search this blog

Friday, May 14, 2021

A Greek tragedy


I wasn't going to blog about the Clemente et al. "Aegean palatial civilizations" paper, because I think that it's a rather strange effort overall. But apparently a lot of people want to know my thoughts on the topic, so here goes.

If you download the relevant PDF file (here) and do a search for "Slav", you'll see that the word doesn't even appear in the bibliography. How is that possible, considering the massive impact that the Slavs had on the Balkans, including Greece, during the Middle Ages?

Indeed, here's a quote from page 12 of the PDF: "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."

That's a very optimistic view. In fact, there's no evidence whatsoever in the paper that there's even 1% genetic continuity between present-day Greeks and any ancient Greek population, let alone the MBA northern Aegeans.

The genetic impact of Medieval Slavic migrations on most present-day Greek populations is easy to see. For instance, below are several linear models based on D-statistics of the form D(Outgroup,Test;Ancient1,Ancient2). You don't need a PhD in mathematics to understand them. The relevant data file is available here.

Note that most of the present-day Greek groups cluster together, and they also form fairly neat clines with the other Greeks, as well as Cypriots, other Balkan populations, including those speaking Slavic languages, and also the Slavic-speaking Ukrainians. On the other hand, they don't overlap with any of the ancient groups from Greece and surrounds, nor do they generally form obvious clines with them.

To me this suggests that most present-day Greeks harbor significant levels of Slavic ancestry and some sort of recent Cypriot-related ancestry, and in large part they're only coincidentally similar to ancient Aegeans, including those from the MBA (labeled Greece_Helladic_MBA in my graphs).

And let me assure you that no matter which ancient populations you run in such D-stats, you'll always see similar present-day Greek clusters and present-day Balkan clines.

Obviously, it's fair enough to assume that there's been some genetic continuity in the Aegean from the Iron Age, Bronze Age, and even the Copper Age and Neolithic era to the present-day. But the point I'm making is that no one has yet proved this, or even attempted to measure it properly.

See also...

Greek confirmation bias

342 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 342 of 342
DragonHermit said...

It's not that groups of EEF were different in terms of ancestry. It's just they were the ones that were most prone to phenotype change due to selection. Especially the ones that strayed very far north of Greece/Anatolia.

So in terms of phenotypes EEF groups were certainly the most diverse due to a diet low in Vitamin D, and a lack of sunlight. That drove a select number of them to develop lighter features, which the steppe-descendants later picked up and were a vector for much of northern Europe.

Andrzejewski said...

@DragonHermit “ It's not that groups of EEF were different in terms of ancestry. It's just they were the ones that were most prone to phenotype change due to selection. Especially the ones that strayed very far north of Greece/Anatolia.

So in terms of phenotypes EEF groups were certainly the most diverse due to a diet low in Vitamin D, and a lack of sunlight. That drove a select number of them to develop lighter features, which the steppe-descendants later picked up and were a vector for much of northern Europe.”

I was referring to their diversified mtDNA and to a lesser degree - their ydna Haplogroups, as well as to a possible utterly diverse origin and hence cultural and linguistic background, not to their phenotype(s).

But we know that TRB and GAC had more allele frequency for blondism and fair skin, a trait which was also common among certain forager groups (all but Cheddar Man, it seems), and of course - Yamnaya, which was 50% AG3 derived, was recently discovered to have harbored individuals carrying blond (or red) hair, fair skin and blue or green eyes. The WSH introgression rendered Northern Europe since Bronze Age more light featured.

All that said above, physical anthropology is highly discouraged in this blog, although I had to respond here to make a counterpoint.

Genos Historia said...

@Andrze,
"All that said above, physical anthropology is highly discouraged in this blog, although I had to respond here to make a counterpoint."

Lol. The ancient DNA for this topic is on a stand still anyways. We lack many data points.

Onur Dincer said...

@Rob

Yes, i was quering some of the minor points. E.g. I dont think being I2a would necessarily make people 'kin', having separated in the Ice Age. Also remember a large part of CWC & Yamnaya expansion was over other R1-li

Yes, also the rise in I2a ancestry in EEF probably happened independently in several different source regions.

Copper Axe said...

@Andzrejewski

"Yamnaya, which was 50% AG3 derived, was recently discovered to have harbored individuals carrying blond (or red) hair, fair skin and blue or green eyes. The WSH introgression rendered Northern Europe since Bronze Age more light featured."

Could you link the article that uncovered this? I came across one which postulated that the steppe migrations were responsible for the spread of KITLG but I dont think they actually included any data with it. Came out not too long ago:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/exd.14142

Would that be the same article you were talking about or another one?

I like this quote:

"suggesting that light skin was for many
thousand years not essential for survival at higher latitudes of Europe. In addition, there is no mechanistical link between vitamin D and the expression of the main light skin alleles, such as primary vitamin D target genes carrying VDR binding sites in their regulatory regions.
In summary, there is no convincing evidence of a direct evolutionary effect of vitamin D on skin lightening of Europeans."

Been singing the same tune for a while now.

In a similar trend this article by Lehti Saag mentions that several Yamnaya samples had the rs4988235 snp but other articles state the opposite. Anyone got a clue?

Also for all this talk of these super blond, blue eyed and fair Globular Amphora sample, this article had 19 of them and they were all quite dark yet I dont see people mention that as much. I wonder why...

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/22/10705

Hannibal said...

@ Romulus

That's incorrect. All ancient European samples that have blond hair also have EHG or Steppe ancestry.

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe yes, Carlberg. 2020.

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

In addition to Copper Axe's points, the typical WHG was not different from Cheddar Man in pigmentation.

Onur Dincer said...

@Hannibal

That's incorrect. All ancient European samples that have blond hair also have EHG or Steppe ancestry.

Some Anatolia N, EEF and even Levant N individuals had blond hair according to genetic predictions, however in the minority. Those pops do not show any EHG or steppe ancestry.

DragonHermit said...

@Copper Axe

You lack a basic understanding of human evolution. It's not about something being "necessary for survival". It's about a higher factor of biological fitness. That's how features spread. You don't automatically die because you look a certain way and migrate to a new region. Your genes spread over thousands of years because they give someone a competitive advantage.

By the Bronze Age, EEF groups were the most diverse in terms of phenotype. This is a fact. No one claimed to know whether they picked up certain alleles from HGs originally, or it originated with them. All we know is the EEF component in Greeks/Anatolians and some parts of Central Europe, had to started to diverge from the EEF component Yamna-related groups mixed with.

For example, we had Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers (who are mostly a dead end genetically), that looked VERY different than WHG/EHG, yet were very similar in terms of ancestry.

Andrzejewski said...

It was the Indo-Europeanization of Europe which homogenized it: culturally, linguistically, materially, in lifestyle, customs and genetics.

There were about 500 disparate Farmer and forager tribes, each probably speaking unrelated languages to their neighbors, let alone having rivalry between adjacent populations. Rössen was different than Baden, GAC from Tripolye, mtDNA was very diverse both between and within extant populations. I suspect that EEF and WHG were nothing but labels.

The emergence of pan-European CWC, SGC and BBC changed all that. But it may come down to those GAC people who were supposedly blondish because of some Baltic HG or SHG admixture, so who knows?

Andrzejewski said...

Remember this guy?

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/blog/2012/10/01/on-the-homeland-of-the-uralic-language-family/

He wrote an article, purporting to explain that the original Eastern European indigenous dwelling from the Baltic to the Urals were so sort of non-IE non-Uralic (perhaps similar to Volosovo or Combed Ware) EHG, and that some typonyms in the Baltic languages and in Sami in particular stem from this substrate.

He completely discredited himself recently when he was posting here repeatedly, trying to convince everyone (but fooled no one) that the Proto-Uralic homeland was west of the Urals (ie, in Eastern Europe).

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

Remember this guy?

You mixed him up with someone else.

Kinnunen said...

@DragonHermit
They still had very varying degrees of HG admixture and from different sources, no? And even the Anatolian component may have had different sources depending on when the ancestors of various groups left Anatolia and from where and which route they took. Pigmentation wise it seems to me that the northern EEF were to have been very fair. In the supplementary information of Malmstrom et al (2019) on table S6 observed allele frequency for pigmentation is featured. The steppe-rich samples all have dark hair and brown eyes and intermediate skin even. The one Funnel Beaker sample appears to have been very blond, with blue eyes and light skin. The Pitted Ware SHG forager in the table had light skin too.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/suppl/10.1098/rspb.2019.1528
There is also this a German dissertation. Look at page 78 for pigmentation analysis of many aDNA samples.
https://d-nb.info/1209245647/34

Genos Historia said...

@Andrze,

Yeah that's a good point. Corded Ware especially made Europe more uniform than it had been in the past.

There was definitely recogniziation of Indo European identity. Imo, I bet there was a common language across all of Corded Ware. Bell Beaker would have definitely recognized their common bonds with Corded Ware derived groups in Eastern Europe.

Genos Historia said...

@Kinnuen,

I've never seen that German thesis. Thanks for sharing!

@All,
They had a lot of new Mesolithic samples from Balkans. They also have new EHG samples from Minino. Most date to 8000 BC. Very cool.

MH_82 said...

