When we explored models of population history that are compatible with the observations above using admixture graphs [28], we found that the IUP Bacho Kiro Cave individuals were related to populations that contributed ancestry to the Tianyuan individual in China as well as, to a lesser extent, to the GoyetQ116-1 and Ust’Ishim individuals (all |Z| < 3; Fig. 2d, Supplementary Information 6). This resolves the previously unclear relationship between the GoyetQ116-1 and Tianyuan individuals [13] without the need for gene flow between these two geographically distant individuals. ... In conclusion, the Bacho Kiro Cave genomes show that several distinct modern human populations existed during the early Upper Palaeolithic in Eurasia. Some of these populations, represented by the Oase1 and Ust’Ishim individuals, show no detectable affinities to later populations, whereas groups related to the IUP Bacho Kiro Cave individuals contributed to later populations with Asian ancestry as well as some western Eurasian humans such as the GoyetQ116-1 individual in Belgium. This is consistent with the fact that IUP archaeological assemblages are found from central and eastern Europe to present-day Mongolia [5,15,16] (Fig. 1), and a putative IUP dispersal that reached from eastern Europe to East Asia. Eventually populations related to the IUP Bacho Kiro Cave individuals disappeared in western Eurasia without leaving a detectable genetic contribution to later populations, as indicated by the fact that later individuals, including BK1653 at Bacho Kiro Cave, were closer to present-day European populations than to present-day Asian populations [29,30].Hajdinjak, M., Mafessoni, F., Skov, L. et al. Initial Upper Palaeolithic humans in Europe had recent Neanderthal ancestry. Nature 592, 253–257 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03335-3 See also... Ust'-Ishim belongs to K-M526
Wednesday, April 7, 2021
The Bacho Kiro surprise (Hajdinjak et al. 2021)
Over at Nature at this LINK. The paper focuses on Neanderthal ancestry in Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) humans from what is now Bulgaria. But, to me, much more interesting is the claim by its authors that present-day East Asians harbor ancient European, or, at least, European-related ancestry. From the paper, emphasis is mine:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
266 comments:
1 – 200 of 266 Newer› Newest»Where are the Bacho Kiro samples from that are in the Global25.
Are they from the official dataset?
@Davidski
They are from the BAM files from ENA processed the same way as kra001. So not official, but you won't get official 1240k dataset anyway as:
We enriched the selected amplified libraries for about 3.7 million SNPs across the genome described in supplementary data 2 of ref. 19 (SNP Panel 1 or 390k array), and supplementary data 1–3 of ref. 7 (SNP Panels 2, 3 and 4, or 840k, 1000k and Archaic admixture arrays, respectively).
Another publication:
A genome sequence from a modern human skull over 45,000 years old from Zlatý kůň in Czechia
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01443-x
I dont think IUP populations expanded from Bulgaria to China any more than the other way round. Rather, these affinities relate to IUP dispersing population (probably from western Asia) . Somewhat, paradoxially it was preserved to greater degree in subsequent Paleo populations in western Europe (Goyet) than in Eastern Europe or Siberia. The apparent East Asian affinities ('pseudo-East Asian' as I termed it) of early IUP groups is due to comparatively less turnover in East Asia c.f. western Eurasia
This is all starting to make some sense. I have thought for a while now that Tianyuan, Salkhit, and Yana’s common ancestry, is really a sort of undifferentiated common Eurasian/Central Eurasian, with one branch contributing ancestry to modern South and East Asians (hence Tianyuan’s mtDNA B), and the other (Yana/Salkhit) contributing ancestry to modern West Eurasians and Native Americans. Y-DNA haplogroup K is clearly this undifferentiated “central” Eurasian lineage, it spawned P, R, Q, and NO. This may also help explain the common Eurasian like character of mtDNA C, as well as the appearance of mtDNA X in Native Americans. Just my own amateur theory.
I don't agree with them at all. They are categorically wrong about the direction of gene flow. Neither Tianyuan came from Europe, nor did GoyetQ116-1 and IUP Bacho Kiro come from China. They have a typical lantern search error, they only see single appearances under the lantern and draw erroneous conclusions because they don't see the rest of Eurasia. Their assertion that settlement went from Europe to East Asia is nonsense, although they expressed themselves poorly here may be.
And another surprise is that a 45 k yo sample from Czechia is not related to anybody at all.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01443-x.pdf
@Rob, that is probably correct.
...
qpGraph is interesting in this paper; Tianyuan is a composite of 39% of this IUP Bacho Kiro group that is Basal to Kostenki, and then 61% part that splits with Kostenki.
Probably resolve the puzzle of why some forager and earlier ANF pops had ydna C1
@Andre,
Yeah, thanks for mentioning this. I think it does.
Bacho Kiro Cave
CC7-335 and BB7-240. 45ky-42ky
Both carry Y DNA C1.
They must be where Paleo Euro and Anatolian C1 comes from.
Goyet had Y DNA C1a, and this paper says has ancestry from Bacho Kiro Cave. It is all making sense.
@all
What about the 5 R1b M 73 samples from the Kunda culture? It seems nobody is elaborating the implications for the R1b history in eastern europe.
@Genos Historia
"Goyet this paper says has ancestry from Bacho Kiro Cave."
It doesn't say that. It says that GoyetQ116-1 shares significantly more alleles with Bacho Kiro Cave, not that they are its ancestors.
Matt,
"qpGraph is interesting in this paper; Tianyuan is a composite of 39% of this IUP Bacho Kiro group that is Basal to Kostenki, and then 61% part that splits with Kostenki."
You should see what happens when a graph includes MA1, ancient Near Easterners, and ancient Africans!
In that particular vein, I've been working extensively with automated qpGraph, supervised qpGraph, qpAdm, f4 stats, etc. There are some consistent features ("consistent" despite differences in SNP selection and number, varying population choices, and a varying number of admixture edges) that I think would pique your interest
Speaking for myself, the most fascinating and consequential results pivot upon the "Basal Eurasian" concept:
All things considered, it appears rather certain that the notion is unnecessary. Despite (by now) countless attempts, the ghost population simply doesn't appear at the end of any automated graph explorations (the cool thing to note here is that you can compare multiple graphs, resample SNPs, lots of interesting things).
And good ol' supervised qpGraph models with a "Basal Eurasian" ghost yield worse fits (in terms of both either the likelihood score or the lowest worse residual; you can look at both, and choose to optimize for either/or) than ones without.
Instead, it seems rather more parsimonious to allow ourselves a conception of "African" admixture in southern West Eurasia (from the Levant to northwestern India, with levels of this ancestry decreasing as distance from northern/northeastern Africa increases. I imagine that modern Southern Europeans and South Central Asians would also have this sort of ancestry, but much closer to "trace" levels).
I understand that the semantics might get complicated; some Sub-Saharan African lineages are closer to Eurasians than they are to other Africans.
But based on the topologies, if Mota is "African", and if 60-70% of Iberomaurusian ancestry is "African", then the ancestry I'm describing in southern West Eurasia is best described as "African".
Another result of interest involves the subject of the paper under discussion:
It does seem that East Eurasians are heavily IUP, but with substantial "West Eurasian" admixture. This "West Eurasian" admixture involves the stream of ancestry which apparently connects MA1 to the Iranian plateau/southern Central Asia/northwestern South Asia. So the relationship between MA1 and the ancient eastern Near East/northern South Asia is definitely real... but that shared connection seems to also be the conduit for "West Eurasian" admixture in the deep ancestral makeup of ENA. I'd imagine that this "West Eurasian" pop which connects ANE with Tajikistan_Sarazm/Indus_periphery/Iran_N existed in Central Asia, and from there flowed into what eventually became the populations of East Eurasia. But I'm just spit-balling here; who knows the reality of it all. More aDNA is needed.
In the context of South Asia (which you and I often discuss), it could even be that the "AASI" conceptualization might also be due for retirement... but we certainly need actual Mesolithic aDNA from the region (who knows what we'll find). It'll all be a very complex situation though; that much is certain.
The common “west Eurasian” link between ~ Sungir & western part of ANE is probably from southwest western Central Asia / eastern West Asia
Interestingly, they claim that BK-1653 is a female, so they don't give a definition for her Y-haplogroup!
So K/.K2b/P are ultimately from an IUP like crown eurasian population? And this is the source of K2b in Tianyuan, K2a in Ust-Ishim and Tase and P in Yana?
Is the idea that these people came from the distant east or that they left the west and pushed east? I'm partial to the idea that they came from the east and most populating of Europe in general pre-neolithic happened from the NE. Personally, I don't know what I'm talking about at all, but this would align with the dearth of UP sites in Anatolia (I might be wrong about this + might just be under-excavated/studied + coastlines have changed dramatically + populations were tiny/mobile) and the idea that lots of early OoA haplogroup diversification seems to have happened in SE Asia.
These people expanded from the Middle East into Europe, Central Asia, Siberia and East Asia.
Southeast Asia is a sink, not a source.
Its relatively high Y-chromosome diversity is an artifact of the multiple large scale population turnovers that happened elsewhere in Eurasia.
''It doesn't say that. It says that GoyetQ116-1 shares significantly more alleles with Bacho Kiro Cave, not that they are its ancestors.''
Given that Goyet is 10,000 year younger, it is likely that the deeply archaic ancestry in Goyet arrived from BK
@ Seinundzeit
Can you elaborate a bit more on this potential African > West Eurasian gene flow? Are you sure there isn't any deeper Eurasian > African movement?
In fact, looking at fig 1, it does almost seem that IUP populations dispersed from Europe, across Siberia and into Eastern Asia. The data does seem to support it too.
There arent any IUP assemblages in the Zagros/ Iran region, interestingly (where para-Aurignacian sequences start after 40, 000 BP)
But there would have been a southern dispersal route too, toward southern India/ Sri Lanka; where the promising skeletal remains should shed light hopefully
@Sein, I think African related admixture models with a split of some population in Africa are plausible, difficult to say more without the qpGraphs themselves!
I do have some reservations about trying to model Eurasians and Africans on a graph as the 1240k capture panel inflates, non-equally, differentiation between Africans and non-Africans: https://arborbiosci.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Skoglund_Ancestral_850K_Panel_Design.pdf
@Rob, How does IUP affect the relationship between Tianyuan, Salkhit, and Yana? We could be looking at a IUP-like, crown Eurasian population, who spread Y-DNA K and subclades of mtDNA M and N, from eastern West Asia/northern South Asia, into Central, North, and East Asia. This would help explain some of the more ambiguous genetic links between West and East Eurasians, both modern and ancient.
Bacho Kiro is not direct ancestral to GoyetQ116-1, even they on Admixture graph showed that.
The most interesting is the IUP cluster in the Altai-Baikal area. This is where we should look for the truth, because for example in the Altai, more typical Aurignyac needles were found in the IUP than in Europe. There dates of human appearance are more ancient than in Europe, there it is necessary to investigate genetically.
Cy Tolliver,
In a sense, it's fair to say that African > West Eurasian gene-flow could explain much about the uniparental data (primarily regarding the ancient Near East).
Essentially, the Natufians being 40% "African" is rather exactly what we would expect.
But I think you're absolutely right to note the possibility of deeper Eurasian affinities in Sub-Saharan African populations. In fact, it's almost expected (gene-flow is nearly always demonstrated upon further analyses done in conjunction with new aDNA; perhaps one could say that it's all mixture, all the way down).
But although the possibility is there, it seems that more statistical certainty can be placed on African > West Eurasian gene flow, rather than Eurasian > African movement (barring contemporary East Africans, of course).
Matt,
I have 31 independent graphs (and I've done multiple comparisons with quite a few of these) from which I could choose any single topology for the purposes of demonstration.
But it's the graph that I'm doing right now which I enjoy the most, because it's the simplest one yet (and despite that, the best-fitted). I'll let it run for a few more days, and then I'll post the topology. I think that you'll find it to be of some interest!
Now on the question of the 1240k capture panel, I'd note two things:
1) I have graphs lacking any ancient African populations which infer "ghost African" populations contributing to ancient Near Easterners.
2) The patterns in question present themselves with shotgun data as well.
@ Simon S.
In essence, an IUP spread from western Asia toward Europe toward Siberia then Asia(with exact details still to be sorted). It is looking like this a northern route from Europe to Siberia then East Asia.
Then a second radiation followed, bringing in the Zagros-Caucasus axis, radiating to Europe and also to Siberia.
All subsequent European Paleo history was internal re-arrangements.
@ Archi
''Bacho Kiro is not direct ancestral to GoyetQ116-1, even they on Admixture graph showed that.''
As stated above, BK is the ancestor of the most archaic component of Goyet-Q116. But G-Q116 has a dual (at least) ancestry, with the younger component making the majority (~80%), as per the qpGraph
“ All subsequent European Paleo history was internal re-arrangements. ”
Aside from the ANE -related arrival ~ 20 kybp to far Eastern Europe
@Rob
"As stated above, BK is the ancestor of the most archaic component of Goyet-Q116. But G-Q116 has a dual (at least) ancestry, with the younger component making the majority (~80%), as per the qpGraph"
IUP Bacho Kiro is Ust-Ishim, which is almost the same thing. IUP Bacho Kiro is an ancestor to GoyetQ116-1 as much as Ust-Ishim and Oase 1. Actually, they did not write anything new, GoyetQ116-1 has a share of Ust-Ishim, but Ust-Ishim is not an ancestor to GoyetQ116-1. Therefore, we cannot say that GoyetQ116-1 descended from IUP Bacho Kiro.
"In essence, an IUP spread from western Asia toward Europe toward Siberia then Asia(with exact details still to be sorted). It is looking like this a northern route from Europe to Siberia then East Asia."
There was no route from West Asia to Europe and from there on to Siberia and China. I pondered their suggestion again and realized that they did not write any such path, they simply described a distribution area from Europe to East Asia = from East Asia to Europe. It's not a path, it's just a description of the area.
There was a very different route from Africa through the straits to the north of South Asia and on to Siberia to Altai and from there to Europe and China.
I agree that both Basal Eurasian and ASI exist only in theory and imagination.
These things exist because this field attempts to explain things in terms of admixture when drift is a better explanation. For example, the relationship of modern humans and Neanderthals may not be of admixture but AMH drifting away from a common ancestor, hence varying levels of Neanderthal alleles remaining in modern humans.
Basal Eurasian is an explanation for an effect caused by the fact that West Asians (Iberomaurusians, Iran_N etc) are very early separated from the common Eurasian ancestor with North/East Eurasian, and NE Eurasian is geographically on the opposite side from the common dispersal point (likely SE ASIA). Hence NE Eurasian and SW Asians are the two most differentiated Eurasian populations, and Basal Eurasian as an actual population is just a bad explanation for this difference (imo).
The geneflow from between Africa and Eurasia may have two routes . One looks like a Africa to Eurasia movement up through East Africa into Gujarat, and another one in the opposite direction from West Asia into Africa. Hence Yoruba is much closer to Eurasians than Mbuti, because of geneflow from West Asia into Africa. Mbuti are connectect to Eurasians (hence greater Neanderthal affinity) but this is a more distant connection than that of Yoruba (who are more Northern in Africa) who are much closer to Eurasians.
AMH could have originated in a large region of SE Asia, South Asia, West Asia and Africa over many millions of years. It's difficult to pin it down to a sub-region of this area. I think the two points of contact between Eurasia and Africa is the key to understanding the massive drift and selection required to evolve AMH. Evolution is enhanced with movement and adaption, a circular movement allows for greatest drift, selection and adaptability and can continue without limit.
@Seinundzeit
"Instead, it seems rather more parsimonious to allow ourselves a conception of "African" admixture in southern West Eurasia (from the Levant to northwestern India, with levels of this ancestry decreasing as distance from northern/northeastern Africa increases. I imagine that modern Southern Europeans and South Central Asians would also have this sort of ancestry, but much closer to "trace" levels)."
What do you mean by trace levels? And if that's the case then all Europeans would have that ancestry because I suspect that EEF would have it right?
