search this blog

Thursday, April 22, 2021

The history of the Scythians (Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2021)


Over at Science Advances at this LINK. Many of the samples from this paper are in the Global25 datasheets. Look for the relevant population and individual IDs from the paper.

The Scythians were a multitude of horse-warrior nomad cultures dwelling in the Eurasian steppe during the first millennium BCE. Because of the lack of first-hand written records, little is known about the origins and relations among the different cultures. To address these questions, we produced genome-wide data for 111 ancient individuals retrieved from 39 archaeological sites from the first millennia BCE and CE across the Central Asian Steppe. We uncovered major admixture events in the Late Bronze Age forming the genetic substratum for two main Iron Age gene-pools emerging around the Altai and the Urals respectively. Their demise was mirrored by new genetic turnovers, linked to the spread of the eastern nomad empires in the first centuries CE. Compared to the high genetic heterogeneity of the past, the homogenization of the present-day Kazakhs gene pool is notable, likely a result of 400 years of strict exogamous social rules.

Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2021, Ancient genomic time transect from the Central Asian Steppe unravels the history of the Scythians, Science Advances, Sci Adv 7 (13), eabe4414, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abe4414

See also...

Uralians of the Sargat horizon

132 comments:

Onur Dincer said...

Some observations on the paper. Among the new ancient genomes in the paper Y-DNA N is restricted to those from the Sargat and related cultures in the the forest steppe that runs through today's Russian territories just north of Kazakhstan, what is now Kazakhstan seems to be largely devoid of Y-DNA N during most of the researched eras in the paper. Also, Y-DNA C2 seems to be very rare in what is now Kazakhstan before the Turkic times. Sarmatians seem to be almost all R1a. The R1a finds in the paper seem to be all Z93 and the J2a finds seem to be all from the Central Asian subclade. What is now Kazakhstan seems to be less East Eurasian in ancestry than today (excluding the recent Russian and other European arrivals) before the Hunnic times at least except the more fertile southern parts, which became particularly high in East Eurasian ancestry at post-Hunnic times. There is also a decrease in Sintashta-like and Botai-like ancestries with the Hunnic era. Huns and the subsequent peoples fall on the Turco-Mongolic genetic cline, the previous peoples with East Eurasian ancestry of what is now Kazakhstan instead in general fall on a genetic cline that is between the Uralic and Turco-Mongolic clines, so I do not think the pre-Hunnic peoples of what is now Kazakhstan were Turkic-speaking irrespective of their East Eurasian levels, they may well have been Iranic speakers despite the high East Eurasian ancestry in many. This paper did not sample Pontic-Caspian steppe Scythians, but we know from previous papers that they had far less East Eurasian ancestry than Kazakh steppe Scythians. Also, this paper presents new Sarmatian samples from what is now western Kazakhstan, they do not seem high in East Eurasian ancestry either (the previously tested Pontic-Caspian steppe Sarmatians were not either).

Davidski said...

@Onur

Thanks.

Can you say more about the Y-HG N in the paper? How does it relate to the N in modern populations?

Nyan said...

I have a question about Global25, is there a reason why divergent Eurasians like Americans and Australians get poor distance fits when modeled on your Global25? Even though sample appears to pick up closest ancestral components.

Target: Karitiana
Distance: 48.8405% / 0.48840524
53.8 RUS_MA1
46.2 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N

Target: Papuan
Distance: 40.9992% / 0.40999201
74.2 CHN_Tianyuan
25.8 RUS_Ust_Ishim

Target: Australian
Distance: 40.4365% / 0.40436497
73.0 CHN_Tianyuan
27.0 RUS_Ust_Ishim

Genos Historia said...

@Onur,

Interesting how you describe Iranians in Kazakhstan as intermediate between Uralics and later Turks.

It seems this is because Uralics and ancient Iranians had West Siberian/Botai hunter gatherer ancestry. While Turks do not, generally speaking.

Would you agree?

Davidski said...

@Nyan

Heavy genetic drift.

Onur Dincer said...

@Davidski

Can you say more about the Y-HG N in the paper? How does it relate to the N in modern populations?

The ones with enough resolution belong to the Uralic clade L1026/L392 and its subclades (Z1936 in particular). This goes nicely with the Northern Siberian autosomal mix in Sargat.

Rob said...

? one of the Kazakh-steppe Huno-Sarmatians + Hun-period nomads from IAMC from Damgaard was N1-TAT
Observing the Y-hg N5 in # IR-1, and probably other future Cimmerians & Scythians, confirms what I have been proposing for quite some time now - the minor East / Inner Asian ancestry in real Scythians and Sarmatians of the Ponto-Caspian region probably arrived via the forest -groups. It would be difficult to ascribe a Scythian origin for this element. The Altaian affinities in Tasmola, Pazyryk & Tian-Shan 'Sakae' are a different matter, but have little direct bearing on the genesis of real Scythians.
So the surprising affinities of Ukrainian Scythians doesn't make them 'Geto-Dacians' other such nonsense that has been proposed several commentators

Onur Dincer said...

@Genos Historia

It seems this is because Uralics and ancient Iranians had West Siberian/Botai hunter gatherer ancestry. While Turks do not, generally speaking.

Would you agree?


There is a clear increase in East Eurasian ancestry with the transition from Iranics to Hunno-Turco-Mongols and Devil's Gate-like ancestry plays a big role in that increase. Hunno-Turco-Mongols are not devoid of WSHG ancestry, they show it too, but we can say that its ratio decreases among the non-West Eurasian ancestries with their appearance.

Onur Dincer said...

@Rob

? one of the Kazakh-steppe Huno-Sarmatians + Hun-period nomads from IAMC from Damgaard was N1-TAT

Yes, with the transition to the Hunnic times we begin to see Y-DNA N in more southern regions.

Rob said...

@ Onur
Any ideas about the origins of Turks propper ?

Onur Dincer said...

@Rob

Any ideas about the origins of Turks propper ?

Proto-Turks might have been the Slav Grave people or at least a part of them. Genetics and geography are compatible with that, and chronology certainly fits. Proto-Mongols, on the other hand, might have been the Donghu people, their eastern neighbor.

Onur Dincer said...

Slab* Grave

Copper Axe said...

@Onur

I find it likelier that both Turkic and Mongolic peoples come out of the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave horizon. Turkic perhaps in Central Mongolia and Mongolic in southeastern Mongolia/Inner Mongolia.

There is some geneflow from the western liao river region in thw Xiongnu samples (Xiongnu_Han) and the Hun elite sample from Hungary shows a lot of it. Mongolians have some ancestry from that region as well. That might be connected to the Donghu.

Copper Axe said...

With connected I mean the geneflow from the western liao region going into the eastern steppe might be related to the Donghu, rather than that ancestry representing Donghu ancestry.

vAsiSTha said...

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

vAsiSTha said...

Eigenstrat data of this paper for Admixtools

https://edmond.mpdl.mpg.de/imeji/collection/nlbFKLpwCfl1SyNw?q=

Onur Dincer said...

@Copper Age

I find it likelier that both Turkic and Mongolic peoples come out of the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave horizon. Turkic perhaps in Central Mongolia and Mongolic in southeastern Mongolia/Inner Mongolia.

There is some geneflow from the western liao river region in thw Xiongnu samples (Xiongnu_Han) and the Hun elite sample from Hungary shows a lot of it. Mongolians have some ancestry from that region as well. That might be connected to the Donghu.


We know from the Chinese records that the Xianbei are descended from the Donghu and we know that the Xianbei spoke Mongolic, and the Xianbei genome we have has even more Devil's Gate-like ancestry than the Slab Grave/Ulaanzuukh genomes, exactly what you would expect from a people right to the east of Slab Grave and exactly what you would expect from Proto-Mongols. The Hun elite from Hungary has too little Devil's Gate-like ancestry and too much Tibetan-like ancestry to be genetically close to the Donghu or even Slab Grave.

vAsiSTha said...

Also note that this is yet another paper from the steppe and Central Asian region in which you find no trace of the R1a-L657 line downstream of R1a-Z94 even though the samples are millennia after the supposed formation and tmrca of that paternal line.

Slumbery said...

@Rob

Our earlier discussion is actually more fitting here.

You wrote:
That's because you're using K-A.
https://ibb.co/HBv6bD0
This parallels the CHG issue, but for the Iron Age


'' both admixture could very well came from the same source''

Could do but we also know that these ancestries weren’t cosynchronous.


You appear to think that Kubano-Tersk_late represents something important in the formation of the Sarmatians. It might be, but it is essentially Yamnaya with some Srubnaya admixture + local Caucasus ancestry.
- It needs a lot of Sintashta ancestry to make Sarmatians (so OK, you added Srubnaya for that)
- It needs East Asian ancestry and extra WSHG ancestry to make Sarmatians
- It does not account for the "BMAC" ancestry either and that consistently comes up even in your model.
Not only these, but for example the Caucasus Sarmatians do not show much of extra Yamnaya ancestry above Sintashta and that is hard to explain if something like Kubano-Therks_late assumed as a vector for their Caucasus ancestry. (No wonder they have a bad fit in your model, where you even use Srubnaya, a population that is Yamnaya shifted compared to Sintashta.)

Here I made something to showcase this problem: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNDsjm7_4wtfVd3ChHdKHBJ2eSAemigj/view?usp=sharing


Also, based on the results of your model above, I have the impression that Sarmatians cannot be modelled well as Sarmatian_Caucasus as a base + whatever admixture.

Actually if I drop Kura-Araxes and Botai to a similar model model as yours, I get this:

Targe: Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
Distance: 0.02423106
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA: 56.8
KAZ_Botai: 16.0
TKM_Geoksyur_En: 16.2
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan: 8.6
RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N: 2.4
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late: 0.0

Target: Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
Distance: 0.02378978
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA: 57.6
TKM_Geoksyur_En: 16.4
KAZ_Botai: 14.2
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan: 8.2
MNG_Khovsgol_BA: 3.6
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late: 0.0


In other words, you used Khovsgol_BA - a population that has a completely different WSHG/East Siberian ratio than Sarmatians and therefore is ill suited as a combined source for these ancestries - and with that you forced Bubano-Tersk_late on the Sarmatians as an only source for the needed extra WSHG (because they had some, just like Potapovka).
Even if the Sarmatians formed in the Volga-Don-Caucasus region, this Kubano-Terks_late + Khovgol_BA model is forced.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Davidski

"Can you say more about the Y-HG N in the paper? How does it relate to the N in modern populations?"

Someone went through thre Y-SNP calls and posted them at Anthrogenica.

Apparently a few of them are assigned wrong. For example, the G-M201 in Sargat.

More of the Sargat samples turned out N, but still none from any other site, IIRC.

mzp1 said...

Nice qpAdm but doesnt tell me anything. Now need to run qpAdm on those source pops to know what they are.

Have you any idea whether Sarmatians have NW South Asian ancestry?

Slumbery said...

@mzp1

In G25 nMontes Segizsay and Aktobe show a few percent reaction to Udegram_IA, but it is not necessarily anything directly from that south and at any rate it is not universal among Sarmatians.

@Rob

The more I look at it the more I am convinced that Kubano-Tersk (including the late one) or anything similar to it, is not an important/significant ancestor to Sarmatians. Not even to the Caucasus Sarmatians, let alone the others. It has totally the wrong ancestry proportions and only picked in models if it is the only provided source for key ancestries.
Note that the article at hand also notes how Caucasus sources failed in their modelling, while "Turan" worked.
If Ihad to guess, Sarmatians formed on the Western Kazakh steppe.
And the biggest difference between them and Scythian-Saka is the proportion os East Asian ancestry.
I have some comparisons:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12V2RbvKw_VPN__w5YDSUnnG87EuAt5iw/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l2LxtreC1b6erkEmHoH6JsbmEwVWWDTK/view?usp=sharing

It is also apparent why Khovsgol_BA works reasonably well for Scythian-Saka, but not so much for Sarmatians. At least not as a single source for WSHG + East Asian ancestry.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

No one cares, and they never will, because L657 is derived from Z93.

Z93 didn't exist in Asia until it arrived there with migrants from Eastern Europe.

Davidski said...

@Anthony Hanken

Apparently a few of them are assigned wrong. For example, the G-M201 in Sargat.

Do you have a list?

Anthony Hanken said...

@Davidski

"Do you have a list?"

Vladimir Taraskin posted it in this thread.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23436-New-Kazakh-samples/page10

I didn't realize it was from Indo-European.eu so take it with a grain of salt I guess. Some of the calls in the paper do look pretty sketchy though.

Davidski said...

It's better to ignore anything that Carlos Quiles posts.

Genos Historia said...

@Arza, Davidski

Can either of you tell me what website has the Bronze Age Mokrin Serbia DNA files.

The study gives burial ids. Not DNA ids.

The G25 (DNA) Ids don't match the burial ids.

SO, I can't match the individuals from the study with the samples in G25 PCA. This is impeding some "research."

Maybe their DNA files will show both ids.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur “ Among the new ancient genomes in the paper Y-DNA N is restricted to those from the Sargat and related cultures in the the forest steppe that runs through today's Russian territories just north of Kazakhstan, what is now Kazakhstan seems to be largely devoid of Y-DNA N during most of the researched eras in the paper. Also, Y-DNA C2 seems to be very rare in what is now Kazakhstan before the Turkic times.”

Ydna N could be from Botai indeed.

Isn’t ydna Hap C related to the non-WSHG ancestry in Native Americans?

Huns and Xiongnu had lots of Hap Q (ANE/WSHG) heritage.

Nezih Seven said...

@Onur

I agree with you on Slab Grave being potentially Proto-Turkic. I always had thought Proto-Turks as being closer to Khovsgol_BA genetically, but after analyzing the recent mediaeval Turkic samples from Central Asia it became obvious that Slab Grave is a much better candidate with a chronology that fits. Mediaeval Turks are roughly Slab Grave mixed with Eastern Iranics like Sogdians. But, like Copper Axe, I thought Slab Grave as the homeland of both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic. Your Donghu theory seems more satisfactory.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur “ There is a clear increase in East Eurasian ancestry with the transition from Iranics to Hunno-Turco-Mongols and Devil's Gate-like ancestry plays a big role in that increase.”

Yes, and Ulch-like (Evenk, Tungus) is what comprises the non-WSHG ancestry of North American Natives.

