, no more than the historical Umbras mingled with the Etruscans. Ancient DNA has proven that the Etruscans are from the Aegean region, and everyone who does not see this simply does not know how to look, and there can be no two opinions.
Your models are wrong as always, because you are modeling Etruscans through the Etruscan descendants. You deliberately threw out all the Aegeans and others so that you cut the model down to three components to orb all. You deliberately, in order to deceive everyone, use circumcision of the Etruscans by the average, while it is illegal, the Etruscans do not genetically form a single population and it is illegal to model them by the average.
Only this is the only correct model:
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b J2b2a-M12 H
Distance: 0.6830% / 0.00682953
42.8 Bell_Beaker_CZE
25.4 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA1
14.4 Bell_Beaker_ITA
7.6 GRC_Mycenaean
7.0 ITA_Remedello_BA
2.8 Levant_PPNB
0.0 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.0 ITA_Villanovan
0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA_o
0.0 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_ECA
0.0 Levant_Canaanite_MBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_C
0.0 Levant_ISR_MLBA
0.0 Levant_JOR_EBA
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 Levant_PPNC
0.0 MAR_Taforalt
Target: ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b T2b32
Distance: 0.6210% / 0.00620998
29.6 Bell_Beaker_CZE
23.0 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
13.6 ITA_Sardinia_C
8.2 MAR_Taforalt
7.8 Levant_PPNB
5.2 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
5.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
4.0 GRC_Mycenaean
3.2 ITA_Remedello_BA
0.4 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA1
0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA
0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA_o
0.0 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.0 ITA_Villanovan
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_ECA
0.0 Levant_Canaanite_MBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_C
0.0 Levant_ISR_MLBA
0.0 Levant_JOR_EBA
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 Levant_PPNC
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR473
Distance: 0.9143% / 0.00914338
31.8 Bell_Beaker_CZE
26.6 GRC_Mycenaean
17.6 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
13.8 ITA_Remedello_BA
3.4 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
2.2 Levant_Natufian
1.8 Bell_Beaker_ITA
1.6 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
1.2 Levant_ISR_C
0.0 ITA_Villanovan
0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA_o
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_ECA
0.0 Levant_Canaanite_MBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA1
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_MLBA
0.0 Levant_JOR_EBA
0.0 Levant_PPNB
0.0 Levant_PPNC
0.0 MAR_Taforalt
And Rutuli's Pelasgan.
Target: ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850 T1a1a L208 T2c1f
Distance: 1.4360% / 0.01436030
36.2 GRC_Mycenaean
24.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA
18.8 Bell_Beaker_CZE
14.4 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA1
4.6 Levant_ISR_C
2.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2
0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA
0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA_o
0.0 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
0.0 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.0 ITA_Remedello_BA
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_ECA
0.0 ITA_Villanovan
0.0 Levant_Canaanite_MBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_MLBA
0.0 Levant_JOR_EBA
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 Levant_PPNB
0.0 Levant_PPNC
0.0 MAR_Taforalt
Sorry to bother again, but I now realize I made a mistake on the last post I believe, this is the 1240K version. Could you see if this changes the results at all? Because from what I have seen the variants are not in conflict with the supplementary.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/gpfbsmx9a87he1s/kra001_b.zip/file
If this is the same version that I ran last time, then it'll produce the same results, because the G25 is based on SNPs from the 1240K panel.
I see. What the authors did with the samples was to remove the C/T transitions, so I've done the same now. https://www.mediafire.com/file/zg07nrrl0sw3pgp/kra001_CT.zip/file
@Archi
"All that you have written is a completely meaningless set of words without the slightest proof."
Nope, what I wrote makes a lot of sense, and the evidence brought forth in favour of it is twofold: 1. The G25 model showing that the Etruscans are best modelled as a mix of Italics and Helladic_MBA:Log02. 2. The story about Epirote Pelasgians recounted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
"You have received nothing. because you do not know how to model and everything that you write is just an error."