Furthermore, I am very skeptical of this African ancestry given that there are no African (maybe a few idk) mtDNA lineages in ancient Near Easterners and Natufians didn't really show affinities to Sub-Saharan populations (unless you mean African differently)
"It does seem that East Eurasians are heavily IUP, but with substantial "West Eurasian" admixture. "
Also have to disagree here, East Eurasians show very little uniparental evidence of West Eurasian ancestry unless you mean older than 30-40kya. I would also add that on the autosomal side, we simply don't have enough ancient DNA to tell but Ive seen many qpGraphs of Neolithic East Asians which don't need western input.
In both cases, did you consider a) an Basal Eurasian/North African population of some sorts also contributing to Africans and b) shared IUP ancestry West/East or even some East Asian ancestry in West Eurasians such as ANE for example was modeled as having?
@Davidski
Is there no possibility these people expanded first into Siberia and then split East and West?
@gamerz_J
"And if that's the case then all Europeans would have that ancestry because I suspect that EEF would have it right?"
The hunter-gatherer sample from Pınarbaşı Gölü doesn't seem to have any, so it's likely that EEF don't possess much in the way of this sort of admixture. (It's probably there, but just not much).
"Furthermore, I am very skeptical of this African ancestry given that there are no African (maybe a few idk) mtDNA lineages in ancient Near Easterners and Natufians didn't really show affinities to Sub-Saharan populations (unless you mean African differently)"
Few things to note:
1) There are a few.... but that's not what I had in mind. Rather, I was thinking of their y-dna haplogroups (like E1b1b).
2) They do show affinities to Africans in individual stats.
3) "Africans" are not a clade, at all; there are multiple deeply-diverged lineages. The conceptual landscape here is exceddingly rich and complex.
4) Basal Eurasians were real, and I already have one in my topologies: Oase1. And I'd imagine that Zlatý kůň would fall in the same category.
"Ive seen many qpGraphs of Neolithic East Asians which don't need western input."
So... you're saying that you've seen many qpGraphs that were either very poorly fitted or missing crucial populations (or both)?
"In both cases, did you consider a) an Basal Eurasian/North African population of some sorts also contributing to Africans and b) shared IUP ancestry West/East or even some East Asian ancestry in West Eurasians such as ANE for example was modeled as having?"
It's not really a matter of my consideration; if it was, it wouldn't be "automated" graph exploration. My whole goal has been to do things unsupervised, without forcing any of my own assumptions on the data.
And once I deal with the output of automated graph exploration, I manually create trees that match the literature (in order to compare the fits, and in order to derive a sense of what's more likely in terms of the broader ontology).
Before working on topologies myself, my general assumptions were exactly what you've described:
ANE and WHG have ENA admixture (with ENA being unadmixed in relation to West Eurasians), and "Basal Eurasian" is a plausible (albeit mysterious) construct.
I've spent much time trying to add evidential flesh to those assumptions... but they haven't panned out.
For those who are curious, there is an older article with a reconstruction of the Czech skull.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201431.g007
@Seinundzeit
But both Oase-1 and Zlatý kůň are closer to modern Asians than to modern Europeans and the explanation for this (at least the explanation given in the papers) is precisely that modern Europeans have Basal ancestry. Therefore, these two individuals cannot be Basal-Eurasians.
@ Sein
''it seems rather more parsimonious to allow ourselves a conception of "African" admixture in southern West Eurasia (from the Levant to northwestern India''
Yes, hg E seems like a key index fossil of this connection.
To which period or industry do you connect this to ?
Archaeological data suggests that populations were moving into northern Africa during the LGM (~ 25 - 19,000 BP)
@ Archi
''IUP Bacho Kiro is Ust-Ishim, which is almost the same thing. IUP Bacho Kiro is an ancestor to GoyetQ116-1 as much as Ust-Ishim and Oase 1. Actually, they did not write anything new, GoyetQ116-1 has a share of Ust-Ishim, but Ust-Ishim is not an ancestor to GoyetQ116-1. Therefore, we cannot say that GoyetQ116-1 descended from IUP Bacho Kiro.
i know what they have written & support their scenario. There are subtle differences in archaic homo introgression between BK & U-I, which their qpGraph depicts.
The archaeological evidence shows the IUP expansion from from Danube across central Europe & their qpGrap (which I have complete confidence in)
There is simply no need to imagine undocumented migrations from western Siberia to Europe during the IUP when evidence is lacking. It would need some strong evidence brought forth by credible scholars. At present it is thrown around by amateurs and neo-creationist pseudoscholars in fora like Anthrogenica
''There was a very different route from Africa through the straits to the north of South Asia and on to Siberia to Altai and from there to Europe and China.''
This is hard to believe. The northern route is the what binds Siberia, Mongolia , Europe. These are a long blade Industries of large game hunters. South Asia is different hunter people adapted to savanah & rainforests using microlithic armature. They were simply unequipped & unlikely to have moved the northern latitudes
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222606
As Davidski said- SEA was a sink, so was India.
''There was no route from West Asia to Europe and from there on to Siberia and China''
There are very similar IUP assemblages in eastern Turkey as in Europe (# 26 on map Ucagilzi & Kanal cave). Its just missing at present in western Turkey, due to poor research (the focus on Turkey has been Neolithic, and later periods). But at present, this seems to be more parsiminous
https://imgur.com/uByznp6
@Sein,
Y DNA E is Eurasian.
Its is derived along the human Y DNA tree, compared to indiegous AFrican Y DNA.
Plus, Y DNA D, its brother, is Asian.
@Sein,
People used to think of Y DNA E1b1b as indigenous in East Africa.
Ancient DNA shows it arrived there only 4,000 years ago from Southwest Asia.
@Seinundzeit
" 2) They do show affinities to Africans in individual stats."
Hm, interesting, could you post or link me any? I am assuming then that Iran_Neolithic and CHG would also have this African input?
"Rather, I was thinking of their y-dna haplogroups (like E1b1b)"
E is possible though I recall Lazaridis had a model where it came from a "North African" population somewhere intermediate between Eurasia and Africa, whatever that means.
" 4) Basal Eurasians were real, and I already have one in my topologies: Oase1. And I'd imagine that Zlatý kůň would fall in the same category."
I would imagine these were Crown Eurasians not Basal in the sense the concept has been developed in the literature.
" So... you're saying that you've seen many qpGraphs that were either very poorly fitted or missing crucial populations (or both)?"
Well, I haven't seen your qpGraphs so I don't know, but if West Eurasian ancestry made its way into East Asia when did it do so? I doubt this happened post Mongolia_N and judging by the uniparentals only subclades of Q actually could have brought it there.
@Rob
"i know what they have written & support their scenario."
They wrote nothing new. Genos Historia wrote nonsense that completely contradicts both the article and all the data.
https://i.ibb.co/4WPsYNm/UP-PCA.png
"Its just missing at present in western Turkey, due to poor research"
No, Turkey is well researched. But Russia and especially Siberia are very bad, worse than ever.
"There is simply no need to imagine undocumented migrations from western Siberia to Europe during the IUP when evidence is lacking."
This is the way https://i.ibb.co/JpFdy4K/Initial-Upper-Palaeolithic-path.png.
It proves to be true both the genetic data and archeological. The haplogroup F in Bacho Kiro IUP is most likely the same pre-NO* as in Ust-Ishim and Oasa 1.
In Siberia in those days there were Mammoth Steppes with a great climate, much better than in Europe and Anatolia. Europe was covered by glaciers; there was no glacier in Western Siberia. The amount of food in the Mammoth Steppes was probably greater than in the savannahs. Things change in the Holocene, Siberia is covered by taiga and a harsh climate is established there, which caused people to disappear from there, and Europe establishes a good climate. The problem is that there are few places to live, and the archaeological excavations there are essentially only for construction projects. As far as I can remember, there are dozens of times fewer archaeological excavations a year in giant Russia than in little Germany, and in Siberia it's a paltry thing altogether. Although even under current conditions this way is already quite visible.
@ Sein
Regarding Y-DNA E and Natufians, yes that's clearly indicative of African movement into the Levant, but one thing that's always been perplexing is that Iran_N shows stronger affinity to Africans in D-Stats than Natufians do. Iran_N is more closely related to Pinarbasi and Anatolia_N and even to WHG than they are Natufians. So it always seemed like the "African" affinity of Iran_N was something strange, because it sure doesn't seem like it's due to any Natufian > Iran related flow.
Off-topic
Medieval Y-DNA from what appears to be a 16th century site in Ellwangen, Germany (based on: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12154-0/figures/1 ; sequences from ENA PRJEB44124):
Sample_name Hg Hg_marker Total_reads Valid_markers QC-score QC-1 QC-2 QC-3
ELW025 J2b2~ J-Z575*(xYP84,Z8257,Y21763) 456122 2345 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW035 R1a1a1b1a2 R-S204*(xVK04,YP5525,YP4464,YP4480,CTS11505,YP5308,FGC19249,Y17488,FGC13708,Y10895,A7018,FGC39336,YP6405,FGC21215,FGC19279,YP315,FGC74376,Y92440,Y29593,Y81519,Y10807) 437430 2238 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW031 R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a5c1a R-L720 247354 1179 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW003 R1b1a1b1a1a1c R-S263*(xS265,FGC30618,FGC15439,Z8180,CTS11549,S383,A2426) 446863 2148 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW036 E1b1b1b1a1 E-M5172/etc*(xBY9780,Z36168,MZ129,MZ6,MZ87,Y21135,MZ54) 634129 3239 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW033 R1b1a1b1b R-CTS1078 570531 2862 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW030 I2a1b2a I-FGC29577*(xY17132,Y129082,BY13995) 185628 926 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW028 R1b1a1b1b3a1a1 R-CTS9219 787042 3978 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW013 J2b1 J-Y3160/etc*(xY22081) 480498 2366 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW018 E1b1b1a1b1a E-PF2211*(xZ16660,B410,M8166,BY4890,BY5249,Y16726,A9487,BY5124,Z38899,BY5809,BY5840,L540,Z42775,BY4224,FGC5638,Z25461,Z37882) 667178 3311 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW008 R1b1a1 R-PF6524*(xY13872,L265) 891355 4527 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW017 R1b1a1b R-CTS11468*(xFGC36478,S12993,FGC22500,CTS2501,Z17624,FGC18033,A16,S7898,Z16539,A94,A11720,Y31466) 136261 642 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW029 E1b1b1b1b1a2~ E-FGC18986*(xPF2440^) 558666 2787 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW020 R1b1a1b R-L1351/etc*(xFGC36479,PF7598,Z264,L356,FGC5541,A94,CTS12966,Y18209,A8041,S20902,A11718,GG729,FGC31939) 724755 3600 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW040 R1b1a1b R-PF6436/etc*(xFGC20733,FGC13326,S9257,S18461,A96,S10024,A9452,FGC19756,L200,A7220,FGC419,FGC18015,S26140,Z262,L356,A228,A8062,FGC37114,M12132,PH1348) 354282 1755 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW012 R1b1a1b1a1a R-PF6543*(xFGC36479,M228.1,S11481,A8064,FGC37108) 788786 3950 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW027 I2a1b1~ I-CTS3111/etc*(xPF3966,CTS9139,Y55873,S10269,BY14030,BY14066,BY25365,BY14002,Y106155,Y19666,S9168) 403558 1993 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ELW037 appears to be https://www.yfull.com/tree/C-F1756/ C2a1a1b1
As Yoruba is much closer to Eurasians than Mbuti, a useful calc to look at human population structure can be
d (W=Mbuti, X=Yoruba) (Y=Test, X=Test), for a group of samples Test.
For 21 members in Test the matrix is quite large at 21x21 so we can just take the mean average for each test=Y.
1 Morocco_Iberomaurusian -0.0160
2 Gujarati Muslim -0.00370
3 PUN.SG -0.00246
4 Jatt -0.00158
5 Saudi -0.00154
6 Greek -0.000975
7 Ukrainian -0.000345
8 GujaratiB -0.000345
9 English -0.000175
10 Iranian 0.0000700
11 Kalash 0.000255
12 Balochi 0.000345
13 Pathan 0.00051
14 Han 0.0016
15 Mongol 0.00174
16 ONG.SG 0.00179
17 GujaratiA 0.00181
18 Iran_GanjDareh_N 0.00196
19 Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 0.00432
20 Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1_published_all 0.00594
21 Russia_Kostenki14.SG 0.00676
The top ones with negative score are closest to Yoruba vs Mbuti. Ancient Eurasians score closest to Mbuti, meaning there is more recent DNA sharing between Yoruba and Eurasians from South and West Eurasia.
@Seinundzeit + Rob
As it was pointed out by Genos Historia, the assumption that YDNA E represents a migration from Africa leads us to the old problem of E vs. D. There were debates about this a decade ago and I cannot say we know much more about the issue that back then. YDNA D is not only Eurasian exclusive, but have a very Eastern distribution since ancient times (it is definitely a deep Paleolithic lineage in East Asia). Do you think that the split happened in Africa, but their distribution became disconnected due to later movements?
@mzp1
"For example, the relationship of modern humans and Neanderthals may not be of admixture but AMH drifting away from a common ancestor, hence varying levels of Neanderthal alleles remaining in modern humans."
There are ancient modern humans including the ones from this study that contain Neandertal DNA in blocks. There is linkage disequilibrium. This is definitely admixture.
In my earlier post Morocco Iberomaurusian is much closer to Yoruba vs Mbuti compared with Iran_GanjDareh_N. The single d calc shows
d (Mbuti, Yoruba) (Iran_GanjDareh_N, Morocco_Iberomaurusian) = 0.0172
and only Ancient North Eurasians MA1, Ust_Ishim, Kostenki and Goyet score higher.
So I think the best explanation is a Southward migration of North Eurasian ancestry due to the LGM. This can affect all of South Eurasia and can be the cause of the large differences for South Asians on the above calc.
Haplogroup E can in no way be from Africa, because there was a very ancient reverse migration to Africa from Eurasia, and it could only be people with haplogroup E and probably with D relics, no one else.
@ archi
“ In Siberia in those days there were Mammoth Steppes with a great climate, much better than in Europe and Anatolia. Europe was covered by glaciers; there was no glacier in Western Siberia. The amount of food in the Mammoth Steppes was probably greater than in the savannahs.”
That’s true; but that’s only relevant for a much later period - LGM 26-19,000 BP. This is why & when the ANE migration to Europe occurred
But the IUP happened during a relative warm conditions, and the timing of 47,000+ in the west is earlier than anything in Mongolia or China. Siberia & Altai is synchronous with Europe . South Asia is irrelevant ; and the inland parts of Central Asia and Iran are too late
Anything older than 45,000 in altai is attributed to Denisovans
We remain open minded; but at present the route sketches from Europe to Siberia. The other way lacks likelihood; we have no way of getting AMH there unless we believe AMH speciated in Siberia or America.
@rob
"but that’s only relevant for a much later period - LGM 26-19,000 BP. This is why & when the ANE migration to Europe occurred
But the IUP happened during a relative warm conditions, and the timing of 47,000+ in the west is earlier than anything in Mongolia or China."
That is absolutely not true. It is a mistake. Гt is relevant to the entire Ice Age.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg
What does Mongolia and China have to do with it? You are making a big mistake. We are talking about the territory of Russia, in the Altai IUP dating is even older than in the Middle East and certainly older than in Europe.
"Anything older than 45,000 in altai is attributed to Denisovans "
That is absolutely not true. It is a mistake.
"We remain open minded; but at present the route sketches from Europe to Siberia. The other way lacks likelihood; we have no way of getting AMH there unless we believe AMH speciated in Siberia or America."
Such a route does not exist at all and has never existed for any archaeologist or anyone, nor does it exist in this paper. You are prejudiced and you are the only one who made it up. Don't write we about yourself, you are the only one. The paper says exactly the area of distribution and nothing more.
@ Archie
Lol I’m prejudiced ? Nothing you ever proclaim ever pans out, and even when the data solidly debunks all your whacky theories ; you still don’t get it . Pipe down
@ Slumberry
Perhaps D & E split in Arabia; which was a putative pre-IUP homeland; or in other words, where the parental populations of Sukul & Qafzeh were ~ 100 kyBP.