Even more interesting is the “Mesolithic “ (C14 not done) from Crimea / Leski Cave
Projects with EHGs, mtdna U5a
I guess Crimea wasn’t a CHG refuge
It’s a male, so should get YDNA too

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ Even more interesting is the “Mesolithic “ (C14 not done) from Crimea / Leski Cave
Projects with EHGs, mtdna U5a
I guess Crimea wasn’t a CHG refuge
It’s a male, so should get YDNA too”

I bet a Dnieper Donets?

MH_82 said...

Shan-Koba culture of Crimea.

Matt said...

Kinnuen, yes thanks for the link particularly more EHGs (think most SE HGs already in another thesis, and a couple more CE HGs). Good observation Rob.

Pigmentation score analysis does make some sense; it seems like this analysis though places more weight on a variety of SNPs and less on SLC45A2 and SLC24A5. Which may or may not make sense. The pigscore is a simple average of the frequency of derived alleles, though some are of larger effect than others (not factored in)...

Blonde Bichon huh? Suggests EHG and WHG similar in overall pigscore (derived variants across his panel) and that light hair and eyes seems more frequent in their WHG group here (while light skin alleles more in EHG)...

old europe said...


the Leski cave sample is from a swiderian archeoligical site. The sample scores IIRC 60/70% WHG. Dneper Don foragers seem to be derived mostly from swiderians.

Genos Historia said...

Yeah, EHG is 100% derived allele in SLC45A2. Just like Neolithic farmers.

Andrzejewski said...

@old Europe “ the Leski cave sample is from a swiderian archeoligical site. The sample scores IIRC 60/70% WHG. Dneper Don foragers seem to be derived mostly from swiderians.”

But their male uniparental markers are R1a and R1b, like Sredny Stog + Yamnaya.

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt “ Blonde Bichon huh? Suggests EHG and WHG similar in overall pigscore (derived variants across his panel) and that light hair and eyes seems more frequent in their WHG group here (while light skin alleles more in EHG)...”

I suspect that the only extant WHG pop that was somewhat swarthy (emphasis on “somewhat”) was Cheddar Man. WHG weren’t a uniform population but bands descending from Villabruna cluster sleuth lots of isolation and genetic drift, founder effects.

Notwithstanding, physical anthropology reconstruction of Cheddar, Ötzi, Loschbour, etc are very unreliable: Ötzi looks like a modern Europeans (to an extent), Motala Man (SHG, Pitt Ware) looks surprisingly like a modern Swede in spite of the meager amount of SHG in modern Nordics, and there was some UK exhibit whose reconstruction looked amazingly like a 21st century Brit, who possibly belonged to the builders of Stonehenge but we know that they were 90% replaced by the Dutch Beaker immigrants.

Therefore I take all talk of appearances with a spoon of salt. Let alone when there are so many missing pieces in the chessboard.

Andrzejewski said...

@Genos Historia “ Yeah, EHG is 100% derived allele in SLC45A2. Just like Neolithic farmers.”

People tend to associate only EHG with ANE/AG3, forgetting that CHG themselves (and Iran_N) were an admixture of Ancient North Eurasians with a Gravetian/Ugrinacian-like UHG or AHG native to the Near East and West Asia (Dzudzuana).

Yamnaya with 75% AG3 in EHG + 35% AG3 in CHG === 50% ANE/AG3.

I wonder if the original inhabitants of the PPNB and PPNC era Levant (in light of Lazaridis’ article on “Pequi’in” population of Anatolian farmers 4000BCE) were similar phenotypically to LBK and other EEF ethnic groups but because of a later influx of Iran_Chl, Tepecik Çiftlik (“Abraham’s ruling clan), Jebusites (offshoots of Mitanni?), KAC and Anatolia BA immigrants have rendered the Bronze Age middle easterners closer to their appearance today, based on genetic markers?

old europe said...

Andrzejewski said:People tend to associate only EHG with ANE/AG3, forgetting that CHG themselves (and Iran_N) were an admixture of Ancient North Eurasians with a Gravetian/Ugrinacian-like UHG or AHG native to the Near East and West Asia (Dzudzuana).

ANE too is aurignacian derived. It has basically 70% of european upper paleolithic dna, the rest being east asian.

left pops:
Yana
GoyetQ116-1
Tianyuan

right pops:
Sunghir
Kostenki14
Gravettian
Ami.DG
Onge.DG
Papuan.DG
Ust_Ishim

best coefficients: 0.686 0.314
Jackknife mean: 0.685492573 0.314507427
std. errors: 0.025 0.025

SLMD said...

Realistically, whatever "West Asian" is in CHG, it's present less than 8% in Eneolithic steppe like Progress_en and less than 13% in EMBA steppe like Yamnaya. This is my rough estimate based on K7. Ancient DNA from right population will make it very obvious that most of "CHG" ancestry is something very closer to European hunter-gatherers.

1. Eneolithic steppe VS Moderns

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

2. Yamnaya steppe VS Moderns

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

3. Corded Ware VS Moderns

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

Looking at where Progress_en and Yamnaya plot, they are all closer to Euro hunter-gatherer rich population (ANE-WHG cline). They plot with populations with LOWEST Near East/EEF/West Asian ancestry. Most of CHG-related ancestry will be Euro hunter-gatherer related ancestry.

Yamz said...

Hi Davidski

Sorry to bother you but would it be possible to share the coordinates for some of the 1KG/HGDP samples that didn't make it on to the datasheets? I'm after 16 out of the 25 Makrani samples and 18 [24] Sindhi samples that didn't make it as well as a handful of Gujaratis in Houston with extremely odd haplogroup assignments (NA21118; NA21142; NA20903). The samples currently on the datasheet are;

Sindhi:HGDP00189
Sindhi:HGDP00195
Sindhi:HGDP00169
Sindhi:HGDP00197
Sindhi:HGDP00199
Sindhi:HGDP00210

Makrani:HGDP00137
Makrani:HGDP00145
Makrani:HGDP00153
Makrani:HGDP00154
Makrani:HGDP00155
Makrani:HGDP00157

un said...

in this article gatherers EHG and Corded Ware are pretty dark https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/4/eabd6535
Table 2 Phenotype prediction results

un said...

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/pigmentation/
Bichon Switzerland PHG 11,820–11,610 BC
Skin Medium Hair Black Eyes Brown

Genos Historia said...

@SLMD,

This is one of the cool questions we need to dig deep into.

Davidski likes to suggest CHG in Yamnaya is just a European cousin not truly CHG.

This is a hard question, but from experience looking at mtDNA, I am confident this is real West Asian ancestry.

Maybe the CHG in Yamnaya had been in Europe for 12,000 years but if you go back far enough, you'll see its ancestors originally came from SouthWest Asia.

Otherwise Yamnaya wouldn't have so much West Asian mtDNA that is related to what we see deep in Southwest Asia. H, J1b, N1a1b3 (I).
These clades evolved in West Asia not at the border with Europe.

A lesson in general from West Asian mtDNA, is it points to its Stone age populations being actually distinct. Not just close cousins of Europeans with slight Basal Eurasian admixture.

The tree models that DNA papers make, since they are so focused on the deep past, I think make Stone age West Asia look closer to European hunter gatherers than they were. SO I don't think CHG is largely of EHG origin.

MH_82 said...

@ Genos

Yeah, Epipaleolithi mtDNA is usually confined to certain clades, e.g. U5b1 in western Europe, u5a2 & U4 in Eastern Europe, etc. But come Yamnaya time, there is quite a diversity of mtDNA lineages. This doesnt seem to be consistent

@ Old Europe
The Swiderian in Poland, Belarus, north Ukraine. It is an eastern version of Ahrensburgian. It forms the WHG component in Latvia HGs. The WHG base in Crimea could be different, much older

Romulus said...

This is my favorite part of the german pigmentation paper

Frost [2006] suggested that the diversity of eye and hair color in European population can be ex-
plained by sexual selection. The theory is based on the assumption that hunter-gatherer men had
a higher mortality, caused by the dangers of hunting. Based on their scarcity, men could assert a
higher mate preference. This led to the selection of phenotypes that had a signaling factor and stood
out of the mass. The assumed scarcity of men was less severe in latitudes closer to the equator,
since food sources were more abundant. In addition, signaling of group affiliation was also assumed.
However, these conditions would have not persisted after the adaption of agriculture, as the need
to hunt was moderated by food production.

Genos Historia said...

@Rob,

What do you think of the idea of West European origin of Kunda, Narva in Eastern Baltic.

Their mtDNA is mainly U5b. Their Y DNA so far is mainly I2a1.

Swiderian would maybe be their ancestor.

But original Mesolithic Baltic Hgs were U5a, U4. So I think they were indigenous to Eastern Europe.

MH_82 said...

@ Genos

Traditional views believe that the East Baltic was first populated from the West ("Swiderian' reindeer hunters), during the Final Paleolithic, then easterners with pressure-blade technology came along from the Volga (Butovo culture, etc), and the merged people then produced the Mesolithic Kunda culture.

