search this blog

Monday, April 26, 2021

Uralians of the Sargat horizon


Many years ago, well before the start of the ancient DNA revolution, someone made the very clever inference that the N-Tat Y-chromosome marker was closely associated with the expansion of Uralic languages.

Since then, N-Tat has been renamed several times over, to the point that I no longer know what it's called, but the aforementioned inference has turned into a very solid consensus backed up by a wide range of studies focusing on modern and ancient DNA.

Nowadays, Y-haplogroup N-L1026, a subclade of N-Tat, is seen as the main genetic signal of the Uralic expansions, along, of course, with Nganasan-related genome-wide genetic ancestry.

A recent paper at Science Advances by Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. featured the first ever genome-wide samples from the Sargat horizon, which is an Iron Age archeological formation in western Siberia normally associated with the Ugric branch of the Uralic language family. Surprisingly, and disappointingly, the authors failed to investigate this widely accepted connection.

If we go by the Y-haplogroup classifications in the paper, which may or may not be the smart thing to do, at least two of the Sargat horizon males belong to N-L1026, and one also to the more derived N-Z1936 subclade, which has been found in the remains of Hungarian Conquerers from Medieval Hungary. Of course, Hungarian is an Ugric language generally thought to have been introduced into the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarian Conquerers who originally came from western Siberia.

That's probably enough to corroborate the association between the Sargat horizon and the spread of Ugric/Uralic languages, but let's also take a quick look at the autosomal DNA of these Sargat individuals. Firstly, here's a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), based on Global25 data and produced with the Vahaduo G25 Views online tool. The results are self-explanatory.


Interestingly, I can't get a decent statistical fit when I try to reproduce the four-way qpWave/qpAdm model done by Gnecchi-Ruscone et al., probably mostly because my right pops or outgroups are different. This suggests to me that there's something important missing in their model.

Sargat_IA
MNG_Khovsgol_LBA 0.203±0.045
RUS_Ekven_IA 0.183±0.044
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.545±0.014
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.068±0.013
chisq 16.805
tail prob 0.0186971
Full output

So how about if I replace RUS_Ekven_IA with kra001, the oldest Nganasan-like individual in the ancient DNA record (see here), and MNG_Khovsgol_LBA with KAZ_Mereke_MBA, to add a more local stream of ancestry?

Sargat_IA
KAZ_Mereke_MBA 0.135±0.017
kra001 0.301±0.007
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.499±0.023
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.066±0.015
chisq 8.872
tail prob 0.262001
Full output

That's a better statistical fit and also, I'd say, a more realistic model, at least in terms of distal ancestry proportions. Note that Nganasan-related ancestry makes up 30% of the genome-wide genetic structure of the Sargat samples, which again corroborates the view that Uralic languages were spoken within the Sargat horizon.

Update 28/04/21: This is the best qpAdm model that I could find for Sargat_IA, at least in terms of the chisq and tail prob. It shows that the Sargat population was in large part very similar to that of KAZ_Pazyryk_IA.

Sargat_IA
KAZ_Mereke_MBA 0.032±0.016
KAZ_Pazyryk_IA 0.698±0.016
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.236±0.021
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.034±0.014

chisq 2.023
tail prob 0.958561
Full output

It's missing kra001, because KAZ_Pazyryk_IA packs enough kra001-related ancestry for the job.

KAZ_Pazyryk_IA
KAZ_Mereke_MBA 0.144±0.018
kra001 0.429±0.008
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.378±0.026
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.049±0.018

chisq 8.899
tail prob 0.259983
Full output

The fact that KAZ_Pazyryk_IA can be modeled with significant kra001-related ancestry isn't surprising, considering that its territory was located in Siberia. However, my model doesn't necessarily prove that the Sargat population was largely or even partly of Pazyryk origin. Indeed, N-L1026 hasn't yet appeared in any Pazyryk remains.

See also...

The Uralic cline with kra001 - no projection this time

First taste of Early Medieval DNA from the Ural region

Hungarian Conquerors were rich in Y-haplogroup N

More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

It was always going to be this way

On the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

397 comments:

1 – 200 of 397   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

Sucked in Quiles.

Andrzejewski said...

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

From this article, it turns out that debunking the previous research pointing out to Southern Chinese pops as descending from Classical Era southbound migration of Northern Han and assimilating Austronesian and Austroasiatic tribes, the opposite is true? As in althe northerly migration of Yangtze River pops into the YR basin in the Neolithic, bringing Sc-Sec people to form the nucleus of Han?

Copper Axe said...

It would be interesting to see how much bronze age steppe_mlba they have versus iron age scythian horizon ancestry, because if they gave significant iron age steppe ancestry than it is probably an indication that their earlier Proto-Ugric ancestors had more Kra001 related ancestry than the Sargat. Because apparently Proto-Uralics being 75% steppe_mlba and 25% Kra001 like is something some peeps argue for.

Fwiw when using Khanty as a ref you get nearly 50/50 Khanty/Sarmatian.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Will you do individual samples?

Arza said...

It's worth noting that the fact that the autosomal profile of proto-Uralics was similar to Nganasans was predicted in the comments section of this blog as far back as 3.5 years ago:

https://i.postimg.cc/NjvGf8Rg/Uralic-Baltic-Slavic.png

Genos Historia said...

"Sucked in Quiles."
I need a translator for this...

UrbanDicitionary
"Mean spirited Australian (or at least Melbourne) schoolyard slang to express one's enjoyment over a friends misfortune or suffering"

Ok now I get it.

Genos Historia said...

What is Carlos Quiles' problem?

Is he a fan of the Indo-Uralic theory? So wants to make R1b M269 IE, R1a M417 Uralic to make it nice and simple for this theory? His content is interesting but his conclusions make you say whaat.

As much as I value open discussion, I think it is wise Davidski doesn't allow this nonsense to waste space on his blog.

Simon_W said...

"Sucked in Quiles."

Ha, that comment made me google him and visit his site for the first time. It's sad how he criticizes people who care about their ancestry. Of course it's a stupid thing to take pride in one's ancestry, I understand that, but I can't help.

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe “Because apparently Proto-Uralics being 75% steppe_mlba and 25% Kra001 like is something some peeps argue for.”

It may explain why Finns, Estonians and Sami/Lapps are 55% Indo-European autosomally.

Simon_W said...

Re: my comment, also I would add that it's not just about pride, it's about identity. Some people feel free enough to define their identity whatever way they want to. They don't give a shit about their ethnic origins. Others, like me, want to know their roots to better know themselves. Maybe that's no more useful than consulting an astrologer, but I enjoyed it anyway, and it's great to have Davidski's tools for that purpose, for which he deserves every $.

Unknown said...

@Davidski
"view that Uralic languages were spoken within the Sargat horizon."
@Copper Axe “Because apparently Proto-Uralics being 75% steppe_mlba and 25% Kra001 like is something some peeps argue for.”

Not Uralic, but Ugric.

The Sargat culture IA cannot belong to the Proto-Uralic.


Genos Historia said...

I assume KAZ_Mereke_MBA is mostly Western Siberia hunter gatherer. Someone please confirm this.

If so Sargart is made-up of the same stuff as modern Urgics in Western Siberia and as Urdmurts, Mari.

This is a highlight for me. Nganassan proto-Uralic, mixes with Western SIberian hunter gatherers and Andronovo.

This explains the origins of Uralic speakers in and around Ural mountains. This profile should go back to the Middle Bronze age.

Simon_W said...

@Genos Historia

"Mean spirited Australian (or at least Melbourne) schoolyard slang to express one's enjoyment over a friends misfortune or suffering"

Thanks, I was wondering the same. Google translate was of no help.

Onno Hovers said...

Playing with Sargat_IA in Vahaduo:

Target: Sargat_IA (G25 population averages, scaled)
Distance: 1.2672% / 0.01267228 | R5P
52.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
18.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
13.0 RUS_Baikal_EBA
9.4 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
7.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

The western ancestry in Sargat looks totally Indo-European. There is no weird surplus of Farmer or EHG like I see in modern East-Uralic populations. Sargat does have some extra Iranian ancestry. This is something that I don't see in any modern Uralic population. And there is Baikal ancestry, which I only see in Kets and Selkups. So I have some doubts about Sargat being ancestral to any modern Uralic population.

Unknown said...

@Genos Historia

"This profile should go back to the Middle Bronze age."

Why? The Sargat profile is very close to the Pazyryk culture where N is also present. They are very far from KAZ_Mereke_MBA. In general, their main components were Andronovo, Kra001 and Pazyryk.

Copper Axe said...

@Archi

Sorry mate but nowhere in my comment did I state that the Sargat were Proto-Uralic. I'm talking about people speculating that Proto-Uralic was spoken by people with 3x more steppe_mlba than East Siberian ancestry. I know who the Sargat were, and these genetic results we have from them really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who cared to pay attention.

@Genos Historia

Mereke is one of those samples like Kumsay, Steppe Maykop and 50% of Dali_EBA. Basically 50/50 WSHG and Progress_EN with a tiny amount of central asian farmer-ish ancestry.

You're forgetting that they have ancestry from the Altai-Sayan by virtue of these samples having ancestry from iron age steppe populations.

@Onno Hovers

They were ancestral to the Magyars.

Davidski said...

@Copper Axe

I'm talking about people speculating that Proto-Uralic was spoken by people with 3x more steppe_mlba than East Siberian ancestry.

You mean the small Finnish troll brigade on a couple of online forums?

If a paper comes out actually claiming that sort of thing, I'll have a lot of fun with it for the next 10 years.

Copper Axe said...

@Davidski

"You mean the small Finnish troll brigade on a couple of online forums?"

That group is still pondering on whether they should imagine Eastern European hunter-gatherers, West-Siberian hunter gatherers or Western steppe herders as their mythical linguistic forebearers I think. Everyone but poor old Kra001...

Davidski said...

@Norfern-Ostrobothnian

Will you do individual samples?

I'll post the results for all of the samples that have enough data in an update later today.

I can already see some interesting results, with some of the individuals showing no Gonur1_BA ancestry and noise levels of Mereke_MBA ancestry.

Davidski said...

It's also important to understand that kra001 is a garbage sequence.

So imagine if we actually had some decent samples from this sort of population, which was obviously at the root of the Uralic expansions.

Tigran said...

@copperaxe

Yea the FInngolians will have to get over it. Their linguistic ancestors were pretty much fully East Asian.

Anthony Hanken said...

Someone should really check the Y-SNP calls for sample N4b2. There is a possibility he is N-L1026*.

If thats the case, by 2400-2100BC N-L1026 had already spread across Siberia. Perhaps with an early offshoot of the Ymyakhtakh culture, which has been C14 dated to 3000BC.

Davidski said...

@Anthony Hanken

I had a look at the genome-wide DNA of the other samples from that Siberian paper, and they don't quite cluster with Nganasans, and in line with the Uralic cline, like kra001 does.

But it would be informative if that sample really was N-L1026*.

What do you know about the Ymyakhtakh culture? Which language family has it been associated with?

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski “What do you know about the Ymyakhtakh culture? Which language family has it been associated with?”

According to Wikipedia, they were either Yukaghir, Chukchi, Koriaks or even Paleo-Eskimo. All groups deriving from ANE/WSHG pops. Their origin from the vicinity of lake Baikal and habitation along the Yenissey may also corroborate links with Kett/Yenisseyan, another WSHG population.

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

Yukaghir, Chukchi, Koriak and Paleo-Eskimo populations are all largely East Asian, with no WSHG ancestry.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

Vajda gives this summary in the Flegontov Paleo-Eskimo paper supplement:

Table S10.2.
Hypothesized linguistic affiliations of Middle to Late Holocene cultural expansions in northeastern Asia

Syalakh Culture (6,500 to 5,200 calBP) involved the spread of Dene-Yeniseian languages across northeastern Asia and into Alaska by 5,000 calBP. The core Syalakh people were plausibly speakers of Proto-Dene-Yeniseian; however, the bearers of this widespread culture in its later stages, and especially of the Bel’kachi Culture (5,200 to 3,100 calBP) that succeeded it, plausibly spoke other languages. A single language family is unlikely to have held sway across such a vast region as northeastern Asia over thousands of years of hunter-gatherer prehistory.