Hg D might be associated with an earlier southern radiation, whilst E might have back-migrated to Africa ~ 50 kybp
But Hg E looks to have diversified and moved out of NE Africa during the late Pleistocene, perhaps as a series of founder effects after the LGM
Curiously, the pre-EV13 of Europe is closer to iberomaurisians rather than Natufian E-M35
Now I see there is a Capsian genome which is also on the ~ E-M35 line
@Rob
Fair enough. After all such a long time (with a lot of regional migrations) passed that E lineages could have multiple dispersions and local extinctions. The current distribution might be very misleading.
BTW this reminds me of Dienekes. His theory was that the final steps of formation of modern humans before global dispersal had happened at least partly in Arabia, including the start of CT diversification.
@rob
Exactly that you are prejudiced, you have always written about it. you use science as a tool for propaganda, you write about yourself we and call yourself a god, everything you write is refuted from first to last word.
@ Slumberry
I can't recall what Dienekes theory was exactly. I rather refer to the increasing interest around Arabia by archaeologists and its possible links between the African Nubian complex and emerging Emiran (proto-IUP) in the Near East, on the one hand, and the southern route dispersal, on the other. It's all still developing days.
But it is clear that after 50 kyBp, there was a rapid radiation of AMHs around the globe (the question of an earlier pre-Toba southern dispersal aside); but we need to understand what precipitated this. It's almost supernatural ? gift from gods
@ Archie
yes you're the champion of wokeness. Keep licking your wounds as the prejudiced look to evidence instead of imagining that everything is linked to R1a or comes from Siberia. Your 7D ''theories'' must take a whole 10 seconds to construe.
I don't have Zlaty Kun yet. If someone would be willing to send them to me, I'll join in. My thinking just from reading the paper and my own experience, I'll say that Zlaty Kun would be Basal Eurasian. Anything deeper is secondary and maybe a third movement from Africa.
Goyet shows a significant relationship to Ust Ishim relative to about anything. East Asians too. Goyet will likely be an Ust Ishim and Bacho Kiro mix, with the least to no Zlaty Kun. Later Europeans have additional Zlaty Kun and later some more Near Eastern admixture.
Bacho Kiro may be related to the SE branch that mixes into Oceania.
Zlaty Kun is likely in Dzudzuana, causing that Gravettian relationship. Pinarbasi probably has less than Dzudzuana due to admixture with an HG group of more Eastern affinities. I think Pinarbasi will be our oldest with a second African wave that is involved with the formation of Iberomaurusians/Oranian and Natufians.
Natufians may show a third African wave that is most closely related to Mota, which is also admixed into Iberomaurusians. This last may be the Y link.
Also seeing an Onge wave by the time of Ganj Dareh and Boncuklu.
Speaking of Y-dna E and its spread and origin, is it possible that it arrived in North Africa as a back migration from West Asian Anatolian (or Levantine) Neolithic farmers? I read here on a different blog entry that during the Neolithic North Africans had approximately 40% of their aDNA constituting Neolithic Anatolian. Thereafter, their rate might’ve only actually *increased*, owing to the Bell Beaker, Punic, Roman and Vandal migration. Since we know that current Maghreb pops are Arabized Berbers with a very small Arab veneer (the latter also have somewhat Levantine/Anatolian mix of course), how much ANF is currently extant within North Africans?
@ Andrezejewski "how much ANF is currently extant within North Africans?"
Sierra-Vidal et al. 2019 estimated the amount of Basque-like ancestry in North Africans:
Saharawi 34% European/Basque
Moroccan 38%
Berber-Moroccan 47%
Algerian 46%
Berber-Mozabite 43%
Berber-Zenata 27%
Tunisian 44%
Berber-Tunisian 43%
Libyan 34%
Egyptian 41%
https://www.docdroid.net/42Nqxa2/north-africa-serra-vidal-et-al-2019-pdf
Accurate?
@Chad
"Also seeing an Onge wave by the time of Ganj Dareh and Boncuklu."
Onge wave from where and admixed into whom? Boncuklu?
It certainly can't be Onge per say, maybe some other type of East Eurasian?
@Andrzejewski
E is certainly older in North Africa, given that samples from the Iberomaurisian carried subclades of it, and imo Lazaridis had a pretty good model explaining its origin and its presence in the Levant.
Another possible theory is that it's a Basal Eurasian associated haplogroup but I know many disagree that population even existed.
A third theory it came from a 2nd OOA maybe from 40kya.
@Chad
Have you given up the supposition that there was deeper Eurasian into African gene flow? I remember in the past you seemed to strongly believe there was no African in either Natufians or IBM, but it seems like you've changed your mind?
Terms like “African” are terribly vague and don’t describe the levels of complexity we are dealing with here. Africa like Eurasia, is a massive continent, and the genetic distances between some populations there, are greater than the genetic distances between Europeans and South East Asians. We also have to consider that genetic diversification possibly already happened in Africa, before the initial dispersal of Homo sapiens into Eurasia 70-80kya. Iberomaurusians were composed of ANA, and ANA is found in almost all African and SSA populations. The Natufians also had ANA and Basal Eurasian-related ancestry. Both ANA and Basal Eurasian (BE) appear to be closely related. Various back migrations from Eurasia into North/Northeast Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa, make matters even more complex, and further serve to negate the use of the term “African,” especially when describing the various ancestral components at play here. I think there’s a good possibility that a Northeast African population (yet to be sampled) remained behind, while others broke off and became ANA and the initial Eurasians. For how long this Ancestral Northeast/East African (AEA) population remained, and what affect it had on both Eurasians, North Africans, and SSAs, has yet to be determined. It could be that Y-DNA E is what links BE, ANA, and AEA. We need hard data though, not computer models and amateurish graphs, or hyperbolic Afrocentric ramblings, which seem to dominate discussions such as these, especially on forums like Anthrogenica.
@Chad,
Weren't you arguing for Iberomaurusians lacking SSA DNA? Besides, going by Lazaridis and the Max Plank institute, Natufians don’t harbor any SSA ancestry. Anyway, from what I recall reading, Lazardis also used Mota to model Natufians and couldn't detect Mota- admixture in Natufians. So, how did you come to these conclusions?
@Simon Steve,
Granted, Africa has several distinct ancestries. And granted Eurasian ancestry has existed in North Africa for a long time.
African isn't actually a vague term. Because when people use it they mean everything that isn't Eurasian.
Eurasians supposedly were founded by a founding population. Anything far from this founding pop which lives in Africa, is African. This is not vague.
You are seeing African in middle eastern because you are modelling middle eastern without any ancient UP samples from the area, the missing drift appears as African. Any population without crown Eurasian appears to have African as a result. 40% African in Natufians is ridiculous and just not believable. You also have to believe that the people who made the Natufian paper are idiots by saying that Natufians had no SSA. That would be a colossal oversight by professionals (which you are not). Lazaridis and Reich understood Natufians by looking deeper an Natufian, you are scratching the surface and misusing formals.
Hi Folks,
I'm confused. The Neanderthal % is roughly comparable for Bacho Kiro and Zlaty Kun. However one group models Bacho Kiro as 6-7 generations back but Zlaty Kun is 70-80 generations from the Neanderthal admixture? Are they talking different meanings of admixture?
Cheers,
Guy
Africa was an evolutionary dump consisting of hybrides and diverse dead ends of imported species (just like early primates and most fast moving s.c. "African animals" which also originated in Asia). Not a single ooa "evidence" holds water. No aDNA evidence and useless fossil "evidence". OOA started as British colonialism and (after Piltdown) later became an orthodox religion not to be questioned - especially if you aren't PC. Anthropology professors happily show maps with modern humans in Australia 20,000 years before they, according to the same map, managed to reach Europe. And as Bill Kimbel puts it re. the most important evolutionary jump in Homo evolution: "The fossil records of the genus Homo between 2-2.5 MA would fit in a shoe box - and leave room for a decent pair of shoes. And all of them have been doubted." And I've always pointed to the fact that we know nothing about modern paleolithic humans in sub-Saharan Africa other than that the oldest genes in today's Africans have a phenotype that is cold adapted (mongoloid) and came to being outside Africa. Moreover, Africa is a continent that can't possibly trap fast moving bipedal big brained omnivores long enough for real speciation. The big evolutionary steps needed volatile tropical island-mainland fluctuations - as in SE-Asia. And the key to the sudden sophistication in China/Siberia/Central Asia was a tiny new brain setup (Denisovan no. 2) brought up from SE Asia and poured into big skulled relatives in the north. In my 1992 book I asked why Jinniushan man (now a woman) didn't go to the Moon with a big brain and several iceages of time to her disposal. Well she hadn't as yet got the new brain setup that Pääbo agrees with me that was needed. https://peterklevius.blogspot.com/2020/12/afropologist-john-hawks-and-creationist_21.html
@Davidski, Arza
Question about Tollense warrior DNA.
The study sequenced 67 DNA samples. But there are only 11 in the G25 dataset.
Is this because, most are of low coverage. Or is this because the study only released 11 samples?
@Guy, the model is, although the differences seem slight, the BK samples have a "top up" of an additional Neanderthal ancestor within the last 6-7 generations which does indeed go down to about 1.5%-0.7% (50% of ancestry ^ 6-7). They detect this not just through the variation in total Neanderthal ancestry, but the presence of relatively long segments of Neanderthal ancestry.
Zlaty Kun is supposed to have the "normal" amount of Neanderthal ancestry for Upper Paleolithic Eurasians, with no top ups, and from the segment lengths they can detect it happened 70-80 generations ago (and thus this provides them with additional reason to believe the sample is earlier or at least comparable in age, to Ust Ishim).
(Having one shared ancestor within 6-7 generations doesn't actually imply a lot of overall similarity in total ancestry, which is probably something we may need to think about with more methods that ancient dna labs are trying to use to look for these ancestral connections at 6-7 generations and such.)
@Guy
"I'm confused. The Neanderthal % is roughly comparable for Bacho Kiro and Zlaty Kun. However one group models Bacho Kiro as 6-7 generations back but Zlaty Kun is 70-80 generations from the Neanderthal admixture? Are they talking different meanings of admixture?"
Despite all the unsubstantiated speculation of the authors, Zlaty Kun is apparently about ten thousand years younger than Bacho Kiro. The dating of this specimen is a living hell, it has been dated many times with a range from 12870 years ago to 29680 years ago, and, in all cases, all the dating is unproven and cannot be trusted at all. The authors' claim that it is even older is pure speculation. Since we can not even guess the age of Zlaty Kun, all the differences with Bacho Kiro do not say anything.
@Simon Stevin
At a point like this, analytic deconstruction is a profitable avenue ripe for the taking.
And in essence, that's primarily a function of the fact that your construal is in complete agreement with what you've criticized.
For example:
"Africa like Eurasia, is a massive continent, and the genetic distances between some populations there, are greater than the genetic distances between Europeans and South East Asians."
Or:
"We also have to consider that genetic diversification possibly already happened in Africa... "
And:
"Iberomaurusians were composed of ANA, and ANA is found in almost all African and SSA populations. The Natufians also had ANA... "
That's quite a bit of conceptual muddling for the purposes of stating exactly that which was noted earlier by myself:
"I understand that the semantics might get complicated; some Sub-Saharan African lineages are closer to Eurasians than they are to other Africans.
But based on the topologies, if Mota is "African", and if 60-70% of Iberomaurusian ancestry is "African", then the ancestry I'm describing in southern West Eurasia is best described as 'African'."
Again, it's rather obvious that we agree; we're just framing the findings quite differently.
But my contention would be that my framing is honest, while yours is intentionally confused.
^ Just to clarify the above, an exercise (via some questions):
1) If the component lacks Eurasian archaic admixture;
2) If the component precedes the shared OoA bottleneck;
3) If the component is very closely-related to the stream of ancestry which constitutes nearly 70% of the ancestry of West Africans;
4) If the component is very, very closely related to the predominate element within the genetic ancestry of pre-historic non-Eurasian admixed East Africans;
5) And if the component in question was clearly rooted either in East Africa or North Africa;
^ Then, if all of the above is granted (and you clearly agree with all of the above), then how is the term "African" "terribly vague" when describing this exogenous stream of ancestry in the ancient Near East (and thus by extension nearly all of contemporary West Eurasia)?
^ And furthermore, how is "Basal Eurasian" excellently precise for naming said component? Especially considering that we now have actual "Basal Eurasians" (Zlatý kůň, Oase, etc) with no Near Eastern affinities whatsoever.
Finally, regarding this gem:
"We need hard data though, not computer models and amateurish graphs... "
All I can say is that if "computer models and amateurish graphs" aren't your thing, why are you using terms like "Basal Eurasian" or "ANA"; you do realize that all your claims are based on "computer models", right? So you're kinda undercutting your own epistemic rights to say anything about your subject of interest... because the whole edifice of our discourse here is based on "computer models and amateurish graphs".
Rob,
I apologize for taking so long to answer; IRL business. Regarding your question, I would actually defer to you for any insight; the archaeological angle is your forte!
Cy Tolliver,
For what it's worth, I'm seeing a different node in the case of the eastern Near East/southern Central Asia/northwestern South Asia (all three regions are deeply intertwined). It doesn't seem to be Natufian admixture in those populations; it's an independent phenomenon.
> Arza said...
>Off-topic
>Medieval Y-DNA from what appears to be a 16th century site in Ellwangen, >Germany (based on: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12154->0/figures/1 ; sequences from ENA PRJEB44124):
>Sample_name Hg Hg_marker Total_reads Valid_markers QC-score QC-1 QC-2 QC-3
>ELW031 R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a5c1a R-L720 247354 1179 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Interesting. 16th Century Ellwangen has L21 and no DF19.
My OoA timeline understanding was either completely misremembered or just outdated, thought there was an extra 20k or so years in Eurasia to account for. + Saw a Spencer Wells tweet about BK a few days ago, he linked to a paper about SE Asia and haplogroups. Not fit to judge it and also didn't read it and can't find the tweet or paper now, but the sink argument makes perfect sense.
@Chad very well put and valid deconstructions, yet my contention still is in the use of the term “African,” semantical yes, though not because it is wrong, but because I feel it lacks some specificity, however, yes it is technically correct, there is ancestry related to a population from the African continent. Do you have any graphs or models available one can view? I am curious to see what we know so far, in regards to Eurasian and African ancestry.
Formal stats can be very powerful to see where modern Human DNA is expanding from.
If you take two outgroups where all modern humans are closer to one than the other, say Denisova and Vindija Neanderthal, then run a f4
f4(Denisova, Vindija) (testL, testR) then the origin of AMH will appear with the most positive score as testR.
This is because these hominids are outgroups to AMH, and the difference in them contains a large amount of drift going in the direction of Neanderthal -> Human. Then we can see this most clearly in the human populations scoring the biggest positive score, where this drift is testL -> TestR.
This is because all modern humans are much closer to Vindija than Denisova, see
(Chimp.REF, English) (Vindija.DG, Denisova.DG) -0.115 0.0116 Z=-9.89 2472 3112 93985
Therefore, what we are comparing with Denisova vs Vindija is actually older vs newer hominid DNA.
Human Evolution is about newer DNA expanding from the centre and replacing older DNA as it diffuses out, its not about very diverged populations at the outside mixing and producing the central populations.
Thus you will see population at the centre closer to more modern populations and those at the outside closer to older populations.
f4 (outgroup1, outgroup2) (periphery, centre) will always be positive if outgroup1 and outgroup2 are far enough away from periphery and centre, and outgroup2 is much closer to all test populations than outgroup1.
Running with different sets of outgroup1, outgroup2 eg (Mbuti/ Yoruba, Denisova/Vindija), it becomes very easy to figure out where, in Eurasia, modern humans are expanding from.