But this might not be quite so simple as a 'dual-ancestry' scenario, because the input of middle-range groups from Ukraine & SW Russia has often not been considered, or simply assumed they did not make a big impact. If the latter did make a significant impact, then they might have already been some mix of EHG/WHG, which would make it a complex 3 or 4 way scenario. But this is a big if at the moment, as the archaeological link from the mammoth hunters in central Ukraine & western Russia to Baltic reindeer herders isnt clear. At the moment, a couple of Russian archaeologists support a link based on geophysical prospection. But I think uniparental might support their position, because the 'western' component of early Baltic HGs is not a simple subset of those in western Europe

The Y-DNA of Kunda Mesolithic is R1b-pre-P297 (or whatever it is exactly) and I2a2a1b. The latter is the closest precursor, so far, to that in DDII. From an mtDNA perspective, not all U5b is necessarily 'western', e.g. U5b2


Narva succeeds Kunda in its southern territories, and has pottery. Narva has the more traditionally 'western' I2a1a2 and I2a1b (which is odd because hunter-gather pottery broadly came from the east), but at a GW aspect, I couldnt recall a clear distinction between earlier Kunda and later Narva in terms of their projection on the WHG-ANE cline.

Davidski said...

@John Thomas

You'll have to tone down your critique of Razib if you want me to approve the comment.

epoch said...

@Rob

"The WHG base in Crimea could be different, much older"

The Buran Kaya paper stated that the first occupation of that rock shelter after LGM was Swiderian.

"The two Upper Paleolithic cultural traditions, related to the Aurignacian and Gravettian complexes (layers 6-5 to 5-2), were successively present in Crimea during a relatively short time span between 39.4 and 34.1 ka cal BP. During the following period of about 20,000 years, no depositional processes occurred or were preserved and the site was presumed abandoned. The Final Paleolithic populations (Swiderian, layer 4) settled in Crimea between 11.8 and 11.3 ka cal BP, i.e. during MIS 1 (Fig. S1)."

Andrzejewski said...

I wonder if PIE’s predecessor emerged within an R1a pop?

SLMD said...

@Genos Historia

"Davidski likes to suggest CHG in Yamnaya is just a European cousin not truly CHG."

That is exactly what it looks like to me as well.

Wang et al. 2020 points CHG did not contribute to Eneolithic steppe or EMBA steppe but instead it was something that was ancestral to CHG. This CHG-related contribution in Progress_en is around 34% or less according to the study. I suspect it will be much lower when we actually find aDNA of this population.

You don't need to look that deep to know what i'm talking about.

Here's a clue. We have Y-DNA J1 in EHG with NO connection to Southwest Asia or West Asia in auDNA. Whatever this CHG-related ancestry is in Progress_en and later steppes, it will be overwhelmingly related to European hunter-gatherers when they find it.

mzp1 said...

Razib Khan is just an attention-seeker imo, very little credibility or knowledge but seems to really go after exposure and prominence. Honestly, imo, probably the worst guy in this whole area.

MH_82 said...

@ Epoch

They are using a somewhat dated, generic meaning of the term Swiderian, as in the past there has been a tendency to equivalate eastern Europe within western European frameworks. I have seen even terms Azilian and Magdalenian being used in EE, bt this is not really feasible, as obviously different processes were going on in the East. So it's demographically untenable to call anything in the steppe as "Swiderian'. Even a basic Wikipedia search tells you the Swiderian was focused in a completely different Ecotone. As I said above, they are part of the Ahrensburgian reindeer hunting complex. For a detailed paper see this

The Crimean Mesolithic is southern EHG. They lived in a steppe environment & hunted different animals (auroch, horse, bison), thus would obviously have different techno-complex features. It is not Swiderian, but a local variant of the late Eastern Epigravettian . See here




CrM said...

"Here's a clue. We have Y-DNA J1 in EHG with NO connection to Southwest Asia or West Asia in auDNA. Whatever this CHG-related ancestry is in Progress_en and later steppes, it will be overwhelmingly related to European hunter-gatherers when they find it."

Just like how we have an R1b sample from Anatolia with no connection to Steppe in auDNA, yet people keep assuring that the Steppe ancestry in said sample was gone after generations of mixing.

EastPole said...

@mzp1
“Razib Khan is just an attention-seeker imo, very little credibility or knowledge but seems to really go after exposure and prominence. Honestly, imo, probably the worst guy in this whole area.”


I disagree. He is a very respected, knowlegable and honest person, not like you.
He is interviewing important people in the field: geneticists, archeologists, linguists to get the whole picture about IE problem, people like Nick Patterson, Kristian Kristiansen, David Anthony, James P. Mallory, Thomas Olander and others:

https://unsupervisedlearning.libsyn.com/

MH_82 said...

Check this

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00575-4

old europe said...

https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-018-08220-8/MediaObjects/41467_2018_8220_Fig5_HTML.png?as=webp

Rob check this image. It tells a story that goes I think in your direction. Look at the EHG cluster. It does not seem to be a purely WHG/ANE mix.

It seems to be a mainly Common West Eurasian derived cluster.
So maybe a population that was very deeply west eurasian with a minimal amount of ANE was living in eastern europe since the Gravettian/ epigravettian time.

Andrzejewski said...

@SLMD @Genos Historia @Rob “ Here's a clue. We have Y-DNA J1 in EHG with NO connection to Southwest Asia or West Asia in auDNA. Whatever this CHG-related ancestry is in Progress_en and later steppes, it will be overwhelmingly related to European hunter-gatherers when they find it.”

Yes, Karelia HG. But what are the chances that the so-called “European cousin” of CHG in the Steppe has a higher ANE than its Colchian type? Satsurblia and KK1 had about 1/3 CHG to 2/3 Gravetian/Dzudzuana/AHG whereas Iran_N was more 50:50.

So could it be that the aforementioned “European variety” is higher in ANE content compared to Satsurblia, let’s say up to 50% as in Iran_N, but also packing a significant WHG shift?

Andrzejewski said...

@CrM “ Just like how we have an R1b sample from Anatolia with no connection to Steppe in auDNA, yet people keep assuring that the Steppe ancestry in said sample was gone after generations of mixing.”

It did come from the Steppe, unless you subscribe to the BROAD/Max Planck institutes or are a follower of Renfrew’s now-largely-debunked “Anatolian origin”. Everyone assumes that either Anatolian or Armenian proto speakers took the Balkan route, but what if a Catacomb and/or Poltava pop migrated to Anatolia and/or Armenia via Caucasus? So perhaps Yamnaya wasn’t a dead end after all.


Andrzejewski said...

@EastPole “ I disagree. He is a very respected, knowlegable and honest person, not like you.
He is interviewing important people in the field: geneticists, archeologists, linguists to get the whole picture about IE problem, people like Nick Patterson, Kristian Kristiansen, David Anthony, James P. Mallory, Thomas Olander and others:

https://unsupervisedlearning.libsyn.com/”

Agree 100% with East Pole, and respect Khan. In a way, Razib is very similar to me, in that respect that I attempt to figure out the whole picture in an inter-disciplinary way, e.g. how archeogenetics is linked with linguistics, physical anthropology, history, culture, lifestyle and other aspects, such as what did the PIE look like, where did their language originate from (an R1a1 group or a more western-shifted, etc). I hope that over the next 5 years it will all be largely figured out.

Andrzejewski said...

https://unsupervisedlearning.libsyn.com/kristian-kristiansen-the-birth-of-northern-europe

I wouldn’t be surprised if the role of the female migration of CWC further into Europe is being underestimated. At least in Eastern Europe, mtDNA W, T and U5, U4 or at least their Yamnaya-ish clades are pretty common, but folks tend to mistake them to an EEF/WHG contribution. IIRC, one of the distinguishing features of Eastern v. Western European (besides the R1a1/R1b divide) is not only the further dilution of Steppe ancestry in WE (owing to BBC assimilating Farmer and forager pops), it is a preservation of Steppe mtDNA markers much more in Poland and east thereof than it is to its west.

Andrzejewski said...

“ This CHG-related contribution in Progress_en is around 34% or less according to the study. I suspect it will be much lower when we actually find aDNA of this population.”

But somehow it rose to 40% - 50% in Yamnaya and Corded.

CrM said...

@Andrzejewski
"t did come from the Steppe, unless you subscribe to the BROAD/Max Planck institutes or are a follower of Renfrew’s now-largely-debunked “Anatolian origin”. Everyone assumes that either Anatolian or Armenian proto speakers took the Balkan route, but what if a Catacomb and/or Poltava pop migrated to Anatolia and/or Armenia via Caucasus? So perhaps Yamnaya wasn’t a dead end after all."

That's not what I meant. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of that post.

"Yes, Karelia HG. But what are the chances that the so-called “European cousin” of CHG in the Steppe has a higher ANE than its Colchian type? Satsurblia and KK1 had about 1/3 CHG to 2/3 Gravetian/Dzudzuana/AHG whereas Iran_N was more 50:50."

Karelia and Popovo.
And no, Iran_N isn't 50% ANE, that's just too much. 22% ANE, as per the Dzudzuana paper is more realistic, same with Kotia and Satsurblia. Hotu probably has the highest ANE of them all, maybe at 30%.

Simon Stevin said...

@Andrzejewski

What Anatolian sample? Is he referring to the R1b Hittite sample? I believe it was either V1636 or Z2103. Either way I thought the paper demonstrated he had steppe autosomal DNA. What paper was this guy in again?

Ariel said...

Are we going to get Zlatý kůň and the ancient asian samples in G25? I think that BAMs are out.