To the contrary, I know better than you how to set up smart G25 models. You just throw in everything, which is neither difficult nor smart, it just produces overfitted BS models. Czech Bell Beakers in pre-Etruscan Italy? LMAO!
"Protovillanova has nothing to do with the Etruscans, no more than the historical Umbras mingled with the Etruscans."
Says who? As a matter of fact, the Villanovan culture was in all likelihood Etruscan, this is widely accepted now, for some good reasons. And the Proto-Villanovan has many similarities with the Villanovan culture, as well as an organic transition between the two.
"Ancient DNA has proven that the Etruscans are from the Aegean region, and everyone who does not see this simply does not know how to look, and there can be no two opinions."
Well, I actually even agree with this, because, after all, Logkas is in the Aegean region. However, Etruscans don't have Anatolia_BA-like admixture, hence they cannot be from Anatolia (not from Lydia, not from Troy), nor from central/southern Greece or from the Cyclades. They can only be from Bronze Age northern Greece or from the western Balkans.
"Your models are wrong as always, because you are modeling Etruscans through the Etruscan descendants."
Etruscan descendants? Nonsense! I modelled the Etruscans as a mix of Italics + something else. That's sensible, assuming that the Etruscans reached Italy after the Italics.
"You deliberately threw out all the Aegeans and others so that you cut the model down to three components to orb all."
Yes, it's true, I deliberately threw out all the Aegeans except for the Helladic_MBA. I did this because I already knew the other Aegeans would provide worse fits. I had tried it before. And I limited the output to three pops because it makes sense not to use 4, 5 or 5765 pops if we want to stay realistic.
"You deliberately, in order to deceive everyone, use circumcision of the Etruscans by the average, while it is illegal, the Etruscans do not genetically form a single population and it is illegal to model them by the average."
Lol, it's illegal? Not in my country! But of course I can do the same exercise with the individual Etruscans, no problem. See, first using Italian sources:
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
Distance: 2.2194% / 0.02219365 | R3P
46.6 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
32.8 ITA_Villanovan
20.6 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR473
Distance: 2.1878% / 0.02187841 | R3P
43.8 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
31.6 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
24.6 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
Then, after adding Logkas02 and HRV_IA:
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR473
Distance: 2.0798% / 0.02079781 | R3P
37.4 Helladic_MBA:Log02
33.4 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
29.2 ITA_Olmo_di_Nogara_MBA
Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
Distance: 2.2186% / 0.02218608 | R3P
44.4 Helladic_MBA:Log02
35.4 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
20.2 ITA_Villanovan
-> The Etruscan RMPR473 does have some excess autochthonous pre-Italic ancestry. However, the Helladic_MBA admixture is what both Etruscans have, and RMPR473 has more of this than any pre-Italic ancestry.
As for Etruscan_o:RMPR475b - he's undoubtedly a mix of Etruscans and North Africans (possibly the result of Carthaginian contacts or with other Phoenicians from North Africa), he's not a pure Etruscan. I'll stick to the pure ones to elucidate their origins.
@Genos Historia
"So early Greek fits as ancestor of Etruscans. I know you know this doesn't confirm Archi's Aegean origin because Anatolia BA ancestry is low in EBA North Greece. EBA NortH greece is similar to Bronze age West balkans.
So still seems more likely still that Etrusucans came from Western Balkans. While Italic tribes came from Germany."
We don't know for sure what language the Helladic_MBA from Logkas spoke, whether it was very archaic Greek or something else. Anatolia BA is indeed low in EBA North Greece, and it is even absent in MBA North Greece. The Logkas samples are from MBA North Greece. You may have confused it with the EBA because Greek MBA is very early, it corresponds to the EBA in central Europe. I think it's quite possible or even likely that the proto-Raeto-Etruscans came from northwestern Greece. The fit is better than with HRV_IA.