Understandable the dating of Zlaty Kujn is controversial
However; aDNA can “infer -backwards “. Her mtdna of M suggests an age older than ~33,000 Bp (ie pre-Gravettian) given its absence in clearly documented gravettians from Central Europe
Off-Topic:
Did anyone take a look at this paper?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.11.439381v1.full.pdf
I have always believed that the result of a PCA-plot depends on the sample sizes, and the paper confirmed this and other problems. Who does not remember Mr. German Dziebel arguing out-of-America because of a PCA that shows the first component separating Amerindians from the rest of humanity? Hahaha
@mary
Yes, the results of a PCA are heavily dependent on the samples analyzed and the numbers of samples from each sample set being analyzed.
However, it's important to understand is that there's a limit to the diversity in every population, so if you pack in enough samples and groups you can get to a point where there's nothing else you can do to change the results.
Also, it's possible to systematically correct for various artifacts in PCA, such as extreme drift.
These are the sorts of ideas that I employed when designing the Global25.
Of course, I could've done better, and there are even artifacts that I left alone on purpose, such as drift specific to different Uralic populations, but I plan to update the Global25 soon into something else that might not even be a PCA.
@Davidski
On Anthrogenica I've seen at least a few people have taken to creating purely articial, simulated components based on your G25s of real samples - for example someone created a simulated "Ancestral North African" component which is supposed to be a "pure" distillation of the African-ish affinity of the Iberomaurusians. I think I've even seen simulated Basal Eurasian and proto-Natufian components around on there too.
What is you opinion of the utility of these "simulated" components, are these people extrapolating too much from the original G25 coordinates?
I wouldn't recommend creating ghosts from G25 data, unless it's purely for a fun experiment.
Inferring "pure" ancient populations from G25 data is no better than running Admixture for the same purpose.
@ mary
He discovered that PCA typically has more than 2 dimensions and that it can be rotated in N-dimensional space.
He also discovered that the explained variance is largely useless.
As you may have noticed, my tools don't show it on the plots and this is by design and not due to incompetence. I mention this because I saw someone in a certain forum who was implying that because of this my tools are inferior and less professional than certain other paid tools.
@ Davidski
Intriguing.
@George
This Out-of-Southeast Asia theory is one of those very strange ideas that has become almost a scientific consensus, simply because it looks good based on a very simplistic understanding of modern genetic data.
There are actually a lot of academics who take it seriously and support it openly. In fact, a paper was published recently in a major journal supporting it, and I think that even a book was published as well a couple of years ago, but I can't remember who wrote it.
So I wouldn't be surprised if Spencer Wells has also flirted with this idea, at least on Twitter in passing.
But I think that as more relevant ancient DNA comes in, and everyone's ideas become much more mature in regards to this topic, the Out-of-Southeast Asia theory will be dropped like a rock and never mentioned again.
@ Sein
A couple of more targeted follow-ups for you, if you don't mind.
1. What method are you using to infer that IBM is 40% African, qpGraph, qpAdm?
2. How African is Natufian?
3. Why doesn't Natufian show any African affinity using direct D/f4 Stats?
4. I haven't used Admixtools in a while, but I did at one point have an interest in the IBM samples and ran D stats on them to see if I could tease out anything of interest regarding their African ancestry. IIRC, while they did show more significant stats with Africans then you would expect from a truly 100% Eurasian population (I believe I ran tests in the form of Chimp African IBM Eurasian), they really weren't anything too extravagant either ( I believe the highest scores were in the 4-6 range). For comparative purposes, this stat posted above by mzp1 can be informative:
(Chimp.REF, English) (Vindija.DG, Denisova.DG) -0.115 0.0116 Z=-9.89 2472 3112 93985
English is only about 2% Neanderthal, but that Z score is a pretty strong -.9.78. If IBM was really 40% African surely those significant Z scores would have been a hell of a lot higher than 4-6 no?
@Davidski
Zlaty Kun is not an IUP! Its correct designation is simply UP, as its dating is uncertain, and the oldest dates they got only refer it to the MUP!
Iberomaurusians dont have African ancestry. Africans have Iberomaurusian ancestry. Iberomausians are just in the right place and time to show us a migration from Eurasia to Africa, one of many such waves, and after all of them, Yoruba has much more, recent, Eurasian DNA than Mbuti.
Anthrogenica is like a herd of sheep, they will go wherever the shephard will lead them.
Still wondering which Haplogroups those very Early Modern Humans +100 000 years ago in Europe belonged to. Those who replaced the Neanderthal Y and MtDNA plus Apidema Cave sample.
@Klievus,
But, I agree with you the African origin orthodoxy is strange when considering fossils of homo genus are better documented in Eurasia than in Africa. And are just as old.
But bipeds fossils are by far oldest in Africa and well documented.
It would not be a surprise if the ancestors of homo sapiens lived in Eurasia for 100,000s of years before back migrating to Africa, then going back to Eurasia after 100,000s of years in Africa.
The oldest verifable homo sapien skulls are in Africa btw. They're very old to, 4-5x older than oldest in Eurasia.
@mzp1
In all fairness, and while this discussion is getting away from the post at hand, you can't model Iberomaurisians as exclusively Eurasian.
I also doubt they are 70% "African" though in the sense of an ancestry splitting before the assumed OOA bottleneck and being close to Mota.
@All,
So do Iberomaurusians, Natufians show no special affinity to Africans in formal states?
D (Chimp, African) (Iberomaurusian, Eurasian)
Eurasian can be Onge, WHG, Karitinna, whatever.
Has anyone run stats like this? Mbuti can't represent all of Africa. Do West Africans show closer affinity to Iberomaursian than to Eurasians?
If Iberomaursian were part African or if Africans were part Iberomaursian, it will show up in D-stats.
At least some Africans would show affinity to Iberomaurisan.
@Ebrelios
"Also what tier of Y-dna test one needs for gaining deeper insight into own ancient origins and use tools? I already made a basic one, got R1a but just 1 person got 3 mathes with me."
If you tested with FTDNA, you should join the R1a project, they'll show you where you fit, and if additional tests can help. They encourage the project members to test at least 37 STR-markers, but often more is needed.
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1a/about/background
The so called "matches" on the other hand may not be useful, because they are aimed at a genealogical timeframe, where you would expect a shared surname, and often are just false positives anyway.
We still don't know fully how human brain works so i guess no testable proof for the "setup" right?
Big brain was result of specialisation, group hunting cooperation & carnivore diet. Specialisation to one extreme without different stessors can stall qualitative change as every evolutionary optimum beyond its environment. But the same can happen on islands - fe like hobbitisation? BTW would we get to the moon without the woke neoaryan nationalist pagans and their love for sanskrit mythology? Probably a jungle with endless supply of fruits & no need for winter survival strategies & long term planning also wasnt a genious incubator, the same as these were apes still live.
@mzp1
Is ANA a sister branch to SSA or closer to Eurasians (or a precursor to Eurasians)?
@Geno Historia
d(African, Chimp.REF) (Morocco_Iberomaurusian, Eurasian)
African=Cameroon_SMA.DG, Mbuti, Yoruba, Kenya_Kansyore, South_Africa_400BP.SG
Eurasian= Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG, Russia_Kostenki14.SG, Ganj_Dareh, Ong, Sidekino_HG
(W, Chimp.REF), (Morocco_Iberomaurusian, Z)
W Z Zscore nsnps
1 Yoruba Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 9.58 541347
2 South_Africa_400BP.SG Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 7.98 541344
3 Yoruba Russia_Kostenki14.SG 7.79 529967
4 Yoruba ONG.SG 7.06 569449
5 South_Africa_400BP.SG Russia_Kostenki14.SG 6.13 529964
6 Yoruba Iran_GanjDareh_N 6.12 545411
7 Mbuti Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 6.11 541347
8 South_Africa_400BP.SG ONG.SG 5.25 569436
9 Cameroon_SMA.SG Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 5.18 541323
10 Yoruba Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG 4.54 481341
11 South_Africa_400BP.SG Iran_GanjDareh_N 4.27 545402
12 Mbuti Russia_Kostenki14.SG 3.93 529967
13 Mbuti ONG.SG 3.28 569449
14 Cameroon_SMA.SG Russia_Kostenki14.SG 3.09 529942
15 South_Africa_400BP.SG Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG 3.01 481341
16 Cameroon_SMA.SG ONG.SG 2.49 569413
17 Kenya_Kansyore Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 2.35 59430
18 Mbuti Iran_GanjDareh_N 2.09 545411
19 Cameroon_SMA.SG Iran_GanjDareh_N 1.58 545388
20 Mbuti Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG 1.14 481341
21 Kenya_Kansyore Russia_Kostenki14.SG 0.694 58891
22 Cameroon_SMA.SG Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG 0.652 481314
23 Kenya_Kansyore ONG.SG 0.124 62267
24 Kenya_Kansyore Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG 0.094 53264
25 Kenya_Kansyore Iran_GanjDareh_N -0.27 61862
@mzp1,
Thanks for getting those stats!
Question. Does a Higher z-score means closer to Iberomaursian than to Eurasian? Does this confirm Iberomaursian and Africans share common ancestry?
Zlaty Kun would be "Basal Eurasian", as Sein has said and I believe as much just looking at the graph. They are not a Crown Eurasian, that would be the three at the top, which could possibly be GoyetQ116-1, Ust-Ishim, and Tianyuan, tying in the affinity each have to each other. All came from a single source. Zlaty Kun ancestry is what separates others from them. Zlaty Kun is at a "basal" position in the graph. Therefore, a Basal Eurasian. Anything that is deeper in the branch than her is likely a more recent movement from Africa. 2-3 additional waves may be needed to create what we see today.
Or, replace Goyet with Bacho Kiro and have Goyet need Ust-Ishim ancestry. That would make more sense to me.
@Genos Historia “ If Iberomaursian were part African or if Africans were part Iberomaursian, it will show up in D-stats.
At least some Africans would show affinity to Iberomaurisan.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberomaurusian
Iberomaurasians share both mtDNA and ydna with Aftoasiatic pops, and are modeled as about 2/3 Natufians and 1/3 SSA (both Hadza-like and Niger-Congo-like).
If anything, then North Africans have SSA introgression rather than vice versa.
I really don’t know why it’s become fashionable to claim that Niger-Congo speakers originated in the Green Sahara or at least the Sahel belt, where genetic but not linguistic traits link Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speakers as far back as 30,000 years ago. Couple that with scarcity of Neanderthal and the fact that Moroccans score OTOH 40% Anatolian farmer related ancestry (on the same cline with Natufians/Levant, and both latter ones being part of PPNB phenomenon).
There maybe been a replacement in Shum Laka, but not by anything Eurasian; the only places where such Eurasian admixture existed stem from (3,000 or younger) recent Eurasian migrations.
@Chad
That is literally opposite of what the Zlaty Kun paper says https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01443-x
Zlaty Kun in closest to Asians despite representing a population that was pre-East/West split. There does not appear to be any Basal Eurasian affinity in Zlaty Kun according to them, if it did wouldn't it be closer to modern West Eurasians? Instead it's a dead-end Crown Eurasian.
"We first compared Zlatý kůň with present-day European and Asian individuals using an African population (Mbuti) as an outgroup and found that Zlatý kůň shares more alleles with Asians than with Europeans (Extended Data Fig. 6). A closer relationship to Asians has also been observed for other Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers compared with present-day Europeans and can be explained by ancestry in present-day Europeans from a deeply divergent out-of-Africa lineage referred to as basal Eurasian. European hunter-gatherers generally do not carry basal Eurasian ancestry, whereas such ancestry is widespread among ancient hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus, Levant and Anatolia. When we tested European hunter-gatherers without basal Eurasian ancestry against ancient and present-day Asians, we found that none of these comparisons indicate a closer relationship of Zlatý kůň with either group (Supplementary Sections 5 and 9 and Extended Data Fig. 7). This suggests that Zlatý kůň falls basal to the split of the European and Asian populations."
"Extended Data Fig. 6: Comparable signal of Basal Eurasian ancestry in Zlatý kůň and Ust’-Ishim."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01443-x/figures/9
WRT PCAs, I think Spearman’s rank tests present a nice visualisation based on formal stats (D; F4)
Arza, at ELW035 I can see a mutation of my branch - YP315.
@MaxT
It might also imply a flow or relation to African populations, or no drift away from African populations. This could skew the statistics overly positive as there would be no non-affinity to Africans that Eurasians got.
@Tigran
"Is ANA a sister branch to SSA or closer to Eurasians (or a precursor to Eurasians)?"
I tend to believe that ANA isn‘t a sister branch of SSA when going by the data we have so far.
It appears to me, that ANA is rather a sister branch of Basal Eurasian, albeit still very different. That said, aside from Tarafolt, we have no Paleo-african DNA from further South or North-East Africa.
I'm not seeing any evidence that Zlaty Kun has anything to do directly with the so called Basal Eurasian population as described in various Harvard papers.
In a sense, this individual is a basal Eurasian, but not the so called Basal Eurasian, which, if real, possibly lived somewhere around the Red Sea.
This sort of basal pan-Eurasian signature could be distantly related to the BE which survived & evolved near the Red Sea or whichever set of places; but it became locally extinct in northern Eurasia
Hence the BE which arrived from ~ 700 BC is still distinctive
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
"It might also imply a flow or relation to African populations, or no drift away from African populations. This could skew the statistics overly positive as there would be no non-affinity to Africans that Eurasians got."
Can you elaborate on that?
@Davidski
There probably were many small groups running around after OOA branching in various different times.
@Chad
"2-3 additional waves may be needed to create what we see today."
There was a theory of an OOA with spontaneous waves, perhaps separated over a few thousand years but you mentioned earlier that Pinarbasi is the earliest sample with this 2nd wave migration from Africa ancestry, however there's no uniparental evidence that's the case.
Only later migration from Africa (imo) that seems plausible would be Ydna haplo E.
I made some PCAs to go with the d-stats and they are quite illuminating so will post them shortly.
@Genos H,
The d-stats show that some Africans are closer to Ibm than to other Eurasians. However, this is not case for all the african samples. Note the results at the bottom, kenya kanysore is closer to Ganj-Dareh than to Ibm and Cameroon SMA is almost equally close to Sidelkino HG than to Ibm. Thus we cannot say that Ibm has more African ancestry, only that it is closer to some africans, imo. The PCA analysis is more revealing...
The question is whether Eurasian structure is independant of African structure or the other way round.
This is a pca of Eurasians and African populations with 5 dimensions (PCs).
https://pastebin.com/JNLLt4Cq
A plot of PC1 and PC2 shows Africans and Anatolians furthest from East and SE Asians.
https://ibb.co/g6P03hL
Iberomaurusian, Ust_Ishim and Natufian are the Eurasians most shifted towards Africans. This would be expected of Ibm and Natufian if they had African ancestry moving South->North. However, Ust_Ishim has more than all Eurasians except for Ibm. Ust_Ishim cannot have African ancestry, it has old ancestry.
Instead it looks like more modern Eurasians have drifted away from Africans (and Ust_Ishim), moving left on the PCA. If Africans have separated from Eurasians before Ust_Ishim, then alot more of the distance between Africans and Eurasians could be due to Eurasians drifting away from older DNA, which Africans have more of. It's difficult to know how much of this difference is due to Africans drifting from the common ancestor or Eurasians drifting from it, even if the last common ancestor was in Eurasia.
So Ibm has old ancestry from SW Asia, and it is the oldest sample from the region. Therefore, if this was a region that connected Eurasian to Africa, then it would be closer to Africans than other Eurasians. If more modern Eurasians have more recent Eurasian drift, as they are more recent populations, then they will show less African affinity, which is what we see.
So we have to go back to the structure of Eurasian and African DNA and ask whether this originates in Eurasia or Africa.
Going back to the PCA, PC1 separates Eurasians from Africans, PC2 separates East/SE Asians from West Asians, and PC3 separates West Asians from ANE. Plotting PC3 and PC2 we get
https://ibb.co/jyjKXLW
This looks a lot like a Eurasian PCA without Iberomaurusians (https://ibb.co/k0cxHwt). The two PCAs are almost identical but Iberomaurusians appear further from other Eurasians than Iran_GanjDareh but in the same direction.