Carlos Aramayo said...

@Rob

You mentioned the recent paper:

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00575-4

Here is an explanation of it:

https://tinyurl.com/5arp44sc

"...The three males were likely part of a group that was ancestral to today’s northern East Asians, but not southern East Asians, DNA analysis reveals. That suggests those two populations split at least 19,000 years ago, 9000 years earlier than previously thought..."

"...This population turnover in ice age East Asia eerily echoes what happened around the same time in Europe. There, the first modern humans arrived 45,000 years ago, only to be replaced by other groups of hunter-gatherers 19,000 to 14,000 years ago at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). 'It’s exciting to see some real parallels in Europe and Asia,' says population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School, who was not part of the new study. 'There’s enough genomes now to show that there were real population replacements in East Asia, as well as Europe'..."

Genos Historia said...

@Andrze,

Did kristian kristiansen say Corded Ware was founded by bands of warriors? I've heard him say that before.

Because, yeah Ancient mtDNA makes it clear it was a folk migration.

Y DNA replacement can happen in folk migrations if the invaders are patrilineal.

Genos Historia said...

There goes David Reich again with the Asian WHG replacement myth.

Europe's first inhabitants were not replaced by Asian WHG. This myth is a miss interpretation of a small number of DNA samples basically only from France.

WHG in Western Europe came from Italy not Asia. Large areas of Eastern Europe were probably already inhabited by WHG by 20,000 years ago.

Davidski said...

@Genos Historia

Misinterpretation is one word.

There's no such term as "miss interpretation". You should try and get these sorts of things right, otherwise your critique of David Reich, or anyone else, falls down even before it begins in most people's minds.

But getting back to the matter at hand, I believe that there are two main issues here.

One is that for a long time the scientists at the David Reich Lab put far too much emphasis on distal models.

This, and also the fact that the ancient DNA was usually incomplete and/or sparse, often made it difficult for them to come up with realistic theories to explain the data.

So the other issue is that now they're sort of stuck with several major theories that they can't officially back out of for the time being.

I believe that eventually, as their methods become more effective and their data more complete, they'll correct their theories in new papers.

That's generally how science works, but I do think that it's unfortunate how things have gone in this area of science, due to an over-emphasis on distal models but also an obvious lack of understanding of data from other disciplines that could have acted as constraints/sanity checks.

How the hell anyone seriously suggested that there may have been a migration from an empty Anatolia that repopulated Europe during the Upper Paleolithic is something that I'll never understand.

Let's hope that things do improve significantly from now on. And we can help to ensure here that they do, because believe it or not, this blog, including the comment section, has a big impact.

MH_82 said...

I dislike Cell and its lecherous costs to access article. Scientists should embargo that Journal

To be fair, Sam, and although Im not a big fan of the style in which Harvard & their Beta-orbiter Labs work (often misinterpreted 'naked' stats in lieu of holistic & nuanced bioarchaeology), Fu et al did state that the alternative to a West Asian Migration was internal migrations. But rag pieces like Science Mag then make headlines like ''Population replacement from West Asia after the LGM", and Reich does tend to play into a rather tabloid version of Science in his tacit approval of these hyperboles.

Im going to read this new article soon as see if they got things right.
For Asia though, I generally look to M Yang's lab.

Ric Hern said...

Reverse Engineering Human Genetic history is basically the problem. Instead of starting at the beginning Geneticists started at the end and worked backwards. Too many assumptions were and are made prior to the revelation of the complete picture.

Copper Axe said...

"Harvard & their Beta-orbiter Labs work"

Yo that is hilarious hahaha perfect description

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ To be fair, Sam, and although Im not a big fan of the style in which Harvard & their Beta-orbiter Labs work (often misinterpreted 'naked' stats in lieu of holistic & nuanced bioarchaeology), Fu et al did state that the alternative to a West Asian Migration was internal migrations. But rag pieces like Science Mag then make headlines like ''Population replacement from West Asia after the LGM", and Reich does tend to play into a rather tabloid version of Science in his tacit approval of these hyperboles.”

It was proven that the pop that came to become dominant in Europe after 7,000BC originated in West Asia. On the other hand, these Anatolian farmers had some affinity to Villabruna cluster, something like 50% or so. Maybe less distal model would discover that there was no out of Anatolia migration after all? Time would tell.

Andrzejewski said...

@Genos Historia “ Because, yeah Ancient mtDNA makes it clear it was a folk migration.

Y DNA replacement can happen in folk migrations if the invaders are patrilineal.”

It’s because Eastern Europeans have retained the female mtDNA CWC/Sredny Stog blood lines, as manifested in maintenance of Steppe mtDNA markers previously mistaken as forager’s or farmer’s: W, T, U4, U5, R, X, J. The Indo-European women stayed out in Eastern Europe but the Single Grave males within the Coreded horizon spread forward into Central and Western Europe.

It’s an enigma how come CWC was overwhelmingly R1a1 (which previously was confined to a restricted geographic area) like Sredny Stog while Yamnaya was R1b (with a minority of I2a), and the fact that SGC/Battle Axe —> Bell Beaker Culture were also R1b baffles me even more. Nevertheless, it stands out that Eastern Europeans have a much higher female contribution from the Steppe, which may be responsible for their higher on average of WSH ancestry portion (60% in Poles v. 48% in Germans); Eastern Europeans are pre-eminently R1a1 although Western are R1b. And to top it off - Eastern Euros have an almost equal ratio of forager to farmer (Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanian, Finns, Estonians and even Hungarians), as their Yamnaya-related ancestry tops 50%, but most Western Europeans have 40%-50% herder contribution capped at most.

MH_82 said...

@‘Andrze


“ It was proven that the pop that came to become dominant in Europe after 7,000BC originated in West Asia. “”

Yeah no doubt . We’re talking about post-Ice Age migrations . Different issue

epoch said...

"There, the first modern humans arrived 45,000 years ago, only to be replaced by other groups of hunter-gatherers 19,000 to 14,000 years ago at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)."

The surprising thing is that the only pre-LGM population with both uniparental markers that are so widespread in WHG are the Czech Gravettians. Also, the latest Muierii paper showed a tree where Loschbour was descending from Muierii and GoyetQ116.

Heyerdahl said...

@Andrzejewski

I don't think the differences in proportions of WSH ancestry between Germans and Poles are as pronounced as you make them out to be. I'm not saying there isn't a difference but it's not 60% vs 48%. I also think it's better to look at ancient German samples than modern Germans to determine if there was a lot of female WSH contribution there, because modern Germans are more southern shifted than many ancient Germans were.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/ancient-ancestry-proportions-in-present.html

gamerz_J said...

@Genos Historia

I find it very hard to believe that European HGs were replaced by an Asian/Near Eastern migration but Speidel et al (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.17.431573v1) I think implied an actual migration from Anatolia HG ancestors to Europe (possibly misreading it though).

@Rob

This is interesting, and seems to further imply a 30% ENA-70% early West Eurasian model for ANE/Yana contrary to the recent pre-print by Vallini et al where ANE were part IUP (Tianyuan-like) and part UP (Kostenki) in more even proportions.

gamerz_J said...

@CrM

"And no, Iran_N isn't 50% ANE, that's just too much. 22% ANE, as per the Dzudzuana paper is more realistic, same with Kotia and Satsurblia. Hotu probably has the highest ANE of them all, maybe at 30%."

What's the rest in your opinion? Dudzuana/West Eurasian-related with basal and minor ENA per Lazaridis?

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Wouldn't it make more sense if WHGs were simply living somewhere in southern Europe and were just drifted Gravettians? After all, those clines don't mean admixture exclusively in G25, they can be ways to represent drift, like with Yana->Mal'ta>Afontova Gora. I'd argue that not even El Miron is admixed but just less drifted version of Grotta Continenza.

MH_82 said...

@ Genos

“ WHG in Western Europe came from Italy ”

Not necessarily one place. In fact; I see 2 major & 3 minor proto-WHG refuges in Europe

Andrzejewski said...

@Heyerdahl “ I also think it's better to look at ancient German samples than modern Germans to determine if there was a lot of female WSH contribution there, because modern Germans are more southern shifted than many ancient Germans were.”

And what’s in your opinion responsible for this southern shift? Migration Era assimilation of Celts and Romans?

Andrzejewski said...

gamerz_J “ This is interesting, and seems to further imply a 30% ENA-70% early West Eurasian model for ANE/Yana contrary to the recent pre-print by Vallini et al where ANE were part IUP (Tianyuan-like) and part UP (Kostenki) in more even proportions.”

Yana/Ancient North Siberians were a pop that split from West Eurasians after the 45,000ya split between West and East Eurasians, what renders them closer to the former (West Eurasians). IIRC, Kostenki14 is closer to West Eurasians but Ust’ishim was closer to East Asians. I read somewhere that Kostenki might’ve been ancestral to all 3 populations that are ancestral to modern Europeans: WHG, EEF and WSH.

Andrzejewski said...

@Norfern Ostrobothian “ Wouldn't it make more sense if WHGs were simply living somewhere in southern Europe and were just drifted Gravettians?”

I thought that Anatolian farmers were Gravetians while WHG were Augrinacians?

MH_82 said...

The other interesting thing is the Y-DNA of the Paleo northeast Asians was C2, and Q1.