“American Indians” have Hap Q (WSHG) + Hap C (Ulchi, Devil’s Gate).

Andrzejewski said...

I find it curios that Japanese sounds a lot like Algonquian, with sounds like “Ohio”, “Iowa”, “Idaho”, “Watenabe”. Japenese was thought to be part of the Altaic family, so perhaps most Natives in NA spoke Ulchi-derived languages instead of Botai/Kett-related ones?

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

"Samples from the steppe from the Middle and Late Bronze Age were genetically homogenous, but those from the Iron Age exhibited additional influence from eastern Eurasian and southern populations related to Neolithic Iranians and Mesolithic Caucasus hunter-gatherers.... Iron Age Scythians also included ancestry components from Late Bronze Age herders from Khovsgol in northern Mongolia, in addition to a small proportion of ancestry from populations in the southern Caucasus/Iran or Turan." A previous paper showed that even the earliest Cimmerians sampled from the Western Steppe had this admixture. It appears that both Steppe MLBA and residual Steppe EMBA populations in the Altai and Eastern steppe combined with populations from the BMAC area to form the original steppe nomads. The areas of the Karasuk and Yaz cultures would be the likely areas of the ethno-genesis of the Saka-Scythian nomad culture- so far the Altai-Sayan-Ili show the earliest evidence of this classic cultural package which spread accross the steppe.

Rob said...

Well I think there’s more to it than “Turks come from slab grave “ (not suggesting that Onur implies anything straightforward either)
But at some point they had to coalesce in the medieval altai region . I think the genomes we currently have all look fairly admixed

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

Isn’t ydna Hap C related to the non-WSHG ancestry in Native Americans?

Well, Y-DNA Q males in Siberia and environs began to mix with genetically East Eurasian females already during the Upper Paleolithic times. Even ANE seems to be East Eurasian-admixed (WSHG is certainly so). But the later Y-DNA C arrivals to the Americas brought more East Eurasian genetics indeed.

Onur Dincer said...

@Nezih Seven

But, like Copper Axe, I thought Slab Grave as the homeland of both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic. Your Donghu theory seems more satisfactory.

Y-DNA haplogroups point to Donghu origins of Mongols too. Slab Grave are full of Q1 whereas the immediate Xianbei descendants of Donghu are full of C2, which is in high ratio among Mongols to this day.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur “ Well, Y-DNA Q males in Siberia and environs began to mix with genetically East Eurasian females already during the Upper Paleolithic times. Even ANE seems to be East Eurasian-admixed (WSHG is certainly so). But the later Y-DNA C arrivals to the Americas brought more East Eurasian genetics indeed.”

Botai had ydna N, ydna K and ydna R1b, thus I wouldn’t classify them as a homogenous pop. It might be that Botai, Okunevo, Inuits, Kamachatdals, Yenisseyans and NA-Dene all spoke languages highly divergent of WSHG proto-phylum.

BMAC had mostly Iranian, but it’s interesting that their most common y Hap were E1b1b - common among the Levant and Anatolian farmer’s cline. BMAC had a considerable minority of both WSHG and Anatolian farmers, nevertheless, so the E1b could be from ANF.

I believe that an (Davil’s Gate) Ulchi-like Hap C basal was responsible to Japanese, Altaic, Ruan Ruan, and most North American languages.

Pertaining to Huns and Avars - I’ve read contradictory accounts, ranging from their Turkic (aka East Eurasian) extraction to them being primarily a WSHG pop - Xiongnu Confederacy and particularly the “Jie” tribe. Chinese writers even describe the Jie as “European- looking”, although I wouldn’t rule out extensive admixture with Scythians, Saka, Sarmatians and Tocharians for that effect.


Davidski said...

@Anyone

Apart from the Sargat samples, are there any other samples in this paper that belong to N-L1026?

Onur Dincer said...

@Rob

But at some point they had to coalesce in the medieval altai region . I think the genomes we currently have all look fairly admixed

By the Xiongnu times we see some likely Turkic-speaking individuals with significant levels of West Eurasian ancestry and non-Y-DNA Q West Eurasian haplogroups. So immediately after the Proto-Turkic times significant West Eurasian mixes can be seen among some likely Turkic individuals.

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

I believe that an (Davil’s Gate) Ulchi-like Hap C basal was responsible to Japanese, Altaic, Ruan Ruan, and most North American languages.

Japanese- (minus the Jomon mix) and Korean-like genetics first formed in the West Liao River Basin in NE China by the Bronze Age in a population mixed with Yellow River Basin farmers and Amur River Basin hunter-gatherers and pastoralists. The Amur River Basin might be where the Altaic sprachbund or language family is ultimately from.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16557-2

Onur Dincer said...

@Davidski

Apart from the Sargat samples, are there any other samples in this paper that belong to N-L1026?

All the Y-DNA N in this paper are either from Sargat proper or from Sargat-associated cultures from the Sargat territory.

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

BMAC had mostly Iranian, but it’s interesting that their most common y Hap were E1b1b - common among the Levant and Anatolian farmer’s cline. BMAC had a considerable minority of both WSHG and Anatolian farmers, nevertheless, so the E1b could be from ANF.

No, J (especially J2) was the most common Y-DNA haplogroup in the BMAC based on the results we have.

Rob said...

@ Slumberry

''You appear to think that Kubano-Tersk_late represents something important in the formation of the Sarmatians. It might be, but it is essentially Yamnaya with some Srubnaya admixture + local Caucasus ancestry.
- It needs a lot of Sintashta ancestry to make Sarmatians (so OK, you added Srubnaya for that)
- It needs East Asian ancestry and extra WSHG ancestry to make Sarmatian''


in fact WSHG is something I looked at first up for Sarmatians, because the archaeological clues point to obvious connections between Don-Volga-Ural Sarmatians and forest groups like Aninyo, Sargat, etc. So i anticipated some WSHG to be there
But WSHG doesn’t appear to be consistent. It seems that a more eastern kind of Siberian -& Mongolian derived ancestry during, or in the wake of, the S-T Ph; although Paleo-WSHG lineages persist

But can you point to where WSHG/Botai-related groups managed to survive in the Kazakh steppe during the Iron Age ? I thought one of the major conclusions from Damgaard was that this ancestry almost disappeared by the MLBA.



''Even if the Sarmatians formed in the Volga-Don-Caucasus region, this Kubano-Terks_late + Khovgol_BA model is forced.''

That's your misinterpretation; because the Srubnaja-Andronovo component is included

In any case, nothing is 'forced' in that linked model I intially suggested. I was merely looking at how G25 does in distinguishing between BMAC-related and KT-related ancestries at a deeper level. It did, but then you drifted awkwardly into discussing WSHGs and Devils Gate..


But in adding WSHG & Devil's Gate, it doesnt really change much

Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe

RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 55.0
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late 19.2
TKM_Gonur1_BA 11.3
RUS_Shamanka_EBA 9.8
RUS_Tyumen_HG 3.8
RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N 0.9

d = 0.01639219


Here is a qpADM model of your set-up

left pops:
Russia_Sarmatian.SG
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 0.716
Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.099
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur 0.186

tail prob 1.33252e-10

(using Vasistha's self-proclaimed best-est set of outgroups
right pops:
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Turkey_N.SG
Russia_HG_Karelia
Russia_HG_Tyumen
Mongolia_North_N
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
Iran_GanjDareh_N
ONG.SG
Georgia_Kotias.SG)



''And the biggest difference between them and Scythian-Saka is the proportion os East Asian ancestry.''

Don't group Scythians with so-called Sakae from eastern Kazakhstan, They're different people.


''Note that the article at hand also notes how Caucasus sources failed in their modelling''

they used Armenia LMBA and Caucasus _MBA only



''If I had to guess, Sarmatians formed on the Western Kazakh steppe.''


Looking at the Sarmatian sites in the Kazakh region, most of them post-date those in the Volga-Ural region, apart from some like DA202 which are doubtfully 'Sarmatian' at all, but probably isolated Iron Age 'Sakae'/ early Masagatae sites of the eastern Aral region.

Davidski said...

It's awesome that these Sargat samples that were pinned as Uralic speakers based on linguistics and archeology came back with the Uralic-associated N-L1026 and Nganasan/kra001 ancestry.

This obviously can't be a coincidence and deserves a post of its own. I'll write something up on Monday.

Huck Finn said...

@ Onur Dincer and re: "This goes nicely with the Northern Siberian autosomal mix in Sargat." There is indeed either Levänluhta_IA or Ekven _IA related signal in Sargat, but just by looking at Fig S3 in Supplement, Sargat/Mount Bitya looks rather West Siberian, if Im right, being mostly related to groups like West_Siberia_ N, Botai, Dali_EBA, Sintashta_MLBA_o3, Kumsay_EBA and Mereke_MBA. Otherwise Sargat looks like Ugrics/early Hungarians, getting close to groups like Bashkirs and Volga Tatars, but also Udmurts. I'd guess that their paternal N is mostly East Uralic N-Z1936 > B539 or something related to that.

vAsiSTha said...

"@vAsiSTha

No one cares, and they never will, because L657 is derived from Z93.

Z93 didn't exist in Asia until it arrived there with migrants from Eastern Europe."

Haha, of course you don't care.. anything which doesn't fit your theory is quickly forgotten and dismissed by you.

Archi said...

Andrzejewski said...
"BMAC had mostly Iranian"

As always you have written an anti-scientific nonsense, sucked out of your hand. You do not know anything to write such statements.

"I believe that an (Davil’s Gate) Ulchi-like Hap C basal was responsible to Japanese, Altaic, Ruan Ruan, and most North American languages."

Believe. Your belief has nothing to do with science. It is pure nonsense.

@Davidski

"It's awesome that these Sargat samples that were pinned as Uralic speakers based on linguistics and archeology came back with the Uralic-associated N-L1026 and Nganasan/kra001 ancestry."


The Sargat culture has long been regarded as an Ugrian culture, part of the ancestors of the Magyars. So there is nothing surprising, everything is logical.

Archi said...

Rob, of course, cannot be convinced of anything; he always ignores all arguments.

Here is an evident refutation of his position,

https://i.ibb.co/MfM1Ng2/Vahaduo-Global-25-North-Eurasia-Sarmat-rel-PCA.png

of course it is immediately obvious that the Sarmatians have nothing to do with the Kubano-Tersk culture, but are directly related to the Kazakhstan Andronovо culture, Fedorovo culture from Zevakino, Karasuk and especially Tagar cultures.
Even the Sarmatians from Moldavia.

The fallacy of Rob's position is related to the fact that he does not understand that the late Kubano-Tersk culture is essentially a mix with the Sintashta and KMC, it is not much different from the Andronovo culture.

Rob said...

Whatever you say Archie; the data never seems to prove your pompous claims. As if it matters to me whether sarmatians have KT- related or BMAC related ancestry .

vAsiSTha said...

Very interesting. ALN005 is Z94>Y2/Y3/Y26+ L657-

The other 3 Z94+ individuals from paper are on the Z2121+ line.

ALN005 is from ALai Nura 300AD, seems to have 10-15% ancestry from BMAC. Alai Nura 300ad as a whole seems to have 10-20% ancestry from BMAC, however Alai Nura 400bce has much higher BMAC and also some ancestry from Loebanr_IA which over the ages got diluted by east asian ancestry from its North east.

Target: KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_1 (400bce)
Distance: 1.3672% / 0.01367208
51.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
28.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
14.8 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
5.8 PAK_Loebanr_IA

Target: KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_2 (300AD)
Distance: 1.0344% / 0.01034387
43.4 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
42.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
14.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
0.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA


By this time, south asian proper ancestry is also visible in the vicinity of Alai Nura (200km away), along with L1a2 y-hg.. from the paper..

"KNT004 is shifted in PC1 toward East Asians (figs. S1 to S3). Admixture models including ~10% South Asian and ~50% eastern Eurasian influx adequately explain KNT005 and KNT004, respectively (data file S4). In contrast, the individuals from the site of Alai Nura (Alai_Nura_300CE) in the Tian Shan mountains (~200 km east from the Konyr Tobe site) still lay along the IA cline of the Tian Shan Saka, with four individuals falling closer to Konyr_Tobe_300CE and four closer to the Tasmola/Pazyryk cloud"

mzp1 said...

Though we expect Scythians and Sarmatians to show it, I'm not interested in looking too closely for South Asian (Indo-Aryan) introgression into West Eurasian populations, but lets just say it can be found and arguments can be made (ie f3 statistics I posted earlier, qpAdm runs showing SA Ancestry in modern Euros along with Ancient WSH/EEF/HG ancestry, fstats showing SAs with greatest contribution to Africans who are most Eurasian-shifted etc).

However, there are a few important points that need to be considered properly.

Ancient populations were much more structured and over time these divergent populations produce much more homogenous descendants. This effected can be due to modern Eurasians being a mixture of ancients, but also it can be an expansion of Southern, less differentiated populations moving North and replacing more drifted pops. A constant stream of Southern -> NW Eurasian can be hard to detect in small time transect, but over a longer timespan it can show up as a homogenising effect.

It should be noted that South Asians never have their own component in ADMIXTURE runs, this group always has a mixture of whatever components result from the run. Hence, when we see 'homogenization' in Eurasia ie with Steppe EMBA having CHG/Iran_N over EHG/MA1, or Steppe MLBA having 'Anatolian' over Steppe EMBA, this could be effected via a suble South-> North movement, an addition to the simple explanation of populations mixing.

Slumbery said...

@Rob

First I would like to start near the end. You say "Here is a qpADM model of your set-up" and then present a model where there is no source for the extra WSHG that I pretty much implied to be critical for modelling Sarmatians. That is not my set-up.


in fact WSHG is something I looked at first up for Sarmatians, because the archaeological clues point to obvious connections between Don-Volga-Ural Sarmatians and forest groups like Aninyo, Sargat, etc. So i anticipated some WSHG to be there
But WSHG doesn’t appear to be consistent. It seems that a more eastern kind of Siberian -& Mongolian derived ancestry during, or in the wake of, the S-T Ph; although Paleo-WSHG lineages persist

But can you point to where WSHG/Botai-related groups managed to survive in the Kazakh steppe during the Iron Age ? I thought one of the major conclusions from Damgaard was that this ancestry almost disappeared by the MLBA.