In the above PC2 PC3 plot, Africans are intermediate yet Iberomaurusians are most drifted. Hence we can see that the difference between Eurasians and Africans in PC1 PC2, with Iberomaurusians, actually starts in Eurasia with Ibm most differentiated from AGE/Botai (PC2 PC3) then this structuring is further expanded when Africans separate so PC1 PC2 is really just an expansion of PC2 PC3 (Eurasian internal structure).
So the the two important points from this are that
1. Ust Ishim (and Kostenki, but a lot less)_is less 'Eurasian' when comparing Africans and Eurasian in PCA, meaning more recent Eurasians are drifting away from Africans.
2. The outlier position of Iberomaurusian in the Africa+Eurasian population structure (PCA), is maintained in lower dimensions (basically removing Africa specific drift), thus we can see that the difference between Iberomaurusians and Eurasians exist without taking Africa specific drift into account. Thus we can look at Africa+Eurasian (PC1 PC2) structure as an expansion of internal Eurasian structure (PC2 PC3)
@ Genos Historia
Where the number of the samples (67) comes from?
@ ambron
That's a list of excluded mutations (x at the beginning!).
Davidski, kindly make a post for this paper.
Ancient genomic time transect from the Central Asian Steppe unravels the history of the Scythians
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/13/eabe4414
"Admixture modeling of IA steppe populations
Genetic ancestry modeling of the IA groups performed with qpWave and qpAdm confirmed that the steppe_MLBA groups adequately approximate the western Eurasian ancestry source in IA Scythians while the preceding steppe_EBA (e.g., Yamnaya and Afanasievo) do not (data file S4). As an eastern Eurasian proxy, we chose LBA herders from Khovsgol in northern Mongolia based on their geographic and temporal proximity. Other eastern proxies fail the model because of a lack or an excess of affinity toward the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) lineage (25). However, this two-way admixture model of Khovsgol + steppe_MLBA does not fully explain the genetic compositions of the Scythian gene pools (data file S4). We find that the missing piece matches well with a small contribution from a source related to ancient populations living in the southern regions of the Caucasus/Iran or Turan [we use the term “Turan” for consistency with (7), only its geographical meaning, designating the southern part of Central Asia; Fig. 3A]. The proportions of this ancestry increase through time and space: a negligible amount in the most northeastern Aldy_Bel_700BCE group, ~6% in the early Tasmola_650BCE, ~12% in Pazyryk_Berel_50BCE, ~10% in Sargat_300BCE, ~13% in Saka_TianShan_600BCE, and ~20% in Saka_TianShan_400BCE (Fig. 3A), in line with f4-statistics (table S2). Sarmatians also require 15 to 20% Iranian ancestry while carrying substantially less Khovsgol and more steppe_MLBA-related ancestry than the eastern Scythian groups."
Rob
"For Sarmatians and later Tian Shan Sakas, only the groups from Turan (i.e., Turan_ChL, BMAC, and postBMAC) match as sources, while groups from Iran and Caucasus fail; we chose BMAC and postBMAC as the representative proxies (Fig. 3A and data file S4)."
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00423-1
@mzp1,
Thanks a lot! To me that looks like evidence of a Iberomaursian-African affinity.
The shift towards Africans in PCA suggests African ancestry in Iberomaursian as well.
Then again, Basal Eurasian might make that effect.
Either IBM has some African ancestry that not all Africans have (whatever it means). Or some other Eurasians have African ancestry. The problem is that if IMB has SSA, than it makes no sense that IMB are closer to some Africans compared to other Eurasians but for other Africans other Eurasians are closer. That's why initially it was thought that some Africans have ANA. Everything is explainable IMO by understanding the low population\high-drift envirorment that humans had deal with in north Eurasia during the paleolithic. Also Basal\Ana backflow in Africa is going to be real, and we are going to find it out very soon.
@ Vasistha
Yes it was a great study with cool new samples. It was mentioned a couple of threads back and I made my observations already
Essentially, it confirmed what I had predicated about the complexities about Scythian origins. The data dismisses the simplistic notions that Scythians 'come from the Altai/ Siberia' which has been widely and often emphatically claimed.
The study instead argued that the main source of Eastern admixture is from Khovsgol-like populations, which is in keeping with the importance of the region in the formation of Deer art and development of equestrianism. But nobody in their right mind is now going to argue that Scythians came from Mongolia.
To quote that which you highlighted about BMAC-related ancestry ''a negligible amount in the most northeastern Aldy_Bel_700BCE group, ~6% in the early Tasmola_650BCE, ~12% in Pazyryk_Berel_50BCE, ~10% in Sargat_300BCE, ~13% in Saka_TianShan_600BCE, and ~20% in Saka_TianShan_400BCE (Fig. 3)
This doesnt really support your claims that Scythians came from Turan unless one begs for a “Traver-dye” model. But this is old news even from the previous studies, as we understand that Turan ancestry is mostly circumscribed to Tian Shan Sakae
Moreover, the study highlighted an at least bi-polar origin of 'Scythians', although there's even more to it than that. The one shortfall of this study is their modelling of Sarmatians, as they mostly limited their models to Armenia MLBA and post-Dolmen groups as representative of the Caucasus. Hence their overall statistical deductions are self-contradictory from the claim that ''FSarmatians show a sharp discontinuity from the other IA groups by forming a cluster shifted toward west Eurasians''. The archaeologically & historically plausible model would connect Sarmatians with the north Caucasus region.
Arza, I understand! I thought the exclusion only applies to the VK04 mutation. Do you have any novelty on the topics that interest us?
Another off-topic:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39997
Ancient DNA from pre-Slavic and Slavic individuals was extracted to compare human genetic diversity before and after a possible demographic event traditionally associated with Slavic ethnogenesis.
Study Title: Genetic Diversity in Migration Period and Early Middle Ages
Center Name: University of Fribourg
Study Name: Pre-Slavic and Slavic Ancient DNA
Each sample consists of 10 or 12 paired reads (20 or 24 fastq files), but I've used only one file per sample because all of them combined weight more than a half terabyte. Outcome is quite noisy as the reads weren't processed in any way besides mapping and genotyping. Treat everything here as preliminary.
LIB11 https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L241/
LIB2 https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Z180/
LIB3 NA
POH11 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z283/
POH13 NA
POH27 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P312/ eventually https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y3267/
POH28 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z92/
POH3 NA
POH36 https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/
POH40 NA
POH41 https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Z16971/
POH44 in progress
Arza, which samples are pre-Slavic and which are Slavic?
I know nothing about aDNA and prehistoric cultures and respect this is a forum mostly about genes-culture connection. However, I know something about human bodies - old and new - which might have to be considered when evaluating DNA. All Homo sapiens fossils show a gradual tendency to more archaic forms the more West of East Asia they were - starting with e.g. Liujiang skull and Fuyan cave teeth (note that there are two tooth sets of different age). And in SSA we don't have a single modern skull before 36 KA (even Hofmeyer is questionable and definitely not Khoisan). And Herto in NE Africa isn't even close to modern. This pattern is covered up by insidiously changing the very meaning of 'modern human' (e.g. Chris Stringer doesn't at all approve of the very archaic Jebel Irhoud as "oldest" HSS). Also note that African fossils always get positive press while East Asian ones always get negative press - if any. Moreover, the Rift valley, where most of the oldest African fossils are found is on the road from Eurasia and is the easiest place on Earth because it continuously opens up - so e.g. Lucy parts were already visible without any digging. The oldest bipedal ape fossils are found in Eurasia, and the very existence of Homo floresiensis - with a Homo head and teeth but a non-erectus Lucy like body and much better brain setup - on the wrong side of the Wallacea line and its relative Homo luzonensis several thousand km away - is impossible to explain as ooa (and therefore ridiculed as "Hobbit" and excused and dismissed with whatever tools at hand, incl. theft of the remains by Indonesia's top anthropologist Teuku Jakob). Btw, we do know that humans have a different brain setup than apes and most earlier Homos. First setup involved FOXP2 and was in place at the divergence from other apes, and the second some 1.5 MA. The last one came less than 100 KA with a Denisovan variant not seen in Neanderthals. In East Asia we see two very different skulls: Big (1,800 cc) but archaic (Denisovan?) and big (1,600cc) but very modern (e.g. Liujiang). At some point HSS's new brain setup started taking over and conquered the world while leaving the pattern Afropologists are so "puzzled" about. https://peterklevius.blogspot.com/2020/12/afropologist-john-hawks-and-creationist_21.html
Arza, I already know - LIB is Breclav-Libiva (5th century), POH is Pohansko (early Middle Ages). There is little LIB, so maybe you can analyze it.
@Rob
"Essentially, it confirmed what I had predicated about the complexities about Scythian origins. The data dismisses the simplistic notions that Scythians 'come from the Altai/ Siberia' which has been widely and often emphatically claimed.
The study instead argued that the main source of Eastern admixture is from Khovsgol-like populations, which is in keeping with the importance of the region in the formation of Deer art and development of equestrianism. But nobody in their right mind is now going to argue that Scythians came from Mongolia."
Khovsgol is only legally Mongolia; in fact, it juts north into Russian territory. This is the same Tuva, that is, the territory of Tuva-CisBaikal (see map). Scythian Tuva is exactly the same territory. So don't play with words like Mongolia to deceive, this population lived exactly where the Scythians of Tuva lived. Do not make up some connection between the Sarmatians and the northern Caucasus, there is nothing like that in archeology. You are disproved on all accounts and your fantasies are destroyed by absolutely everyone.
@Genos historia, mzp1
There are experienced and skilled people from the archeogenetics community who now assert, that Natufians definitely have real Iberomaurusian ancestry since the formal stats very strongly support this. So, contrary to what Lazaridis concluded Natufians obviously do have AEA/Dinka/Mota affinities. They can be modeled quite plausibly with 6% Dinka/Mota and 15-14% Iberomaurusian which comes to around 12.5% African affinity. The claim that Natufians have no AEA or ANA affinity are based on the fact that formal stats showed no significant affinity to Africans which is likely a result of some error in the qpDstat program that results in heavily admixed AEA rich populations not showing significantly positive Z scores with Africans (even for members of the same population) and strongly preferring Eurasians. Nevertheless, Mota is primarily a Dinka-like population with additional South African (ZAF) ancestry and something that seems basal to West and East Eurasians and is present certain Eurasians (Iran_N, CHG etc). Hence, when modeling admixed individuals with Dinka in qpAdm if there is a large unmodelled affinity for South_Africa_2000BP + CHG/Iran_N than there is generally a need for more Mota-like ancestry. The Natufians don't show this extra affinity to ZAF_2000BP which indicates that Dinka is a preferred source. In addition to that, Shriner modelled Natufians with present day North Africans, Arabians and Ethiopians, and showed that Natufians have around 7% Omotic Ethiopian-like admixture. However, I I think it's anachronistic, thus methodologically flawed to test admixture proportions in Natufians by using much younger, present day populations as Shriner did.
POH44 - https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/
@ ambron
POH from Lithuanians (Z92, female) to South Slavs (including R1b-P312). LIB - Italian-like female, I2 - Saxon/Scandinavian-like, E - seems to be South Slavic-like.
@ archi
Yeah ok Mongolia is Russian lol
“ Do not make up some connection between the Sarmatians and the northern Caucasus, there is nothing like that in archeology.”
You are profoundly uninformed; and that will never change
The principal formative impetus found in the Volga-Don interfluvial came from the North Caucasus and the Black Sea
regions
SAUROMATIANS AND SARMATIANS OF THE EURASIAN
STEPPES: THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD FROM THE BRONZE AGE
VLADIMIR V. DVORNICHENKO
Everything you have written has been disproven .
- steppe ancestry and Greeks arrived in 3rd Millenia ; not 1600 BC
- Scythians don’t come from Tuva
- TRB isn’t a descendant of LBK
- Unetice lineages arent from GAC
- Homo sapiens arent from Siberia
- nostratic indo-Uralic disproven
- ANE arrive during paleolithic
- no R1a in Mesolithic baikal
You’ve scored a golden goose. Just cut your losses and move along.
@Arza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-j0eiVXWod38YgO8nhSeUIQUBJIWFbTx/view?usp=sharing
@Rob
"Yeah ok Mongolia is Russian" lol
Learn geography, you cheater. The borders of states do not coincide with the boundaries of territorial zones, Kkhovsgol is natural and territorial Tuva-Cis-Baikal, although this cline inside the territory of Russia belongs to Mongolia. In fact, it is the opposite, the territory of Russia belonging to Mongolia, so the borders were demarcated.
I do not care about the article of any profane and delirium, he is a fool.
@Rob “ Everything you have written has been disproven .
- TRB isn’t a descendant of LBK”
So, where ARE they from then?
When I posted earlier in the thread that TRB and GAC were a Michelsberg related pop who came from France and were Cardial Pottery instead of Balkanic Anatolian, and they it explains why TRB and GAC had an abundance of WHG, I was contradicted by @Battle Axe.
“Unetice lineages arent from GAC”
Really? I thought that CWC —> SGC —> BBC —> Unetice.
Corded’s maternal uniparentals are from GAC, which explains why Poles are at least 1/3 Anatolian aDNA, isn’t it so?
@Rob
"The archaeologically & historically plausible model would connect Sarmatians with the north Caucasus region."
Nope no no no. Its time you quit this fantasy. Even before this paper i had shown you why caucasus ancestry does not work, and this paper does fantastic work to prove the same. Let me download and merge these samples, then i will prove the same to you again.
"as they mostly limited their models to Armenia MLBA and post-Dolmen groups as representative of the Caucasus."
Incorrect. They have used Armenia_LBA as well Caucasus_BA. Caucasus_BA are all pre Dolmen era. They belong to MBA_North caucasus, Kura araxes and Late maykop, all of them cluster together.
Sample ids
ARM001
ARM002_ARM003
VEK006
VEK007_VEK009
MK5001
MK5004
MK5008
SIJ001
SIJ002
SIJ003
KDC001
KDC002
This Figure 4 (https://imgur.com/gallery/gTQ90Cu) from their paper makes it clear. BMAC involved in formation of both sarmatians as well as eastern scythians although started at only 5% in the easternmost Tuva samples.
"as we understand that Turan ancestry is mostly circumscribed to Tian Shan Sakae"
Nope. Sarmatians in this paper have more of that BMAC ancestry than tianshan sakas even. In the LBA, the BMAC ancestry started moving north east as well as northwest, and the migration continued till well into iron age. Which is why you see increasing BMAC ancestry in the time transect.
So I think you should give up this caucasus source idea. You just cant back it up.
@Rob
"Everything you have written has been disproven ."
Every word you say has been refuted, absolutely every word from the first to the last, you have never lied in your life. Everything you write is just lies and mistakes, of which there are a million.
Everything I wrote is true, only you lie about what I claimed. Because you are a liar.
"- steppe ancestry and Greeks arrived in the 3rd millennium ; not 1600 BC."
You are a liar, I always wrote that steppe ancestry on Greek territory appeared together with Luvians in (3000)2200-2000 BC, and Greeks appeared together with Mycenaean civilization in 1600 BC. You claimed that the Mycenaean civilization started in 3000 BC, you are refuted by all accounts and everyone laughs at your lie. You're a total disgrace. I'm right about everything, you're disproved about everything.
"- Scythians don't come from Tuva."
You are disproved and destroyed, the Scythians are exactly from the area of Tuva, Altai and Semirechye. You are completely disgraced. I am right about everything, you are disproved about everything.
"- TRB isn't a descendant of LBK"
I wrote that TRB comes under the influence of LBK archaeologically and that TRB had LBK influence, So your disgraceful lie is refuted, you lie always and in every word. I am right about everything, you are refuted about everything.
"- Unetice lineages arent from GAC"
I wrote that Unetice I2 lineages can be either from GAC or from Danube, you gave no rebuttal to that, so your lie about me is refuted again. I am right about everything, you are refuted about everything.