Ymyakhtakh Culture (4,100 to 3,300 calBP), which developed on the basis of the Syalakh and Bel’kachi traditions, involved population movements that may have brought the language ancestral to the Eskimo-Aleut family across Bering Strait into the North American Arctic.

Tokarev Culture (3,800 to 1,400 calBP) on the shore of the Sea of Okhotsk is connected with speakers of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan family (Fortescue 2011).

Ust-Mil Culture (3,500 to 2,600 calBP) is connected with the spread of Yukaghiric
languages across northeastern Siberia.

Tungusic pastoral expansions in the past two millennia from a homeland near the Amur
river in Manchuria near the Khingan mountains (Pevnov 2012) erased most of the
former linguistic diversity in eastern Siberia, including any surviving Dene-Yeniseian daughter branches in this area.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

https://subarcticarchaeology.wordpress.com/

^ Scroll down to the bottom of this website for some nice maps of Siberian cultures across time. Might be helpful to gain your bearings and make more informed hypotheses. Also see the recent Starostin paper titled "Circumpolar peoples and their languages: lexical and genomic data suggest ancient Chukotko-Kamchatkan–Nivkh and Yukaghir-Samoyedic connections":

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.27.433193v1

It contains some explorations concerning potential connections betweeen Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Nivkh as well as Yukaghir and Samoyedic. The Yeniseian and Na Dene stuff is in there, too, of course.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Davidski

"What do you know about the Ymyakhtakh culture? Which language family has it been associated with?"

Basically what Michalis Moriopoulos said. It was formed via a population movement from Trans-Baikal to Yakutia, over the local Bel’kachi population.

As I mentioned, C14 datings have pushed the Ymyakhtakh culture back almost a thousand years earlier than previously thought.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251692367_RADIOCARBON_CHRONOLOGY_OF_NEOLITHIC_AND_BRONZE_AGE_CULTURES_IN_YAKUTIA

If the Ymyakhtakh population split <3000BC, could subsequent drift explain the difference between Ymyakhtakh-proper samples and kra001?

Alternatively, kra001 was the result of a slightly earlier (>3000BC) movment West, but from a none the less related population.

Davidski said...

@Anthony Hanken

The differences are very subtle, and very much in line with recent genetic drift, rather than with any big differences in deep ancestry proportions.

Based on my own experiments, I think Kra001 is overall more Uralic-related than the Ymyiakhtakh_LN, but not by much.

You can have a look at how they differ in this respect by pasting these G25 coords into the two PCA linked below.

RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA:kra001,0.034147,-0.421445,0.150471,-0.002907,-0.14495,-0.082273,0.019741,0.035998,0.02577,0.000364,0.083792,-3e-04,0.015758,-0.048994,-0.04343,-0.029833,0.000652,0.005574,0.004902,-0.012381,0.026453,0.003462,0.001725,0.00723,0.012813
RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN:Kamenka1,0.039838,-0.424491,0.133878,-0.00969,-0.141873,-0.076695,0.029846,0.033922,0.017998,0.00164,0.071126,-0.00015,0.001784,-0.032617,-0.031623,-0.026783,0.001173,0.010135,0.025265,0.005503,0.024207,-0.022752,0.006902,0.004699,0.01425
RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN:Kamenka3,0.030732,-0.42246,0.140666,-0.003553,-0.147412,-0.076695,0.020211,0.03046,0.027406,0.003098,0.06187,0.008093,0.003122,-0.034681,-0.033251,-0.020551,-0.00326,0.010388,0.017472,0.008004,0.024831,-0.027327,0.000123,0.013134,0.008622
RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN:N4b2,0.040976,-0.411289,0.137649,-0.001292,-0.132025,-0.07279,0.018096,0.036922,0.019225,0.005467,0.052614,0,0.004162,-0.029726,-0.024158,-0.012331,-0.004172,0.012289,0.017221,0.008754,0.012728,-0.016075,0.003451,0.001325,0.001557
RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN:yak021,0.034147,-0.416367,0.130107,0.001938,-0.145873,-0.071954,0.024441,0.02746,0.027815,0.003827,0.071938,0.001199,-0.001784,-0.032066,-0.028366,-0.017767,0.012256,0.014442,0.033184,0.002251,0.042425,-0.034746,0.009983,0.006507,0.018681

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia2

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia3

MH_82 said...

@ Dave: any strong feelings about F4 vs D-stats for deep affinities analysis, or they more or less equivalent ?

Erik Andersson said...

Going by Vahaduo, the Sargat individuals might have more than one kind of Siberian ancestry, which would have been in most steppe populations at the time anyway:

Target: Sargat_IA
Distance: 0.9882% / 0.00988239 | R5P
50.0 UKR_MBA
17.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
14.4 KAZ_Botai
11.6 RUS_Baikal_N
6.6 TKM_Parkhai_MBA

Target: Sargat_IA
Distance: 1.1579% / 0.01157886 | R4P
54.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
18.6 RUS_BZK002
18.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
8.4 UZB_Bustan_BA

Two-way model:

Target: Sargat_IA
Distance: 1.7923% / 0.01792275
82.8 RUS_Tagar
17.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

PCA: https://i.imgur.com/r9myRpM.png

They cluster between Udmurts and Bashkirs. They might not be ancestral to Ob-Ugrians, but could very well be to early Hungarians. Magna Hungaria is usually placed around Bashkortostan...

Target: Bashkir
Distance: 1.4166% / 0.01416582 | R3P
52.8 Sargat_IA
18.6 KAZ_Nomad_MA:DA124
15.0 KAZ_Nomad_MA:DA128
13.6 KAZ_Golden_Horde_Euro:DA29

Anthony Hanken said...

@Davidski

"The differences are very subtle, and very much in line with recent genetic drift, rather than with any big differences in deep ancestry proportions.

Based on my own experiments, I think Kra001 is overall more Uralic-related than the Ymyiakhtakh_LN, but not by much."

Got it, that makes sense.

IMO, kra001 (and Siberian ancestors of Uralics) have ancestry from a pre- (early?) Ymyakhtakh population, just NE of Baikal.

The N-L708* Trans-Baikal samples are less related, suggesting the Ymyakhtakh/kra001 component formed after they traveled North. Any other migration route West from Baikal is pretty much impossible.

The formation of Ymyakhtakh is dated to around 3000BC, so a group may have expanded West soon after. Subclades of N-L1026 ancestral to modern Uralics may have formed near the Altai/West Siberia, then spread with Seima-Turbino into Europe.

Parastais said...

Not sure about "Finnish trolls" on 4 parts Sintashta/Petrovka and 1 part Krasnoyarsk. It was likely me. Because I just observed how different Euro populations that scored some percent of Kras also scored 3-4 times more Petrovka. Whereas Lithuanians who scored zero Kras, did not pick up Petrovka either. Unlike, for example, Belarusians who scored both again.

So, given this it seemed likely to me that early West Uralic speakers indeed had sucked up quite a bit of Steppe from their '50 shades of Indo Iranian' neighbors.

In general somehow you gotta go from 100% Kras Uralic to 1% Kras in Estonian. In their way from Syberia to Baltics. That had to happen in steps.

Davidski said...

@All

Here are qpAdm models for each of the Sargat samples.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D54NQ32ihR_KrxiGKnnsqR1hDwOYqah0/view?usp=sharing

Can you see any patterns based on location, sex, Y-haplogroups, and so on?

Keep in mind, though, that some of these samples are low coverage and may have produced unusual results.

Davidski said...

@Rob

To me f4 and D-stats are the basically the same, with the same drawbacks.

Unknown said...

Sargat population was undoubtedly ancestral to the modern population of Bashkiria.

Davidski said...

@Parastais

Check out the difference between the dude with N-Z1936 and one of the females. And keep in mind that a large chunk of this Sintashta-related ancestry is recent Iranian admix from the Saka.

BIY009.A0101
KAZ_Mereke_MBA 0.170±0.039
kra001 0.323±0.016
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.432±0.053
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.075±0.036

chisq 12.552
tail prob 0.0837924

VOR001.A0101
kra001 0.276±0.026
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.724±0.026

chisq 6.150
tail prob 0.724839

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D54NQ32ihR_KrxiGKnnsqR1hDwOYqah0/view?usp=sharing

Andrzejewski said...

@Michalis Very interesting what you and Vajda wrote. Could you break it down for us genetically along the linguistic lines?

I infer from what you wrote that there was somewhat a subtle connection between speakers of Eskimo-Aleut and Na-Dene-Yenisseyan. Am I correct?

Where do Chukchi-Kamachadals-Nivkh fit in? You mentioned linguistic macro-families but I’m attempting to also connect dots when it comes to their ethnogenetic origins.

The Ainu were largely formed as an amalgamation of Okhotsk Culture and Jomon.

Terasov (Yukaghir) are considered by many linguists to be related to Uralic languages but the link is so far tenuous.

I also scratch my head trying to figure out any relations between the languages spoken by the Kett Yenisseyan and any WSHG such as Steppe Maykop, Keltemknar, Botai or Okunevo, and hence perhaps any possible linkage between these groups and Native Americans.

But until now, these goals have been quite elusive.

MH_82 said...

@ Davidski

''...drawbacks''

Yes, there are those.
But also they might point to a different aspect of ancestry, perhaps more distant than that which might be optimal in qpADM models.

Cy Tolliver said...

@Davidski

"To me f4 and D-stats are the basically the same, with the same drawbacks."

What are some of these drawbacks, if you don't mind elaborating?

Dave the Slothtopus said...

Davidski, now that we know the Dutch Single Grave/Beaker site at Oostwoud is built on a P312>DF19>Z302 grave with only flint blades (SGC?); and then ploughed with Beaker fragments on the ploughed layer; and then a tumulus is constructed over the first grave and the rest of the Beaker graves go there; any plans to revisit the topic?

They made a big deal about the Dutch Beakers looking like the S. English Beakers, but the English ones are P312>L21, and the Dutch site is literally built on a DF19, so while they can have a common P312 ancestral group (Frisia? north? east?), they were not the same immediate patrilineal family.

Małgorzata said...

@Simon_W:
Is it really, though?
Of course, everything is stupid if you overdo it and this is no exception - we shouldn't take it "too" seriously, although I don't presume to know where exactly to draw the line here. I think most of us recognize a lunatic when we see one, though.

I mean it's hard to deny that we inherit physical and mental traits from our parents that define who we are. But they got these from somewhere too.
In a sense, your immediate family is the extended "you" and the tribe is the extended family and so on. If being proud of one of them (starting with the oneself) makes sense, it also makes sense to be proud of the others - maybe not quite to the same degree, but still.

Apart from that, Quiles basically always picks the wrong option. So that means if he criticizes something, that something is propably perfectly reasonable.

claravallensis said...

Bit off topic but the Tagliente2 HG from Italy has been published at https://evolbio.ut.ee/Bortolini_2020/ , would be nice to see if it's even more basal than those from central Italy from the Roman paper, unfortunately not included in the study.

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

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

From this article, it turns out that debunking the previous research pointing out to Southern Chinese pops as descending from Classical Era southbound migration of Northern Han and assimilating Austronesian and Austroasiatic tribes, the opposite is true? As in althe northerly migration of Yangtze River pops into the YR basin in the Neolithic, bringing Sc-Sec people to form the nucleus of Han?


Both are true as demonstrated by the ancient genome results from what is now China from the Neolithic to the present. That region's genetics history basically points to multiple migrations either north to south or south to north. The Han Chinese migration from the north to the south was just the last major wave or one of the last.

vAsiSTha said...

How many SNPs does kra001 have? I believe its not much.

If its less than 200k, all qpAdm results using that should be thrown into the bin.

Slumbery said...

@Davidski

And keep in mind that a large chunk of this Sintashta-related ancestry is recent Iranian admix from the Saka.