Y-hg N and O must have been in southern China during the LGM. hg N was the first to move out, possibly bringing pottery to the Baikal region, and then moved all the way to Botai by the Eneolithic. Some older studies based on modern Y-DNA were right all along about this.
Then hg O expanded north with Bronze Age rice-farmers

CrM said...

@gamerz_J
"What's the rest in your opinion? Dudzuana/West Eurasian-related with basal and minor ENA per Lazaridis?"

Yes. more Basal rich Dzudzuana-like + ANE + AASI or related.
https://i.imgur.com/MM9eZnp.png

Davidski said...

@epoch

The surprising thing is that the only pre-LGM population with both uniparental markers that are so widespread in WHG are the Czech Gravettians.

Early scouts from Anatolia?

Hehe

epoch said...

@davidski

Well, that ought to be tested! ;)

Are the genomes of the identical twins from Krems posted yet? One of 'm is high quality and they could be combined. I know that isn't always preferable but these are identical twins so the samples can be considered two different samples from the same genome.

Arza said...

Tumuli Eurasia
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOwQGtmyqlalVwDGI32pahA

Session 11 - Yamnaya culture stone circles from the Lower Don region (Natalia Shishlina)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QNVyiMkdfw

"The results obtained led us to conclude that the funerary ritual practiced by the local Yamnaya population in the Lower Don region had its distinctive features"


BTW Month ago several videos about Anatolia were uploaded to this channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/EuropeanAssociationofArchaeologists/videos

epoch said...

@Rob

Thanks for that article, interesting!

"Not necessarily one place. In fact; I see 2 major & 3 minor proto-WHG refuges in Europe."

Care to elaborate on that? I read that after the LGM pressure flaking techniques appeared in the Carpathian Basin and that could be our R1b.

Heyerdahl said...

@Andrzejewski

I don't know. The shift must have been gradual and could have happened during the late middle ages.

"I thought that Anatolian farmers were Gravetians while WHG were Augrinacians?"

No. Gravettians were Upper Paleolithic European HGs. Věstonice and the likes.

Slumbery said...

Generally to the CHG - Anatolia - WHG topic. In the past I tried to model CHG and Iran Neolithic in G25 nMontes with whatever populations, just to see what sticks. Not to actually model ancestry, because we do not have the genome of any plausible ancestral pops. Just to see affinities. Not the best method, but I tell you some observations. Take them with caution.

1. CHG is practically allergic to WHG. It "runs" from it however it can. For example Anatolia Pinarbasi always replaced by the younger and geographically more distant Barcin N.
2. CHG otherwise has something to do with Anatolia. If I had to tell the difference between CHG and Iran on the most bare simplistic level, then CHG = Iran - Natufian + Anatolian. ​

These two things have implications about the nature of Paleolithic Anatolians and their connection to WHG, at least for me. My take is that Pinarbasi does not represent the state of deeper Paleolithic populations of the region. It is more likely an admixture from WHG that did not make significant lasting impact. This also means that - at least for me - the idea that WHG is from Anatolia is very implausible.

I also had the impression that Grotta Continenza Mez clusters together with Goyet against Anatolia (and CHG). Again, it is not that Goyet and G_C are super close, but Anatolia still appears to be an outgroup. I'd say that the split between the Goyet line and the main root of the Villabruna group happened inside Europe and the main Villabruna ancestors were already there before the LGM.

Slumbery said...

@Andrzejewski and Old Europe

The ANE-like/related ancestry in EHG and CHG are pretty different and probably from very different times. EHG has clear affinity to AG3 that is rather specific (among the available UP populations that is, I do not suggest that AG3 is some kind of Bull's Eye). CHG does not.

At the other hand there is a lot we do not know abut the Paleolithic populations of Central Asia and Siberia. It is still possible that Yana represents nothing besides itself.

old europe said...


@CrM

how would you model Afontova Gora with the same populations?

Davidski said...

@Arza

Have you done these Czech Krems genomes that epoch is talking about?

Arza said...

@ Davidski
Done!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16e7Eiu7K4O1yZSq_myjSL3WfqMX73q7v/view?usp=sharing

SampleName TotalSites NonMissingCalls avgRawReads avgDamageCleanedReads avgSampledFrom
I2483 1233013 755803 1.8730005279749686 1.8730005279749686 1.867436920778613
I2484 1233013 287235 0.30858717629092314 0.30858717629092314 0.3080097290134005
I2483_I2484_merge 1233013 796526 2.1815877042658918 2.1815877042658918 2.1754466497920135

Davidski said...

As expected, closest to Vestonice. Not sure yet what their ancestry proportions are.

Scaled

CZE_Krems_UP:I2483,0.054635,0.035544,0.033941,0.073644,0.050779,0.005857,-0.00423,-0.001154,0.055017,0.020228,0.006333,-0.018583,0.005798,-0.004129,0.016422,0.015646,0,0.003041,-0.005531,0.023011,0.035188,0.00272,-0.013434,-0.064467,0.005269
CZE_Krems_UP:I2483_I2484_merge,0.054635,0.035544,0.031301,0.075582,0.051086,0.002231,-0.00282,0,0.05788,0.021686,0.006008,-0.017085,0.002973,-0.008533,0.015065,0.016176,0,0.000507,-0.006788,0.023261,0.034564,0.003833,-0.013804,-0.063141,0.002874
CZE_Krems_UP:I2484,0.055773,0.031481,0.033564,0.074613,0.059703,0.001394,0.008225,-0.002077,0.061971,0.024966,0.002598,-0.025178,-0.000595,-0.002202,0.017644,0.020419,-0.005476,0.006081,-0.011941,0.026012,0.042051,0.013354,-0.021815,-0.066877,0.002874

Raw

CZE_Krems_UP:I2483,0.0048,0.0035,0.009,0.0228,0.0165,0.0021,-0.0018,-0.0005,0.0269,0.0111,0.0039,-0.0124,0.0039,-0.003,0.0121,0.0118,0,0.0024,-0.0044,0.0184,0.0282,0.0022,-0.0109,-0.0535,0.0044
CZE_Krems_UP:I2483_I2484_merge,0.0048,0.0035,0.0083,0.0234,0.0166,0.0008,-0.0012,0,0.0283,0.0119,0.0037,-0.0114,0.002,-0.0062,0.0111,0.0122,0,0.0004,-0.0054,0.0186,0.0277,0.0031,-0.0112,-0.0524,0.0024
CZE_Krems_UP:I2484,0.0049,0.0031,0.0089,0.0231,0.0194,0.0005,0.0035,-0.0009,0.0303,0.0137,0.0016,-0.0168,-0.0004,-0.0016,0.013,0.0154,-0.0042,0.0048,-0.0095,0.0208,0.0337,0.0108,-0.0177,-0.0555,0.0024

Simon Stevin said...

So as far as Tianyuan, Yana, Mal’ta, and Afontova Gora are concerned, their common ancestry is from a Bacho Kiro IUP-like source? Does it look like a Yana-like population admixed into Salkhit too? I would love to see how Y-DNA Ks evolution plays out, along with the different, accompanying mtDNAs, perhaps this Bacho Kiro IUP-like population had mtDNA lines nearly absent in modern WE, like C, and perhaps other clades of N and M. Curious to see how Y-DNA Ns evolution plays out too, since it ultimately comes from K2a.

epoch said...

What is odd, though, is that the pre-LGM caucasian appears to be such a great fit whereas its uniparental markers are not. They do seem to have an origin in Europe. Dzu2 is U6, and Dzu2 and SAT29 are on a branch of N they share with Bacho-Kiro.

"The SAT29 sequence is positionedon a branch together with BK-CC7-355 (42450 ± 510 ka) and BK-BB7-240 (41850 ±480 ka) from the Bacho-Kiro site in Bulgaria, the most ancient west-Eurasian mitochondrial sequences​(Hublin et al., 2020) as well as Dzudzuana3​ (Lazaridis et al.,2018)​."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.08.425895v1.full.pdf

Wouldn't this suggest a movement from the Balkans? I can't find of any usefull pre-LGM site in Anatolia.

PS: Does anyone know what is holding up the Dzudzuana paper?

Davidski said...

@epoch

Does anyone know what is holding up the Dzudzuana paper?

That's a good question.

I'm guessing that they can't get it through peer review and/or things keep changing dramatically as new samples come in, so the manuscript has to be updated regularly.

CrM said...

@old europe
"how would you model Afontova Gora with the same populations?"
https://imgur.com/a/UTqwKOa

@Davidski
"I'm guessing that they can't get it through peer review and/or things keep changing dramatically as new samples come in, so the manuscript has to be updated regularly."

I thought we'll be getting the new discount Dzudzuana aka SAT29, but months have passed and the sample is still not released.

Andrzejewski said...

@Slumbery “ The ANE-like/related ancestry in EHG and CHG are pretty different and probably from very different times. EHG has clear affinity to AG3 that is rather specific (among the available UP populations that is, I do not suggest that AG3 is some kind of Bull's Eye). CHG does not.”

How is it different? I guess we’d have to wait for the Dzudzuana paper to come out to figure out.

MH_82 said...

@ Epoch

“Wouldn't this suggest a movement from the Balkans? I can't find of any usefull pre-LGM site in Anatolia.””