"- Homo sapiens arent from Siberia"
You are a disgraceful liar, you are a vicious deceiver, I never wrote that Homo sapiens are from Siberia. I wrote that Cro-Magnons came to Europe via Siberia. The Ust-Ishim cluster and Tianyuan are proof of that. I'm right about everything, you're wrong about everything.
"- nostratic indo-Uralic disproven"
You lie. It has been proven by every scientist in the world, there is not one who denies it. I am right about everything, you are disproven about everything.
"- ANE arrive during paleolithic"
This is complete nonsense. Who arrived where? Your tongue is slurred.
"- no R1a in Mesolithic baikal."
You're lying. I claimed that R1a in Mesolithic could be in Western Siberia. I claimed that there is evidence of early Neolithic Baikal in which there is R1a, this is a fact. That no R1a in Mesolithic baikal no one has such data, this is just your fantasy of a person not respected by anyone.
I am right about everything, you are refuted about everything without exception.
@ Davidski
Thanks!
@ ambron
Plots with marked Y-DNA:
https://i.postimg.cc/TT0Y5KFY/Migration-Europe-1-PCA.png
https://i.postimg.cc/VYNsqYP9/Migration-Europe-2-PCA.png
https://i.postimg.cc/s3sg2YnN/Migration-North-Europe-PCA.png
@ Archie
“ I wrote that Cro-Magnons came to Europe via Siberia. The Ust-Ishim cluster and Tianyuan are proof of that.”
Well given that this is relevant; the genetic evidence of the two recent papers disproves that simplistic scenario
How do you manage to imagine that you’re right when the articles state the exact opposite of what you claim. ?
“ I am right about everything,”
Ah that’s right; you’re delusional
Genos Histora and others,
If, in your opinion, the PCAs show African ancestry for Iberomaurusian, then how do you explain that Ust_Ishim is also more shifted in that direction?
@Rob,
Sarmatians have lots of South Asian/ONG affinity compared to preceding Steppe populations. You can see this with f3(Chimp; ONG, test). This can only be explained with Southern DNA moving North (as mentioned in the paper you posted) or possibly with East Asians mixing into the steppe, but I think the former is more likely.
Arza, David, thanks! I can see it already; Waldemar threw distances to modern populations.
@ Vasistha
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to analyse data objectively instead of begging for scraps and coming up with pearls like Dali MLBA has nothing to do with Sintashta because it is “only 85% “ derived from it
You need to understand what countercurrent black backflow of ancestry means. And refer to the appearance of West European ancestry in the Viking age Scandinavia, near eastern ancestry in Imperial Rome.
So forth
Caucasus MBA is after dolmen phase of Majkop & comes form a small corner of the Caucasus
@ archi
We don’t need your geography lessons acc to the people’s republic of Archistan. khovsgol samples are culturally different & genetically distinctive to areas in the northwest (eg Karasuk). You scoffed at the importance of Mongolia in your usual arrogance; and now you’re licking your wounds again
Like Vasistha; you’re not understanding how the admixture played out and what it means. These people in the Far East are not Scythians; they merely contributed some ancient LBA ancestry to the real Scythians in the west . Sorry- not everyone comes from Archistan
QED
@rob ish
"We don’t need your geography lessons acc to the people’s republic of Archistan. khovsgol samples are culturally different & genetically distinctive to areas in the northwest (eg Karasuk). You scoffed at the importance of Mongolia in your usual arrogance; and now you’re licking your wounds again
Like Vasistha; you’re not understanding how the admixture played out and what it means. These people in the Far East are not Scythians; they merely contributed some ancient LBA ancestry to the real Scythians in the west . Sorry- not everyone comes from Archistan"
You are shamefully incapable of thinking, these people contributed to the lineage because they lived near the Scythians, or rather Andronovians arrived where these people lived, so the Scythians arose, not because their genome flew on a plane to Romania. You are ridiculous.
You don't understand any text at all, you're wrong about everything, and you're always wrong. You have never written a single correct post. You contradict everyone, you always contradict all the data, you are incapable of analysis and study. And you also have the audacity to tell smarter people than you, everyone is smarter than you.
@ Andrze
“ So, where ARE they from then?
When I posted earlier in the thread that TRB and GAC were a Michelsberg related pop who came from France and were Cardial Pottery instead of Balkanic Anatolian”
TRB is different to CwC, GAC and BB, in that it really is a mix of groups instead of the dominion of one clan
It developed in 4100 BC; whilst LBK ended by 4900. So there is no real link between the two, Archie simply doesn’t know basic chronology
Instead ; the farmer influences come from Michelsberg and Jordanow cultures & even Tiszapolgar; but by and large TRB are adapted hunter gatherers (Ertobolle; Swifterband).
@ mzp
“ Sarmatians have lots of South Asian/ONG affinity compared to preceding Steppe populations”
Again, old & self evident news . But this does not imply an origin in South Asia. To do so would be twisting facts; a:p Vasistha
During the final Bronze Age; individuals and groups became even more mobile and travelled far & wide, being incorporated into new confederacies, bringing with them new ideas, marrying women from next region over who had ancestry from next region over, and so forth . But sarmatians formed in the Volga-Don region. The prevalence of R1b-Z2103 ; R1a even I2 shows this
@Rob “ TRB is different to CwC, GAC and BB, in that it really is a mix of groups instead of the dominion of one clan
It developed in 4100 BC; whilst LBK ended by 4900. So there is no real link between the two, Archie simply doesn’t know basic chronology
Instead ; the farmer influences come from Michelsberg and Jordanow cultures & even Tiszapolgar; but by and large TRB are adapted hunter gatherers (Ertobolle; Swifterband). ”
I’m not siding with Archi but with science.
GAC were 70% ANF 30% WHG.
@ Andrze
“ GAC were 70% ANF 30% WHG.”
This is autosomal data only; taking that exclusively leads to false conclusions; like Neolithic farmers replaced HGs, or that Yamnaya comes from the north Caucasus
But GAC are 100% I2a. TRB is almost exclusively I2 as well; + a C1a and one G2a.
The 30% WHG admixture is actually huge if we understand that Neolithic farmer villages had thousands of inhabitants; whilst hunter gather bands had an effective population size of , what ? 12
Putting these two lines together; and the obvious cultural shift between LBK and TRB/ GAC; what we actually should conclude is that there was a whole-scale takeover of the Neolithic frontier by HGs (especially men); as predicated by any relevant European archaeologist. The science is concordant with it; but people’s interpretation of the data is often sub-par. Indeed to date; most genetic studies don’t undertake this sort of nuance; but one day some clever person will be able to integrate effective population size into admixture tests
Rob's ability to deny the facts is absolute. He recognizes no facts, no scientific data, and no evidence at all. He denies every single one of them in favor of his personal fictions, which he made up alone. He absolutely ignores and denies everything.
He invented that the Sarmatians come from the Volga-Don region, this is his personal fiction in spite of absolutely all scientific data without exception. The Sarmatians obviously differ little from the Karasuk and Tagar cultures.
All his words are always without proof, he never gave a single proof of his words. Everything he writes is instantly and easily refuted.
https://i.ibb.co/nPXhf04/Sarmatian-PCA.png
As anyone can see, the Sarmatians are much more eastern than the Andronovians and even more so the Srubnians. This can be seen by absolutely everyone except Rob who denies absolutely everything without exception.
@Rob “ Unetice lineages arent from GAC”
Haak et al. 2015 examined the remains of 8 individuals of the Unetice culture buried in modern-day Germany c. 2200–1800 BC.[46] The 3 samples of Y-DNA extracted belonged to Y-haplogroups I2a2, I2c2 and I2, while the 8 samples of mtDNA extracted were determined to belong to haplogroup I3a (2 samples), U5a1, W3a1, U5b2a1b, H4a1a1, H3 and V.
All these lineages came from GAC: I2a2, of course, and also Hap H and V came through GAC, or Anatolian farmers in general. W and U5 are markers of Yamnaya Steppe Herders. I believe that WSH received W from their CHG side. U5 is a bona fide Indo-European mtDNA market, but I’m pretty certain that Rob and Samuel Andrews would attribute it to forages.
@mzp1
I doubt Sarmatians have South Asian ancestry though they almost certainly have East Asian-related ancestry. Perhaps Davidski knows more, but imo their Onge drift is due to their Siberian ancestry.
"If, in your opinion, the PCAs show African ancestry for Iberomaurusian, then how do you explain that Ust_Ishim is also more shifted in that direction?"
Do you not think the D stats and PCA show African affinity for Iberomaurisians? Clearly there must be a connection with West Africa due to shared haplogroup, but it may also be back-migration to Africa from a Basal-like population I suppose.
@WiseDragon claimed formal stats and archaeogeneticists show Natufians to also have African affinity but I haven't seen this in the papers published so I am kind of skeptical.
@ Archie
''As anyone can see, the Sarmatians are much more eastern than the Andronovians and even more so the Srubnians. This can be seen by absolutely everyone except Rob who denies absolutely everything without exception.''
You see but do not observe
for ex; Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA134, merely as illustrate
MNG_Khovsgol_BA : 11.2
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late: 40.5
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 36.2
TKM_IA: 9.4
TKM_Gonur1_BA: 0
d 0 .0262
The Bulk of Sarmatian ancestry is 'local'. These data are concordant with archaeological inferences which show them to have evolved in the Volga-Don steppe, via a fusion of influences, mostly local post-BA groups and north Caucasian influences, but some collateral flow from Kazakh steppe can be admitted.
For the case of sarmatians; their apparent Eastern shift is due to the large admixture of post-Catacomb groups low in EEF ancestry
More broadly, it is only natural that steppe communities became progressively more eastern as they departed their homes from near Central Europe and mixed with Eurasian neighbours.
Your scenarios are bereft of reality, as incessant migrations from Siberia would have left the region desolate and empty.
@ Andrze
“ All these lineages came from GAC: I2a2, of course,”
Nope; The non-R1 Unetice lineages so far are I2a2b, I2c and I2a1a (adding the data from Olalde) . None of these (as yet) have been found in GAC
They rather point to Alpine and carpathian basin.
@rob
Stop bullshitting and give a model so I can shoot it down and paste the results for all to see.
Just accept the fact that this paper dug your grave on the matter of sarmatians.
Mzp
"Sarmatians have lots of South Asian/ONG affinity compared to preceding Steppe populations"
This is because of East Asian ancestry, not onge.
Arza, i.e. the Slavic I2a are located in the Polish cluster, as are the archaeological samples of L1029. The most interesting, however, is this genetic Slav from Moravia from the first half of the 5th century.
@rob
"The Bulk of Sarmatian ancestry is 'local'. These data are concordant with archaeological inferences which show them to have evolved in the Volga-Don steppe, via a fusion of influences, mostly local post-BA groups and north Caucasian influences, but some collateral flow from Kazakh steppe can be admitted.
For the case of sarmatians; their apparent Eastern shift is due to the large admixture of post-Catacomb groups low in EEF ancestry
More broadly, it is only natural that steppe communities became progressively more eastern as they departed their homes from near Central Europe and mixed with Eurasian neighbours."
You have a delusional set of false words. Archaeology unequivocally states that the Sarmatians are descendants from the East with the Scythian set, the Sarmatians are aliens - this is a clear statement of archaeology. Anthropology unequivocally states that they are aliens associated with the Tagar culture. Genetics unequivocally states that they are aliens associated with the Tagar and Karasuk cultures. Genes are not transmitted through the air, it is always associated with migrations of people, even your bad model states it, the correct model shows that the Sarmatians are Andronovians, but you deliberately excluded Andronovians from the model to sell us your nonsense. There is always a substratum in any alien population, men always take local women as wives.
Some shameful delusional assertion that the Eastern genes of Sarmatians are linked with the Catacomb culture (sic!) is a complete nonsense. It is just a shame to make up some delusional mixture between the people living on the Don and Mongolia!
"Your scenarios are bereft of reality, as incessant migrations from Siberia would have left the region desolate and empty."
Everything that I write is 100% proven by science, everything that you write is 100% disproved by science and has no plausibility.
You are the only marginal in the world who denies the obvious, Gaska, you should be ignored, you should always be ignored.
@ambron, it looks like, if LIB are early and Late Antiquity, then POH are later medieval, then you have at least one person in the LIB who is pretty similar to modern day southeast Czechs (maybe a little to the south of the average), together with some quite different people (some have suggested a Roman Italian, and a quite North Germanic like person, but we would need more data). Then the POH look to have a similar population centre (maybe a little north) around but more diverse positions than present day people, with more southern and northern outliers, suggesting to me an admixture dynamic that's more drawing on a "north-south" network (Lithuanian/Belarusian like and North Balkan like) than "east-west". Might be that there was some admixture currents, but the overall autosomal balance "landed" in about the same general place as before (in terms of deep components and level of "Balto-Slavic drift").
Matt, whatever way we approach the topic, the fact remains that before the early medieval Slavic migrations there was a Balto-Slavic drift in Moravia.
@ambron, yes this is true.
I have a question to our fellow posters from India, Nepal etc:
Who are the Burusho? Aren’t they the closest there is genetically to a BMAC pop?
From some reason, when I look at photos of Burusho, they appear very light skinned, and their phenotype is very similar to West Eurasians compared to other Indians or Pakistani, much like the Kalash. Could it be the 50% ANE contribution of their Iran HG (rest is Dzudzuana), or does it possibly reflect a much higher Andronovo European portion than in other ethnic groups?
Dravidians were 25% - 75% Iran HG and 25%-75% Onge-distal, thus - is it possible that the Burushoshaski language isolate derive from either BMAC or Iran_HG (Ganj Dareh) and be somewhat related to BMAC language and/or Elamite, whereas Dravidian languages descend from the AASI speech?
LIB Breclav-Libiva (5th century) all non-Slavs.
LIB11 (E-L241) - Illyrian
LIB2 (I-Z180) - Scandinavian
LIB3 - Italian woman.
POH Pohansko (early Middle Ages) are Slavs with Baltic and other wives.
POH41 (I-Z16971), POH36 (I-S17250), POH11 (R-Y2608*), POH40 are Slavs.
POH27 (R-P312) - non-Slavic, possibly Goth or Roman from the Balkans, he is drawn to Greece and Italy.
POH13, POH28 (R-Z92) - Balts, probably already Kriviches or Polonized Prussians by that time.
POH3 - Illyrian wife.
LIB Breclav-Libiva (5th century) all non-Slavs.
3 clusters
LIB11 (E-L241) - Illyrian
LIB2 (I-Z180) - Scandinavian
LIB3 - Italian woman.
POH Pohansko (early Middle Ages) are Slavs with Baltic and other wives.
3 clusters
POH41 (I-Z16971), POH36 (I-S17250), POH11 (R-Y2608*), POH40 are Slavs.
Cluster 1
POH27 (R-P312) - non-Slavic, possibly Goth or Roman from the Balkans, he is drawn to Greece and Italy.
POH3 - Illyrian wife.
Cluster 2
POH13, POH28 (R-Z92) - Balts, probably already Kriviches or Polonized Prussians by that time.
https://i.ibb.co/tskY55S/LIB-A-POH-EMA-PCA.png
gamerz_j,
"Do you not think the D stats and PCA show African affinity for Iberomaurisians?"
I cannot read it as Ibm having African ancestry. This is because in the PCA, PC1 and PC3 are basically the same thing (they are almost perfectly correlated for Eurasians), even though PC3 does not include Africa specific DNA. Because PC1 differentiates Africans from Eurasians, and PC3 is internal Eurasian differentiation, we can infer that the difference between Africans and Eurasians has its origins in Eurasia. Therefore, the position of Ibm in PC1 will be affected by its position in PC3, so we cannot say for certain that Ibm has African ancestry, because PC3 can explain the position of Ibm on PC1.
Africans are basically very outer branches on one side (West Asian) of the AMH phylogenic tree, the root is in Eurasia. PC1 is the whole tree and PC3 is only Eurasians. But PC1 and PC3 are strongly correlated, meaning the difference between Africans and Eurasians can be predicted somewhat by looking at the difference between Eurasians.