Why the Saka? Would not the Asian Scythians make more sense? In fact a partial overlap with the Tasmola/Pazyryk group is noted by the article.

I do not have the time to play around in G25 nMontes now, but Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA seems to work pretty well for Sargat.

Slumbery said...

@Davidski

In fact, if I restrict it to two way models, the best are Sarmatians as a source for Sintashta ancestry.


Target: Sargat_IA
Distance: 0.01810442
Sarmatian_KAZ_Aktobe: 80.4
RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA: 19.6

Both the Scythians and the Saka are much worse in two way model. Ironically when I tried Saka_Kazakh_Steppe + kra1, G25 nMontes said Sargat is 100% Saka. But with a horrible distance...

Xaver said...

@ Davidski

Offtopic: Thank you for the graphics in your PCA, beeing colourblind the geometric forms you used were very helpful. Especially not repeating the forms.

Davidski said...

@Slumbery

I used Saka as shorthand for all Asian Scythians.

I haven't had a chance to try more complex models yet, but when I do, I'll check which Scythian/Saka group works best for Sargat in qpAdm.

Arza said...

@ vAsiSTha

How many SNPs does kra001 have? I believe its not much.

If its less than 200k, all qpAdm results using that should be thrown into the bin.


Total genotyping rate is 0.999532.
33232 variants removed due to missing genotype data (--geno).
1199781 variants and 1 person pass filters and QC.

Davidski said...

@Cy Tolliver

D-stats, f4 and f3 stats aren't always easy to interpret, because there are often many explanations for the results they produce.

So you need to run a lot of stats to see what's really going on, and even then it won't be a straightforward process.

Apart from that, there are some technical issues, like with samples from the extremes of mixture clines often wrongly coming out like the best sources of gene flow.

Davidski said...

Kra001 has a lot of markers, it's just a noisy sample, and the official sequence from the authors was even more noisy than the one we're using.

MH_82 said...


@ Slumberry
Have you tracked down any Iron Age WSHG ?

vAsiSTha said...

@arza

Very good sample then

Unknown said...

Rob said...
"We shouldn’t perpetuate this falsehood which Slumberry et al roster. There are no “Asian Scythians “"

This is you falsehood. The Asiatic Scythians are simply Scythians. All the Greeks called the Sakas Scythians, including the Central Asiatic ones, all the Persians called the Scythians Sakas, including the Black Sea ones.

MH_82 said...

Specialists call those regions by archaeological term or use “Scythians” in quotations

https://ibb.co/Zd8PxZG

Erik Andersson said...

@Slumbery
Sarmatian_KAZ_Aktobe includes a Tasmola-like outlier (SBL001): https://i.imgur.com/FMheDel.png
Saka/Tasmola/Pazyryk just have too much other eastern ancestry to be the (only) steppe source for Sargat. As per my last comment, Tagar gets closest.

Target: Sargat_IA
Distance: 1.7923% / 0.01792275
82.8 RUS_Tagar
17.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

capra internetensis said...

@Slumbery

Kazakh Saka have more East Asian than Sargat. If just a 2-way model with kra001 Sargat needs something with low East Asian on the other side. But I don't see why a two-way model with kra001 would really make sense for so much later a period.

Distal:
Kazakh Saka - 42% Sintashta, 37% Trans-Baikal N, 12% Tyumen N, 8% Gonur BMAC - 2.78%
Sargat IA - 46% Sintashta, 27% Trans-Baikal N, 19% Tyumen N, 8% Gonur BMAC - 2.83%
Sargat IA - 49% Sintashta, 18% Krasnoyarsk EBA, 13% Tyumen N, 11% Trans-Baikal N, 10% Gonur BMAC - 1.26%

vAsiSTha said...

Just realized that vahaduo has a 3d PCA plot option too. Its phenomenal..

Davidski said...

@Slumbery

As per above, there's a problem with the Sarmatian_KAZ_Aktobe sample set. It includes outlier SBL001.

I'll fix this today.

MH_82 said...

@ Vasistha

Check out the further wave of migration into Turan during the LBA- EIA :)





Slumbery said...

@Rob

Have you tracked down any Iron Age WSHG ?

If you really think it is even remotely necessary for my argument (hint: it really isn't and it does not make any sense whatsoever to assume it is), then I admit my attempt to convince you failed and do not try to stand between you and your beloved pet theory.


@capra internetensis
Kazakh Saka have more East Asian than Sargat. If just a 2-way model with kra001 Sargat needs something with low East Asian on the other side.

Yes that was what I thought too. A two way model with Iron Age Sarmatian/Scythian/Saka groups + Kra1 is unrealistic anyway, I just did not have the time yesterday (and not now either, I am writing this comment in the early morning before going to work).

I tried Mezhovskaya + Aldy_Bel_IA + Kra1, but it does not work. Even Sintashta + Aldy_Bel_IA + kra1 works much better.

Target: Sargat_IA
Distance: 0.01794937
RUS_Tuva_Aldy_Bel_IA: 46.8
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA: 37.2
RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA: 16.0

And yes, the source of East Siberian ancestry was probably something mixed in the context of Sargat too.


@Davidsky

Yes, that Sarmatian group was a tad weird actually, but not by much.

BTW, you just stripped the Central Asian samples of their Scythian status. It is because you do not think the European and the Asian groups are really connected blood-wise?

Davidski said...

@Slumbery

I just think that Scythians and Saka are different names for the same phenomenon.

And it seems to me that there was long distance and continuous gene flow between the European and Asian steppes during the Scytho-Sarmatian period, so one way or another, they're probably all related.

MH_82 said...

@ Slumberry

''If you really think it is even remotely necessary for my argument (hint: it really isn't and it does not make any sense whatsoever to assume it is), then I admit my attempt to convince you failed and do not try to stand between you and your beloved pet theory.''

The topic is important and I asked a simple question, but you have not been able to answer it
Instead of being salty, provide some form of evidence to demonstrate your point (formal stats, samples, even G25 ?)

Davidski said...

@All

Check out the update.

Erik Andersson said...

@Davidski
"It's missing kra001, because KAZ_Pazyryk_IA packs enough kra001-related ancestry for the job."

Weird. That's not at all what it looks like in G25: https://imgur.com/a/8a3x2ep

Target: KAZ_Pazyryk_IA
Distance: 0.9694% / 0.00969449
53.6 MNG_BA
36.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
10.4 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_BA
0.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA:kra001

Davidski said...

@Erik Andersson

Pazyryk can be modeled with kra001 in qpAdm, but in qpAdm it also prefers other eastern sources, like Baikal_BA.

My qpAdm models are based on formal stats, which means they focus on deep ancestry. So they shouldn't be taken literally.

That is, don't assume that they prove that Sargat is largely of Pazyryk origin, and also don't assume that they prove that Pazyryk has any kra001 ancestry.

I think what's happening is that Sargat is partly of Pazyryk origin, and most of the rest of its ancestry is from a Pazyryk-like group rich in kra001 ancestry and N-L1026.

But IMO there's no way that we can show this with qpAdm, so that's where the Global25 can probably help. Well, unless maybe we can get samples from the groups that actually admixed to form Sargat.

Erik Andersson said...

@Davidski
Understood.

MH_82 said...

I don’t mind what linguists and banal naysayers think; but this shows that the main phase of I-I / FU loans occurred during the LBA-IA

Davidski said...

Yes, of course, and deep in Siberia too.

There's no certainty now that even Sintashta had any contacts with Uralic speakers.

How naive of me to assume that it did a while back. But hey, I was following decades of academic work.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-mystery-of-sintashta-people.html

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

I think Ymyiakhtakh should be used as an outgroup with these.

MH_82 said...

Its not at all naive to be guided by consensus; afterall order requires some foundational platforms. However, the key is to be malleable to new evidence; and most people are.

Davidski said...

Ymyiakhtakh is practically identical to kra001, and we don't know if there wasn't recent bidirectional gene flow between the two populations.

So using Ymyiakhtakh as an outgroup would not be in line with qpAdm best practices IMO.

Huck Finn said...

@ D and re: "Yes, of course, and deep in Siberia too." After reading the papers behind the links kindly provided by M.M., we all know that East Uralic Samoyedic speakers indeed did in some way interact with Yukaghiric speakers, deep in Siberia. Then, rhetoric question, of course, but still: if Proto Uralic was spoken somewhere deep in Siberia even during LBA/IA, where are the linguistic signs pointing to that direction? Loans from Tungusic or Turkic, for instance? Any related information, excluding of course the already well known typological similarity between Altaic and Uralic languages, is much appreciated.

Otherwise, information related to Sargat is of course nice as such, but I look forward to seeing the same related to Ananyino and Akozino layers, on the European side of the Ural mountains.

Davidski said...

@Huck Finn

No one said that Proto-Uralic was spoken during the Iron Age.

Also, I can't see any mention of contacts between Proto-Uralic and Tungusic, except in your comment.

The suggestions being made include Proto-Uralic and then certain Uralic languages having contacts with Indo-European languages later than generally accepted, and well east of the Urals too, but not necessarily in eastern Siberia, or even half way there.

Siberia is a big place.

MH_82 said...

It turns out Sarmatians are straightforward


A) left pops:
Russia_Early_Sarmatian.SG
Russia_HG_Tyumen
Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Russia_Srubnaya

best coefficients:     0.217     0.226     0.557 
 chisq       tail prob
 25.330     0.000296558


B) left pops:
Russia_Early_Sarmatian.SG
Ukraine_LateSrubnaya.SG
Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6

best coefficients:     0.826     0.174
      std. errors:     0.054     0.054

 chisq       tail prob
  4.471         0.72415
 

C) Marginal improvement in Tail Prob with BMAC, but it blow out the SEs
left pops:
Russia_Early_Sarmatian.SG
Ukraine_LateSrubnaya.SG
Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1

best coefficients:     0.663     0.164     0.173
Jackknife mean:      0.657347324     0.163542751     0.179109926
      std. errors:     0.113     0.056     0.122
chisq       tail prob
 3.267         0.77469 


D) The preceding Cimmerians (which feature rather east-shifted individuals) are an adequate fit for the eastern ancestry in Sarmatians 

left pops:
Russia_Early_Sarmatian.SG
Ukraine_LateSrubnaya.SG
Moldova_Cimmerian.SG
best coefficients:     0.386     0.614 

chisq       tail prob
7.128        0.415664  


right pops:
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Turkey_N.SG
Russia_HG_Karelia
Russia_Kolyma_M.SG
Mongolia_North_N
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
Iran_GanjDareh_N
ONG.SG
Georgia_Kotias.SG


Would be good to try with Sargat or putative Ananyino data in future

Genos Historia said...

How do you guys explain Indo European loan words in Finno-Permic, the Uralic languages in Europe.

It must have happened in the Bronze age, as Uralic entered Europe by 1500 BC as attested by Bolshoy Oleni.

Davidski said...

LBA = Late Bronze Age.

You know, even Sintashta is actually LBA.

Huck Finn said...

Siberia is indeed a big place and last time I checked it even reaches up to the Ural mountains. Now that we're interested in N-Z1936: based on that what we're seeing, in terms of ancient and modern DNA, it did split in Ural area by 2000 BCE, maybe even west of the mountains, somewhere near Kazan. Not somewhere in Siberia, as the western sublineages don't even reach the areas around Kazan.

As said, any real Siberian language, in terms of influnce into Uralic, will do. It doesn't have to be anything beginning with the letter t.

MH_82 said...

@ GH

''It must have happened in the Bronze age, as Uralic entered Europe by 1500 BC as attested by Bolshoy Oleni.''

Sure, but these putative Uralic speakers maintained connections with each other before the languages gradually diverged, allowing transmission of additional loanwords within their broader linguistic group.

vAsiSTha said...

@rob
What am i looking at in the PCA?


"@ Slumberry
Have you tracked down any Iron Age WSHG ?"

Yes actually. Not in unadmixed form of course. The swat_ia samples absolutely can not be modeled without additional wshg like that from Dali_mlba.