There are early AMH sites in Anatolia; but not Gravettian-era or Ice Age sites . I’m not sure why, because the diversity of mtdna in pre-Ceramic Anatolia seems unique; and not derived from Europe or Iran or the Levante

Andrzejewski said...

@CrM “ @Rob @Slumbery And no, Iran_N isn't 50% ANE, that's just too much. 22% ANE, as per the Dzudzuana paper is more realistic, same with Kotia and Satsurblia. Hotu probably has the highest ANE of them all, maybe at 30%.”

Where does the “J” in Karelia HG cone from then? If EHG are direct descendants of AG3 vis-a-vis the ANE in CHG, do you associate the ANE in CHG to the J haplogroup in EHG Karelia HG?

Andrzejewski said...

My take is that WHG actually started out on the shores of the Baltics, spread in all directions from there, and were gradually replaced and/or assimilated in Eastern Europe by EHG. The U4 and U5 clades in Yamnaya were due to founder effect of WHG-rich population being subsumed by a EHG.

I’m not sure about the I Hap because it could either come directly from WHG or it could’ve come from Late Neolithic farmer (GAC?) pop in Central Europe. Or both.

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ hg N was the first to move out, possibly bringing pottery to the Baikal region, and then moved all the way to Botai by the Eneolithic.”

Botai had R1b although a different subclade than Yamnaya, basal N and also K. They were apparently 20% East Asian (maybe K and N are responsible?), although I came to the conclusion that Botai might’ve been a diverse group such as the contemporaneous BMAC (which was mostly Iran_N plus some Anatolian farmer + WSHG), or the later Xiongnu confederation.

Andrzejewski said...

@Heyerdahl “ I don't know. The shift must have been gradual and could have happened during the late middle ages.”

Which may or may be correlated with a southern shift phenotypically too: the Nordic BA descendant Germanics were depicted in Roman literature (mostly by Tacitus) as resembling modern day Nords, notwithstanding the fact that modern Germans are much more diverse in their appearance.

Slumbery said...

@Andrzejewski

"How is it different?"

It is just what I said. EHG has a good affinity to AG3 (considering a spatial and temporal distance), while CHG-Iran do not. The ANE or ANE-like ancestry (or the ancestry that looks like ANE-related in the absence of better proxies) in CHG-Iran is not from the same population that contributed to the formation of EHG.

"My take is that WHG actually started out on the shores of the Baltics,..."

Impossible. The Villabruna population already had formed when the Baltics were still under ice. Regardless of what other regional populations participated in the pre-LGM formation of "proto-WHG", the post LGM expansion happened from the broad East Mediterranean region. (Broad as participating populations during the LGM could live farther apart from the sea itself, but definitely not anywhere near the Baltic coast that was iced in.)

Slumbery said...

@Andrzejewski

Where does the “J” in Karelia HG cone from then? If EHG are direct descendants of AG3 vis-a-vis the ANE in CHG, do you associate the ANE in CHG to the J haplogroup in EHG Karelia HG?"

The Y HG J in Karelia has nothing to do with the ANE related ancestry. It is simply CHG admixture. CHG-related groups participated in the post-LGM repopulation of Eastern Europe pretty much from the beginning (as a minority, but still detectable). The core of the CHG-Iran population is older than EHG, they were already a thing by the time of EHG formation. J2 is a West Asian lineage that spread with CHG-Iran, it has nothing to do with ANE at all.

Spy said...

What Greek tragedy? I'm happy to partly Slavonized!

Andrzejewski said...

OT Drinking Mead right now. Wondering if the Soma mentioned in the Rg Veda was the synonymous honey wine invented by our Corded Ware ancestors. Maybe @East Pole can elaborate more on this.

MH_82 said...

There’s no “ Hg K” in Botai

Romulus said...

Newest from Niraj Rai:

The spatial distribution of regional paternal components in Lakshadweep islanders in comparison with other neighbouring populations. South Asian haplogroups—C5, F, H, L, and R2. Southeast Asian haplogroups—C2, C3, D, and M–O. West Eurasian haplogroups G,I, and J. Unresolved haplogroups—K, P, Q and R1a.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43384-3/figures/5

Carlos Aramayo said...

@Romulus

The paper you mention is from 6 May 2019:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43384-3

MH_82 said...

@ Slumberry

“ the post LGM expansion happened from the broad East “

Impossible. In fact, people were moving toward the Aegean from the north

EastPole said...

@Andrzejewski
“OT Drinking Mead right now. Wondering if the Soma mentioned in the Rg Veda was the synonymous honey wine invented by our Corded Ware ancestors. Maybe @East Pole can elaborate more on this.”

Mead or honey wine was the entheogen (“full of the god, inspired”) of all Indo-Slavic people. So it was the original Soma. No doubt about it. But I doubt it was invented by our Corded Ware ancestors if they came from the steppe. No trace of honey production on the steppe. Large amounts of honey production were found in the Neolithic cultures of Poland and Ukraine. So I suspect that part of our Indo-Slavic ancestors' language, culture and religion comes from the steppe and part from the mead producing Neolithic cultures of Poland and Ukraine.

Slumbery said...

When and from where? And how you know it?

BTW I said it does not necessarily mean the coast. The post LGM expansion started out from the general Italy-Balkan-Middle/Lower Danube region. That is what I mean by broad East Med (broad European East Med). Either a part if it or even the entire area, I have not made more specific assumptions. Not in general at least. I think the western side if EHG is from the Balkan,because it already contained Anatolian mix. But even that is very much not the same thing as the Aegean.

MH_82 said...

Well “East Mediterranean” throws up images the Aegean, Anatolia and the coast of Israel, Lebanon, etc . And as we know; the latter in particular were related to the quite distinctive Natufians and Kebarans

Slumbery said...

Yes, I know I made a mistake with the term, that is why I clarified it.

Andrzejewski said...

@Slumbery “ The Y HG J in Karelia has nothing to do with the ANE related ancestry. It is simply CHG admixture. CHG-related groups participated in the post-LGM repopulation of Eastern Europe pretty much from the beginning (as a minority, but still detectable). The core of the CHG-Iran population is older than EHG, they were already a thing by the time of EHG formation. J2 is a West Asian lineage that spread with CHG-Iran, it has nothing to do with ANE at all.”

So if this aforementioned CHG-like population that supposedly introgressed into Karelia HG was on the Steppes before EHG was formed, it might be that very population that was in WSH

SKRiBHa said...

@All

What about earlier post-CWC ancestry in the Balkans?, see:

Corded Ware in the Central and Southern Balkans: A Consequence of Cultural Interaction or an Indication of Ethnic Change?

Aleksandar Bulatovic, The Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 42, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2014

https://www.academia.edu/6851833/Corded_Ware_in_the_Central_and_Southern_Balkans_A_Consequence_of_Cultural_Interaction_or_an_Indication_of_Ethnic_Change

Abstract:

The analysis of corded ware and accompanying artifacts reveals the nature of its appearance across the Central and Southern Balkan Eneolithic during three cultural-chronological horizons. The first horizon corresponds to the Early Eneolithic, namely the Bubanj-Salcuta-Krivodol cultural complex (BSK), while the second corresponds to the Cotofeni culture. The third horizon, showing chronological continuity with the second, and set within the Late Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age, has a site distribution that encompasses the territory of nearly the entire Balkan Peninsula, where corded ware is found together with other steppe elements which are present in large numbers, such are burials under mounds and the appearance of the domestic horse.

Andrzejewski said...

According to Mathieson 2018, some GAC males had founding effects of BT and CT, which were otherwise found only in 8,000 year old human fossils from Tanzania - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091220/

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

Don't confuse the Corded Ware culture with corded ware pottery.

Slumbery said...

They were not really on the steppe before EHG. They just participated in the formation of EHG. With all likelity they arrived around the same time as the other groups partucipating in the formation of EHG and added only a minority component.
If by WSH you mean Western Siberia, then definitely not. It just that CHG was always around the Caucasus once the climate became better after the LGM and mixed into the North here and there.

Andrzejewski said...

@Slumbery “ If by WSH you mean Western Siberia, then definitely not. It just that CHG was always around the Caucasus once the climate became better after the LGM and mixed into the North here and there.”

WSH= Yamnaya = Western Steppe Herders = Proto-Indo-Europeans

EastPole said...

@Davidski

„Don't confuse the Corded Ware culture with corded ware pottery.”

SKRiBHa, here are interesting articles on „Corded” ornamentation:

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/handle/10593/12992

Slumbery said...

OK, we have too much acronyms by now.
How exactly the CHG-like ancestry of Yamnaya related to the much older CHG-like ancestry in EHG is anybody's guess. We do not have pure samples of them and the CHG in EHGs is too low for cross comparison.

gamerz_J said...

@Romulus

Don't think I'd call H "South Asian", even for L I am skeptical. H2 was found among EEF and L in Maykop, seem more like Basal to me than South Asian.

@CrM

I don't think it's very accurate to model deep ancestries with G25 like that but your model makes sense broadly speaking. It's similar to that of Lazaridis.

On that note, could you please share the coordinates for Basal Eurasian? I'd still like to try out a few runs for myself, even if just for fun/exploration.

CrM said...