As you can see from the below f3 data, Jatts are closer to Sarmatian than to Yamnaya, Andronovo, and Mongol (East Asian), therefore there has to be geneflow from South Asia into the Sarmatians, as the Sarmatians represent a South to North movement, not North to South.
1 Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara Jatt Chimp.REF 224. 1.26 178. 76152
4 Russia_Andronovo.SG Jatt Chimp.REF 224. 1.33 169. 71335
7 Russia_IA_EarlySarmatian Jatt Chimp.REF 225. 1.64 138. 43176
10 Mongol Jatt Chimp.REF 219. 1.20 183. 92436
@All
Do we actually have the dates and archeological info for each of these samples from Moravia, or are people just guessing as to what they represent?
@Davidski
MACHÁČEK, J. – SLÁDEK, V. eds. 2017: At the end of Great Moravia: Skeletons from the second church cemetery at Pohansko-Břeclav (9th 10th century A.D.). British Archaeological Reports (International Series), Oxford. Vol 2836.
Breclav-Libiva this place is multicultural, starting from the Jevišovice culture there are burials of the La Tene culture and Great Moravian burials.
Right, so LIB is multicultural, and there may have been people from the east already there before Slavic expansions into the area.
There is no one from the east in these LIBs.
@Rob
Are you sure that ancestry is from Caucasus? It can be modelled otherwise.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15hy6oxm4dEcY465huKMjUfSAHfRlmXYU/view?usp=sharing
Note: This was not meant to be a realistic attempt to short out the direct ancestors of Sarmatians. The point is: they can be modelled with BMAC region ancestry, instead of Caucasus. (And populations reminiscent to the Steppe Maykop composition had existed in the Kazah Steppe during the Bronze Age, before they melted into Andronovo.
@Davidski
“Right, so LIB is multicultural, and there may have been people from the east already there before Slavic expansions into the area.”
I think probably the first Slavic expansion into this area was
Mierzanowice culture –> Nitra culture
I am waiting for Nitra aDNA but there were already rumors that it was R1a.
If those LIB samples are from 5th century, then they would be during the ''Suebian'' period, making it pre-Lombard and pre-Slavic
@ Andrze
''From some reason, when I look at photos of Burusho, they appear very light skinned, ''
These sort of google images are biased and non-representative. They choose very light skinned individuals, some of which arent even to be from the region as claimed. You see the same issue with Afghans, Nuristani, etc
It seems pre-proto-Slavs moved down from the upper Dnieper region, Tushemlja-Kolochin group.
They took an almost clockwise, circuitous route to arrive in central Europe
Moving down Dnieper to the forest-steppe, into eastern Romania, Transylvania and lower Danube by 500s, then to southern Poland, Slovakia, then Moravia. By 700 AD, they had arrived to central Poland & Eastern Germany
The basal Eurasian in Natufians and farmers is later African ancestry. Zlaty Kun would be Basal to Eurasians, so, basal Eurasian. Let's stop confusing the two. Simplistic thinking, stuck in past literature is like using the bible to explain the natural world. Thinking must evolve with data.
Also, simplistic parental markers will not be informative of 100% of what is going on. The oldest "Eurasian" splits occurred before OoA, so some overlap will be expected with "Africans". Not only that, ancestry is going to interweave a lot as we go back more. I said this years ago. UP Euros are mixes of other groups, that are mixes of other groups. We will probably see Zlaty Kun is a mix in the next few years.
Archi, there are no Great Moravian burials in Libiva. The burials are from the mid-5th century, only some child burials are suspected of originating from the period of continuous settlement of the settlement up to the early middle age.
https://www.phil.muni.cz/archeo/webmaster%20peppe/stara_mura/morarch/Vyzkumy/rany_st/libiva/libiva.html
If we call LIB11 Illyrian, it doesn't change the fact that he had a massive Balto-Slavic drift:
Target: Migration:LIB11
Distance: 2.4002% / 0.02400165
47.0 Lithuanian_PZ
26.2 Macedonian
16.4 French_Seine-Maritime
5.8 Berber_Tunisia_Chen
2.0 Georgian_Imer
1.2 Spanish_Asturias
1.0 Mbuti
0.4 Papuan
@ Vasistha
“Stop bullshitting and give a model so I can shoot it down and paste the results for all to see.
Just accept the fact that this paper dug your grave on the matter of sarmatians.”
Pfft , a fool’s arrogance no doubt
Remember how you dismissed the significance of Taldysal MLBA ? Well look at their image figure 4a; which places the movement of BMAC-related ancestry to this time window (1300-900 BC) . So as I said; this is an predictable and understandable amount of “reflux”
Otherwise there’s no trick you can pull out of your hat that will change the fact that radiometric data shows that Scythian-Sarmatians arrived to Turan quite late in the scythian era
@ Archie
“ Anthropology unequivocally states that they are aliens associated with the Tagar culture. ”
No such theory exists, and the data contradicts this imagination of yours
I already demonstrated above that archaeologist speak of the Volga -caspian - Caucasus interaction for sarmatians
Here is yet another quote
“ Rostovtzeff ascribed the first wave of migration to the Saka, who brought gold polychrome brooches and silver phalerae from horse harnesses, and the second wave to the Ÿue-chi with gold Animal style objects (Rostovtzeff 1929: 45, 67–68, 93–94), noting that the spread of the Sarmatian Animal style coincided with the first written mention of the Alani or Alans (Rostovtzeff 1922: 116). In the mid-twentieth century this idea was replaced by models of short-distance migration. According to this hypothesis, the homeland of the Sarmatians was the VolgaUral steppe.”
Quite literally; you are a century out of date. That is you to a tee- a miseducated fossil out of his depth
“ Genetics unequivocally states that they are aliens associated with the Tagar and Karasuk cultures.”
No the genetics show that these “eastern aliens” arrived during the so-called Cimmerian period . All subsequent Scythians and sarmatians are comparatively western shifted. As depicted in figure 4a; this movement occurred in the final stages of the LBA.
By the time Scythians and sarmatians had formed and appear in history; the amount of inner Asian ancestry had diminished to ~ 9%. To claim that these groups came from Siberia is not only twisting facts , but is plain wrong
“ you deliberately excluded Andronovians from the model to sell us your nonsense. ”
Nope; Andronovo & Srubnaya are essentially the same group; they both came from Europe . It changes nothing
“ Genes are not transmitted through the air, it is always associated with migrations of people”
How inciteful. But you lack understanding and theoretical premise of Mobility.
We can say “ afansievo migrated to Siberia”, because they took their culture, women and children up on wagons and moved there on block
This is not the case for Scythians. Instead a myriad of Mobility patterns and cultural diffusion’s across the steppe caused the patterns we observe; and it mostly occurred in the preScythian period. In fact, no Scythians existed in Siberia ; so it is impossible for them to have come from there
QED
@ ambron
If you see someone claiming that LIB11 genetically is not Slavic, paste this:
https://i.postimg.cc/rcSKqW70/moravia5th.png
If you see someone claiming that there was a dramatic population shift or that Slavs replaced previous Germanic population, paste this:
https://i.postimg.cc/fDDkyyhH/migration3-D.png
In short - there is a genetic gradient that goes geographically from Latvia to NE Italy and genetically from Baltic_BA to Italian-like population (Amber Road! Veneti!). Almost all samples are part of this genetic structure and the only one that is out-of-place is LIB2 - apparently Germanic migrant from the Migration Period.
@ slumberry
Sorry not really sure what that odd model is demonstrating (?)
@Rob
"As I said; its difficult to take your models or theories seriously. Neither Scythians nor sarmatians are from Turan. The fact that you can find some 9% here or there notwithstanding . Learn holistic analysis instead of scavenging for scraps"
It's 15-20%, same amount of steppe that you find in Swat. So learn Holistic analysis, and deduce that steppe had nothing to do with the languages of the swat region.
Heres qpAdm on the new Sarmatian samples
Result file https://pastebin.com/69ntKTw8
left pops:
Sarmatians_450BCE
Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6 - 8.6% +- 0.9%
Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali - 64.7% +- 4.1%
Turkmenistan_IA.SG - 26.7% +- 4%
p-value: 0.5093
left pops:
Russia_Sarmatian.SG (Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe in G25 dataset)
Russia_Srubnaya - 13.2 +-4%
Russia_Tagar.SG - 50.7 +- 3.7%
Turkmenistan_IA.SG - 36.1 +- 4.1%
pvalue: 0.277
result file https://pastebin.com/nvpPc11s
All that Rob writes about the Slavs and Scythians and Sarmatians and everything in general is anti-scientific nonsense. He is completely unfamiliar with the scientific literature on the Sarmatians, the connection of the Sarmatians with the Tagar culture is a proven general scientific fact, I have no idea where he takes all sorts of anti-scientific alternatives. All that he writes simply does not exist in the sources, he is not familiar with the works of the past 50 years. Everything he writes is 200 years out of date.
No Volga version of the origin of the Sarmatians has been considered in science for more than 50 years, this temporary insanity of the autochthonists of the 30-60s of the 20th century was recognized as anti-scientific obscurantism.
@ ambron
Here I misspoke writing burial for the whole set of cultures, I should have written the word things. There is a settlement of the Great Moravian time with their things.
This specimen is a complex mixture, by descent it is Illyrian which apparently mixed with both Germans and Scandinavians and Celts.
Target: Moravian_Antiquity_1:LIB11
Distance: 1.3455% / 0.01345490 | R5P
32.2 Baltic_EST_LBA
25.2 German
22.0 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA
14.8 TUR_Ikiztepe_LC
5.8 Berber_Tunisia_Chen
His nearest relatives are not Balts at all (they are not there at all), but exactly Balkans.
Distance to: Moravian_Antiquity_1:LIB11
0.03408188 Hungarian:NA15203
0.03465858 Croatian:Croatia_Cro43
0.03534610 Croatian:Croatia_Cro133
0.03635145 Hungarian:NA15199
0.03665803 Bosnian:Bosnian_12
0.03684167 Ukrainian:Ukrainian1
0.03685471 Czech:NA15727
0.03685566 Moldovan:44618757801C02
0.03715771 Polish:S_Polish-1
0.03748711 Croatian:Croatia_Cro302
0.03751062 Croatian:Croatia_Cro141
0.03783483 Czech:NA15732
0.03813014 Croatian:Croatia_Cro142
One comment about the idea of Lithuanian-like people arriving in regions and changing the makeup of the local population.
For sake of argument, I'm assuming that Moravia today can be estimated as being about 50% Czech and 50% Croat (this could be up for challenge!). But also could assume they're 50% 50% Czech+Slovak samples and have a model below for that too.
Now if we take such a population and then assume that this population is a composite of 50% pre-Slavic population and 50% Lithuanian like Slavic people, then this where they land: https://imgur.com/a/Iq0hRfm
Now adding the LIB11 and POH samples to these plots: https://imgur.com/a/ZabjmcF
It seems like, for a Lithuanian-like people to make a big impact on these regions, they would have to start out as being autosomally similar to Central Italians today. That seems a bit implausible.
We can moderate it down to 30% impact and you might get some more plausibility: https://imgur.com/a/GJqd8OZ . but then 30% impact is not that high.
So I don't know; I would think it's not the most likely thing on the bounds that it requires or is best suited to particular assumptions about where a pre-Slavic group would sit on the broad autosomal EEF:WHG:Steppe ratios that seem a bit odd.
(Another thing I find strange is that when I've used admixture models in the past that include Baltic_BA and Lithuanians to explain the Balto-Slavic cline, ppl or at least one person, have gone vehemently "Oh no this is so bad because Lithuanians and Baltic_BA have excess HG and this makes the model pick Balkan populations to explain the other side of ancestry and this is wrong because we know that ancestry of West Slavs comes from the Globular Amphora culture" and now seems like the same ppl/person are arguing for Lithuanian like people bringing Slavic languages?).
Same thing in 50:50 models with Slovakian, though est pre- population more French-like: https://imgur.com/a/Tvi4Lgq
@Chad, is your idea that "Basal Eurasian" is actually a composite of a population that is basal in the same sense Zlaty-Kun + real African geneflow (albeit from Africans not strongly forming a clade with any extant African population)? E.g. the "Basal Eurasian" effect is a composite of two actually distinguishable things (Near East populations had flow from populations basal to all Eurasians, but still with the normal Neanderthal admix etc + also North African geneflow?).
@mzp1
"I cannot read it as Ibm having African ancestry. This is because in the PCA, PC1 and PC3 are basically the same thing (they are almost perfectly correlated for Eurasians), even though PC3 does not include Africa specific DNA."
How does then the ANA Lazaridis found share less drift with OOA than the suggested Basal Eurasian population does? You also have Ydna E so something must connect North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Could it be a mass back migration from Eurasia as suggested in some papers?
@Chad
"The basal Eurasian in Natufians and farmers is later African ancestry."
Later from when? And how come published papers so far have not indicated this? Furthermore, I remember reading posts of you saying Natufians don't have that, may I ask what changed your mind?
"Also, simplistic parental markers will not be informative of 100% of what is going on. The oldest "Eurasian" splits occurred before OoA, so some overlap will be expected with "Africans"."
If a model finds that Han for example owe 30% of their ancestry to Natufians when there is no uniparental evidence for this (nor archaeological but that's secondary) it will make think there is something seriously wrong with that model.
Of course they are not informative of 100% of what's going on, but they definitely offer clues as to major processes.
@Rob “ These sort of google images are biased and non-representative. They choose very light skinned individuals, some of which arent even to be from the region as claimed. You see the same issue with Afghans, Nuristani, etc”
Many of them ARE. Some people do have European Andronovo phenotype. Even Jews, Basques, Finns, Estonians etc have a lot of Indo-European dna.
Btw, here the Census Bureau classifies Indian subcontinent origin, as well as Middle Easterners, Latinx and North Africans as “Caucasian”, to the conspicuous consternation of posters here like Vasisthra.
@ Arza
"If you see someone claiming that there was a dramatic population shift or that Slavs replaced previous Germanic population, paste this:
https://i.postimg.cc/fDDkyyhH/migration3-D.png"
Well, Arza, these are the scaled averages for LIB and POH:
LIB,0.1187557,0.1448823,0.0470143,0.0309003,0.0448287,0.0088317,0.0073633,7.67e-05,0.0034767,0.001215,-0.0068203,0.0029473,-0.0046087,0.0029817,0.0026693,-0.0058783,-0.0035203,-0.004434,-0.0076677,3e-07,0.0022043,-0.00305,0.0038207,0.008194,-0.0047103
POH,0.1303275,0.135954,0.0672219,0.050711,0.0417,0.0148856,0.0099291,0.0105284,0.0004346,-0.0140779,-0.0035926,-0.0043088,0.0124504,0.0221056,-0.0093478,-0.0008618,0.0087846,-0.0025654,-6.29e-05,0.0041584,-0.0048976,-0.003493,0.0074256,-0.0051665,-0.000404
The average of LIB is closest to:
Distance to: LIB
0.02746506 Austrian
0.02828393 French_Alsace
0.02943319 German
The average of POH for comparison:
Distance to: POH
0.01679575 Polish
0.01930452 Ukrainian
0.01941336 Sorb_Niederlausitz
So, looking at the averages there was quite a massive shift. The only problem may be that LIB, with only 3 samples, is undersampled.
"In short - there is a genetic gradient that goes geographically from Latvia to NE Italy and genetically from Baltic_BA to Italian-like population (Amber Road! Veneti!)."
Actually LIB3 is closer to Northwest Italians:
Distance to: LIB3
0.03282935 Italian_Liguria
0.03287600 Italian_Lombardy
0.03422651 Italian_Piedmont
And taking into account that we're speaking of late Antiquity here, the 5th century CE, I find it difficult to link this with the ancient pre-Roman Veneti and prehistoric amber trade. I'm rather reminded of DEU_MA_Alemannic:NIEcap3c, HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43 and HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28, who all had obvious Italian roots, too.