Similarly, the new sarmatian 450bce samples cannot be modeled without additional wshg from something like dali_mlba.

Davidski said...

@Huck Finn

If you say so.

Make sure you let me know when you see a sample with N-Z1936 from before 2,000 BCE in ancient DNA from west of the Urals.

That'll be really something. Sort of like R1a in India before 2,000 BCE.

MH_82 said...

@ Vasistha

''What am i looking at in the PCA?''

Should be relatively straightforward; but compared to the LBA samples in Turan, the Iron Age one has even higher steppe ancestry and appears to sit on a new cline.
Rather than showing a migration from Turan to the steppe, it rather shows that steppe populations were continuing to move toward SCA during the LBA-IA
will look at TKM_IA in near future


''Similarly, the new sarmatian 450bce samples cannot be modeled without additional wshg from something like dali_mlba.''

The pseudo-Sarmatians from Kazakhstan ? I'll take a look at it in near future
But not needed from the historic Sarmatians, even though DStats suggest some possible deep affinities.

Unknown said...

Davidski said...

"LBA = Late Bronze Age."

You know, even Sintashta is actually LBA."

Andronovo and Srubnaya are LBA. No one ever called them MLBA, this is an error that was made in the genetic works for reasons I do not understand. I can only assume that it is due to the fact that according to uncalibrated dates Andronovo and Srubnaya began in 1600BC. The thing is that the beginning of the LBA was tied to the Andronovo and Srubnaya times, and this is 1600BC according to uncalibrated dates. When in the late 1980s the calibrated dates were switched to Andronovo and Srubnaya began in 1900BC, the beginning of the LBA in 1600BC remained uncalibrated date in the outdated sources.
"You know, even Sintashta is actually LBA." It was often so called in the Russian works, Sintashta as part of Andronovo, but it really belongs to a transitional period between the Middle and Late Bronze Age. The Late Bronze Age is a techno-complex associated with tin bronzes, which in Sintashta kind of just appears.

Unknown said...

This whole Baikal cluster from Cis-Baikal, Kkhovsgol, Krasnoyarsk001, Ymyyakhtakht, all of it is related to Sargat culture. The rest is already nuances, it does not differ much at all.

vAsiSTha said...

PCA, especially 2D PCA is not at all useful to find visual sources of ancestry.

Heres TKM_IA qpAdm
https://pastebin.com/JSGVTHLZ

left pops:
Turkmenistan_IA.SG
Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA - 44.2 +-3.3
Russia_Srubnaya - 47.6 +- 2.8
Irula.DG - 8.2 +- 2.1
P-value: 0.0879

Theres no need for any caucasus ancestry here.

Huck Finn said...

@ D: sure and on the other hand if you or anyone else is able to define N-Z1936 > N-B539/N-Z1934 type of West Uralic sub lineages below N-Z1936* in Sargat horizon or basically anywhere east of Ural mountains, then the split possibly/probably took place already in West Siberia. I doubt it did, but it remains to be seen.

Davidski said...

@Huck Finn

Do you have any ancient DNA evidence for your claims?

Slumbery said...

@Rob

Have you tracked down any Iron Age WSHG?

Dear Rob, I have a feeling at this point that you are going full troll (and then complaining that I am being "salty" [sic]), but I attempt a serious answer anyway.

1. My argument against Kubano_Thersk_late as a main Sarmatian ancestor does not depend on the existence of "Iron Age WSHG" at all.
2. During the entire conversation I never said or implied that a dominantly WSHG population existed directly before the Sarmatians. It is just your strawman.
3. There is some sampling gap around the Bronze Age to Iron Age transition, but I would be surprised if a dominantly WSHG population came up from Early Iron Age Steppe.

Nevertheless, the Sarmatians had relatively more of this ancestry than either Srubnaya or Catacomb/Kubano-Tersk or Shintashta and Sintashta derived core Andronovo groups. But that is not a problem, because there were plenty of WSHG-rich groups (not WSHG groups, just WSHG-rich) melting into Andronovo in Late Bronze Age (I already presented examples two topics back). These are Central Asians, but that alone would not even be a problem for your Cubano-Tersk_late theory, because they could of course migrate or intermarry. The main problems for that theory are:
1. Recent Caucasus ancestry (so not CHG from EBA Steppe) is very uneven among Sarmatians and only significant in the groups near the Caucasus.
2. Even for the groups near the Caucasus Cubano-Thersk_late is a bad source. Giving alternative sources for the main ancestries of the Sarmatians kick it out from the model even for the Caucasus Sarmatians and with a vastly improved fit. Even if the alternative sources are very distant in time.
3. Unlike the Caucasus related ancestry, BMAC related ancestry is universally significant and reasonably even among Sarmatian groups.

Sarmatians had a mixture of ancestries that was much more likely cooked up in West-Central Asian Andronovo than near the Caucasus.

Huck Finn said...

@ D: of course not, as you're well aware of, which is exactly the reason I said "ancient and modern DNA".

Davidski said...

@Huck Finn

Don't you mean just modern DNA?

Last time I looked, Sargat was located deep in Siberia, and its N-Z1936 looks to me like it's associated with Nganasan/kra001-like ancestry.

Davidski said...

@Archi

So what's your take on the relationship between Sargat and Pazyryk exactly?

Huck Finn said...

@ D: no, because for instance ancient East Uralic Sargat N-1936's don't apparently share the West Uralic sub lineages, which I've been referring to, if I'm right and you'll kindly correct me at AG if I'm wrong.

Unknown said...

@ Davidski

They are cultures of completely different origins, although their origins have led to similar results.

The Pazyryk culture goes back to Karasuk, where people of the Baikal cluster are already represented. The Pazyryk culture is Andronovian, settled on the local Siberian Baikal substratum, most likely Finno-Samoyedic.
That is, the Andronovo basis, and the Finno-Samoyeds are only a substratum, and still in the Karasuk time. Аt the end of its existence it was invaded by the Mongoloids of the Tashtyk culture,it was suggested that they were Samoyeds, but most likely by the Türks, maybe by Yeniseyans.

The Sargat culture has a completely different origin, it is exactly the Ugrians, which superimposed on the powerful Andronovo superstratum, most likely of the same Sarmato-Pazyryk circle.

We can say that their composition components were the same - Andronovo and Finno-Samoyedic, but the relationship between them was opposite.

In more detail, they seem to have different origins - the Sargat cultures are Ugric mixed with Sarmatians, Pazyryk are Scythians mixed with Samoyedians. In archaeological terms, there is no direct connection between them, but there is an influence of the Pazyryk culture on the Sargat through Bolsherechensk culture. There have been suggestions that under pressure from the Huns, some Pazyryk people migrated to Bolsherechensk culture, which is already mixed with Sargat culture.

Vladimir said...

«So what's your take on the relationship between Sargat and Pazyryk exactly?»

Judging by the archeology, the Sargat culture has three components: the local-Pakhomovo culture (Andronovo of Western Siberia plus the pre-Andronovo population of Western Siberia is conditionally Krotovo, or they say that this combination is the Cherkaskul culture), the second component is the Late Irmen culture (Andronovo of Central Siberia and Altai plus the local Altai pre-Andronovo component, sometimes this mixture is simply called the Karasuk culture), the third component is saki with an admixture of BMAC. In general, according to the autosomal profile, this is about what it shows.

Andrzejewski said...

Proto-Uralics are by most likelihood the descendants of a Baikal HG, Ulchi-like, Tunguska-related pop which is also related to the East Asian side in Beringians and North American natives.

Yamz said...

Hey Davidski,

I've obtained a few academic datasets I'd love to mess around with on g25 can I email them directly to you to get processed? I don't want em up on anthrogenica if that's okay.


Also does anyone know how I can contact vahaduo, I've seen him comment a few times - can't find contact details on his github site.

Cheers

Davidski said...

@Yamz

Which datasets?

MH_82 said...

@ Slumberry

''Dear Rob, I have a feeling at this point that you are going full troll (and then complaining tht I am being "salty" [sic]), but I attempt a serious answer anyway.
1. My argument against Kubano_Thersk_late as a main Sarmatian ancestor does not depend on the existence of "Iron Age WSHG" at all.''


I was enquiring specifically regarding the issue of Khovsgol_BA vs WSHG ancestry in Sarmatians & other groups, and wanted to know if the study had brought forth such ancestry. Your point about my suggestion of KT co-ancestry is actually a separate issue & in any case misrepresented my point. I had not proposed a 'Kubano-Terks_late + Khovgol_BA model'', but Srubnaya , Inner Asian + a 'Caucaso-Turan ancestry'. In any case, the 2 most important components are presented above in formal models. I do try to incorporate multiple lines of evidence in my ideas, and it seems might pet-theory that Inner Asian ancestry moved across the forest-steppe - southern forest zone is fine.

vahaduo said...

@ Yamz
Could you share your email here? I would write to you later today.

E. Donovan said...

I would assume given the likely early arrival to the Urals of the Proto-Z1936 people their Indo-Iranian ancestry would be primarily of Abashevo or Sintashta era, as opposed to the Andronovans their Seima-Turbino relations encountered further east. They needn't have acquired the entirety of the Sintashta-derived Iranian polities around the Urals, although Ananyino may be later evidence this did tend to occur if one was near enough the range and not nomadic like the Scythians. Additionally, once the Bronze Age got going Urals-based entities would have had a significant production advantage assuming they had a supply of tin from the Altai.

gamerz_J said...

@Davidski

A new paper on ancient Greece is out, you might be interested in it if you haven't seen it already https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421003706

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,

Do you have access to Neolithic ancient DNA on the Step, with significant CHG ancestry?

I'm asking because I am making youtube video on the topic.

David Anthony didn't make clear how old the super-CHG Volga DNA samples were. I have a feeling they are Khalvnsky not Neolithic.

Unknown said...


The spread of the Early Bronze Age in the Near East-Aegean region was related to the CHG, this is due to the fact that it was the Caucasus that supplied bronze, it was the main source of bronze. And so people associated with the Caucasus and the Maikop culture spread bronze and thus their genes throughout the Near East-Aegean region.

Davidski said...

@Genos Historia

They're Neolithic.

Very similar to the CHG-rich Khvalynsk samples though.

Copper Axe said...

"Present-day Greeks—who also carry Steppe-related ancestry—share ∼90% of their ancestry with MBA northern Aegeans, suggesting continuity between the two time periods."

Hahaha

MH_82 said...

@ Copper Axe

''Hahaha''

Agree

Unknown said...

They simply showed once again that in the north of the Aegean region at the end of the EBA there were Luwians who had not yet penetrated into Anatolia. They are not in Greece around 2464-2349 BC, nor are there any Greeks.

The steppe theory triumphs, Rob is disgraced. The Luwians are in the Balkans where they are supposed to be and at the very time they are supposed to be. Rob's opinion that the Luwians were in Anatolia in 3000 BC is destroyed.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@CopperAxe, Rob

Yeah, I rolled my eyes when I read that. Thankfully for us, there are lots of ethnic Greeks working in ancient DNA who do superb work, but they labor in prestigious foreign labs outside of Greece itself. The Greek labs consistently seem to ignore or downplay the Slavic impact in modern Greeks, but they won't be able to run away from it forever. The significant drift mainland Greeks (and to a much lesser degree, Aegean Greeks) share with modern Poles, Ukrainians, etc. is undeniable and can't be pinned on MBA steppe admixture. The similarity there is purely coincidental.

MH_82 said...

@ Archi

No, there's no Luwians, Etruscans or any other excuse you conjure in Bronze Age Macedonia or Thessaly, at best Luwians would have been in eastern Thrace, but also into Anatolia by then
Hellenes arriving by ~ 2500 BC dovetails with archaeology, linguistics and one of the 2 prevalent historical consensus.

Don't conflate your fringe theories with the steppe theory in general. You may go back to licking your wounds now, its becoming a regular thing for you

EastPole said...