That is an interestingly phrased question. If I try to literally answer it, then the answer is: the Sarmatians. Now of course you mean a group that is ancestral to them and a source for this admixture, but that is not possible to answer, because there are hardly any relevant samples that are pre-Sarmatian and still Iron Age. But we have such populations in LBA (I showed examples in the other thread) and if there are no Iron Age populations that have more of this ancestry that just means this part of the Sarmatian make-up was already ready and evened out by the start of the Iron Age.
Anyhow, the Sarmatians do have this ancestry and an attempt to ignore this in the modellig distorts the results. I do not need to identify the full chain of vectors for this ancestry for this to remain true.

''Even if the Sarmatians formed in the Volga-Don-Caucasus region, this Kubano-Terks_late + Khovgol_BA model is forced.''

That's your misinterpretation; because the Srubnaja-Andronovo component is included


I do not understand what are you trying to say here.

Slumbery said...

continues

In any case, nothing is 'forced' in that linked model I intially suggested. I was merely looking at how G25 does in distinguishing between BMAC-related and KT-related ancestries at a deeper level. It did, but then you drifted awkwardly into discussing WSHGs and Devils Gate..

I "drifted" because I had to point out, that your model is not good for the exact purpose you targeted. Because Sarmatians have a lot of extra WSHG ancestry above what Khovsol_BA can deliver and the only other source for it is Kubano_Tersk_late, the latter is inflated. Also you did not include any other possibilities for Caucasus ancestry. Seriously, Botai/Tyumen and Kura-Araxes are much older populations that surely do not share recent drift with the Sarmatians and still when both are included Kubano-Thersk is consistently kicked out with a much improved distance. That shows how bad is Kubano-Tersk as a main Sarmatian ancestor. That is why I call it forced. Kubano-Tersk picked up as an ancestor only if you cherry pick the other sources to make it happen and the fit will still suffer.

But in adding WSHG & Devil's Gate, it doesnt really change much

Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe

RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 55.0
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late 19.2
TKM_Gonur1_BA 11.3
RUS_Shamanka_EBA 9.8
RUS_Tyumen_HG 3.8
RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N 0.9

d = 0.01639219


In the eralier thread I mentioned that Caspian Steppe Sarmatians are one of the groups that have some real Caucasus ancestry. Now, if the only group in the entire set-up that can deliver it is Kubano-Tersk_late, then of course it will score. Include Kura-Araxes and compare.

Here is a qpADM model of your set-up
left pops:
Russia_Sarmatian.SG
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 0.716
Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.099
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur 0.186


Not, this is not my set-up. Include Botai or Tyumen and then it will be my set-up. Also Sarmatian_Caucasus and in a lesser extent Caspian Sarmatians have significant real Caucasus ancestry, so you cannot lump them together with Pokrovka and Ural (I assume Russia_Sarmatian is a combined group in your set-up.) My point is however that even for those the ancient Kura-Araxes is a better source than Kubano-Tersk_late (if we give an alternative source for the extra WSHG too).

Don't group Scythians with so-called Sakae from eastern Kazakhstan, They're different people.

I had no such intend, I merely pointed out that both groups are differentiated from Sarmatians with their much higher level Devil's Gate / WSHG ratio and consistently higher Devil's Gate related ancestry in general and that is why they can be reasonably well modelled with Khovsol_BA as a single combined WSHG + East Siberian source. But Sarmatians are not.

Note I do not have a strong opinion on where _precisely_ the Sarmatians formed. So I am not going to defend the Western Kazakh steppe idea with my blood. I am pretty sure however that the Kubano-Tersk_late line does not work.

Archi said...

Rob said...
"Whatever you say Archie; the data never seems to prove your pompous claims. As if it matters to me whether sarmatians have KT- related or BMAC related ancestry .
April 24, 2021 at 3:26 AM "

This is just ridiculous, my words are all strictly confirmed, your words are all not merely unconfirmed, but simply all brutally refuted. You just don't know how to look. Here to you are completely chewed up and put in your mouth.

https://i.ibb.co/rFbP2cS/Vahaduo-Global-25-North-Eurasia-Sarmat-rel-full-PCA.png


And after that, to object to the obvious would be ridiculous, it means to continue to show your complete inadequacy.

@mzp1
"Though we expect Scythians and Sarmatians to show it, I'm not interested in looking too closely for South Asian (Indo-Aryan) introgression into West Eurasian populations"

It does not exist and do not fantasize, you will not deceive anyone here with your fantasies about the presence of South Asia in the Scythians and Sarmatians.

Simon Stevin said...

@Davidski
How can Carlos deny this now? The Uralic association with N is now solidly confirmed with ancient DNA, it is not directly associated with R1.

gamerz_J said...

@mzp1

"It should be noted that South Asians never have their own component in ADMIXTURE runs, this group always has a mixture of whatever components result from the run. Hence, when we see 'homogenization' in Eurasia ie with Steppe EMBA having CHG/Iran_N over EHG/MA1, or Steppe MLBA having 'Anatolian' over Steppe EMBA, this could be effected via a suble South-> North movement, an addition to the simple explanation of populations mixing."

I am confused, where are you getting this from? South Asian admix in Europeans?

@Andrzejewski

E1b1 was not common in Anatolian farmers, only in Natufians and Levantine farmers.

vAsiSTha said...

@Archi

"It does not exist and do not fantasize, you will not deceive anyone here with your fantasies about the presence of South Asia in the Scythians and Sarmatians."

Theres about 20% Indus_periphery_pool present in Shahr_Sokhta_BA1. There's about 10-12% Indus_periphery_pool present in the BMAC label of Narsimhan. and there's 12-15% Indus_Periphery_Pool present in AigyrzhalBA like original SC asian population. This is all as per Narsimhan paper supplement.

SO while the minor and diluted AASI component is difficult to detect in later heavily mixed Sarmatian and Scythian populations, it doesnt mean it had exactly 0 impact in the cultural formation of the SC asian populations. Later on in iron age and later you of course see much more fresh influx of south asian populations into the SC asian region.

The east asian admixture also makes it hard to distinguish minor aasi admixture in the absence of actual AASI aDna samples.

Hannibal said...

@ Onur Dincer


I strongly doubt that Xianbei/Proto Mongols started off with haplogroup C.


That's because Xianbei fossils are all East Asian mtDNA, but their physical description in the Chinese history describes them as having blond hair, beards, tall, etc. That suggests admixture on the paternal line from Europoids.


Although Mongols today are mostly haplogroup C, the fossil data shows that ancient Mongols weren't. The predominant y-DNA haplogroup in medieval Mongols R1b (Jeong 2020), and the Golden Family (probable Borjigin) fossils from Lkhagvasuren 2016 are R1b and R1a.


Ancient Mongols weren't like today's Mongols and had more European ancestry, particularly on the paternal line. Their phenotypes were also dissimilar to modern Mongols, showing more light eyes, hair, and skin color. Also, the Mongols outside of Mongolia (like Hazara) retain this older genetic distribution of haplogroups. About 30% of Hazara men belong to R1b which is today absent in the independent state of Mongolia.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33083459/



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

@ Archie


''The fallacy of Rob's position is related to the fact that he does not understand that the late Kubano-Tersk culture is essentially a mix with the Sintashta and KMC, it is not much different from the Andronovo culture.''

G25/Vahaduo:
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
RUS_Catacomb 51.4
RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA 31.8
______________
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 9.4
RUS_Tyumen_HG 6.8
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.6
d=0.01789239

qpADM
left pops:
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
RUS_Catacomb 0.821
RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA 0.179

Tail Prob 0.351233


It is completely different to Andronovo. As I previously outlined, it is therefore is a far more 'eastern' type of population due to low proportion of EEF.

Archie, you are low bar but anosognosic to your condition

Archi said...

@Rob

"It is completely different to Andronovo. As I previously outlined, it is therefore is a far more 'eastern' type of population due to low proportion of EEF.
Archie, you are low bar but anosognosic to your condition "

Bullshit. Rob your models are always a fraud, you deliberately always choose false populations to fool everyone. You don't know how to model and you don't know how to do anything.

You just cheat everyone, you wrongfully included Srubnaya, which was after RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late, and excluded Sintashta, which was simultaneously with it to cheat everyone and excluded RUS_Kubano-Tersk not to see that the population has changed.

Target: RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD002
Distance: 3.6929% / 0.03692908
68.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
19.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
9.8 RUS_Catacomb
2.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1

Target: RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD001
Distance: 5.3474% / 0.05347415
76.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
24.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Catacomb

Target: RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD002
Distance: 1.5666% / 0.01566629
27.4 RUS_Catacomb
25.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
18.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
13.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
8.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
7.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3

Target: RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD001
Distance: 1.5858% / 0.01585769
34.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
21.4 RUS_Catacomb
19.6 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
13.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
7.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
3.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3


You've shamed yourself again and you'd better keep your mouth shut. You can't fool anyone.

Copper Axe said...

@Onur Dincer

Donghu and Ulaanzuukh/Slab grave are two different things, and are not mutually exclusive. One is a historical confederation from the antiquity, the other are archaeological phenomenons from the LBA/EI. The Donghu were pushed to the east from somewhere further in Mongolia/Inner Mongolia by the Xiongnu as well.

The Xianbei are assumed to have been predominantly Mongolic but this did not apply to all groups within the Xianbei. There were plenty of Turkic elements in the Xianbei. Dinglings etc. were part of the Tuoba Wei. The Touba may have been Turkic speaking themselves, but that is still debated.

Point being, the make-up of these confederations did not run along ethno-linguistic lines; so Xiongnu=Turk and Xianbei=Mongol is just too simple of a narrative and not whath istory or genetics shows us here.

The Xianbei samples seem predominantly Slab Grave and Ulaanzuukh derived as far as autosomal ancestry goes. Also just from looking at G25 the Xianbei samples do not really seem to be significantly more eastern than Xiongnu or earlier Slab Grave samples. Also, there is barely any tibetan-like ancestry in that sample from Hungary, less than 10%. It is Altai+Central Mongolia+Western Liao region as far as eastern ancestry goes for the most part, which makes sense considering it is a sample from a Hun cemetery in Europe.

The Q1a1a in those samples comes from the southeast, and is not necesarily more "western" than C2b considering that has shown up in bronze age Kazakhstan and was one of the lineages of Neolithic Mongolia. The same Q lineage is also in Neolithic northeast China, as well as some Zhou dynasty "Hu" burials if I remeber well. I also think that those lineages probably represent a founder effect or an elite with close paternal kinship because it doesn't seem as present in later samples or distribution amongst historical and modern Turkic peoples, not to mention there are iron age Xiongnu samples with like 80-90% Slab-Grave like ancestry who have different lineages like N and C.

Want to move this discussion over to AG perhaps? I find discourse there a bit easier.

Andrzejewski said...

@Gamerz_J “ E1b1 was not common in Anatolian farmers, only in Natufians and Levantine farmers.”

How come has it become so widespread and common among Neolithic Balkan pops and continues until today (found even amongst Medieval Visigoths from Spain who sojourned across the Danube in Roman times), if it didn’t arrive there with Anatolian farmers? I’m confused.

mzp1 said...

@Gamerz,

From HarrapaDNA and my own research, the NW Indian populations are grouped something like this (obviously this is not exhaustive):

Ror-Kalash-SikhJatt-MuslimJatt-Kashmiri-UPSyed-GujaratiMuslim

The left side, Ror, is closest to all West Eurasians like Anatolian, European etc, from atleast the Bronze Age onwards. The Eastern side, Gujarati Muslim and UPSyed is closer to no one by comparison, as Ror has more ONGE than Gujarati Muslim.

I got the idea of checking for SA DNA in Europeans when I ran the calc f4(Mbut, Yoruba)(Test, Test) and found that GujaratiMuslim and Jatt scored the highest affinity to Yoruba vs Mbuti. This I posted earlier. This suggested that although Ror are generally closest to ALL West Eurasians, there is significant geneflow from Eastern Indo-Aryans into West Eurasia.

So I checked with qpADm

Target: Ukrainian
Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara: 43
England_N: 29
Luxembourg_Loschbour: 19
Gujarati_Muslim: 8

Target: English
Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara: 40
England_N: 43
Luxembourg_Loschbour: 11
Gujarati_Muslim: 4

It was just a quick run but it shows that it is feasible to model Euros with some geneflow from the Eastern end of the NW Indian cline above. Muslim Jatts, Kashmiris, Syeds (obviously), Gujarati Muslims and related populations are a large and influential Indo-Aryan genetic cluster, much less 'Western' than Ror and Kalash. So it is not hard to imagine this cluster contributing migrants out of SA into West Eurasia.

I've put the Gujarati Muslim 23andme file online, as there is little representation for the Eastern IndoAryan cluster in research and online.

http://e11.online/DNA/Gujarati-Muslim-Bharuchi.txt

Muslim Jatts, Kashmiris, Syeds and Gujarati Muslims look like they are the most important Indo-Aryan groups, not (the Western) Ror and Kalash, though they are the most reported.

Anyway, a very clear picture is emerging of how NW Indian population structure is related to West Eurasia. But it is off-topic to go into it here (unless Davidski wants to talk about it), but it is a very compelling story so I expect to be able to blog and make some YT videos on it soon.

Onur Dincer said...

@Hannibal

In direct contradiction to your claims, modern and medieval Mongols show more West Eurasian genetic input, not less, than their Xianbei and Khitan ancestors:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JO6oRHE8Z7hFCaI-SaclOHv6hf9q1LYt/view?usp=sharing

Also as you can see, their level of genetic continuity from their Xianbei and Khitan ancestors is high in general.

The most common Y-DNA haplogroup of medieval Mongols is C2 according to Jeong et al. 2020 and other ancient DNA papers (though lower than the modern frequencies), stop lying. The Lkhagvasuren et al. 2016 paper studies only two male lineages and thus cannot represent the general population. Modern Mongols have R1a and R1b too, but in lower frequencies than the tested medieval Mongols.

And, we have quite a number of Xianbei Y-DNA results already (Li et al. 2020, Ning et al. 2020, Wang et al. 2020), so far all of them are C2 but one.

Lastly, Hazara are a very mixed population, not any pure descendants of the Mongol invaders (and their invader ancestors most probably included Turkic groups too). They do not even speak Mongolian, they speak a Persian dialect.

ambron said...