@Archi
See, your problem is that you have blind faith in Herodotus' account and you mistake Virgil's Aeneid for a historical report. But Herodotus was only human, he may have erred. It has been suggested that the link between the Etruscans (the Tyrrhenoi in Greek) and Lydia was originally made because of the similar sounding Lydian city named Tyrrha (modern-day Tire). This may be a mere coincidence, a "false friend", as they call it in English. Ancient DNA suggests the Etruscans had no Anatolian BA ancestry. Many later historians adopted Herodotus view, but there were also other opinions in antiquity with regards to Etruscan origins. And as for Virgil - he wrote late, at the time of Augustus and he evidently wanted to make a great peace of art, with all artistic liberties, to honour Rome and its emperor, and to compete with Homer's Odyssey, from which he was strongly inspired. To literally take its various episodes as historic truths is deeply naive.
The predominant view among specialists nowadays is that the Villanovan culture was already Etruscan and that the later Orientalizing and Greek influence came about by contacts with Greeks and Phoenicians.
(continued)
Check the Britannica for reference:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ancient-Italic-people
Some excerpts:
"The presence of the Etruscan people in Etruria is attested by their own inscriptions, dated about 700 BCE; it is widely believed, however, that the Etruscans were present in Italy before this time and that the prehistoric Iron Age culture called “Villanovan” (9th–8th century BCE) is actually an early phase of Etruscan civilization. (...) Contact with Greece began around the time that the first Greek colony in Italy was founded (c. 775–750 BCE), when Greeks from the island of Euboea settled at Pithekoussai in the Bay of Naples. Thereafter, numerous Greek and Middle Eastern objects were imported into Etruria, and these items, together with Etruscan artifacts and works of art displaying Greek or Oriental influence, have been used to generate relatively precise dates along with more general ones. In fact, the basic nomenclature for the historical periods in Etruria is borrowed from corresponding periods in Greece; the assigned dates are usually (though perhaps erroneously) conceived of as being slightly later than their Greek counterparts to allow for cultural “time lag.” Thus the Etruscan Orientalizing period belongs to the 7th century BCE, the Archaic period to the 6th and first half of the 5th century BCE, the Classical period to the second half of the 5th and the 4th century BCE, and the Hellenistic period to the 3rd to 1st centuries BCE. (...) The Etruscan texts are largely legible. The alphabet derives from a Greek alphabet originally learned from the Phoenicians. It was disseminated in Italy by the colonists from the island of Euboea during the 8th century BCE and adapted to Etruscan phonetics; (...) It is also certain that Greek craftsmen sometimes settled in Etruria, as in the report by Pliny the Elder (1st century CE) about a Corinthian noble named Demaratus, who moved to Tarquinii, bringing along three of his own artists. (...) chronologically the Oriental inundation occurred nearly 500 years too late for the Herodotean migration. Further, it developed gradually rather than making the sudden appearance that would have characterized the arrival of a people en masse; moreover, it is quite easily explained by reference to the trade conduits established by the Euboean Greeks in the 8th century BCE. (...) northern connections in a sense form a parallel to the Greek influences in subsequent periods, whether Euboean (8th century BCE), Corinthian (7th century), Ionian (6th century), or Attic (5th century). Likewise, Oriental influences may be readily acknowledged, coming from such diverse areas as Lydia, Urartu, Syria, Assyria, Phoenicia, and Egypt. But none of these connections per se give any firm proof about Etruscan “origins,” (...) Archaeological evidence helps to develop a picture of the beginnings of Etruscan cities during the Villanovan period. Nearly every major Etruscan city of historical times has yielded Villanovan remains (...) After contact was made with Greeks and Phoenicians, new ideas, materials, and technology began to appear in Etruria. In the Orientalizing period the use of writing, the potter’s wheel, and monumental funerary architecture accompanied the accumulation of luxury goods of gold and ivory and exotic trade items such as ostrich eggs, tridacna shells, and faience."
This is the predominant, the mainstream view.