“Moreover, all successful 3-way admixture models involved either Log02 or Log04 as the
major ancestry source (∼ 62 - 96%). This strongly suggests that present-day Greeks
from Thessaloniki are very closely related to the Aegean MBA individuals”

Maybe Log04 is related to HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:

https://i.postimg.cc/gcMYbXGc/Vahaduo-Global-25-Europe-1-PCA-Log04.png

https://i.postimg.cc/XY9Sqp6C/Vahaduo-Global-25-West-Eurasia-PCA-Log04.png

Hyperborans, Dacians, Thracians could be more Slavic shifted in MBA. This would explain a lot of Slavic influences in ancient Greece and common features of Orphico-Phythagoran religion with Slavic and Vedic religions. We need Nitra aDNA and more Y-DNA.

Unknown said...

rob

"No, there's no Luwians, Etruscans or any other excuse you conjure in Bronze Age Macedonia or Thessaly, at best Luwians would have been in eastern Thrace, but also into Anatolia by then
Hellenes arriving by ~ 2500 BC dovetails with archaeology, linguistics and one of the 2 prevalent historical consensus.

Don't conflate your fringe theories with the steppe theory in general. You may go back to licking your wounds now, its becoming a regular thing for you"


That the Luwianswere in northern Greece is the conclusion of mainstream archaeology, linguistics and history, despite your personal denials. Genetics has now fully confirmed it.

That there were no Hellenes in Greece before 1600 is the conclusion of mainstream linguistics, archaeology and history.

What I wrote is the scientific consensus, what you wrote is just your marginal wishful thinking as a proponent of the Anatolian hypothesis. You don't have a single sentence that is correct, you are wrong on absolutely everything.

MH_82 said...

@ Archie
I guess you have a justified chip on your shoulder because of my disregard of you
The idea that Hellenes arrived in 1600 BC is a extremely fringe one that doesn’t make any sense given the linguistic evidence alone; let alone all other lines of evidence ; although one can hear it utterred by some online muppets
The most propounded theories postulated either sometime after 4000 Bc, or more commonly something during the 3rd millennium
For ex: “ "Middle Helladic period between 2200 and 2000 BC a wave of Greek tribes, later self-styled Hellenes, poured into the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula. They were coming to Aegeida from the north. During the excavations of many settlements, the Early Helladic cultural layer is separated from the subsequent ones by a layer of ash.”
This is what I have previous summarised; and no I have not believed that they came from Neolithic Anatolia

The data has now confirmed an - at least- 2000 BC arrival, clarified aspects of their genomic make-up and completes the circle between Greece, Balkans and steppe
Sucked in Archie :)

Wise dragon said...

Can someone explain why the Aeagans in that paper were predicted as most likely dark despite carrying both depigmentation genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2? And what does "dark-skinned"mean in that context- light brown, olive complexion or reddish/ chestnut brown?

Wise dragon said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos,

But why do Greek labs downplay the Slavic input in modern Greece? What is the reason behind that? Is there any historical beef between Poles/Ukraines and Greeks?

mzp1 said...

haha Steppe Hypothesis what a joke that is....

Ancient Greek maintains some very archaic IE features, such as the pitch accent. This is only shared with Vedic Sanskrit. What is happening is that these two geographically distant groups share features because there is innovation in the centre which has lost it.

So the Greco-Aryan connection is not of one recent sharing, but of retention of archaic features that were lost in the intermediate regions (Iranian, NW IE etc).

If IE was spread by Steppe DNA into Greece and India, the IE Pitch accent (an important feature of the IE language) would be found in the intermediate regions. But its not, because the intermediate regions (Steppe, Iran_N) didnt speak PIE but some diverged branch which is more closer to Iranian and NW IE.

The Steppe Hypothesis fails because it has Steppe_EMBA spreading PIE instead of a diverged branch, meaning the central regions between India and Greece should be closer to PIE, instead it is the outer regions that are closer, so Steppe DNA can only be spreading a diverged branch.

alex said...

@Wise dragon

It's mostly because of Slavo-phobia in Greek academic and political circles. First it was because of Fallmerayer, then because of the "communist threat", then because of FYROM/North Macedonia.

Cy Tolliver said...

@ Michalis (and others)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe E-V13 is the single most common y-DNA ammong modern Greeks at 20-25%. Do we have any idea if V13 was really that common ancient/classical era Greeks, or does most of it seem to be of post-Roman origin?

Unknown said...

rob
"For ex :“

That you are cheating. They did not write any such nonsense of yours.

Here is what they wrote, quote:
"Cultural changes in the Aegean and the appearance of the proto-Greek language (by
1,400 BCE as seen in the Mycenaean Linear B script) have fuelled the debate on migration and the so-called "coming of the Greeks""

Everyone knows that the first Indo-Europeans on Greek territory were the Luwians, and they apparently caused these destruction. We know this for sure and your anti-scientific fantasies about their area of habitation are just your wishful thinking.

Since the Luwians were before the Hellenes (Achaeans), and they are the first steppe genomes in the territory of Greece, they can not be Hellenes (Achaeans), but can only be Luwians.

"In 1896 and 1905 Kretschmer and Fick (German philologists) published a catalogue of place names and words in the Greek language with a non-Greek origin (Kretschmer,1896; Fick, 1905). These words interestingly include toponyms, that is names of places, most of which have existed since the Neolithic Period (e.g., Argissa, Knossos but also Larissa, Corinth, Parnassos), and faunal and floral terms (e.g., yakinthos, narkissos, akanthos, kyparissos, daphne), as well as words such as thalassa, labyrinth, anax, thorax etc. These words with ss ( ), tt ( ), nth ( ), mn ( ) and nd ( ) suffixes, that cannot etymologically be attributed to the Greek language, number around 4,000-6,000.
Kretschmer and Fick, through study of place names with the same suffixes in Anatolia, assumed a common origin for these words in a non-IE language. At the time Anatolian languages such as Hittite had not been discovered and their IE character was largely unknown. With the discovery and decipherment of Hittite and other Anatolian languages and their characterization as IE, it was accepted that the place names and words with the aforementioned suffixes belonged to a "Pre-Hellenic" linguistic substratum of Anatolian origin. A series of studies supported this view, including the work of Blegen and Haley (1928), who linked the Anatolian substratum with archaeological data to support their views on EBA migrations from Anatolia (see Section 1.3.2). The linguistic substratum was also used as evidence by Wace and Blegen (1916), Childe (1915) and Mellaart (1973) to support a migration at the beginning of 2nd millenium BCE with the introduction of Minyan ceramic ware (see Section 1.3.2).
Further studies have supported the IE character of this linguistic substratum (Laroche, 1957; Heubeck, 1961; Palmer, 1961) and linked the presence of these suffixes and place names to the IE branch of Anatolian languages (Carruba, 1995). Likewise, the "hybrid" theory of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov on the spread of the IE languages (theory 3, Section 1.4.1) (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1983a; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1983b; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1995) supported the Anatolian character of these place names.
This opinion was formerly accepted even in archaeological circles (Mellaart, 1973).
Nowadays, the Anatolian origin of this linguistic substratum and its IE-character is mostly accepted."

Ric Hern said...

@ mzp 1

Your words:

"So the Greco-Aryan connection is not of one recent sharing, but of retention of archaic features THAT WERE LOST in the intermediate regions (Iranian, NW IE etc)."

"THAT WERE LOST" actually means that they had it at some time before. You can not lose something that you didn't have.

Romulus said...

Greek arriving in 2000 B.C. doesn't correlate well with the basal position of Greek in the IE language tree.

Davidski said...

@Archi

You have to stop picking fights with Rob here or I won't approve your posts.

I just deleted your last post.

If you do want to fight with him, then do it over email.

MH_82 said...

@ Archi

Nothing in that quote supports your strange ideas that the Helladic age invaders were in fact Luwians. Aside from the fact that place-name etymology is often equivocal, these can be very well explained by across the sea trading and contact, as has been done by Watkins, as well as Mellart from your quote. As with everything, your semi-educated but over-confident mindset lacks the ability to understand & rationalise data.
The genetics is fairly clear- the northward/ steppic shift in Greece occurs by 2000 BC and by 1600 BC, Myceneans are again south / southeastern shifted, possibly due the said Anatolian colonists & traders.


@ Romulus
It might have been considerably earlier than 2000 BC. This is an absolute minimum

Genos Historia said...

@Wise Dragon,

It is because Hirisplex updated their skin color predictor in 2018. It is more able to skin color variation within West Eurasia. Brown to white.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497318302205
Predictions for world pops.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1872497318302205-gr4.jpg

It makes sense Bronze age Greeks score mainly intermediate and 'dark', as this is what Sardinians get.

Genos Historia said...

@Cy Tolliver,

My impression is E-V13 comes from people exactly like ancient Greeks. Considering how frequent it is in Greece today, i think it is indigenous.

It is common in Eastern Balkans, where ancient Greek-like ancestry is prevalent.

Serbs have more E-V13 than Bosnians. They also have more Greek-like ancestry.

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,

This is great news. Can you answer one more question.

Have these Volga Neolithic, Yamnaya-like, been dated 5000-6000 BC?

I want to confirm because I am not sure if Neolithic era continued into 5000-4000 BC in some areas of PC Step.

Davidski said...

I don't know the precise dates. Must be something like 5,000 BCE, but we'll have to wait and see.

MH_82 said...

@ Genos

''My impression is E-V13 comes from people exactly like ancient Greeks. Considering how frequent it is in Greece today, i think it is indigenous.''

This is not the impression in the webosphere, quite the contrary.
Collating the data from early & mid Bronze Age Bulgaria & Greece thus far, E-V13 is absent

Wise dragon said...

@Genos Historia, I think, that the terminology was a bit confusing here. In genetic papers individuals are usually described as dark-skinned who lack the light skin genes while those who carried them were predicted as light or moderately light- skinned, thus not as dark. That’s why I wondered how the Aegeans despite having both derived light skin alleles turn out to be dark as those who lack thereof. When going by what you say, dark skin in that context means that BA Greeks/Minoans were olive skinned like Sardinians, and not reddish or very brown? Correct? Sardinians that I saw weren't that super swarthy, btw. The thing is, that people who looked at this study were surprised or confused to read that Aegeans were dark, since many associate dark skin with the black or dark brown complexion of SSAs or Indians.


Unknown said...


It is exactly what is directly stated by historians, Herodotus directly described that the Luwians ("Trojans") lived from Anatolia to the Adriatic Sea.

Onur Dincer said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos

Yeah, I rolled my eyes when I read that. Thankfully for us, there are lots of ethnic Greeks working in ancient DNA who do superb work, but they labor in prestigious foreign labs outside of Greece itself. The Greek labs consistently seem to ignore or downplay the Slavic impact in modern Greeks, but they won't be able to run away from it forever. The significant drift mainland Greeks (and to a much lesser degree, Aegean Greeks) share with modern Poles, Ukrainians, etc. is undeniable and can't be pinned on MBA steppe admixture. The similarity there is purely coincidental.

In fact, there is no similarity to begin with. Modern Western Greeks are not genetically similar to the Helladic MBA samples, they have too low Anatolia Neolithic ancestry compared to Log02, too low steppe ancestry compared to Log04 and too high Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic/CHG ancestries compared to both of those samples, not to mention their Slavic drift.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11NfnFWSL4HU_VU-G3fb6QwuAF1FBUhCk/view?usp=sharing

Onur Dincer said...

@Rob

The genetics is fairly clear- the northward/ steppic shift in Greece occurs by 2000 BC and by 1600 BC, Myceneans are again south / southeastern shifted, possibly due the said Anatolian colonists & traders.

Indeed, the Mycenaean samples show extra Anatolia Bronze Age mix in addition to what they have from the older sampled groups from what is now Greece.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JrkmAGGhYYxt2qigS4yYJdeChyu0X17A/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11NfnFWSL4HU_VU-G3fb6QwuAF1FBUhCk/view?usp=sharing

Genos Historia said...

@Wise Dragon,

Hirisplex's dark category seems to be for actual brown skin color not olive that is in Southern Europe.

25% of Sardinians are in this category, they are the only ones in Europe who score in Dark category. Some Sicilians and Greeks probably would too if they were tested.