Arza, Matt, Archi, we have probably over 20 of good quality early medieval samples from West Slavic areas. Maybe it would be nice to put them all on the PCA; we would have a genetic image of the early medieval Western Slavs. Unfortunately, I do not use these tools.

Rob said...

@ Archie

Yes so you're overfitted 'models' (being generous here) show the main sonstituents of late K-T are Catacomb & North Cacuasus groups. Archaeologically, they are Catacomb + north Caucasus groups (from Wang - “ The mound was constructed by communities of the North Caucasian tradition, but a later phase can be associated with a local group of the post-Catacomb/Late Bronze Age 1 horizon”)
The crumbs of Sintastha outlier you are picking up are either unwarranted, or might represent collateral gene flow from the quasi-contemporaneous Lola culture , which featured some WSHG

It has nothing directly to do with Sintashta or Andronovo. So you’re statement of synonymity with Andronovo is wrong


''you'd better keep your mouth shut.'

LOL or what ?
I don’t know why you keep barking wounded dog; it’s not like you’re in anyway relevant

Hannibal said...

@ Onur


Keep coping, buddy.


This the haplogroup chart of Mongols from Jeong 2020. The dominant Y-DNA lineage among early medieval Mongols (early Med) is R1b. C is a minority haplogroup.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420313210-figs2.jpg



Also, 0% of Mongols in Mongolia today have R1b, or at most, 0.99%.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622


"In comparison, our unpublished data demonstrated that the Y-haplogroups R1b-M343 and R1a1a-M17 are distributed at 0.0% (0/101) and 0.99% (1/101) in modern-day Mongolians across the Mongolian plateau, respectively (S10 Fig) [31, 32]. Zhong and Colleagues [50] also reported that the modern-day Mongolians who inhabit in the Inner and Outer Mongolia carry the R1b-M343 haplogroup at 8.3% (1/12) (only in Heilongjiang; the province located in the North Eastern part of China) and 0.0%, respectively. Meanwhile, Zhong and colleagues [50] and Katoh and colleagues [59] demonstrated that the R1a1a-M17 was found at 9.1% (2/22), 3.5% (3/85), 6.7% (4/60) and 13.3% (8/60) in modern-day Inner Mongolians, Khalkh, Uriankhai, and Zakhchin Mongolian tribes, respectively. Thus, R1b-M343 is scarcely found in the Mongolian plateau, whereas R1a1a-M17 is widely distributed, although at a relatively low frequency, having a maximum of 13.3% in the Zakhchin tribe [59]. These results demonstrate that modern-day individuals carrying R1b-M343 are hard to find on the Mongolian Plateau, meaning that descendants of R1b-M343-carrying members of the Golden family disappeared from the Mongolian Plateau for unknown reasons."

Also, yes, Hazara are mixed -- but not on their paternal line. "Admixture" isn't a source of R1b in Hazara since we already know R1b is closely associated with medieval Mongols, as you have already admitted.


"Eastern Russian Tatars, Bashkirs, and Pakistani Hazara were found to carry R1b-M343 at unusually high frequencies of 12.65%, 46.07%, and 32%, respectively, compared to other regions of Eastern Asia, which rarely have this haplotype (Fig 3) [40, 42, 43, 49–53]. Interestingly, ancestors of those 3 populations were all closely associated with the medieval Mongol Empire. That is, Russian Tatars and Bashkirs are descendants of the Golden Horde (also known as the Ulus of Jochi) that had been controlled by Jochi, the first son of Genghis Khan, and his descendants during the 12th–15th centuries. In addition, some of the Hazara tribes are believed to consist of descendants of Mongolian soldiers and their slave women after the 1221 siege of Bamiyan under the leadership of Genghis Khan [54, 55]. Through domination of Hazara, Mongolians strongly influenced the genetic makeup of the Hazara people, especially in Pakistan [49, 54, 56]. Some modern Hazara populations resemble Mongolians in their physical attributes including facial bone structure. Similarly, the high frequency of R1b-M343 in geographic regions associated with the past Mongol khanates including the Golden Horde (from Ural Mountain to Western Siberia, which includes Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan), Ilkhanate (Iran and neighboring territories including Armenia, Turkey, Georgia, Afghanistan, Syria, and Tajikistan), and Chagatai Khanate (from the Aral sea to the Altai mountain, including Pakistan (Hazara), Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, India, and China), strongly suggest a close association between the Y haplotype R1b-M343 and the past Mongol Empire (Fig 3) [42–44, 49–53]."

Just face it buddy, you're a racist nationalist who doesn't like the fact that medieval Mongols were more West Eurasian and were characterized by more West Eurasian haplogroups, also had more West Eurasian appearance as demonstrated by the lighter hair and eye colors.

Copper Axe said...

"Just face it buddy, you're a racist nationalist"

Jesus christ man Onur is like one of the chillest people here smh

Hannibal said...

@ Copper axe

Doesn't matter. He frequently mis-speaks on Mongols and Turks in a way that reflects race bias and nationalism, it's his signature.

Onur Dincer said...

@Copper Axe

I agree with most of what you say, those steppe groups were mostly not mono-ethnic and homogeneous organizations, most of them were tribal confederations involving multiple ethnic groups and languages. Having said that, certain patterns can be found in each one of them and that is what I was focusing on in my comments. I have some objections to some of your claims though:

Also just from looking at G25 the Xianbei samples do not really seem to be significantly more eastern than Xiongnu or earlier Slab Grave samples.

There are some clear differences in the levels of Devil's Gate-like (Amur Basin) ancestry. Let me first show my analysis with the Xianbei again:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JO6oRHE8Z7hFCaI-SaclOHv6hf9q1LYt/view?usp=sharing

Now compare it with the analyses of other populations using the same source populations:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16RpKDqWrnvV1mSHA0A-u0_d_0u_4oF2W/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1moIWwJ03fk2M2PZ4CdZVC50RVhFuI-eg/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kr6Zndbv_sHBEnnS0-ou-ZIGYLQbCAns/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l4Rf2ikS0owacI3KOxn5NEuhQ5srNQCR/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lIgvyGuOb7zYppsqM7dMRDnr356xQh0/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S9ryHpno0d3V7vrW5K8Jc5QUA9cvqRq-/view?usp=sharing

As you can see, the Xianbei in general have more Amur Basin ancestry and are more depleted in more western or southern East Eurasian ancestries than Slab Grave/Ulaanzuukh, the Xiongnu and even Khitans, and the Xiongnu by far have the most heterogeneous genetics among all those populations with even some individuals with mostly West Eurasian ancestry (note that I am not claiming that all those individuals spoke the same language or had tribal connections).

Also, there is barely any tibetan-like ancestry in that sample from Hungary, less than 10%. It is Altai+Central Mongolia+Western Liao region as far as eastern ancestry goes for the most part, which makes sense considering it is a sample from a Hun cemetery in Europe.

The Hun elite sample from what is now Hungary really has quite high Tibetan-like ancestry, compare his ancestry with those of the Hun elite sample from what is now Kazakhstan and of the samples I have shared above (all with the same source populations):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S9xGS5nDj1peaOq4nu1FcTNOoPfB7mSM/view?usp=sharing

Davidski said...

@Hannibal

This theory of yours that early Mongols were mostly of European/West Eurasian ancestry seems very unusual.

Do you have any evidence for it apart from the data in that Plos One paper, which was based on just a handful of samples and outdated ancient DNA methods?

Like, for instance, can you back up your theory with genome-wide data from some of the recent papers on ancient Central and East Asia?

Hannibal said...

I don't have a theory that early Mongols were mostly European/West Eurasian -- only that they were significantly West Eurasian/European, more so than today's Mongols. Probably there were "pure" Europoids among them, but many more were hybrids. It's not my theory, but the evidence amassed by Jeong and also the work of Lkhavasuren clearly demonstrates this. Mongols did not become predominantly East Eurasian as they are today until the Mongol Empire period.


There is also historical evidence that contradicts the retarded idea that Mongols were mostly East Asian, in the form of physical descriptions from historians within China and all over the world, and even Mongol historical chronicles themselves, which describe certain Mongol tribes (such as the Uriankhai) as being predominantly yellow haired, blue eyed, red haired, etc. Traits no pure East Asian ethnic group has in the majority.

A nice comment from a forum recently held by experts:

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=48160



"You have a very good observation. In my opinion, this could be a reflection of genetic hybridity of Mongoloid and Caucasoid groups in Inner Asia. I have a strong conviction that no group there is homogeneous in their genetic composition and ethnogenesis. I am not sure if anyone has specifically studied physical transfer of Sinitic population to Mongolia by the Xiongnu as repeatedly recorded in early Chinese dynastic histories. The Xiongnu needed to have human resources and thus aimed to grab outside, especially Chinese, population. Though the Xiongnu seemed ruthless on battlegrounds, they were very kind toward those Chinese individuals. When Zhang Qian (d. ca. 114 BC) was captured, he was treated nicely and was offered a marriage with a Xiongnu woman. This aspect of Xiongnu-Han interactions merits further investigation."

Anyway, to answer your last question, at the moment I am not aware of the existence of a medieval Mongol genome. But yes, the Y-STR data do clearly demonstrate more mixture than modern Mongols. The pigmentation paper I included had late Xiongnu individuals and I believe Xianbei.

Onur Dincer said...

@Hannibal

This the haplogroup chart of Mongols from Jeong 2020. The dominant Y-DNA lineage among early medieval Mongols (early Med) is R1b. C is a minority haplogroup.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420313210-figs2.jpg


You said just "medieval Mongols" in my reply to you, not "early medieval Mongols," so I replied to you taking into account all the medieval Mongol genetic results in Jeong et al. 2020 (the Jeong et al. 2020 paper itself stresses the high frequency of C2 in medieval Mongols too with this statement: "In addition, nearly a third of historic Mongol males (12/38) have Y haplogroup C2b, which is also widespread among modern Mongolians (Table S6, Fig. S3)"). This is what you wrote:

Although Mongols today are mostly haplogroup C, the fossil data shows that ancient Mongols weren't. The predominant y-DNA haplogroup in medieval Mongols R1b (Jeong 2020), and the Golden Family (probable Borjigin) fossils from Lkhagvasuren 2016 are R1b and R1a.

Obviously your statement was wrong because of not using the word "early" before "medieval."

Also, 0% of Mongols in Mongolia today have R1b, or at most, 0.99%.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622


There is some, but very little like you say. But I have never denied the decrease in R1a and R1b frequencies and the increase in C2 frequencies in Mongols or claimed otherwise. This is already what I said in my previous post to you:

Modern Mongols have R1a and R1b too, but in lower frequencies than the tested medieval Mongols.

Now let's come to the topic of Hazara:

Also, yes, Hazara are mixed -- but not on their paternal line. "Admixture" isn't a source of R1b in Hazara since we already know R1b is closely associated with medieval Mongols, as you have already admitted.

Like I already stated, Hazara have diverse origins in invader ancestry too, they almost certainly have Turkic invader ancestry too, and as you know, some Turkic groups have high frequencies of R1b, Bashkirs being one of them. Also, you should take into account the effects of genetic drift too in populations like Hazara. Only Pakistani Hazara have shown high R1b frequency, Afghanistani Hazara have not even shown any R1b, see:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314501/

No R1b found in the 60 tested Afghanistani Hazara Y-DNA as you see. In the paper with Pakistani Hazara 25 Pakistani Hazara Y-DNA were tested and 8 of them were found to belong to R1b. Not sure how to interpret this, it could be due to genetic drift in Pakistani Hazara, due to influence from some Turkic invaders with high R1b frequency, or due to both.

Just face it buddy, you're a racist nationalist who doesn't like the fact that medieval Mongols were more West Eurasian and were characterized by more West Eurasian haplogroups, also had more West Eurasian appearance as demonstrated by the lighter hair and eye colors.

Now you are resorting to name calling without fully engaging with my arguments. I have already pointed to the higher West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroup frequency in medieval Mongols than modern ones and have said nothing contrary to it. But according to their autosomal results, medieval Mongols were not that different in amounts of West Eurasian ancestry from modern Mongols:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JO6oRHE8Z7hFCaI-SaclOHv6hf9q1LYt/view

In case you do not know, I am neither Mongol nor even from any East or Central Eurasian population, so your accusation of racism towards me on this issue makes no sense.

Onur Dincer said...

@Hannibal

Doesn't matter. He frequently mis-speaks on Mongols and Turks in a way that reflects race bias and nationalism, it's his signature.

All I have written here is backed with genetic evidence. Unlike you, I rely on advanced ancient genome analyses rather than outdated papers or some debatable historical data. If you have reliable counter-arguments against me, you should not resort to defamation tactics.

I don't have a theory that early Mongols were mostly European/West Eurasian -- only that they were significantly West Eurasian/European, more so than today's Mongols. Probably there were "pure" Europoids among them, but many more were hybrids. It's not my theory, but the evidence amassed by Jeong and also the work of Lkhavasuren clearly demonstrates this. Mongols did not become predominantly East Eurasian as they are today until the Mongol Empire period.

Medieval Mongols had mostly East Eurasian ancestry as demonstrated by both my analyses and those of Jeong et al. 2020. Also they were autosomally not too different from modern Mongols.

There is also historical evidence that contradicts the retarded idea that Mongols were mostly East Asian, in the form of physical descriptions from historians within China and all over the world, and even Mongol historical chronicles themselves, which describe certain Mongol tribes (such as the Uriankhai) as being predominantly yellow haired, blue eyed, red haired, etc.

This is the average ancestry estimation of your beloved Jeong et al. paper about medieval Mongols in case you do not trust my analyses:

Mongol era individuals as a group can be modeled with only 15-18% of western Steppe ancestry (Alan or Sarmatian), but require 55-64% of Ulaanzuuk_SlabGrave and 21-27% of Han-related ancestry (Table S22).

On Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave genetics they state this:

In contrast to other contemporaneous Eastern Steppe populations, we find that individuals associated with these burial types show a clear northeastern-Eurasian (ANA-related) genetic profile lacking both ANE and WSH admixture (Fig. 2; Fig. 3c; Fig. S7). Both groups were ruminant pastoralists, and the EIA Slab Grave culture also milked horses (Wilkin et al., 2019). The genetic profiles of Ulaanzuukh and Slab Grave individuals are genetically indistinguishable (Fig. 2 and Table S16), consistent with the archaeological hypothesis that the Slab Grave tradition emerged out of the LBA Ulaanzuukh (Honeychurch, 2015; Khatanbaatar, 2019). Both groups are also indistinguishable from the earlier eastMongolia_preBA individual dating to ca. 4600 BCE, suggesting a long-term (>4,000 year) stability of this prehistoric eastern Mongolian gene pool (Table S16).

So they classify Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave in East Eurasian genetics like me.

Traits no pure East Asian ethnic group has in the majority.

Who has stated medieval or modern Mongols were pure East Eurasian in genetics? Historical descriptions and depictions of physical traits can only give a rough idea on the genetics and appearances, for more details you need ancient DNA and/or physical anthropological studies (better both).

Anyway, to answer your last question, at the moment I am not aware of the existence of a medieval Mongol genome. But yes, the Y-STR data do clearly demonstrate more mixture than modern Mongols. The pigmentation paper I included had late Xiongnu individuals and I believe Xianbei.

How are you not aware of any medieval Mongol genome when you constantly mention the Jeong et al. 2020 paper, which tested plenty of medieval Mongol genomes (autosomally too)? Read and try to understand it rather than sticking to outdated papers or debatable historical depictions or descriptions.

Onur Dincer said...

@Copper Axe

Want to move this discussion over to AG perhaps? I find discourse there a bit easier.

Would love to. But do not have much time for discussions.

Onur Dincer said...

You said just "medieval Mongols" in my reply to you

You said just "medieval Mongols" in your reply to me*

Copper Axe said...

@Onur

Well AG is still down but when its back up I'll make a thread about this. Been finding some decent clues and connections and I'll put them on maps and such.

But to summarize I noticed that the outlier Upper Xiajiadan (pastoralist) worked very well as a source for Mongolic peoples, but also for the Ulaanzuukh and slab grave models. Also for a lot of Turkic peoples, but not all of them. Dont take it too literally as the UXJD sample is contemporary/younger than some Ulaanzuukh samples but:

Target: MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
Distance: 1.4291% / 0.01429127 | R4P
55.8    MNG_East_N
25.0    RUS_Baikal_BA
11.8    CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
7.4    CHN_Miaozigou_MN


Target: MNG_Ulaanzukh_LBA_2
Distance: 1.6562% / 0.01656209 | R4P
35.4    MNG_East_N
24.8    CHN_Miaozigou_MN
24.4    CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
15.4    RUS_Baikal_BA

Target: MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave
Distance: 1.3082% / 0.01308179
31.4    CHN_Yumin_N
24.8    CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
17.6    MNG_East_N
14.8    RUS_Baikal_BA
11.0    CHN_Miaozigou_MN
0.4    CHN_Amur_River_EN
0.0    MNG_North_N

That sample is more or less intermediate between MNG_Northeast and those neolithic Amur river samples, which are almost right next to the mongolian border and later on that becomes Slab grave territory. Unlike the Slab grave populations, there isn't any neolithic inner mongolian agriculturalist (Yumin, Yangshao) ancestry present yet. C2b1!

Those EIA slab grave samples seem like a mix of whatever came out of the southeast, and the MNG_North and Altai-Sayan ancestries already present by the way, but keeping the same paternal lineages (aside from one outlier with Q-L330).

So for example those Xianbei samples (excluding the ones from Kazakhstan as it basically just seems slab grave+Saka):

Target: CHN_Amur_River_Xianbei_IA
Distance: 3.3916% / 0.03391643
50.4    CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
48.8    MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
0.8    Saka_Tian_Shan

Target: MNG_Xianbei_IA
Distance: 3.2141% / 0.03214129
48.2    CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
36.6    MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
15.2    Saka_Tian_Shan

Given that this outlier origins lie somehwere around northeast Mongolia and the Xianbei/historic Mongols/modern day Mongolians are are halfway inbetween that one and central/eastern Mongolian LBA pastoralists, I's say their ethnogenesis happened somewhere in eastern (greater) Mongolia. Can't say whether it was the Southeast (SGC+UXJD) or northeast (SGC+Amur_EN+MNG_N) for now. Maybe I'll find some clues later on.

Rob said...

@ Copper

“ Upper Xiajiadan”

Which one is that ?
UXC in itself represent a shift in northern China; switch to pastoralism & something of a genetic shift

Copper Axe said...

@Rob

91KLM2 from this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16557-2

Western_liao_river_BA_o on G25.

For sure a shift! I just wish the archaeology was a little more clear where exactly they came from though. They pop up with northern zone metal goods as well with graves made out of stone slabs covered in stone mounds, which is kinda similar to the Slab Grave burials but distinct enough to be its own thing.

Rob said...

@ Copper Axe
Im still familiarizing myself with China.
It might be that 'Western Liao LN' corresponds Lower Xiajiadian Culture. Compared to the preceding MN, they are shifted away from Amur basin. Toward Yellow river complex, but not early Neolithic variety, but a more shifted LN one. Im not sure the source of this LN Yellow-Liao river shift, but it's not immediately obvious to be the Yangtze
Whatever the case, this shift is consistent with first appearance of Y-hg O (on the background of Y-hg N (xNc-TAT), and agriculture (although perhaps some domesticates had come earlier).

Then comes the "BA" - Upper Xiajiadian Culture, there is a shift back toward the north. Indeed, the 'outlier' projects with Amur basin and Slab Grave individuals
This is the appearance of pastoralism and steppe-type metal work in northern China. Appearance of 'Nc-TAT'

https://ibb.co/k889LRT

Onur Dincer said...

@Copper Axe

Thanks for the analyses and findings.

Here is an analysis I have done which I think can contribute to the discussion:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15RHnkPxHk_aZ9i4Lr2-iQnU2J4xjGoac/view?usp=sharing

Bear in mind that the Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic language families have shallow time depths, their proto versions were spoken as recent as the Iron Age times, that is why I am focusing on that era when seeking for their proto populations.

CrM said...

Never noticed that the Caucasus-related proxy in Kubano-Tersk is best represented by KDC, I always assumed it was more Maykop and Velikent related. This might explain the small amount of KDC ancestry that Dagestanians harbor, which I previously assumed to be an ancestry that they picked up from Chechens or maybe Kumyks.
So I suppose this might hint that Northeast Caucasian Steppe is more akin to Kubano-Tersk than early Catacomb.

Target: Avar
Distance: 1.4698% / 0.01469767 | ADC: 0.25x RC
49.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
26.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
22.4 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
1.6 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
0.0 RUS_Catacomb
0.0 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*

Target: Darginian
Distance: 1.5872% / 0.01587227 | ADC: 0.25x RC
59.2 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
39.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
1.4 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
0.0 RUS_Catacomb
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
0.0 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*

Target: Kaitag:DAG06-826
Distance: 2.8030% / 0.02802980 | ADC: 0.25x RC
49.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
46.6 RUS_Catacomb
3.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
0.0 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
0.0 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*



Target: Avar
Distance: 1.5300% / 0.01530035 | ADC: 0.25x RC
56.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
39.2 RUS_Catacomb
2.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*
2.0 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1

Target: Darginian
Distance: 1.6747% / 0.01674658 | ADC: 0.25x RC
51.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
42.4 RUS_Catacomb
4.6 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*
1.8 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1

Target: Kaitag:DAG06-826
Distance: 2.7940% / 0.02794042 | ADC: 0.25x RC
49.0 RUS_Catacomb
45.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
5.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*
0.0 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1


@mzp1
Could you do a qpAdm run for Dagestanians (Avars, Darginians, Kaitag, Laks... any of these will do) with Hajji_Firuz_C/Iran_C, CHG and Yamnaya_Samara?

@Copper
What do you think the Khazars were like, are there perhaps any existing samples that may end up being genetically close to them?

mary said...

@Nyan

There is something that most are unaware of: the entire Karitiana people are descended from a single chief who lived only 80 years ago. I realize that this fact causes some confusion in the blind application of software like Admixture.

Ebizur said...

Rob wrote,

"Then comes the "BA" - Upper Xiajiadian Culture, there is a shift back toward the north. Indeed, the 'outlier' projects with Amur basin and Slab Grave individuals
This is the appearance of pastoralism and steppe-type metal work in northern China. Appearance of 'Nc-TAT'"

According to Pribislav at Anthrogenica, Sample M54A of Chao et al. 2020 (a DNA sample obtained from petrous bone of a specimen recovered from a vertical earthen pit associated with Phase II of the Early Neolithic at Houtaomuga, Jilin, China and dated to 7430-7320 BP) belongs to pre-N1a1a2-Y23747. This is a subclade of N-TAT. The extant haplogroup N1a1a2-Y23747 has been observed in China, Korea, and Japan, with the most basal branch found to date being represented by one individual from Aichi Prefecture and one individual from Hokkaido prefecture of Japan. The main branch, N-Y125664, is currently estimated by YFull to have a TMRCA of 4,500 (95% CI 3,400 <-> 5,700) ybp and has one subclade, N-MF38607, that has been found in individuals from Anhui and Hunan provinces of central China and another subclade, N-F22150, that has been found in northern China (Hebei), northeastern China (one individual from Heilongjiang and one ethnic Oroqen), two Koreans, and a Tibetan. The Y-DNA of an individual from Shanghai that appears to be basal to all other members of N-Y125664 (but more closely related to them than to the aforementioned Japanese individuals) has recently been added to the YFull tree.

The specimen from Houtaomuga indicates that haplogroup N-TAT has been present in the basin of the Amur River since the Early Neolithic period, but the Houtaomuga specimen's Y-DNA appears to form a clade with a branch currently observed sporadically among Chinese (including the Tungusic-speaking Oroqen, the Mongolic-speaking Daur, and the Tibetan ethnic groups), Koreans, and Japanese vis-à-vis members of the N-F1419 subclade of N-TAT, who are now very common throughout the northernmost tier of Eurasia, from Lapland and Finland in the west to Chukotka in the east.

Arza said...

@ Genos Historia

You need to write to the authors or match IDs using uniparentals.

@ ambron

I'll put all the Slavic related stuff on a separate blog. It's too much data for an off-top in a comment section.

Rob said...

@ Ebizur
Yes I had heard that. Where is raw data for Houtaomuga?
By northern China I meant Liao and yellow river basins in this case


@ CRM
Yep it suggests that KT ancestry might have persisted around the northeast Caucasus

Copper Axe said...

@Rob

Unless if I'm mistaken the regular Western Liao_BA samples are actually those of the Lower Xiajiadan culture as well as UXJD period samples with genetic continuity to the former.

@CrM

"What do you think the Khazars were like, are there perhaps any existing samples that may end up being genetically close to them?"

I bet they will be nearly identical to the Ashkenazi ^_^

No on a more serious matter I dont expect anything out of the ordinary. So when compared to the antiquity there should be a west eurasian shift on the steppes from Sarmatian-like (or by this time more the Alans) to more eastern steppe Iranic + sedentary Iranian ancestry coming in, as well geneflow from Europe, the Caucasus etc.

As far as East Eurasian goes, a considerable uptick of Slab Grave like ancestry of course, but I would not place any bets on how much exactly. That goes for all their ancestry components, which could be very heterogenously distributed amongst the populations if you consider geographic position of Khazaria.

ambron said...

Arza, great news! So I'm waiting patiently...

Hannibal said...

@Onur

"the Jeong et al. 2020 paper itself stresses the high frequency of C2 in medieval Mongols too with this statement: "In addition, nearly a third of historic Mongol males (12/38) have Y haplogroup C2b, which is also widespread among modern Mongolians (Table S6, Fig. S3)""


No, this stresses the low frequency of Haplogroup c2 in medieval (historical, Mongol empire era) Mongols.


"But according to their autosomal results, medieval Mongols were not that different in amounts of West Eurasian ancestry from modern Mongols:"

Using late medieval Mongols. Take out the Mongols from the mid-later Mongol empire datws and suddenly the Mongols aren't West Eurasian.


P.S. a sample isn't the same thing as a genome. Jeong 2020 doesn't contain an early Medieval mongol genome. Learn what a genome is.



"This is the average ancestry estimation of your beloved Jeong et al. paper about medieval Mongols in case you do not trust my analyses: Mongol era individuals as a group can be modeled with only 15-18% of western Steppe ancestry (Alan or Sarmatian), but require 55-64% of Ulaanzuuk_SlabGrave and 21-27% of Han-related ancestry (Table S22)."


Wrong again. That is for Mongol empire era Mongolians. I already said Mongol empire era Mongolians were majority East Asian. We are talking about early Mongol empire individuals here, who weren't majority East Asian and weren't like modern Mongols in uniparental ancestry or phenotype, on average.



All I have written here is backed with genetic evidence. Unlike you, I rely on advanced ancient genome analyses rather than outdated papers or some debatable historical data. If you have reliable counter-arguments against me, you should not resort to defamation tactics.

None of tbe research I posted is outdated; all of it is post-2015.


Also, the historical "data" is not debatable. Many of the prominent Mongol groups in history (Shiwei, Xianbei, Uriangkhai, Borjigin) were all described by numerous historical sources as having traits that only exist in Europid populations. This isn't happening in history for no good reason; they can't be repeatedly described by themselves and different authors as having European pigmentation for no reason. A majority East Asian genome won't allow that.

Onur Dincer said...

@Hannibal

No, this stresses the low frequency of Haplogroup c2 in medieval (historical, Mongol empire era) Mongols.

You are clearly in denial. Jeong et al. 2020 state this:

In addition, nearly a third of historic Mongol males (12/38) have Y haplogroup C2b, which is also widespread among modern Mongolians (Table S6, Fig. S3)

They say, "which is also widespread among modern Mongolians," pay attention to the word "also."

Using late medieval Mongols. Take out the Mongols from the mid-later Mongol empire datws and suddenly the Mongols aren't West Eurasian.