@gamerz_J

Basal_Eurasian:_(ZlatyKun_minusBachoKiro_minusWestEurasian),-0.24975147,0.08352521,-0.18662581,-0.07857799,-0.09876815,-0.0045157,0.02287044,0.00412337,-0.02340582,-0.12339737,-0.02128384,-0.00532798,-0.00057635,0.06385334,0.01590436,-0.06542367,-0.06593601,0.02391111,0.03982903,-0.03242336,-0.00464218,-0.04740254,-0.03321988,0.02573228,0.02480176

West_Eurasian:_(Kostenki_minusUstIshim),0.26457443,0.25842842,0.13767156,0.09021042,0.09491998,0.01027218,0.02018624,-0.01490774,0.03230341,0.0196718,0.0333336,0.00160181,-0.00108767,-0.05119067,0.01976453,0.06712005,0.03977388,-0.03413166,-0.00304146,0.04610968,0.06328151,0.00687135,-0.0350562,-0.12048361,0.02935869

old europe said...


@CrM

Thank you. Your models confirmed what I long suspected. Very interesting. When you have time could you model with the same source populations the Vestonice cluster?

CrM said...

@old europe

I slightly changed the sources so that it won't be anachronistic.
https://i.imgur.com/tdeyxD3.png

gamerz_J said...

@Crm

Many thanks!

Btw, I am assuming they are scaled right?

SKRiBHa said...

@EastPole

Thank you very much for your data!

As I can see from your analyses, you are playing with genetics. Miód! :-)

Do you have any opinion on Post-CWC ancestry in the Balkans?

Did the CWC not leave any genetic trace even though ‘corded ware is found together with other steppe elements which are present in large numbers, such are burials under mounds and the appearance of the domestic horse.’?

Can you take a look at two other threads and write there what you think about it? As always, I will be very obliged for your opinion.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-history-of-scythians-gnecchi.html?showComment=1621980531532#c3635366351676040627

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1622323091731#c8121341984887540503

PZDRW
SKRiBHa

EastPole said...

@SKRiBHa
“Do you have any opinion on Post-CWC ancestry in the Balkans?”


I don’t, we have to wait for aDNA. CW culture originated in Poland, CW ornamentation comes from the steppe but we don’t know if they are related. CW ornamentation can be found in Neolithic cultures too, like TRB, CT, GAC which genetically and linguistically are different from CWC. We don’t know what CW ornamentation means, I can only speculate.

I am interested in genetics but David knows more than I, I follow his judgment.

I don’t think we have much to do with Scythians and Sarmatians. They were very mixed steppe people, their language and culture, religion are unknown.

I don’t think the Piast legend comes from them. In my opinion it was the opposite direction, i.e. from us to India, Iran and Greece. Piast was a simple man, wheelwright and beekeeper, his simple hut was visited by divine twin brothers, who miraculously multiplied food and mead he served them. This legend is based on ancient myth, elements of which you can find in Rigveda and Orphism, it really helps to understand Ashvins and Dioscuri.

It is possible that post-CWC in the Balkans came from Mierzanowice –> Nitra:

https://i.postimg.cc/Hs4qd9VX/Trzciniec-Fuzesabony.jpg

Similarities in Slavic, Vedic and Orphic religions come from the common source which most likely was CWC. I strongly believe some Tripolye influence judging by their symbolic ceramic.

There are a lot of questions but we have to wait for more data to answer them.

Andrzejewski said...

@East Pole “ Similarities in Slavic, Vedic and Orphic religions come from the common source which most likely was CWC. I strongly believe some Tripolye influence judging by their symbolic ceramic.

There are a lot of questions but we have to wait for more data to answer them.”

I remember you posted recently that the Neolithic in Balto-Slavs must’ve come from “Balkanic” sources (Tripolye?) in contrast to Proto-Germanic substrate of a more Western/Cardial source such as the one found in GAC.

It may render a possible substrate vocabulary(you mentioned the word “mead”) unrelated to ones used by GAC and hence - to Proto-Germanics.

But ultimately we ought to remember that Poles are 55%-60% Indo-Europeans, 30% farmers and 10%-15% Hunter fisher gatherers.

So given the overwhelmingly high Steppe proportion (plus the retention of female Steppe mtDNA being much higher among Balto-Slavs), it could be that the actual amount of substrate (i.e. non-IE) words in the Polish language can be comparable to the Brythonic ones in modern English, read: almost non-existent.

SKRiBHa said...

@EastPole

Thank you very much for your kind reply. However, you did not answer my question specified in this comment:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1622323091731#c8121341984887540503

Do you have any opinion on this topic? Can you answer it there? I do not want to mix topics related to the Scythians / Sarmatians and the N haplogroup with the Greeks and Slavs.

EastPole said...

@SKRiBHa
"Do you have any opinion on this topic?"
No, I don't have strong opinions on this topic. We have to wait for aDNA from Seima-Turbino. It is possible but has to be confirmed by data.

SKRiBHa said...

@EastPole

(…) I don’t, we have to wait for aDNA. (…)

Which data show that the Greeks have a late ‘steppe’ genetic trace after the Slavs, e.g. from the 8th century, and not earlier after the ancestors of the Slavs from the CWC?

(…) CW culture originated in Poland (…)

Really?! CWC Z93 was formed east of the Carpathians rather than north of them, see the origins of Fatianovo.

(…) CW ornamentation comes from the steppe but we don’t know if they are related. (…)

CW ornamentation is already visible in the Sredny Stog ceramics, see:

https://www.academia.edu/31740386/Dmitry_Yakolevich_Telegin_Dereivka_A_Settlement_and_Cemetery_of_Copper_Age_Horse_Keepers_on_the_Middle_Dnieper

(…) CW ornamentation can be found in Neolithic cultures too, like TRB, CT, GAC which genetically and linguistically are different from CWC. (…)

It is interesting. Do you have any evidence for this?

(…) I am interested in genetics but David knows more than I, I follow his judgment. (…)

Good for you. He does not want to answer my questions anymore and Blogger has blocked some of my comments already, so...

I am going to refer to the rest of what you wrote in a separate comment. However, I am going to post it in the thread devoted to the Scythians and Sarmatians. You will find some questions for you there.

Penny BJ said...

I think what needs to be better studied is how the impact the Franco-Venetian occupation of nearly half of modern Greece (islands, Peloponnese, Crete) is and how it's reflected in in modern Greek ancestry.

Stoyan Denev said...

@Garvan

Here it is with less details:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bg289zBQv6-iQPtFCuki0dpj0aBzuBCe/view?usp=sharing

That late arrival of the slavs in the balkans is pure bullshit. Proved time and time again:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6252347/figure/F4/

@Davidski

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.02.446576v1.full.pdf

On page 23 Fig. 15, there are drift edges with big numbers these are remotely related populations. The author try to present the Wusun as proto-Bulgarians. That is why I work with more detail. And that is why you will not find anything new. I do not seek sensation. I`m trying to force the scientists of Bulgarian Academy of science, to accept the reality. The PCA only seems to lack shape, because not all modern populations are included and populations from different ages from the south-eastern and eastern Europe are included, because the point is to trace to population development through the ages. Everything is correct. I have excluded the Gagauzes, because the are indistinguishable from the Bulgarians, so there are no closely related populations. And the results are similar. I have added the Wusun samples. On the simplified graph shared for Garvan you can see drift edges with values 2 and 3 for the final admixture populations. The Z score is so good that the graph cannot be rejected. Please comment.

Davidski said...

@Stoyan

Your PCA lacks shape because it's one of the worst PCA I've ever seen.

By the way, can you explain why Bulgaria_IA doesn't cluster with Bulgarians here, if the late arrival of Slavs in the Balkans is nonsense?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z3w8BbEtp3A/YJ4dmX_8W0I/AAAAAAAAJ-w/EHLGw5QNi64kzwY2K0H9OBSM9lY1cYCpACLcBGAsYHQ/s1206/Ancient_vs_Modern_Greeks3.png

And try not to come up with anything crazy, like your PCA.

Dita said...

@rob

"Rob said...
Albanians formed in Albania. There is clear evidence that provincials from Dacia Ripensis were moved to Epirus in the 600s"

Sincerely what is the point of such pathological lies like this? Produce this "clear evidence"? Come on. Show us all.

Davidski said...

@All

I just deleted a post by a dumb troll named EuroMenDesiWomen.

This stupid troll claimed that Greeks have no Slavic ancestry, when, in fact, Slavic ancestry in Greeks is easily seen in their:

- autosomal DNA, because they show affinity and share Identity-by-Descent segments with Slavs

and

- Y-chromosome lineages, because they share recent Slavic-specific R1a and I2a subclades with Slavs, like R1a-M458.

Haha.

Stoyan Denev said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Davidski said...

@Stoyan Denev

Well, my PCA never look as awful as your PCA. So there has to be something wrong with your PCA.

And what are you going to say when all of the samples from Iron Age Bulgaria are similar to this "Mycenaean girl"?

I can already tell you that they are.

Stoyan Denev said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Davidski said...

@Stoyan Denev

You appear to be completely insane.

Stoyan Denev said...

Bulgaria_IA

Bulgarian.DG

Greek_1.DG

Good Luck!

alex said...