So if we see the dark score in ancient DNA, I think we can presume this means something like light brown. Akin to standard skin color in Armenia.

This would not be a big surprise for some people in Bronze age Aegean. Considering they basically were western continuation of Southwest Asia (Anatolian farmer, Caucasus EBA).

Genos Historia said...

@Rob,

But we don't have much from bronze, Iron age Eastern Balkans though. E-V13 should have originated there.

MH_82 said...

@ Genos - That's true, we don't have much in the way of LBA-IA data. It's an evolving picture

Genos Historia said...

@Onur Dincer,

I don't know. I would say, generally speaking modern Greeks are similar to Early Bronze age Northern Greece. At least to the one with less Steppe ancestry; Log02.

They cluster in same area of the West Eurasian PCA. There's a lot of miss match in direct ancestry. But in ancient components, they are similar to modern Greeks, Albanians, Italians.

Onur Dincer said...

@Genos Historia

I don't know. I would say, generally speaking modern Greeks are similar to Early Bronze age Northern Greece. At least to the one with less Steppe ancestry; Log02.

They cluster in same area of the West Eurasian PCA. There's a lot of miss match in direct ancestry. But in ancient components, they are similar to modern Greeks, Albanians, Italians.


Middle Bronze Age* Yes, there is similarity in their West Eurasian PCA results and in other crude analyses like the ADMIXTURE analysis of the recent Greek paper, but they are easily distinguished in more advanced analyses like G25 as I showed above. Log04 could be a recent arrival from the steppe, likely Proto-Greek, Log02 is more EEF-like native Balkan-admixed. During the Late Bronze Age, the period of the Mycenaean samples, Greeks are even more native Balkan-admixed (not to mention the continuing mix with BA Anatolia). The Empuries Greek samples from the Classical Greek times have Mycenaean-like results. Like Michalis pointed out, the similarity with the Middle Bronze Age samples is coincidental, Mycenaeans did not die out with the Bronze Age collapse, contrary to the claims of the recent Greek paper, as is clear from the later Empuries Greek samples.

Andrzejewski said...

@genos Historia @wise dragon “ 25% of Sardinians are in this category, they are the only ones in Europe who score in Dark category. Some Sicilians and Greeks probably would too if they were tested.

So if we see the dark score in ancient DNA, I think we can presume this means something like light brown. Akin to standard skin color in Armenia.

This would not be a big surprise for some people in Bronze age Aegean. Considering they basically were western continuation of Southwest Asia (Anatolian farmer, Caucasus EBA).”

The fact that they came from Western Asia doesn’t necessarily mean that their phenotype resembled modern Middle East types. Even many Syrians don’t look swarthy.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur @Michalis “ In fact, there is no similarity to begin with. Modern Western Greeks are not genetically similar to the Helladic MBA samples, they have too low Anatolia Neolithic ancestry compared to Log02, too low steppe ancestry compared to Log04 and too high Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic/CHG ancestries compared to both of those samples, not to mention their Slavic drift.”

Would you quantify the ancestry proportions in modern v. Ancient Helladic Greeks?

WHG/Anatolian/Levant/CHG/Anatolian BA/WSH/Slavic?

Andrzejewski said...

@Cy Tolliver @Michalis @Genos @Rob @Onur “ Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe E-V13 is the single most common y-DNA ammong modern Greeks at 20-25%. Do we have any idea if V13 was really that common ancient/classical era Greeks, or does most of it seem to be of post-Roman origin?”

Could V13 come from Anatolian BA/Kura Araxes-like pop that gave birth to Minoans? Or is it more ancient and it came with the PPNB (Levant Neolithic + Anatolian Neolithic) that migrated to Greece?

Andrzejewski said...

@Genos Historia “ It makes sense Bronze age Greeks score mainly intermediate and 'dark', as this is what Sardinians get.”

No, you can’t compare Greeks to Sardinians, because Sardinians were largely Anatolian_Neo whereas Minoans were 75% Anatolians + 25% CHG, and then Mycenaeans had 20% Steppe on top of it

Andrzejewski said...

From the Greek paper’s abstract:

Quote: “ In contrast, Middle BA (MBA) individuals of northern Greece differ from EBA populations in showing ∼50% Pontic-Caspian Steppe-related ancestry, dated at ca. 2,600-2,000 BCE. Such gene flow events during the MBA contributed toward shaping present-day Greek genomes.”

——————

So the mystery is finally resolved: it was not merely an elite domination over a large population but a tremendous pop replacement taking place in MBA Greece, whereby a 50% WSH genome is taking over an indigenous native culture, similar to processes that happened in Iberia and Britain during BellBeaker era.

My guess is that eventually we will find out that the exact same mechanism and dynamics played in Anatolia and Armenia. We just have to wait for me samples and more papers to come out.

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

Would you quantify the ancestry proportions in modern v. Ancient Helladic Greeks?

WHG/Anatolian/Levant/CHG/Anatolian BA/WSH/Slavic?


I already did that with my this analysis:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11NfnFWSL4HU_VU-G3fb6QwuAF1FBUhCk/view

For the Slavic contribution, we do not know the genetic composition of the various Slavic groups invading Greece to quantify it. Modern Western Greeks are basically a mix of Mycenaean Greeks, post-Mycenaean (likely mostly Hellenistic and Roman) Anatolian immigrants and Slavic invaders in various ratios.

MH_82 said...

@ Andrze

“So the mystery is finally resolved: it was not merely an elite domination over a large population but a tremendous pop replacement taking place in MBA Greece, whereby a 50% WSH genome is taking over an indigenous native culture, similar to processes that happened in Iberia and Britain during BellBeaker era.”

Not the same. This ~ 50% group are the immigrants ; who then went on to admix with locals further south

Andrzejewski said...

Something is off here:

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867421003706-gr2_lrg.jpg

Modern Greeks/Cypriots clustering almost identical (X v. Y) on the graph with Log 02 and Log 04 (MBA).

The medieval era Slavic contribution should’ve shifted the modern samples significantly in the Steppe’s direction; but that’s not what we’re seeing here.

Andrzejewski said...

Quote: “ (e.g., Steppe_EMBA with 66% EHG-like and 34% IranN/CHG-like0 (Figure 3), consistent with previous results (de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018),...”

—————

Why would the EHG: CHG ratio in Steppe_EMBA pops be 2:1 instead of a more even one of 1:1??

Unknown said...

Andrzejewski said...
"Why would the EHG: CHG ratio in Steppe_EMBA pops be 2:1 instead of a more even one of 1:1??"

Because that has always been the case in all calculations, but the 1:1 is a myth imagined by someone.

Andrzejewski said...

“ Present-day Greeks—who also carry Steppe-related ancestry—share ∼90% of their ancestry with MBA northern Aegeans, suggesting continuity between the two time periods. In contrast, LBA Aegeans (Mycenaeans) may carry either diluted Steppe- or Armenian-related ancestry (Lazaridis et al., 2017). This relative discontinuity could be explained by the general decline of the Mycenaean civilization as previously proposed in the archaeological literature (Middleton, 2019).”

That’s because the authors of this article neglect the huge Slavic-like shift occurring since 700AD.

“ As a result, the genomic data could support both dominant linguistic theories explaining the emergence of Proto-Greek and the evolution of Indo-European languages (Gray et al., 2011). Namely, that these languages either originated in Anatolia (Renfrew, 1972, 1989, 2000) (correlating with the Anatolian and Caucasus-like genetic ancestries) or they originated in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe region (Anthony, 2010) (correlating with the Steppe-like ancestry).”

Hogwash!!

If the authors of this article didn’t clearly see a break between EBA and MBA as consistent with the Steppe-related incoming invaders or migrants bringing IE languages into Greece, nothing can. In any case, if Greek had come with CHG/“Iran_” elements, it would’ve been related to NWC or Kartvelian.

@Archi is right in this regard that the so-called “Pelasgian” substrate had something to do with Anatolian IE languages; deciphered Philistine words bear resemblance and etymology to either Anatolian or Greek branches within IE tree. The “non-IE substrate theory” in academia regarding either Greek or Germanic containing ~30%-40% non-IE vocabulary are pure fantasy at most.

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi “ Because that has always been the case in all calculations, but the 1:1 is a myth imagined by someone.”

Not according to Lazaridis et al. 2015, although by the time he wrote this, he wasn’t aware of the ~18% EEF ratio within Yamnaya and Sredny Stog.

This article makes the same assertion early on before contradicting itself a few paragraphs later with that MLBA EHG:CHG 2:1 fantasy:

Quote: “ Ancient DNA data have unveiled massive population movements from the East, bringing in a Caucasus HG component together with an Eastern HG component in similar proportions (de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2015). These components may be attributed to a migration wave of Pontic-Caspian Steppe populations during the late Neolithic and EBA (∼2,800 BCE)”

—————

The author(s) of this article can’t even make up his/their mind whether the EHG : CHG ratio was 50 : 50 or 2/3 : 1/3.

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

Something is off here:

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867421003706-gr2_lrg.jpg

Modern Greeks/Cypriots clustering almost identical (X v. Y) on the graph with Log 02 and Log 04 (MBA).

The medieval era Slavic contribution should’ve shifted the modern samples significantly in the Steppe’s direction; but that’s not what we’re seeing here.


Modern Western Greeks (so excluding Cypriots) significantly shift in the steppe's direction compared to their Mycenaean (Late Bronze Age) ancestors:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cS1TzZipdUwq-TQveMP_JW-aW4e9RMH2/view?usp=sharing

And this despite the post-Mycenaean Anatolian gene flow to Western Greeks.

Matt said...

@Andrzejewski: Why would the EHG: CHG ratio in Steppe_EMBA pops be 2:1 instead of a more even one of 1:1??

It does seem strange for them to suggest that. I've started running a few qpAdm models (early days, not very refined or experienced with it yet) and have got fitting best fits so far of (judging by lowest Chi-Sq) and just testing with Steppe_EN/CHG:lowHG_EEF:EHG:IronGatesHG -

Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic (the 3 samples): 0.533:0.467,
Georgia_CHG:Russia_Karelia_HG (not testing with any WSHG or Iran related populations in the ancestors here).

Yamnaya_Samara_EBA: 0.434:0.459:0.0697:0.0378, Georgia_CHG:Russia_Karelia_HG:Serbia_Early_Neolithic:Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic.

Yamnaya_Samara_EBA: 0.780:0.0741:0.0843:0.0617, Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:Russia_Karelia_HG:Serbia_Early_Neolithic:Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic.

Afanasievo_EBA: 0.841:0.0732:0.0447:0.0415, Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:Serbia_Early_Neolithic:Russia_Karelia_HG:Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic.

Khvalynsk_Eneolithic (3 samples): 0.628:0.372, Russia_Karelia_HG,Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic.

Kazakhstan_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul (as a randomly chosen Steppe_MLBA): 0.424:0.353:0.124:0.0982, Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:Serbia_Early_Neolithic:Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic:Russia_Karelia_HG.

Poland_Globular_Amphora: 0.723:0.244:0.0324,
Serbia_Early_Neolithic:Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic:Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic (please note, this is only very little better than a fit without Steppe_En tho, very comparable!).

Scotland_Neolithic: 0.788:0.209:0.002, Serbia_Early_Neolithic:Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic:Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic.

Example run: https://pastebin.com/dp5Pwiqm; to see the pRight (outgroups) I've used. The p-values are not very good for any of these models I don't think, and I'm not sure if they're good models, not sure how to interpret that yet, but proportions seem generally along expected lines.

Which are consistent with about equal CHG:EHG model of Steppe_En / Yamnaya. Seems pretty consistent with Steppe_Eneo lacking any WHG/EEF like input and Yamnaya having a little of both.

It could be that they've run models with "IranN" instead as talk about "IranN/CHG", though that said, when I modify above models to include IranN instead the proportions don't really change, although the fit seems worse.

Unknown said...