What you do not get or do not want to get is that what is now Mongolia was largely a Turkic territory during the Early Medieval times, not Mongolic, and all but one of the tested Early Medieval genomes from what is now Mongolia from Jeong et al. 2020 are from mortuary contexts associated with the Turkic Türk and Uyghur khanates and one of them is from an unclassified mortuary context:

Although our sample representation for the Early Medieval period is uneven, consisting of one unclassified individual dating to the Xianbei or Rouran period (TUK001), 8 individuals from Türkic mortuary contexts, and 13 individuals from Uyghur cemeteries, it is clear that these individuals have genetic profiles that differ from the preceding Xiongnu period, suggesting new sources of gene flow into Mongolia at this time that displace them along PC3 (Fig. 2).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wR2FBmxjOEDFzMqBWhWZGKj71ass9gz_/view?usp=sharing

Now let's look at all the Mongolic Khitan and Mongol proper ancient genomes from Jeong et al. 2020:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WXplqPeQAlkVYS_zJPvSt65IcDLpVhFa/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16udDckbp3WMPHxdA1l4xrFDTAlpywRft/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vePr-hjI5bpmbR9gT-Q3Xg8hyI9Jjr07/view?usp=sharing

Compare them with modern Mongol results:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ixn1yR-Ops_P4AnDyrshH6PRcZV9j1s9/view?usp=sharing

As you see, modern Mongols are more homogenized in genetics, but they are not that different genetically from their Late Medieval Khitan and Mongol ancestors.

Now compare them with the Early Medieval Turkic genomes from Jeong et al. 2020:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DjoOdUhAgylkIBm1lqcUkpXoosX_QU6F/view?usp=sharing

At least among these you can find some individuals who would likely be classified as Turanid rather than Mongoloid.

P.S. a sample isn't the same thing as a genome. Jeong 2020 doesn't contain an early Medieval mongol genome. Learn what a genome is.

All these things I am sharing are genome results. Based on your statement about genomes and samples, you are obviously ignorant about genetics stuff. I am doing MS in a genetics-related field and know well what I am talking about.

Wrong again. That is for Mongol empire era Mongolians. I already said Mongol empire era Mongolians were majority East Asian. We are talking about early Mongol empire individuals here, who weren't majority East Asian and weren't like modern Mongols in uniparental ancestry or phenotype, on average.

I have already explained to you making quotations from Jeong et al. 2020 that all those Early Medieval genomes are from Turkic contexts, not Mongolic.

None of tbe research I posted is outdated; all of it is post-2015.

Genome-wide research on East Eurasian ancient DNA was very limited before 2020. No wonder that I have used 2020 papers in my refutations of your arguments.

Onur Dincer said...

continues...

Also, the historical "data" is not debatable. Many of the prominent Mongol groups in history (Shiwei, Xianbei, Uriangkhai, Borjigin) were all described by numerous historical sources as having traits that only exist in Europid populations. This isn't happening in history for no good reason; they can't be repeatedly described by themselves and different authors as having European pigmentation for no reason. A majority East Asian genome won't allow that.

I have already posted a lot of Late Medieval Mongol genome results and demonstrated how autosomally largely East Eurasian and modern Mongol-like they were, so Borjigins were most probably so too. I did the same for Xianbei too but will do it again for people who did not read my previous posts:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WgnROoPi7kR5RG5Mpz9qS0T5zehZWBvI/view?usp=sharing

Xianbei in fact seem to be more East Eurasian in ancestry than modern Mongols, not less, as their Y-DNA also indicate. Not aware of any Shiwei or Uriankhai ancient genome results, but do not expect surprises there either.

Arza said...

@ ambron

https://slavicorigins.blogspot.com/

SKRiBHa said...

Hello there.

I have looked at the ‘Supplementary Materials’ attached to this paper. I noted that there is additional data related to YDNA of these 111, or 117, samples.

Particularly, the file "abe4414_Data_file_S1.xlsx" contains very interesting data.

It can be observed that the Scythians and Sarmatians were very mixed peoples, see the haplogroups:

Q1a (Q-M1155, Q-L472), Q1a1 (Q-F1215, Q-F1096), Q1a2a (Q-L475; Q-L53), Q1a1a1 (Q-M265, Q-M120), Q1a1b1a (Q-L713), Q1a2a1 (Q-L54), Q1a2a1c (Q-L334; Q-L330), Q1b1b1 (Q-FGC4872, Q-Y2990),
E1b1b1a1b1a (E-V13), E1b1b1b2a (E-M123),
CT (CT-M5812, CT-M168), CT (CT-M5603, CT-M168),
CF (CF-M3690,CF-P143),
J (J-CTS852, J-M304), J2a (J-L212, J-M410), J2a1h2 (J-L25),
C2b (C-L1373), C2b1c (C-F1918),
D1b2a (D-Z17175; D-CTS220),
L (L-PF5747, L-M20), L1a2 (L-M357),
NO (NO-F549, NO-M2313),
N1c1(N-L395, N-M46), N1c1a (N-P298, N-M178), N1c1a1a (N-L392), N1c1a1a2 (N-CTS10082, N-Z1936),
F (F-P14, F-M89),
G (G-M3544, G-M201),
P1 (P-P243, P-M45),
BT (BT-M9267, BT-M42), BT (BT-Z12003, BT-M42),

However, I paid special attention to the diversity of the samples of the R haplogroup presented there, see:

R1 (R-P225, R-M173), R1 (R-P238, R-M173)

R1b1a2 (R-PF6475, R-M269)

R1a (R-L62, R-M420),
R1a (R-L63, R-M420),
R1a1a (R-M512),
R1a1a (R-M198, R-M512), R1a1a (R-L449, R-M512)
R1a1a1 (R-M417),
R1a1a1b (R-Z645),
R1a1a1b (R-Z647, R-Z645),
R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93),
R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94)


Both the so-called ‘European’ and ‘Asian’ R1a was present among the Scythian and Sarmatian peoples.

Questions:

1.
Were the ancestors of male Scythians also R1a men from Europe, e.g. from CWC, or were they only people from Siberia, e.g. descendants of Locomotiv, etc.?

2.
Does the lack of ‘Asian’ R1a subclades among the present population of Poland prove the lack of contact between the ancestors of the present Poles and the Scythians and Sarmatians?

I will be very grateful for your opinions.

Best regards
SKRiBHa

Davidski said...

There's no R1a in Locomotiv. Those samples are either contaminated or wrongly dated.

R1a didn't exist in Asia until it was brought there by migrants from Europe during the Bronze Age.

And Poles don't have any Scythian or Sarmatian ancestry, that's why there are no Asian, or rather so called Asian, R1a subclades in Poland except in rare cases among people who have non-Polish ancestry, like from a Tatar or Jewish male ancestor.

vAsiSTha said...

"R1a didn't exist in Asia until it was brought there by migrants from Europe during the Bronze Age."


Davidski knows this because of the millions of aDna male samples from the regions of interest in Asia.

ambron said...

Arza, thanks! I've already checked in there as you probably noticed.

SKRiBHa said...

Davidski, thank you very much for your kind reply.

With reference to it, I have, however, the following questions:

1.
On what basis do you claim that: ‘There's no R1a in Locomotiv. Those samples are either contaminated or wrongly dated. R1a didn't exist in Asia until it was brought there by migrants from Europe during the Bronze Age.’?

2.
Has I1819 Vasilevka Ukraine still been the oldest R1a, or is it now this PES001 Russia, see below?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23436-New-Kazakh-samples&p=765544&viewfull=1#post765544

(...)
1. PES001 Russia 10785-10626 BC M459 YP1272 YP1301
2. I1819 Vasilevka Ukraine 8825-8561 BC M459
3. I5876 Dereivka Ukraine 7040-6703 BC M420 YP4141>pre-YP5018

4. I0061 Karelia Russia 6800-5950 BC M459
5. I0433 Khvalynsk Russia 5200-4000BC M459
6. MA975 Estonia 3653-3376 BC M459 M459 YP1272
7. Sites Serteya VIII and II
A3 Site Serteya VIII boundary of V-IV mill. BC [Likely M459]
A8 and A9 Site Naumovo Site Serteya II middle of III mill. BC

The I6561 sample in Sredny Stog II Alexandria, Ukraine is M417 Z94 Y26.

I0432 Poltavka Outlier (Potapovka 1) from Samara Bend, Russia, 2925-2536 BC is Z93 Z94 Z2124 Z2121
(…)

2a.
Do you have a better list of the oldest R1a samples than the aforementioned one?

You once claimed that the sample I6561 Sredny Stog II Alexandria Ukraine was also wrongly classified and should be Z93. Currently, it is classified as such.

3.
So where did the ‘European’ R1a come from in CWC, if it could not come from I6561 Sredny Stog II Alexandria Ukraine?

4.
Are the "Asian / Aryan" R1a samples from Fatianovo, Sintashta, etc., from the "European" R1a from I5876 Dereivka Ukraine, or rather directly from I6561 Sredny Stog II Alexandria Ukraine?

5.
So where did the 'European' R1a, which I mentioned earlier, among the Scythians and Sarmatians come from?

5.
What is the oldest fossil R1a found west of the Bug River?

In your answer you also stated that:

(…) And Poles don't have any Scythian or Sarmatian ancestry, that's why there are no Asian, or rather so called Asian, R1a subclades in Poland except in rare cases among people who have non-Polish ancestry, like from a Tatar or Jewish male ancestor. (…)

6.
Does this mean that Długosz, Kromer, etc., were fantasists and fairy-tale writers, and the so-called sarmatism itself and all similar claims about the alleged origin of the Polish nobility, or even all Poles from the Scythians and Sarmatians, have only been lies and propaganda?

7.
And what about Piasts’ R1b, can it not however come from that Scythian-Sarmatian R1b1a2 (R-PF6475, R-M269) mentioned in this paper?

Best regards
SKRiBHa

vAsiSTha said...

SKRIbha

"The I6561 sample in Sredny Stog II Alexandria, Ukraine is M417 Z94 Y26."

This is incorrect. This sample is definitely not Y26+ because the other call at this level is negative. The Y26+ is a false +ve due to C>T deamination in aDna. There are no markers present for Z94 level so we dont know. So at best we can say this is Z93+.

In any case this sample is now marked as QUESTIONABLE (damage.ds.half=0.028) by Reich lab.



Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

1. There's no R1a older than the Bronze Age anywhere in Asia in samples that are properly dated and sequenced with next generation technologies, and I don't think there ever will be.

2. PES001 is the oldest R1a on record right now.

2a. I6561 does belong to Z93, but it was wrongly dated. Its real date is around 1600 BCE.

3. CWC R1a comes from somewhere on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

4. The so called Asian R1a, which is Z93, is from the part of the CWC that Fatyanovo came from, wherever that was, maybe the eastern Carpathian region.

5. The R1a in Scythians is from the CWC.

6. Poles don't derive from Sarmatians, and don't even have any significant ancestry from them or similar populations.

7. I don't have a clue about the Piast R1b.

Ganesh Atan said...

Wrong again. That is for Mongol empire era Mongolians. I already said Mongol empire era Mongolians were majority East Asian. We are talking about early Mongol empire individuals here

Mongol empire only started to exists from 12-13th centuries onward i.e. late medieval period. Early med Mongolia was held by GokTurks and they were deefeated by Tang and then the area passed to Uighurs which lasted until mid-9th century. Mongols start to live in Mongolia only from mid-late medieval period.

Rob said...

@ Vasistha
I actually agree with you
IAMC seems to be very important

Kouros said...

@Rob and Vashishte would you kindly run qpadm on Alai Nura 009, KNT002, KNT005, Merci

vAsiSTha said...

@kouros trying

@vahaduo will it be possible in future to draw line segments between samples on the 3D pca plot? that will be immensely helpful

vAsiSTha said...

@Kouros

left pops:
KNT005.out
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 25.7 +- 2.8
Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA 57.6 +- 3.4
Irula.DG 16.7 +- 2.4
pvalue 0.82
Result https://pastebin.com/ywvZuyCm

or

left pops:
KNT005.out
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 20
Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA 40
Pakistan_Udegram_IA 40
pvalue 0.08
https://pastebin.com/saZFLD2h

left pops:
ALN009.A0101
Kazakhstan_LBA_Molaly 51.3 +- 8.4
Turkmenistan_IA.SG 48.7 +- 8.4
p-value 0.1577
https://pastebin.com/jZzwxZm4

or

Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA 38
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 47
Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6 15
pvalue 0.10
https://pastebin.com/gfUxkqaH

left pops:
KNT002.A0101
Kazakhstan_LBA_Molaly 39.5 +- 7.4
Turkmenistan_IA.SG 60.5 +- 7.4
pvalue 0.063
https://pastebin.com/jzBDb4pi

only model above 0.05 for knt002

Rob said...

@ Kouros
I havent merged the dataset yet, might do soon.
But here is a solid model for Kang'ju


Kazakhstan_Kangju
Uzbekistan_Kashkarchi_BA
Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Uzbekistan_Dzharkutan_BA_3

best coefficients: 0.849 0.114 0.037
std. errors: 0.087 0.033 0.088
chisq tail prob
2.047 0.915299

Rob said...

@ copper axe

''Unless if I'm mistaken the regular Western Liao_BA samples are actually those of the Lower Xiajiadan culture as well as UXJD period samples with genetic continuity to the former.''



I will eventually look at it in greater detail, but from
https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-13-216

''Because the farming LXC was replaced by the nomadic UXC and no transitional type has yet been found, it had been suggested that there might have been large-scale immigration or even population replacement by northern Asian nomads [23]. Y chromosome data show immigration components from both northern steppe tribes and farmers from the Yellow River valley. However, because all original LXC lineages in this investigation were retained in the UXC gene pool, we tend to believe that while immigrant nomads from the north played an important part in the cultural transitions in this region, they probably did not replace the preceding populations in the West Liao River valley. Instead, the cultural transitions were more likely the result of adaptations to a new lifestyle caused by climate change''

Kouros said...

@Vasishta , Rob Merci

Vasishta can you substitute InPe for Irula, it unlikely Centrale Asian agriculturalists mix with remote modern tribal population

SKRiBHa said...

Davidski, again thank you very much for your kind reply.

(…) I6561 does belong to Z93, but it was wrongly dated. Its real date is around 1600 BCE. (…)

1.
If R1a Z93 from I6561 Alexandria was so badly sampled and dated, did it come from I0432 Poltavka Outlier R1a Z93, or from this CWC R1a Z93, which went to Fatianovo and further to Sintashta, etc?