"Penny BJ said...
I think what needs to be better studied is how the impact the Franco-Venetian occupation of nearly half of modern Greece (islands, Peloponnese, Crete) is and how it's reflected in in modern Greek ancestry."

It's minimal to non-existent autosomally. It's more evident in specific Y DNA lines, especially in the islands.

Leper said...

What do you think about Lazaridis' new Greek models with recent Balkan IA samples?

https://ibb.co/3rsH3LB

Davidski said...

Using North Russians and Mordovians as proxies for Slavic admixture in Greeks doesn't work for me, because it's not historically plausible.

Obviously, Mordovians are Uralics, and so are North Russians to a large degree.

Leper said...

@Davidski I couldn't make any sense either and he didn't explain the reasons why he went for North Russians and Mordivians for a medieval Slavic proxy while there are plenty of much suitable samples.

Also in the article the samples that fall into the "Balkan IA Cluster" modelled like 80-90% Mycenaean-like which looks weird as well.

https://ibb.co/RDR5cS6

Varkoume Ipervolika said...

Please don't post my previous comment because i renamed something and i added below what references i used.
I modified Marques' ancient references. Are my references any good? What do you recommend me to change? And do you think these results are any good? Here Slavic and Balkan DNA is obvious in modern Greeks. It seems that there is still a continuation from Bronze Age Aegeans and it's interesting to see them like this and compare the percentages. I used the Global 25 calculator.

For Aegean i used: GRC_Mycenaean, GRC_Minoan_EBA, GRC_Minoan_Lassithi, GRC_Helladic_EBA, GRC_Helladic_MBA, GRC_Cycladic_EBA, Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Anatolian: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA, TUR_Ovaoren_EBA, TUR_Isparta_EBA
Slav: HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2, CZE_Early_Slav:RISE569
Illyrian: HRV_MBA:I4331, HRV_MBA:I4332
Balkan_East_IA: BGR_IA:I5769
Levant: Levant_Sidon_MBA, ISR:Ashkelon_IA2:ASH8, Levant_Yehud_IBA:I7003
Levant_North: TUR_Alalakh_MLBA

Target: Greek_Thessaly
Distance: 0.7476% / 0.00747644 | R7P
39.2 Aegean_BA_IA
18.0 Early_Slav_EMA
16.4 Anatolia_BA
13.2 Illyria_MBA
8.0 Levant_BA
3.8 Latium_IA
1.4 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Target: Greek_Cypriot
Distance: 0.6856% / 0.00685587 | R7P
32.8 Levant_BA
27.8 Levant_North_BA
21.0 Aegean_BA_IA
14.0 Anatolia_BA
2.4 Early_Slav_EMA
2.0 Latium_IA

Target: Turkish_Cyprus (This is from TurkishDNAproject i think, i think this is converted from another calculator, maybe MDLP)
Distance: 0.7768% / 0.00776833 | R7P
40.2 Levant_North_BA
21.4 Aegean_BA_IA
12.6 Levant_BA
10.0 Anatolia_BA
8.8 Early_Slav_EMA
6.2 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman
0.8 Ancient_EastAfrican

Target: Greek_Dodecanese
Distance: 0.7618% / 0.00761779 | R7P
34.2 Levant_North_BA
29.8 Anatolia_BA
19.0 Aegean_BA_IA
8.6 Early_Slav_EMA
7.4 Balkan_East_IA
1.0 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Target: Greek_Crete
Distance: 0.4766% / 0.00476577 | R7P
31.2 Aegean_BA_IA
29.0 Levant_North_BA
16.2 Early_Slav_EMA
15.2 Anatolia_BA
7.2 Levant_BA
0.8 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman
0.4 Balkan_East_IA

Target: Greek_Peloponnese
Distance: 0.4812% / 0.00481206 | R7P
24.4 Early_Slav_EMA
22.4 Aegean_BA_IA
17.8 Anatolia_BA
15.6 Levant_BA
9.2 Illyria_MBA
8.6 Balkan_East_IA
2.0 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Target: Greek_Laconia
Distance: 0.8039% / 0.00803929 | R7P
29.8 Aegean_BA_IA
27.6 Levant_BA
23.4 Early_Slav_EMA
11.8 Illyria_MBA
5.2 Anatolia_BA
2.2 Latium_IA

Target: Greek_Central_Macedonia
Distance: 0.5528% / 0.00552791 | R7P
32.4 Early_Slav_EMA
28.6 Aegean_BA_IA
17.4 Anatolia_BA
9.8 Levant_BA
9.6 Illyria_MBA
2.2 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Target: Greek_Macedonia
Distance: 0.7234% / 0.00723426 | R7P
34.6 Early_Slav_EMA
26.0 Aegean_BA_IA
24.6 Anatolia_BA
7.4 Levant_BA
3.2 Ancient_Sicilia_LBA
2.4 Balkan_East_IA
1.8 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Target: Greek_Kos
Distance: 0.5910% / 0.00591010 | R7P
35.8 Anatolia_BA
27.2 Levant_North_BA
11.6 Illyria_MBA
10.6 Early_Slav_EMA
9.6 Aegean_BA_IA
3.8 Levant_BA
1.4 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Varkoume Ipervolika said...

I hope i'm not too spammy but here's what happens if i remove "CZE_Early_Slav:RISE569" and i just leave "HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2" for Slavic proxy which is closer to Belarus. It does not even pick it up on Cypriots. What do you think is best to use for Slavic proxy?

For Aegean i used: GRC_Mycenaean, GRC_Minoan_EBA, GRC_Minoan_Lassithi, GRC_Helladic_EBA, GRC_Helladic_MBA, GRC_Cycladic_EBA, Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Anatolian: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA, TUR_Ovaoren_EBA, TUR_Isparta_EBA
Slav: HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2
Illyrian: HRV_MBA:I4331, HRV_MBA:I4332
Thracia: UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
Balkan_East_IA: BGR_IA:I5769
Levant: Levant_Sidon_MBA, ISR:Ashkelon_IA2:ASH8, Levant_Yehud_IBA:I7003
Latium_IA: Boville_Ernica_IA:RMPR1021, Rome_Latini_IA:RMPR1016

Distance to: Early_Slav_EMA:HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2
0.02285860 Belarusian
0.02419895 Lithuanian_PA
0.02505394 Russian_Smolensk
0.02541556 Russian_Voronez
0.02674336 Ukrainian

Distance to: Early_Slav_EMA:CZE_Early_Slav:RISE569
0.02898714 Slovakian
0.03067406 Moldovan_o
0.03118426 Polish
0.03170253 Hungarian
0.03178069 Czech

Target: Greek_Cypriot
Distance: 0.7605% / 0.00760537 | R7P
51.4 Levant_BA
26.6 Aegean_BA_IA
21.8 Anatolia_BA
0.2 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Target: Turkish_Cyprus
Distance: 0.9703% / 0.00970255 | R7P
40.0 Levant_BA
25.6 Aegean_BA_IA
23.4 Anatolia_BA
6.2 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman
4.8 Early_Slav_EMA

Target: Greek_Thessaly
Distance: 0.7614% / 0.00761434 | R7P
40.0 Aegean_BA_IA
17.0 Early_Slav_EMA
13.4 Anatolia_BA
10.8 Illyria_MBA
10.0 Levant_BA
4.6 Latium_IA
4.2 Thracia

Target: Greek_Dodecanese
Distance: 0.8632% / 0.00863193 | R7P
42.4 Anatolia_BA
22.4 Aegean_BA_IA
21.6 Levant_BA
8.4 Early_Slav_EMA
4.0 Balkan_East_IA
1.2 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Target: Greek_Crete
Distance: 0.5973% / 0.00597293 | R7P
30.6 Aegean_BA_IA
30.2 Anatolia_BA
25.4 Levant_BA
11.8 Early_Slav_EMA
1.4 Balkan_East_IA
0.6 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Target: Greek_Laconia
Distance: 0.8040% / 0.00804028 | R7P
29.4 Aegean_BA_IA
27.6 Levant_BA
23.2 Early_Slav_EMA
12.2 Illyria_MBA
5.4 Anatolia_BA
2.2 Latium_IA

Target: Greek_Peloponnese
Distance: 0.4817% / 0.00481693 | R7P
24.4 Early_Slav_EMA
23.4 Aegean_BA_IA
17.6 Anatolia_BA
15.6 Levant_BA
8.6 Balkan_East_IA
8.6 Illyria_MBA
1.8 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Target: Greek_Macedonia
Distance: 0.7268% / 0.00726790 | R7P
32.2 Early_Slav_EMA
27.6 Aegean_BA_IA
23.8 Anatolia_BA
7.6 Levant_BA
4.6 Balkan_East_IA
2.4 Latium_IA
1.8 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

Target: Greek_Central_Macedonia
Distance: 0.5187% / 0.00518694 | R7P
32.0 Early_Slav_EMA
24.6 Aegean_BA_IA
14.8 Levant_BA
10.8 Thracia
10.8 Anatolia_BA
7.0 Illyria_MBA

Target: Greek_Kos
Distance: 0.6961% / 0.00696073 | R7P
47.2 Anatolia_BA
20.8 Levant_BA
14.2 Aegean_BA_IA
8.8 Early_Slav_EMA
7.4 Illyria_MBA
1.6 Turkic_West_and_Ottoman

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 342 of 342   Newer› Newest»