The Slavs did not make any shift in the genetics of the Greeks because they could not. The Peloponnese was owned by only 2,000 Slavic men. And invaded and conquered it even less. This is known precisely because the Byzantine Empire counted them in order to tax them. A much bigger shift was made by the Armenians, subjects of the Byzantine Empire, whom Byzantium massively resettled to the Peloponnesus in suppress to outnumber the Slavs. The Slavs did not fight with women and children and peaceful farmers. This is how Byzantium managed to regain the Peloponnesus without a fight, all the battles with the Slavs it had lost cleanly.

Romulus said...

@Rob

KOU1 from this paper dated to 2464–2349 BCE doesn't have Steppe ancestry. Looks like Steppe Autosomal arrived in Greece between 2300-2000, not as far back as 2600. It didn't make a big impact as it was diluted by the Mycenean period (1600 B.C.) and that low level remained constant from then on until the classical era (500 B.C. Phocaceans). We already knew Myceneans had some Steppe ancestry so this paper didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, other than that it arrived late and didn't have a significant impact.

Wise dragon said...

@Genos Historia,

thanks for your reply.If an ancient person scores “very dark“ on HirsplexS does it mean he has dark brown or still light brown complexion? Besides, do you have access to the Hirisplex S system, and do you know the genotype of the samples Pta08, Kou01,and Log02 samples, whether they're homozygous for both alleles? And could you run the markers through? 

Unknown said...

@Andrzejewski
"Not according to Lazaridis et al. 2015, although by the time he wrote this, he wasn’t aware of the ~18% EEF ratio within Yamnaya and Sredny Stog."

That's not true, Lazaridis has the same 2:1. EEF is deducted only from CHG, and there is no 18% percent there, at most 10% reducing the share of CHG to 24%, EHG always remains stable from 66% to 70%.

"This article makes the same assertion early on before contradicting itself a few paragraphs later with that MLBA EHG:CHG 2:1 fantasy:"

You're the one who's fantasizing. I suspect that the 1:1 ratio is your own personal fiction that you are spreading everywhere.


They know how to make models and they know how to do them right.

MH_82 said...

There were Slavic villages in then Peloponnesus as late as 16 century
Greek mainland was near desolate after 500, big Slavic migrations
However these were however matched by transfers of populations from shrinking Byzantine empire; so Armenia; Anatolia Sicily . Hence a concurrent south/ east shift masking the large northern impact . But it’s clear from YDNA - I2a1 and R1a in northern Greece is all from slavs ~ 50%

Cy Tolliver said...

The topic of Slavic mixture in Greeks is obviously super interesting, but one thing I would also be interested in seeing is if anyone is ever able to quantify the Albanian admixture in modern Greece. Arvanites were a major element in the eastern Peloponnese and Attica within living memory, and in the late medieval period (14th-15th century mostly) Albanians (and Vlachs) overran everything from Thessaly and Epirus on downwards.

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,

Re-Against the conventional wisdom

You said this in 2016.....
"But here's my prediction: Steppe_EMBA only has 10-15% admixture from the post-Mesolithic Near East not including the North Caucasus, and basically all of this comes via female mediated gene flow from farming communities in the Caucasus and perhaps present-day Ukraine."

So back in 2016, you believed Yamnaya's Near Eastern ancestry came from Mesolithic hunter gatherers? Then you really were ahead of the curve. I don't remember this being discussed much on your blog till Wang 2018 was published.

vAsiSTha said...

Progress and vonyuchka have about 50-55% ehg and rest chg + iran_n + minor wshg

mzp1 said...

You guys are modelling Steppe EMBA with just CHG and EHG, but what about ANE, like MA1, I think that needs to be in the models too?

alex said...

@Andrzejewski

"So the mystery is finally resolved: it was not merely an elite domination over a large population but a tremendous pop replacement taking place in MBA Greece, whereby a 50% WSH genome is taking over an indigenous native culture, similar to processes that happened in Iberia and Britain during BellBeaker era."

What? If anything, it's the opposite story. Proto-Greeks were absorbed into the existing Bronze Age Greek gene pool. Can you explain how there was "tremendous pop replacement" when the Mycenean Greek genomes are primarily of Minoan-like ancestry? Also, the Y-DNA patterns are very different from those observed in Iberian and Britain.

Simon Stevin said...

How can Progress and Vonyuchka have WSHG if WSHG has like 80-90% EHG/ANE ancestry, and 10% East Asian? Vonyuchka and Progress don’t have East Asian and WSHG is 90% the same, it is way too similar, how could you accurately and reasonably detect admixture? Same with Iran_N. How do you distinguish Iran_N from CHG? Why would the peoples of the Eneolithic Steppe have Iran_N despite the Caucasus being right next to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe? Ockham’s Razor.

Romulus said...

What is interesting is that the appearance of Steppe ancestry in Greece (Neolithic outlier excluded) corresponds to the destruction of the House of Tiles.

vAsiSTha said...

"Same with Iran_N. How do you distinguish Iran_N from CHG? Why would the peoples of the Eneolithic Steppe have Iran_N despite the Caucasus being right next to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe? Ockham’s Razor."

Because qpadm models with EHG+CHG do not work. and the generated dstats which compare the model to the actual samples tell us that the models fail due to too low Iran_N in the model.

Here is the result file
https://pastebin.com/PYNsa77j

These are the dstats which tell us that EHG + CHG Steppe_eneolithic model lacks IranN as well as MA1 compared to actual.

details: Georgia_Kotias.SG Iran_GanjDareh_N 0.000598 1.283723
details: Russia_HG_Karelia Iran_GanjDareh_N -0.003820 -8.763681
dscore: Iran_GanjDareh_N f4: -0.001440 Z: -4.027273

details: Georgia_Kotias.SG Russia_MA1_HG.SG -0.007349 -10.882930
details: Russia_HG_Karelia Russia_MA1_HG.SG 0.005199 7.707510
dscore: Russia_MA1_HG.SG f4: -0.001562 Z: -3.046193

Corroborated with Vahaduo

Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2001
Distance: 5.2157% / 0.05215715
52.0 GEO_CHG
48.0 RUS_Karelia_HG


Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2001
Distance: 4.3407% / 0.04340708
43.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
31.8 GEO_CHG
24.4 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Distance falls to 4.3% from 5.2%. Sarazm (IranN like + WSHG like) is chosen over Iran_N. A likely typical ancestry profile east of caspian during 5th mill bce.

same for the other 2 samples

Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
Distance: 5.5001% / 0.05500113
56.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
44.0 GEO_CHG

Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
Distance: 4.5934% / 0.04593418
51.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
25.6 TJK_Sarazm_En
22.8 GEO_CHG
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001
Distance: 4.9828% / 0.04982831
54.8 GEO_CHG
45.2 RUS_Karelia_HG

Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001
Distance: 3.8495% / 0.03849460
40.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
32.6 GEO_CHG
26.6 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N


vAsiSTha said...

"Progress and vonyuchka have about 50-55% ehg and rest chg + iran_n + minor wshg"

Quick correction. 40-50% EHG + the rest being CHG + IranN + minor WSHG

Matt said...

@mzp1: re, "what about ANE", I have done some qpAdm modelling of Yamnaya and other populations over the last day with admixtools2 (though bear in mind I'm still new to doing so), and it seems like when modelling Yamnaya with Karelia_HG+CHG+WHG+ANF, or WHG+ANF+Steppe_EN, then it seems like in the latter case, more WHG+ANF is needed to balance out Steppe_EN.

So from that I wouldn't be surprised if the overall EHG-like source of Steppe_EN is actually slightly further "east" on the WHG->EHG->WSHG cline than Sidelkino / Karelia_HG / Samara_HG samples are. Probably not much further east, but a little bit.

MH_82 said...

@ Vasistha

“ Because qpadm models with EHG+CHG do not work. “

That’s because your model is using Karelia_HG , which is an odd choice
Samara_HG works just fine . Adding WSHG and Iran N does improve the fit quite significantly; but i don’t think it really changes our understanding of historical processes.


@ Romulus

“ What is interesting is that the appearance of Steppe ancestry in Greece (Neolithic outlier excluded) corresponds to the destruction of the House of Tiles.”

Indeed; I pointed out that likelihood of such correspondence a couple of years ago.
NB: I’m sceptical about the so-called Greek N outlier . I’m not sure it will materialise

Simon Stevin said...

@Rob,

Why is the fit for Eneolithic Steppe improved with WSHG and Iran_N? Is it simply due to there not being a recent, contemporary to it with ANE and CHG? So because those two are closer to the age of Steppe Eneolithic, they produce better fits? I have read on this blog for years that Iran_N is not a better source for the CHG-like ancestry in WSH, and as far as I know, there is Devil’s Gate, East Asian-related ancestry in WSHG/Tyumen, so maybe there are WSHG groups that have yet to be sampled, that lack this ancestry, and are the last of the ANE foragers, before they all got absorbed into other populations.

Davidski said...

How do we know that these Eneolithic steppe populations were mixed?

Maybe they represent a population that was unadmixed since the Paleolithic, in which case what's the point of modeling them as anything younger than that?

MH_82 said...

Sample availability is perhaps one factor; the episodic character of north caucasian demography is another

EastPole said...

@vAsiSTha

It is OT, but I know that you are interested in it.

From “Svetovid and Śiva” by Subhash Kak
https://www.academia.edu/46950853/Svetovid_and_%C5%9Aiva

“We have listed broad parallels between the Vedic and the Old Slavic religions related to divinities with multiple heads. We cannot see these as emerging at a time when the Slavic and the Aryan (Indo-Iranian) societies were in close proximity because multiple faces for divinities are absent in the Iranian sub-branch. They could not have come from the Slavic lands to India at a late stage - such as the time of the Kuṣāṇas -- because the history of such representation in India goes back to the Vedas itself (as in the image of the four-faced Brahmā) and the idea of the cosmic pillar from which everything emerges is in the Atharvaveda.”

There are a lot of similarities between Old Vedic and Slavic religions. And we know that they were not passed by Iranians from India to Poland via steppe. Iranians don’t have many gods, and words and traditions that Slavic and Vedic Aryans share.
In my opinion it is more probable that Vedic Aryans and Slavs preserved many religious traditions from their common Indo-Slavic times.

from T. Burrow “The Sanskrit Language”

https://i.postimg.cc/VLGr9pXq/screenshot-131.png

page 23:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=cWDhKTj1SBYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false

Andrzejewski said...

Could it indicate a similar but reverse trajectory taking place in ancient BA Italy in 1100BC, where a Proto-Villanovan IE invading culture similar genetically to log04 and log02 admixed into the indigenous to form Etruscans, only that in Italy the PV were absorbed into locals with Neolithic origins while in Greece the invaders imposed their language?

mzp1 said...

@davidski,

Ooh interesting, I think you get it now.

Steppe Emba populations do not need to be mixed. The EHG + CHG or whatever is really just a description based on EHG/CHG/Iran_N/ANE as 'base' populations.

vAsiSTha said...

@eastpole
multi headed and bodies representations are common during buddhist era also. for example check the Mauryan Sarnath pillar, with 4 lions the wheel and other animals.

https://smarthistory.org/lion-capital-ashokan-pillar-at-sarnath/#:~:text=The%20most%20celebrated%20of%20the,display%20at%20the%20Sarnath%20Museum.

This was also the time of increased contact to the SC asian region and subsequently China.

example see this from China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalokite%C5%9Bvara#/media/File:Thousand-Hand_Eleven-Headed_Guanyin_(%E5%8D%83%E6%89%8B%E8%A7%80%E9%9F%B3_Qianshou_Guanyin_and_%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%80%E9%9D%A2%E8%A7%80%E9%9F%B3_Shiyimian_Guanyin)_-_Mount_Putuo_Guanyin_Dharma_Realm;_Zhejiang,_China.jpg

11 headed and 1000 armed avatar of buddha

vAsiSTha said...

Interesting details from the Kak paper
"A most striking example of this are the figures on the Gundestrup Cauldron found in a bog in Denmark and dated to about 150 BCE that are clearly of an Indic origin: the Goddess being adored by two elephants (which is out of place in Europe), and the meditating figure in a pose that is nearly
identical to the famed Paśupati seal of the Harappan culture
(Taylor, 1992). It is generally believed that Thracian silversmiths most likely connected to the Śaka (and therefore plausibly in knowledge of the Indian art tradition) were responsible for its creation."