By the way, according to the map below, CWC R1a Z93 went straight through the Pripyat marshes while going to Moscow / Fatianovo.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/4/eabd6535
Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain
Lehti Saag

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/7/4/eabd6535/F1.large.jpg

2.
Did CWC R1a Z93 leave any genetic trace on the Pripyat River area?

2a.
Did CWC R1a Z93 drown in the Pripyat swamps and that is why it is not visible among the Slavs, especially Poles, see the allo-allo claims regarding the so-called homeland of the Proto-Slavs?

(…) CWC R1a comes from somewhere on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. (…)

3.
Does the 'European' CWC R1a derive from I5876 Dereivka Ukraine, or rather from I0061 Karelia Russia?

(…) The R1a in Scythians is from the CWC. (…)

4.
Are these ‘Scythian / Sarmatian’ subclades visible in CWC:

R1a (R-L62, R-M420), R1a (R-L63, R-M420),
R1a1a (R-M512), R1a1a (R-M198, R-M512), R1a1a (R-L449, R-M512)
R1a1a1 (R-M417),
R1a1a1b (R-Z645), R1a1a1b (R-Z647, R-Z645),

because the 'European' R1a is neither visible in Fatianovo nor in Sintashta?!

4a.
Are you sure that the entire 'European' R1a visible in the Scythian / Sarmatian samples comes from the 'European' CWC R1a, and not, for example, from the descendants of I0061 Karelia Russia, which the Fatianovans took with them from Moscow when they then went further east to the Ural?

4b.
What about these haplogroups: R1 (R-P225, R-M173), R1 (R-P238, R-M173), and R1b1a2 (R-PF6475, R-M269)? Where did they come from to the Scythians / Sarmatians?

(…) Poles don't derive from Sarmatians, and don't even have any significant ancestry from them or similar populations. (…)

5.
Ok, what about this 'European' R1a visible in the Scythians and Sarmatians? Could it not have later returned with them via the steppe to the west, also to Pripyat and further to the Vistula and Oder?

After all, it is officially claimed that alleged Iranian / Scythian / Sarmatian language borrowings are allegedly found in Slavic languages, so something is fishy and not adding up here!

Haplogroup G (G-M3544, G-M201) occurs among these Scythian-Sarmatian samples.

5a.
Are the Ossetians the descendants of the Sarmatian Alans or only east-iranised Kartvelians?

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/ossetians.html

(…) Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups among North Ossetians in the "Ossetian DNA Project" include C3b2b1, E1b1b1a1b1a, G2a1a1a, G2a1a1a1b1, G2a1a1a1b1a, G2a1a1a1b1a2, I2c, J1a3a, J2a*, J2a1b, Q1a1b1a, R1b1a2a1a, R1b1a2a2c1, T1a, and more. South Ossetians in the project have haplogroups including G2a1a1a1a, G2a1a1a1b1, J2a1b, L1b, and R1b1a2a2c1. (…)

(…) I don't have a clue about the Piast R1b. (…)

Really?! There you have got all relevant and available data:

https://www.genealogiagenetyczna.com/2017/04/znamy-pierwsze-wyniki-dna-piastow.html
https://www.genealogiagenetyczna.com/2017/02/dna-piastow-na-tropie-potomkow.html
https://en-gb.facebook.com/PiastDNA/
https://scienceinpoland.pap.pl/en/news/news%2C80495%2Cdna-research-shed-light-piast-dynasty-history.html
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/piastdynasty/about/background

If you know Figlerowicz and others, you can ask them about it. Maybe they will tell you something more because it looks like they have not done anything about it for several years...

5.
Is R1a from Eulau Germany the oldest R1a found west of the Bug Rivers?

https://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226
Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age
Wolfgang Haak

vAsiSTha said...

@kouros

I don't like using IndusPeriphery as a label because they don't cluster together and have a wide range of aasi % in them. So as such any model using that is suspect.

But I'll try something else and let you know.

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

1. I6561 is probably derived from the Abashevo population, which in turn came from the CWC. And you shouldn't take these maps too literally, especially in regards to places that haven't been sampled yet.

2. Nothing significant.

2a. Fatyanovo was rich in Z93 because of a rapid founder effect, which may have happened during its migration north, so there's no need to posit that anyone drowned, but rather that they left the area, and eventually most of their descendants left for Asia.

3. Like I said, the CWC R1a is from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

4. These aren't specifically Scythian/Sarmatian subclades, but rather very broad subclades due to missing data, and obviously these broad subclades are found in CWC too, because CWC is ancestral to the R1a in Scythians and Sarmatians.

4a. Neither Scythians nor Fatyanovo have anything to do with Karelian hunter-gatherers. The Karelian R1a is probably extinct, or at least extremely rare today. Most R1a in the world belongs to the M417 subclade, which expanded with the CWC.

4b. You need to differentiate useful subclades from poor classifications due to missing data, because obviously something like R1 (R-P225, R-M173) is the latter.

5. I'm not aware of any specific Scythian or Sarmatian Y-DNA subclades or their autosomal DNA being found in Poles. Just saying that there's some "European" R1a or G2 in Scythians/Sarmatians doesn't mean anything. What you need to do is establish that a specific lineage or lineages had real impact on the modern population, and we're not seeing that in the case of Poles.

5a. Ossetians are mixed, with some Iranic ancestry from the steppes, but they're mostly of local Caucasian stock. And I don't have much interest in the Piast R1b.

5b. Most CWC C14 dates west of the Bug overlap significantly, so it's impossible to say which sample is really the oldest.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski “ 4a. Neither Scythians nor Fatyanovo have anything to do with Karelian hunter-gatherers. The Karelian R1a is probably extinct, or at least extremely rare today. Most R1a in the world belongs to the M417 subclade, which expanded with the CWC.”

The origins of R1a1 fascinate me. It literally sprung out of the blue and exploded with CWC.

But I can’t wait for more extensive Anatolian and Armenian MLBA excavations to exhume lots of WSH-rich folks, thus putting to rest the Anything-But-Steppe conspiracy theories by way of the final nail in the coffin.

vAsiSTha said...

We know for certain that Buddhism spread to tarim basin from Indian subcontinent (Taxila in Pakistan). What are the paternal or autosomal indicators in the samples there or on the iamc path which show this?

So far nothing much apart from few outliers with excess aasi ancestry. The reason is also quite clear to me.

Andrzejewski said...

@VasisTha “ What are the paternal or autosomal indicators in the samples there or on the iamc path which show this?”

That’s easy! Tocharians/Wusun/Saka/Scythians/Yuezhi etc mercenaries or traders carrying R1a1 and bearing a clear European genotype and phenotype according to Chinese writers.

vAsiSTha said...

@kouros

left pops:
KNT005.out
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 25
Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA 45
Swat_lowsteppe 30
p-value 0.335
https://pastebin.com/2T3GiDmp

Swat_lowsteppe is a cluster of samples found in Swat_IA which has least steppe ancestry of all the IA samples. This cluster is closest to the original population of Swat before steppe and bmac ancestry came in. These samples are I6888, I12981, I12470, I12446, I12460, I5399 (identified from G25 3d pca plot on vahaduo)

vahaduo said...

@vAsiSTha
will it be possible in future to draw line segments between samples on the 3D pca plot? that will be immensely helpful

I will add this feature within a few days if I don't encounter any bugs in Plotly.

vAsiSTha said...

"That’s easy! Tocharians/Wusun/Saka/Scythians/Yuezhi etc mercenaries or traders carrying R1a1 and bearing a clear European genotype and phenotype according to Chinese writers."
So then there is spread of culture from south asia to china without any visible marks in genes. Tells you something doesn't it? That's the 4th largest religion as of today.

vAsiSTha said...

@vahaduo

Thank you. Much appreciated. Thanks for the great work

Kouros said...

@Vashishta , merci, this individuel origins seem from Helmand Basin, I tried Swat it prefer InPe sample SIS 1459, SIS 1456

Target: KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity:KNT005
Distance: 1.6475% / 0.01647508
47.8 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA
30.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
22.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2

Target: KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity:ALN009
Distance: 1.9441% / 0.01944120 | R3P
46.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
35.2 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA
18.2 RUS_Okunevo_BA

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) I6561 is probably derived from the Abashevo population, which in turn came from the CWC. And you shouldn't take these maps too literally, especially in regards to places that haven't been sampled yet. (...)

You have written at least two articles about I6561 Alexandria:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/was-ukraineeneolithic-i6561-proto-indo.html
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-swarm-of-locusts.html

1.
How did you understand that I6561 Alexandria is not 'the oldest recorded individual belonging to Y-haplogroup R1a-M417', but is much younger and Z93 as well, so it can not be paternal to the 'European' and 'Asian' CWC R1a?

(…) Like I said, the CWC R1a is from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. (...)

2.
Any R1a has not yet been found in Yamna so far, so where did it hide?

2a.
Can you name any sample that fits as paternal to the 'European' and ‘Asian’ CWC R1a?

(…) These aren't specifically Scythian/Sarmatian subclades, but rather very broad subclades due to missing data, and obviously these broad subclades are found in CWC too, because CWC is ancestral to the R1a in Scythians and Sarmatians. (...)

3.
I do not understand how, when and where, then, in the Scythians and Sarmatians, this 'European' CWC R1a came from, since it was not present in Fatianovo, Sintashta, and so on?

Regards
SKRiBHa

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

1. I6561 was recently dated to the Middle Bronze Age by Harvard, because it didn't fit its earlier Eneolithic date due to its Sintashta-like genetic structure and high haplotype sharing with Sintashta, Srubnaya and other Late Bronze Age individuals. You can find details about this issue at the David Reich Lab and by getting in touch the scientists there.

2. You have to understand that almost all of the R1a in the world today is R1a-M417~, which didn't exist until the Eneolithic and was very rare until the CWC expansion. The fact that the earliest CWC males belong to R1a-M417 and are basically identical to Yamnaya in terms of autosomal DNA means that R1a-M417 came form the steppe, but because it was so rare before the CWC expansion, it might never be found on the steppe before the CWC.

2a. No I can't. There are still very few samples from the Eneolithic steppe, so R1a-M417 might turn up when we see more of such samples, or, as per above, it might never be found anywhere before the CWC.

3. Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta. But the term "European CWC R1a" is very broad and meaningless. You have to be more specific when trying to link modern populations with ancient populations, rather than using broad terms and just looking at basal lineages.

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) You have to understand that almost all of the R1a in the world today is R1a-M417~, which didn't exist until the Eneolithic and was very rare until the CWC expansion. The fact that the earliest CWC males belong to R1a-M417 and are basically identical to Yamnaya in terms of autosomal DNA means that R1a-M417 came form the steppe, but because it was so rare before the CWC expansion, it might never be found on the steppe before the CWC. (…)

As far as I know, no R1a has been found in Yamna / Yamnaya so far.

1.
Is R1a Z93 from CWC that mutated somewhere east of the Eastern Carpathian Bend area?

2.
What do you think that caused R1a-M417 CWC expansion?

As for the origin of the Scythians, two mutually exclusive conclusions one can be drawn from the available data that they descend simultaneously:

- from Srubnaya / Timber-grave culture < Catacomb culture and Poltavka culture < Yamna / Yamnaya,

- from Andronovo < Sintashta < Fatianovo < CWC < Yamna / Yamnaya.

In the first case R1a Z93 is visible only in I0432 Poltavka Outlier (Potapovka 1), while in the second it is visible everywhere except Yamna / Yamnaya.

3.
Which way of the formation of the Scythians is logicly consistent with genetics data?

The formation of the Sarmatians is a mystery, according to the different data.

3a.
How, when and where did the Sarmatians genetically form?

3b
Are there any visible differences in the genotypes of the Scythians and Sarmatians, or is it genetically the same population?

4.
Are those right, such as Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve, Reich, etc. who claim that the Yamna / Yamnaya, not CWC, was mainly and directly responsible for the formation of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and thus earlier the Aryans, etc?

5.
Was Afanasievo 'eastern Yamna / Yamnaya' not involved in the creation of the Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.?

(…) Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta. But the term "European CWC R1a" is very broad and meaningless. You have to be more specific when trying to link modern populations with ancient populations, rather than using broad terms and just looking at basal lineages. (…)

I understand that the simplest explanation for the existence of 'European' R1a among these Scythian and Sarmatian samples is the possibility that also the 'European' R1a subclades had been present in Fatianovo, Sintashta, Andronovo, etc., but they have not been simply detected yet.

As far as I know, the Scythians formed about 1000BCE in the area of the Altay. When they went west once and even reached the Vistula and the Oder, they did not return to Altay, see the later Sarmatian invasion. For this reason, this dubious Scythian homecoming could not be the real source of the 'European' R1a found in these samples.

.....

As the 'European' R1a, I consider the not Z93 R1a mentioned in this paper and quoted by me above.

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

1. Z93 is from the CWC, but I don't know where from exactly.

2. No one knows yet, but it was closely tied to the Proto-Indo-European expansions.

3. Scythians are ultimately from Fatyanovo and more directly from Sintashta-related groups, which is obvious because of the Z93 and horse links.

3a. Don't know, but it was due to the interactions between European and Asian groups on the steppe.

3b. They're very similar, but with regional differences within and between them.

4. Indo-Aryans and Scythians are ultimately derived from Fatyanovo, and thus from the CWC.

5. Afanasievo and Yamnaya are irrelevant to the Scythian ethnogenesis. The most relevant populations are Sintashta, Srubnaya and Andronovo, and also the CWC, because all of these groups descend from the CWC.

As the 'European' R1a, I consider the not Z93 R1a mentioned in this paper and quoted by me above.

That's too broad.

There are R1a-Z280 lineages that have been found in Srubnaya samples and in modern Central Asians.

So these aren't Z93 lineages, but they're not European, and many more of such lineages will be found in ancient steppe groups as more samples come in.

That's why I said that you have to be specific, and if you want to show that Poles have ancestry from Scythians and/or Sarmatians, then you have to prove this with very specific lineages that are found in Scythians and/or Sarmatians, and not just any lineage that isn't Z93+.

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

‘What do you think that caused R1a-M417 CWC expansion?’
(…) No one knows yet, but it was closely tied to the Proto-Indo-European expansions. (…)


1.
Ok. If R1a-M417 CWC expansion was closely tied to the Proto-Indo-European expansions, why did R1b Yamna / Yamnaya not do the same as CWC, but earlier?