At least, I have to agree that LIB11 already had some Slavic affinity; the closest modern pop are the Slavic-admixed Croatians, while the closest ancient pop, surprisingly is VK2020_UKR_Chernigov_VA:
Distance to: LIB11
0.03345309 Croatian
0.03521847 Hungarian
0.03652741 Czech
0.03970358 VK2020_UKR_Chernigov_VA
As for the Balkan-shift of POH3 and POH27, I'm reminded of DEU_MA_Alemannic:NIEcap3b and DEU_MA_Baiuvaric:STR300, with their obvious Byzantine roots. POH3 and POH27 however are also partly Slavic, because they are closer to modern Balkan Slavs than to any ancient Balkan pop.
Chad, some amateurs were saying for years, thus prior to the new data, that Basal Eurasians were just an African component. From the Zlatý kůň paper: “When we tested European hunter-gatherers without basal Eurasian ancestry against ancient and present-day Asians, we found that none of these comparisons indicate a closer relationship of Zlatý kůň with either group (Supplementary Sections 5 and 9 and Extended Data Fig. 7). This suggests that Zlatý kůň falls basal to the split of the European and Asian populations.” So, the BE admixture isn't what pulls Europeans away from Zlatý kůň.
This individual does look very Germanic, but was he a recent immigrant from somewhere like Scandinavia or was this type of ancestry present in the region at the time?
Distance to: Migration:LIB2
0.03102445 Danish
0.03209491 Swedish
0.03235578 Icelandic
0.03666552 Norwegian
0.03739100 Dutch
0.03855942 Scottish
0.03912848 Orcadian
0.03962013 Irish
0.04008175 English
0.04016858 Shetlandic
0.04081770 Welsh
0.04088002 English_Cornwall
0.04228886 German
0.04463310 French_Brittany
0.04481717 German_East
0.04831271 Czech
0.04842658 Afrikaner
0.05315401 French_Pas-de-Calais
0.05408314 Austrian
0.05485503 Slovakian
0.05555447 Belgian
0.05657662 French_Seine-Maritime
0.05720133 Hungarian
0.05741045 Polish
0.05823309 French_Nord
Target: Migration:LIB2
Distance: 5.9535% / 0.05953507
51.6 Yamnaya_UKR
31.6 TUR_Barcin_N
16.8 WHG
Target: Migration:LIB2
Distance: 4.0741% / 0.04074095
57.4 SWE_IA
42.6 DNK_BA
@Chad
"The basal Eurasian in Natufians and farmers is later African ancestry"
What kind of African - Mota-like, Dinka-like, etc? And what sort of African ancestry does Iberomaurusian have?
Chad,
"The basal Eurasian in Natufians and farmers is later African ancestry. Zlaty Kun would be Basal to Eurasians, so, basal Eurasian."
Thank you; absolutely sums it up.
Matt,
"is your idea that "Basal Eurasian" is actually a composite of a population that is basal in the same sense Zlaty-Kun + real African geneflow (albeit from Africans not strongly forming a clade with any extant African populations)"
I really don't think that this is what he has in mind; unnecessarily complicated ("unnecessary" in relation to the best fitting topologies).
But even though I doubt that this is what Chad has in mind, and even though it's definitely not what I have in mind... none of this means that you're wrong.
^ In fact, I think your idea is quite interesting, and worth some exploration! I'll get on it.
PS: I'm still working on that final topology (the "big one"). It has 29 ancient populations, and so far it's at 8 admixture edges. The previous best topology I've had was 25 pops and 19 admixture events; this graph right here, despite considerably diminished degrees of freedom, is a slightly better fit (both in terms of worse residual and likelihood score)!
^ Once I'm at 14 admixture edges, I'll send the output to Robert Maier (the goal is to get the topology into their upcoming paper), and I'll post the dot file for your perusal. It might take another 2-3 weeks.
@ Matt
''One comment about the idea of Lithuanian-like people arriving in regions and changing the makeup of the local population.''
However, this might no be the case for the trans-Carpathian regions like Slovakia, Moravia, southern Poland.
Hypothetically, the Baltic-like proto-Slavs would have that profile only in arriving to the Carpathian basin from the Dnieper region (e.g. recruited as mercenaries). Then they moved into Balkans and northwest into central Europe after a few generations, often cloaked as Avar bans (military leaders); so they would not be entirely baltic-like anymore, but have acquired acmixture from EEF-heavier populations
@ Archi
I'm right about everything, isn't that how the chant goes ?
There is no strong evidence of continuity between the Prague culture and any proposed predecessors, either Zarubincy or anything post-Przeworsk
The most clear region in which the once expansive Balto-Slavic continuum persisted is in the coastal and forest Baltic zones.
@ Simon_W
That's the difference between LIB11 and LIB3 (modern averages and new Czech samples):
Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Migration:LIB11
B: Migration:LIB3
C: ↴
-0.08624419 Latvian
-0.08591081 Lithuanian_SZ
-0.08557692 Lithuanian_PZ
-0.08535220 Lithuanian_RA
-0.08437099 Lithuanian_VZ
-0.08410650 Lithuanian_VA
-0.08316265 Lithuanian_PA
-0.08236605 Belarusian
-0.08228891 Migration:POH13
-0.08225961 Estonian
-0.08160136 Russian_Smolensk
-0.08058881 Sorb_Niederlausitz
-0.08033932 Russian_Orel
-0.07977642 Russian_Voronez
-0.07967822 Russian_Tver
-0.07926008 Russian_Kursk
-0.07923889 Ukrainian
-0.07856784 Polish
-0.07755960 Migration:POH41
-0.07613734 Migration:POH28
-0.07321047 Cossack_Ukrainian
-0.07285278 Ingrian
-0.07204880 Russian_Kostroma
-0.07058578 Karelian
-0.07036531 Migration:POH40
And now the other way around - difference between LIB11 and Latvians:
Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Migration:LIB11
B: Latvian
C: ↴
-0.07126110 Migration:LIB3
-0.07125668 Sicilian_East
-0.07108340 Maltese
-0.07077266 Moroccan_Jew
-0.07073896 Italian_Jew
-0.07062452 Sicilian_West
-0.07047143 Libyan_Jew
-0.07038515 Sephardic_Jew
-0.07037090 Italian_Apulia
-0.07024238 Italian_Campania
-0.07016903 Romaniote_Jew
-0.07013744 Italian_Abruzzo
-0.07012592 Tunisian_Jew
-0.07009520 Italian_Marche
-0.07002788 Italian_Lazio
-0.06997783 Italian_Basilicata
-0.06990151 Italian_Calabria
-0.06987510 Italian_Molise
-0.06976435 Ashkenazi_Germany
-0.06940000 Italian_Tuscany
-0.06918296 Ashkenazi_Poland
-0.06917145 Ashkenazi_Ukraine
-0.06916639 Syrian_Jew
-0.06907954 Italian_Umbria
-0.06871959 Italian_Piedmont
Both samples predate the supposed "first appearance of Slavs", yet Balto-Slavs are part of this genetic structure. On the other hand Early Germanics and Scandinavians land outside of this cline, as seen here:
https://i.postimg.cc/fDDkyyhH/migration3-D.png
Conclusions should be clear.
@ Rob
In your hypothetical scenario Italian-like EEF substrate is required to exist even in Belarus:
Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Belarusian
B: Baltic_EST_BA
C: ↴
-0.06432522 Slovenian
-0.06426268 Italian_Lombardy
-0.06399832 Hungarian
-0.06395869 Italian_Liguria
-0.06387058 Croatian
That's not feasible, mildly speaking.
@Matt
Modern day Lithuanians are not identical to Baltic_BA and often much more southwestern shifted than even Balt_LTU_BA. Especially the Lithuanians (Lithuanian_PA/VA on Global25) close to early Slavic samples from Hungary, Czechia and Germany are much more southwestern shifted and often much closer to these early Slavs than to Baltic_BA samples.
Distance to: Lithuanian_PA
0.02042011 VK2020_RUS_Kurevanikha_VA
0.02231372 DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA
0.02419895 HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2
0.02605293 KAZ_Golden_Horde_Euro
0.02806351 HUN_Avar_Szolad
0.02858635 RUS_Sunghir_MA
0.02905136 VK2020_POL_Cedynia_VA
0.03042545 VK2020_POL_Bodzia_VA
0.03412826 Baltic_EST_MA
0.03456915 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA
0.03793671 VK2020_RUS_Pskov_VA
0.03830888 VK2020_POL_Sandomierz_VA
0.04049341 VK2020_UKR_Lutsk_MA
0.04110626 Baltic_EST_IA
0.04186353 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.04221762 RUS_Ingria_IA
0.04360413 VK2020_RUS_Gnezdovo_VAe
Distance to: Lithuanian_VA
0.02235777 KAZ_Golden_Horde_Euro
0.02339784 VK2020_RUS_Kurevanikha_VA
0.02426288 DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA
0.02839289 HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2
0.03049418 VK2020_POL_Cedynia_VA
0.03208173 Baltic_EST_MA
0.03264681 HUN_Avar_Szolad
0.03284131 RUS_Sunghir_MA
0.03366331 VK2020_POL_Bodzia_VA
0.03652826 VK2020_RUS_Pskov_VA
0.03776399 Baltic_EST_IA
0.03833846 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA
0.03922289 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.04003032 RUS_Ingria_IA
0.04104884 VK2020_POL_Sandomierz_VA
0.04413134 VK2020_UKR_Lutsk_MA
0.04778252 VK2020_RUS_Gnezdovo_VA
The point is that so far published IA and BA samples from the Baltic region represent the most northern Balto-Slavic subgroups and also groups that mostly predate the arrival of historical ethnolinguistic Balts. We would need more BA/IA genomes from Lithuania, North Ukraine and especially Belarus to find groups directly ancestral to Slavs and only then we can model how much of Proto-Slavic ancestry came from the Baltic and how much from Central Europe. So far the early Slavic samples are quite distinct from Baltic_BA even when by far closer to them than tp other ancient pops.
@ Arza
''In your hypothetical scenario Italian-like EEF substrate is required to exist even in Belarus''
Can you elaborate what in 'my scenario' requires in Italians in Belarus ?
@ Vasistha
There was no 70% migration from the IAMC to Sarmatian territory. The Sarmatian culture is different to Tagar. The latter had elaborate kurgans, petroglyphs, erected stone slabs, included beef offerings, and towards the end starting using mummification in burials. Sarmatians had podboi & catacomb burials, mutton offerings & artificial cranial deformation. I have already explained why all these groups have Inner Asian ancestry, and that's because of admixture transmission along a series of 'nodes' between east and west, and this east-west axis operated via the forest-steppe-southern forest biozome; then for Sarmatians an early incorporation of the Caucasus region ensued and swung back toward the Aral-Caspian and Syr-Darya zone. The study which you quoted clearly distinguished the western Sarmatian 'pole' from the Tasmola -related groups, the only contention is here is the Caucasus vs BMAC distinctions, so you are again cherry-picking results
Given the mobile & confederal nature of these groups, the polythetic and multiregional genesis of these groups is well established, and the unilinear scnarios you & Archi angle for are not realistic and will not be resurrected. But, if you really wanted to pin down the origin of these groups, then we can simply state that the Andronovo-Srubnaja groups which remained on the steppe became Scythians, Sarmatians & Sakae as the process of admixture with neighbouring groups (Turan in the south, Siberia & mongolia in the East, and Halstatt in the West) continued. (You also have to note that some so-called Sarmatians in certain literature in Kazakhstan are simply Sakae, I only refer to the actual Sarmatians west of the Urals.)
And I dont know why you bring up Swat, i have no strong opinions there; suffice it to say there was probably more than the 20% population shift that you imagine. That's all I have to say here at present
@ Rob
If you want to claim that Proto-Slavs were Baltic-like and the shift to modern populations is a result of assimilation of some EEF substrate shortly after expansion then this substrate is expected to exist also in Belarus, as Belarusians have this kind of "Italian/Balkan" ancestry too.
Alternatively you can claim that Belarusians (and all other Slavs) stem from a back-migration from Carpathians, but in such case Carpathians will be the last place where Slavs existed as a single population and thus it'll be the Slavic homeland.
@ambron, Arza & Matt
For future reference, the claim is that Proto-Slavs were basically like the Lithuanian/East Slavc-like individuals that keep turning up in ancient DNA from early Slavic and post-Slavic sites and territories.
No one is saying that they were like any of the Baltic_BA samples or even especially like modern Lithuanians.
This claim is difficult to refute, in my opinion, because I have yet to see a plausible explanation for why these people were found as far west as Germany and Bohemia if they weren't unadmixed or largely unadmixed Slavs or their descendants.
I won't accept the theory that they were Balts that turned up in surprising, far away places where early Slavs just happened to be present, because let's be serious here.
@ Arza
I dont 'want' to claim anything other than observe the (obviously complex) evidence. in fact, there is no need for binary scenarios, it's simply a matter of what chronological stage we speak of.
Various southern Baltic populations initially moved south, koinized into a new language and forms of identity, then moved back north. As I keep saying, chain migrations, return migrations were a reality. Linguistically speaking then, the proto-Slavic* stage is in east central Europe.
@ Davidski
That's easy to explain. Although it'll take me some time, as I need to write a wall of text and prepare a lot of models and plots.
And it would be even easier with that second dataset... any chances for G25 coords (even shaky ones for-plotting-not-for-modelling)? BTW POH44 that was missing from the first dataset is also there.
@Arza
That's easy to explain. Although it'll take me some time, as I need to write a wall of text and prepare a lot of models and plots.
You don't need to write a wall of text. Just provide a plausible explanation for the presence of these sorts of people at early Slavic sites.
In particular, explain where they came from and what they represent.
I'll try to run those new samples later today, but I can't promise anything. If there aren't any markers to run, then I can't run them.
David, people over a large area of Poland towards the north-east (including central Poland) look genetically like East Slavs/Balts. Most of the early Slavic samples fall within the Polish range of genetic variation. In peer-reviewed genetic studies, the "Polish-like" population is taken as a proxy for Slavs.
@Rob
Realy don't care about your subjective archaeological assertions when the sarmatian genetic data clearly disproves you.
"And I dont know why you bring up Swat, i have no strong opinions there; suffice it to say there was probably more than the 20% population shift that you imagine. That's all I have to say here at present"
You don't know because you have never spent time working with the swat adna like I have, and you never will. So you will find comfort in working within your existing narratives.
Arza, your conclusions are similar to those of the research:
"Evidence of inward migration events involving our isolated populations was limited to the root of mainland Sardinians (from Africa), Sauris, Sappada and Timau (from a population ancestral to the Polish and Norwegians) and Basques (from the ancestral population of Sardinians)".
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41614
@ambron
Polish populations that resemble Balts most closely in terms of genetics live in parts of Poland that were Baltic speaking until less than a thousand years ago.
Also, obviously, Poles today are Slavic speakers who more or less sit at the center of present-day Slavic genetic variation.
But we knew all that, didn't we?
The mystery that still stands is why are these Lithuanian/East Slavic-like samples popping up regularly at early Slavic sites well outside of any likely Baltic influence.
The general feeling out there is that these people represent the unadmixed or slightly admixed descendants of Slavs from the Proto-Slavic homeland.
So you have to counter this claim with a plausible alternative explanation. Over to you...
I don't really know if these Lithuanian-like samples were proto-slavic speakers or not. Any more than I know what the Lithuanian shifted samples in earlier sets were (Welzin, Mokrin). Just pointing out that if they were, then due to the needs to meet the basic deep ancestry of people today, it either requires some I think strange assumptions about a substrate population they admixed with, or they made fairly little demic impact, or there were other waves of movement from south to north.
Dawid, well, I am pointing out where we should look for this Slavic homeland: where people genetically look like Eastern Slavs, and at the same time live in the area of compact old Slavic toponymy, located closest to Moravia, Hungary or Polabia, where genetically similar early Slavic individuals were found.
There were many things in history, in particular, the Avars went on conquest campaigns to Lithuania, from where they brought children.
Post a Comment