JuanRivera said...

I think that an EHG/CHG mixture was already present by the Final Paleolithic, given Near Eastern-like geometric tools found in Crimea and the Middle Volga in that period. However, Steppe Eneolithic itself formed in the Mesolithic or Pottery Neolithic, as it shows an eastern shift relative to a 50/50 CHG/EHG mix. Likewise, Late Mesolithic EHGs such as Karelia HG and Samara HG have such a shift compared to Early Mesolithic (almost Final Paleolithic) EHGs such as Sidelkino HG and Veretye_Meso. Similar populations to Steppe Eneolithic existed in Crimea, the North Caspian region, and around the Sea of Azov, which can be inferred from tools similar to the ones found in the Mesolithic and Pottery Neolithic Ciscaucasian Steppe, and which was confirmed by a hinted Pottery Neolithic age North Caspian sample similar to Steppe Eneolithic.

JuanRivera said...

ROH length would help determine their population size (and their lifestyle by extension), while length of CHG, EHG, and WSHG-like segments would help narrow down the time of admixture(s).

Matt said...

Related to discussion, a quick attempt at a qpAdm experiment, looking at what results come out for models under some different outgroup sets: https://imgur.com/a/jr4DItU

Probably not surprisingly to anyone, attempts to model populations on the EHG cline as WSHG+WHG really explode when there is a EHG related population (Ukraine_Meso/Karelia_HG) in the pRight. Doing this has made me more aware that qpAdm are *super* sensitive to recent shared drift with populations, and it's important to be really careful to make sure that the pRight are all relatively symmetric in the degree of shared drift with test populations...

But this is also a really hard criterion to observe because A) populations that don't share recent drift often don't really influence the stats too much (e.g. I think I could stack the pRight with Upper Paleolithic populations, but it wouldn't affect anything), and B) we're assymetric in the populations that are available, e.g. nothing older the early Neolithic in Near East.

It seems like it can be really hard to find a set of populations who are relevant enough that if we get high p-values they aren't just reflective of uninformative outgroups, but also not so closely related to the target that the p-values won't explode because the pLeft lack relevant recent drifts (and also keep enough SNPs to be informative as well).

vAsiSTha said...

Rob
"That’s because your model is using Karelia_HG , which is an odd choice
Samara_HG works just fine "

This should not be the issue. Eg see
Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
Distance: 5.4986% / 0.05498617
51.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
43.6 GEO_CHG
5.4 RUS_Samara_HG


Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2001
Distance: 5.2075% / 0.05207550
51.2 GEO_CHG
37.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
11.0 RUS_Samara_HG

Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001
Distance: 4.9828% / 0.04982831
54.8 GEO_CHG
45.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG

Samara is universally not preferred.
My linux system crashed and is under reinstall, so i will test it out later today.

vAsiSTha said...

@Matt
"and it's important to be really careful to make sure that the pRight are all relatively symmetric in the degree of shared drift with test populations..."

Not really, the main purpose of qpAdm according to the authors is to choose the best between competing source models. So what is needed in the pRight is populations that share alleles 'differentially' with the source populations so that they have the power to discriminate between sources.

And its purpose is not to, as an example, model EHG rich populations as WHG+WSHG although you certainly can attempt it if pops are chosen wisely.

MH_82 said...

@ Vasistha

'Samara is universally not preferred.''

The discussion was not about what's 'preferred' in G25-based models
You suggested that models with just EHG/CHG dont work
but they produce acceptable fits & are historically sensible, eg/

left pops:
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Russia_HG_Samara
Georgia_Kotias.SG

right pops:
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Turkey_N.SG
Russia_HG_Karelia
Russia_Kolyma_M.SG
Mongolia_North_N
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
Iran_GanjDareh_N
ONG.SG
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG

best coefficients: 0.470 0.530

chisq tail prob
10.811 0.147098



The highest Tail Prob (0.831) was with

Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Russia_HG_Samara
Georgia_Kotias.SG
Russia_HG_Tyumen
Iran_HajjiFiruz_C


best coefficients: 0.400 0.420 0.069 0.111


For interest:

Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Russia_HG_Samara
Iran_Mesolithic_HotuIIIb

best coefficients: 0.483 0.517

tail prob 0.547263

CrM said...

@Davidski
"How do we know that these Eneolithic steppe populations were mixed?
Maybe they represent a population that was unadmixed since the Paleolithic, in which case what's the point of modeling them as anything younger than that?"

What's up with Sarazm and his tendency to pick ANE and CHG without any additional Iran_C/Anatolia?
Are there any upcoming studies that might finally solve the Kelteminar mystery?

Target: TJK_Sarazm_En
Distance: 4.6726% / 0.04672589
59.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
23.6 GEO_CHG
8.8 RUS_AfontovaGora3
8.4 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 TUR_Boncuklu_N
0.0 WHG

vAsiSTha said...

@rob

those pvalues are crazy high.. i suspect you are neither using qpfstats nor using it with allsnp Yes. allsnps Yes will not give these high p values.

I will run mine in an hour and post here.

vAsiSTha said...

@Rob

left pops:
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Georgia_Kotias.SG - 50%
Russia_HG_Samara - 50%
p-value: 0.00134232

Result file https://pastebin.com/77RU5sMZ

As i said before
1. Use qpfstats first on the pops with allsnps Yes
2. then feed that result file to qpAdm instead of feeding it the geno files.
3. using karelia and satsurblia in right pops with samara and kotias is left pops is also very icky, although that isnt the reason for the high tailprobs . lack of allsnps Yes probably is.

Unknown said...

qpAdm is not for suckers.

"Right pops:
Russia_HG_Karelia
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG

=========

left pops:
Russia_HG_Samara
Iran_Mesolithic_HotuIIIb
Georgia_Kotias.SG"
!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are equivalent, they are essentially the same samples.

This is a case of dividing by 0. 0/0 gives an unknown what!!!!!!!!!

The p-value at 0/0 division makes no sense at all.

There is no Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic, its correct name is Caucasian_Eneolithic or Caucasian_Steppe_Eneolithic.

vAsiSTha said...

@crm

What is funnier is that if you run vahaduo on geoksyur, namazga and sarazm EN samples as CHG +IranN +Tyumen/MA1 + EHG + Barcin_N and sort it in descending order of CHG ancestry,

the top 8 samples with highest CHG ancestry show 0 or very minimal EHG, and Sarazm even though it is the most eastern of the samples shows highest CHG.. all very weird..
but a mating network probably existed across the caspian as well. We desperately need more samples from SC asia neolithic as well as caucasus.

See here https://imgur.com/a/llkUpie

mzp1 said...

I still find it interesting that Steppe populations take little MA1/Botai on top of what they get from EHG. Botai is a descended from MA1 and exists to the time of Yamnaya, so there should be genetic contact between the two during the formative period of Yamnaya.

This is why WSH is so South-Western shifted, and likely has a deeper SW Asian origin, maybe around Southern Turkmenistan, with EHG to their North (and East). EHG must be between WSH and Yamnaya, which can look like WSH-EHG-ANE going SouthWest-NorthEast to the North and East of the Caspian.

The Western End of this cline is actually represented by ancestry in Kumtepe_N, Maykop, Yamnaya Ozera, Yamnaya Bulgaria and related indivdiuals.

mzp1 said...

Khvalynsk
KotiasCHG: 0.05
TepeHissar: 0.07
Sidelkino: 0.87

chisq 6.4, tail 0.695

Afanasievo
KotiasCHG: 0.13
TepeHissar: 0.36
Sidelkino: 0.50

chisq 33.9 tail 0.0000920

(Right = Yoruba, Italy_N_oWHG.SG, ONG.SG,Russia_Kostenki14.SG, Kazakhstan_Botai.SG, Georgia_Satsurblia.SG, Russia_Caucasus_KuraAraxes, Iran_C_SehGabi, Anatolia_N, Anatolia_Epipaleolithic, Russia_MA1_HG.SG, Russia_Caucasus_Maikop_Novosvobodnaya)


WSH models with more TepeHissar than CHG. Yet, WSH will take barely any MA1/Botai on top of EHG.

So on the South WSH shares a genetic relationship with both CHG and Hissar (more Iran_N-like), but in the North East its relationship to ANE is really just confined to EHG.

Genos Historia said...

@Wise Dragon,

Sorry for late reply.

Hirisplex pigmentation predictor is available online
https://hirisplex.erasmusmc.nl/

Getting SNP alleles from modern and ancient DNA though is difficult ever since genetickr stopped posting results for ancient DNA.

It would be interesting put ancient DNA into the new Hirisplex predictor. As it is more accurate than the old one.

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,

Are there any Hungarian Conquerors in G25 dataset?

I'm reading up on everything Uralic.

Davidski said...

@Genos Historia

I don't have any Hungarian Conquerors yet that I can run publicly.

Davidski said...

@mzp1

You're a moron.

Everyone knows by now that Yamnaya formed somewhere in or close to Ukraine, and that's why it's shifted west compared to Khvalynsk and doesn't have any Botai ancestry.

CrM said...

@vasistha
If Kelteminar is the source of this CHG + ANE signal then it's going to be big.

Archeology links CHG and Iran_N with Zagrosian Baradostian, this has been discussed here several times before. Would be fascinating if Kelteminar has ancestry from a proto-CHG strain that diverged from Baradostians but migrated to Central Asia rather than to the Caucasus like Satsurblia. Central Asia in turn likely housed an ANE-like population, so the mix between those two would create some Progress-like folk.

https://imgur.com/a/nPmDG5p

gamerz_J said...

@vAsiSTha

There is West Siberian HG in Progress?

MH_82 said...

@ Vasistha
Theyre TailProbs; and there’s nothing crazy about them

vAsiSTha said...

@crm

Sc asia cannot be hosting just an ANE population during 6000bce because there is complete absence of Anatolian farmer ancestry in sarazm and aigyrzhal samples, which are eastern samples. So the likely profile there before Anatolian introgression is iranN + chg + ane.

It is also possible that this iranN+CHG signal we are getting is actually an unadmixed population like davidski said, but then unlike his position this population will have existed east of Caspian and not west of it, as the west of Caspian is much better sampled and we see nothing of this kind there, whereas there seems to be loads of this kind of ancestry to the east of Caspian.

@Rob
Default qpAdm setting uses allsnps:No.. this forces it to use only the common available SNPs between the population in left and right and therefore (eg.. 150k instead of 900k+) causes false positives and high tailprobs. So have a look at the number of SNPs being used from each label. If you are using qpfstats, write run output to a log file.. or if you are using qpAdm directly without qpfstats the number of SNPs used is written at the top of result file.

Also please don't use Hotu sample in any model, it only has 32k SNPs.. literally all models which include it with allsnps NO will pass.

Davidski said...

No, there was already a CHG-rich population well to the west of the Caspian Sea as early as the so called Neolithic, and it was ancestral to Yamnaya.

It didn't come from east of the Caspian, because there was way too much Botai/WSHG-like ancestry there.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

Nope. 20-30% wshg ancestry there..

30-40% of that in the steppe eneolithic gives about 8-10% wshg in steppe_eneolithic. And we see 5-10% wshg there anyway. So, perfect match.

Davidski said...

There's no WSHG in Yamnaya.

In fact, there's also no real WSHG in Progress or Vonyuchka. Their ancestry is just more eastern. It's a clinal thing.

Khvalynsk is, in turn, more eastern than Progress/Vonyuchka.

But you'll never understand any of this, because you're a biased clown.

vAsiSTha said...

"But you'll never understand any of this, because you're a biased clown."

The pot calling the kettle black..

"Their ancestry is just more eastern. It's a clinal thing."

Yes indeed, the ancestry is just more eastern, just matching what one would expect in SC asia. Just wait for older samples from there to be published and we shall see who was right.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 397   Newer› Newest»