Duke2 proves that R1b Yamna / Yamnaya had domesticated horses from Derievka. They did not just eat them like R1b Botai did but passed them to CWC.

1a.
Maybe Yamna / Yamnaya only absorbed both horses and Proto-PIE people from Derievka, but the language barrier prevented Yamna / Yamnaya from expanding north?

1b.
Maybe R1b Yamna / Yamnaya, Afanasievo, Botai, etc. did not speak PIE, see Kartwelian like speaking Basques, 100% R1b from the steppe?

1c.
Maybe it is about language of the CHG on the steppe, which appeared there, it is not known when, how and from where, but certainly not from Iran? Am I wrong about CHG?

(…) Scythians are ultimately from Fatyanovo and more directly from Sintashta-related groups, which is obvious because of the Z93 and horse links. (…)

People, horses, two-axle full-wheeled wagons from Bronocice and related PIE vocabulary came from CWC to Fatianovo and Sintashta. There, the Aryans removed one axle from the cart, and some wood from the wheels. That is how they created spoked wheels. They attached two horses to it and the chariot was made. Then they drove further south without interfering with anyone on the way, see Vedic Dasa, etc.

Then, some 1000 years later, the Scythians formed on Altay. As it can be seen from these samples, they mixed even with the G and N haplogroups, which were previously absent on the steppe. After moving out to the west, Scythians did not return to Altay, so they had to inherit the 'European' R1a earlier.

2.
Were the Sintashta Aryans more genetically homogeneous compared to the highly mixed Scythians, Sarmatians, etc?

2a.
Where did the R1b Aria from Kutuluk with the vajra come from?

https://archive.archaeology.org/0203/newsbriefs/cudgel.html

‘How, when and where did the Sarmatians genetically form?’
(…) Don't know, but it was due to the interactions between European and Asian groups on the steppe. (...)


3.
Is there any evidence that R1a Fatianovo and Sintashta were mixed up with the 'European and Asian groups', whether it happened in Andronovo, or only between the Scythians in Altay?

3a.
Was this mixing of 'European and Asian groups' responsible for the emergence of all Iranian languages, or did they arise somehow before that?

3b.
Were the Arians in Sintashta speaking rather like their ancestors in Fatianovo and CWC?

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) Afanasievo and Yamnaya are irrelevant to the Scythian ethnogenesis. The most relevant populations are Sintashta, Srubnaya and Andronovo, and also the CWC, because all of these groups descend from the CWC. (…)

4.
Why have Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve, Reich and similar scientists not combined R1a Indo-Aryans and Scythians with R1a CWC, but stubbornly have been connecting them with R1b Yamna / Yamnaya?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/figure/F3/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/
The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia
Vagheesh M. Narasimhan

(…) There are R1a-Z280 lineages that have been found in Srubnaya samples and in modern Central Asians. So these aren't Z93 lineages, but they're not European, and many more of such lineages will be found in ancient steppe groups as more samples come in. (…)

I did not know of any R1a-Z280 lineages that have been found in Srubnaya. This would indicate that Srubnay's ancestors came directly from the 'European' R1a CWC, or from the present R1a but not yet discovered in Fatianovo, Sintashta, etc.

Srubnaya allegedly comes from Timber-grave culture < Catacomb culture and Poltavka culture < Yamna / Yamnaya.

5.
Where did R1a Z93 in I0432 Poltavka Outlier (Potapovka 1) come from?

(…) That's why I said that you have to be specific, and if you want to show that Poles have ancestry from Scythians and/or Sarmatians, then you have to prove this with very specific lineages that are found in Scythians and/or Sarmatians, and not just any lineage that isn't Z93+. (…)

I am not going to prove something that has never been there. The lack of this affinity can be seen, for example, in the genetic research of the Polish nobility, published in 2015.

https://youtu.be/aqOSGnjjpR0
Pochodzenie, pokrewieństwo i etnogeneza polskiego rycerstwa w świetle badań DNA
Referat wygłoszony przez dr Łukasza Lubicz - Łapińskiego podczas obchodów jubileuszu 20-lecia Związku Szlachty Polskiej dn. 24 października 2015 roku w Warszawie.

However, I do not exclude the Sarmatian / Khazarian origin of the Piasts. This could explain the similarities between Polish legends and the so-called 'Kejland mythology', or possibly alleged Iranian or Turkish borrowings, in Polish, see:

https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/52176
Spór nad genezą zachodniosłowiańskich państwowości w świetle mitologii kejanidzkiej i Aleksandriady / The controversy about the origin of West Slavic statehood, with relation to Kejland mythology and Aleksandreida

https://ksiegarniainternetowa.co.uk/en/od_ariow_do_sarmatow_nieznane_2500_lat_historii_po-9788376382425
Od Ariów do Sarmatów Nieznane 2500 lat historii Polaków
Piotr Makuch

Andrzejewski said...

@Skribha “ However, I do not exclude the Sarmatian / Khazarian origin of the Piasts. This could explain the similarities between Polish legends and the so-called 'Kejland mythology', or possibly alleged Iranian or Turkish borrowings, in Polish, see:”

I give more credence to the theory that POLISH JEWS are Khazarians than to average Poles/Szlachta being so.

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

1. Yamnaya may have been ancestral to the CWC. After all, early CWC is practically identical to Yamnaya. Maybe one day someone will find R1a-M417 in Yamnaya.

And your understanding of what Duke2 represents appears to be outdated. Duke2 has significant Iberian ancestry, while Sintashta horses lack this sort of admixture, and the Sintashta horse is the earliest example of the modern domesticated lineage. So Duke2 is a dead end, and has nothing to do with the CWC.

1a. Not sure why this sort of speculation is even needed.

1b. If Yamnaya was ancestral to the CWC, then it was definitely Indo-European.

1c. My latest views about the so called CHG ancestry in Yamnaya and the Indo-European problem are here...

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html

2. Yes, the Sintashta population and all closely related populations were very homogeneous, apart from clear outliers who didn't have any noticeable impact on the main Sintashta cluster.

2a. The link between the cudgel and India seems highly speculative to me.

3. I don't understand the question. Obviously, Fatyanovo and Sintashta didn't have any Asian admixture, unless you mean their Anatolian farmer ancestry.

3a. Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Iranian existed during the Sintashta era and well before the Scythians and Sarmatians.

3b. I don't understand the question.

4. Ask them.

Srubnaya is basically identical to Sintashta and Fatyanovo, so it's a CWC derivative, obviously.

5. From Fatyanovo.

SKRiBHa said...

@Andrzejewski

(...) I give more credence to the theory that POLISH JEWS are Khazarians than to average Poles/Szlachta being so. (...)

Many thanks for your comment but I have mentioned Piasts only, see:

'However, I do not exclude the Sarmatian / Khazarian origin of the Piasts. This could explain the similarities between Polish legends and the so-called 'Kejland mythology', or possibly alleged Iranian or Turkish borrowings in Polish.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polans_(eastern)

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) Yamnaya may have been ancestral to the CWC. After all, early CWC is practically identical to Yamnaya. Maybe one day someone will find R1a-M417 in Yamnaya. (...)

As you have stated above, Yamna / Yamnaya may have been ancestral to the CWC,.. or maybe not at all. The facts are that no R1a but only R1b-L23 and I2 have been so far found in the Yamna / Yamnaya kurgans / tumuli. Here you can find other point of view of this problem, see:

https://rokus01.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/why_yamnaya_didnt_contribute/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0390.2017.12184.x
THE STEPPE HYPOTHESIS OF INDO‐EUROPEAN ORIGINS REMAINS TO BE PROVEN
Leo S. Klejn
First published: 09 January 2018

(…) And your understanding of what Duke2 represents appears to be outdated. Duke2 has significant Iberian ancestry, while Sintashta horses lack this sort of admixture, and the Sintashta horse is the earliest example of the modern domesticated lineage. So Duke2 is a dead end, and has nothing to do with the CWC. (…)

I have never claimed that Duke2 had anything to do with CWC. I stated that ‘Duke2 proves that R1b Yamna / Yamnaya had domesticated horses from Derievka. They did not just eat them like R1b Botai did, but passed them to CWC.’

Ok, I should have finished that conclusion as follows: ‘to CWC, Bell Beakers, and others as well’. I hope it is more precise now.

The fact is that R1b Botai ate their horses that were ancestors of Przewalski's horses only, and Yamna / Yamnaya (after Derievka / Sredny Stog) passed them further on to CWC, Bell Beakers, etc.

(…) Not sure why this sort of speculation is even needed. (…)

Well, R1b and horses were both in Yamna / Yamnaya and Botai, but I do not know anyone who claims that the Botai people were PIE because of that. The wagons / carts were used in the TRB (Bronocice), and wheels were used in Ljubljana, so they also do not have to be a determinant of the PIE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronocice_pot
https://slovenia.si/art-and-cultural-heritage/worlds-oldest-wheel-found-in-slovenia/

(…) If Yamnaya was ancestral to the CWC, then it was definitely Indo-European. (…)

Well, Sredny Stog culture ca. 4000–3500 BC had first, corded ware pottery, stone battle-axes of the type later associated with expanding Indo-European cultures to the West, horse domestication, EEF ancestry, lactase persistence 13910 allele, etc. And only then the Yamna / Yamnaya came from the east...

Let’s suppose that it was the case and R1b Yamna / Yamnaya was indeed a PIE, and not just an aggressive horde of another R1b Botai that attacked the few and peaceful PIE of Sredny Stog culture.

If it were otherwise, the R1b Yamna / Yamnaya language would be ‘elite dominance’ one and it did not have to be PIE after all... R1b Yamna / Yamnaya could take Sredny Stog culture toys and still talk in their own way, see Normans in England after 1066, etc.

(…) My latest views about the so called CHG ancestry in Yamnaya and the Indo-European problem are here… https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html (…)

As I can see there, the situation with the explanations of the CHG on the steppe looks the same as the CWC, Yamna / Yamnaya, PIE origins, which are not certain at all and only highly speculative. Am I wrong?

(…) Ask them. Srubnaya is basically identical to Sintashta and Fatyanovo, so it's a CWC derivative, obviously. (…)

Hahaha. I suspect why they have been doing this, and I understand why you do not want to comment on that. I will wait and I hope that the matter will resolve itself, as it happened with the claims of Hindutva or Kristiannsen, see below from 08:14...

https://youtu.be/a7HStd26qJE
Revolutions: The Age of Metal and the Evolution of European Civilization
32,388 views•Jul 22, 2013
SAR School for Advanced Research

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) Yes, the Sintashta population and all closely related populations were very homogeneous, apart from clear outliers who didn't have any noticeable impact on the main Sintashta cluster. (...)

1.
Exactly, then why in Fatianovo, or Balanovo, or Abashevo, or Sintashta, a new 'Proto-Aryan' / Proto-Indo-Iranian language would form from which all other Indo-Iranian languages come?

1a.
Where did all the other Indo-Iranian languages or their dialect continuum come from, if not from mixing with other peoples?

(…) The link between the cudgel and India seems highly speculative to me. (...)

2.
Why? What is wrong with R1b Aria of Kutuluk, Vajra and Vedas?

‘Is there any evidence that R1a Fatianovo and Sintashta were mixed up with the 'European and Asian groups', whether it happened in Andronovo, or only between the Scythians in Altay?’
(…) I don't understand the question. Obviously, Fatyanovo and Sintashta didn't have any Asian admixture, unless you mean their Anatolian farmer ancestry. (…)


I meant Siberia rather than Anatolia and haplogroups like N, Q, CT, etc.

(…) Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Iranian existed during the Sintashta era and well before the Scythians and Sarmatians. (...)

OK but my question was: ‘Was this mixing of 'European and Asian groups' responsible for the emergence of all Iranian languages, or did they arise somehow before that?’

‘Were the Arians in Sintashta speaking rather like their ancestors in Fatianovo and CWC?’
(…) I don't understand the question. (…)


3.
The same question as the above one, but reversed: Why, when and where did the descendants of those CWC who went to Fatianovo and further in search of copper in the Urals abandon the language of their ancestors if they did not mingle with anyone except Volosovo along the way?

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

The Klejn paper doesn't reflect reality. The author got the basics wrong and was obviously very confused.

Also, there's no evidence that Duk2 had anything to do with Yamnaya. It was probably a Bell Beaker horse being sold at a market far away from its home, which may have been Western Europe, even Iberia.

And my current view is that Yamnaya was actually derived from a Sredny Stog group in Ukraine near the Black Sea coast. That's based on preliminary, yet to be published, data that I've actually seen.

The reason I didn't comment on the point of view that you ascribed to Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve and Reich, is because I'm not sure that any of these people still believe what you say that they do.

But if at least some of them really do still believe that Scythians are derived from Yamnaya rather than the CWC, then that's hilarious and obviously population genetics is in a lot of trouble.

1. I don't understand your question. It should be obvious now that most surviving Indo-European families descend, one way or another, from the CWC.

1a. Again, I don't really understand the question. Obviously, mixing isn't necessary to produce new languages, and, in fact, mixing often results in heavy substrates or even creoles, and neither Indo-Iranian or Iranian are creoles or particularly substrate-heavy.

2. The most obvious Proto-Indo-Iranian marker is R1a-Z93. If R1b was present in the Proto-Indo-Iranian gene pool, then it was only a minor and substrate lineage. And it's extremely unlikely that Indo-Aryan was spoken during the Yamnaya period.

Also, obviously, Fatyanovo and the main Sintashta cluster don't have any Siberian ancestry.

3. You're not making any sense.

Proto-Indo-Iranian is the daughter language of late PIE, and it's very likely that late PIE was spoken in the CWC.

Btw, Fatyanovo didn't even mingle with Volosovo, at least not genetically.

Draft Dozen said...

@Copper Axe

"I bet they will be nearly identical to the Ashkenazi ^_^"
Y-Chromosome Haplogroup Diversity in Khazar Burials from Southern Russia
Sample mtDNA Y-DNA
67 D4e5 R1b mongoloid
457 C4 G2а2 mongoloid?
531 X2e R1a europoid
619 H1a3 Q mongoloid
656 C4a1 C3 europoid
1251 H5b R1a ?
1564 H13c1/H13c: C3
1566 D4b1a1a N1a1 ?
1986 C4a1c R1a mongoloid/europoid