@Archi
In Bologna a vase was excavated, dating to the late 7th century BC. It belongs to the Arnoaldi phase of the Villanovan culture - and there's a long Etruscan inscription on it. It wasn't an imported vase from Etruria, it was locally made in the Villanovan culture. So if the Villanovan culture was Umbrian, as you claim, then we'd rather expect an Umbrian inscription. But the artisan who made it, wrote in Etruscan.
https://books.google.ch/books?id=-b-ODAAAQBAJ&pg=PT21&lpg=PT21&dq=ana+mini+zinake+remiru&source=bl&ots=7NpFDZUcUL&sig=ACfU3U1RAVXs7gM45WGOJvdhsEplgNBYwQ&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjterEkrPuAhXDpIsKHf85CDsQ6AEwEXoECBAQAg#v=onepage&q=ana%20mini%20zinake%20remiru&f=false
@Simon_W
"To the contrary, I know better than you how to set up smart G25 models. You just throw in everything, which is neither difficult nor smart, it just produces overfitted BS models. Czech Bell Beakers in pre-Etruscan Italy? LMAO!"
You, as always, shamefully know nothing. Read Marco Sazzini et al. 2020 Genomic history of the Italian population recapitulates key evolutionary dynamics of both Continental and Southern Europeans:
"In particular, N_ITA individuals, which clustered close to people from the Iberian Peninsula (IBS) within the bulk of modern southwestern Europeans, showed a particular affinity with Central European, Hungarian, and British Neolithic samples; Copper Age subjects from Hungary and the Balkans ; a Corded Ware Czech remain; and Iberian and Hungarian individuals belonging to the Bell Baker culture. Moreover, the centroid of the N_ITA cluster lay in proximity to the Copper Age Northern Italian Remedello sample. "
So my model is correct, yours is deeply flawed and contrary to scientific evidence. You do not know how to build models at all, which you strictly proved to everyone.
"As a matter of fact, the Villanovan culture was in all likelihood Etruscan, this is widely accepted now, for some good reasons."
Don't be ridiculous, there are no such reasons other than autochthonists deceiving who are not respected by anyone. The words Protovilanovan meant Villanovan also, there is no difference between them in the models.
"However, Etruscans don't have Anatolia_BA-like admixture, hence they cannot be from Anatolia (not from Lydia, not from Troy), nor from central/southern Greece or from the Cyclades."
This is nonsense. You have no idea about the genomes of the Aegean region, its islands and Troy, northern Greece, you just do not have such data. The southern Balkans, islands and northern Anatolia are called the Aegean region. I did not take Anatolia in the models because the Levant strongly enough shows that there is more than enough Anatolia. The Levant is my proxy Anatolia, because if there is a Levant, then there is an excessive amount of Anatolia.
"Etruscan descendants? Nonsense! I modelled the Etruscans as a mix of Italics + something else. That's sensible, assuming that the Etruscans reached Italy after the Italics."
I have clearly shown on PCA that the genomes that emerged from Northern Greece are closest to the Etruscans because they are Luwians.
"Lol, it's illegal? Not in my country! But of course I can do the same exercise with the individual Etruscans, no problem. See, first using Italian sources:
44.4 Helladic_MBA:Log02
....
0 HRV_IA"
Although these models are very bad, they are erroneous in two parameters, but they clearly prove that the Etruscan aliens are from the Aegean Region (Helladic_MBA), and not some not Villanovans heirs, in spite of the fact that the ProtoVillanovan sample was prepared by himself who came from the Balkan-Carpathians.
"So still seems more likely still that Etrusucans came from Western Balkans."
Obviously, this is an illogical nonsense, since Helladic_MBA is the southern Balkans themselves, this is what is directly called the Aegean region. HRV_IA=0. Checkmate, you deceived yourself.
"your problem is that you have blind faith in Herodotus' account and you mistake Virgil's Aeneid for a historical report."
Ancient DNA clearly showed that the ancients were right in everything, they simply had no reason to invent. Your problem is that you are unable to analyze and are unable to admit your mistakes, even if the fact that you were wrong tells you your own results.
"Ancient DNA suggests the Etruscans had no Anatolian BA ancestry."
This is just a downright lie.
Post a Comment