search this blog

Friday, October 15, 2021

Coming soon?


This ISBA9 abstract seems to be highly relevant to the ultimate origins of the Yamnaya and Corded Ware peoples. Emphasis is mine:

Genomic signals of continuity and admixture in the Caucasus

Ghalichi Ayshin et al.

Situated between the Black and Caspian Sea, the Caucasus is a key geographic region that connects the Near East and the Eurasian Steppe, with a great ecological diversity of ecotones and landscapes rich in natural resources. A recent archaeogenetic study has shown that the genetically diverse Eneolithic and Bronze Age groups of the steppe and mountains correspond to eco-geographic zones in the Caucasus. However, the formation, interactions and population dynamics warrant further investigation. In this study we explore new genome-wide data of 68 individuals from 20 archaeological cultures across the Caucasus mountains, the piedmont and the steppe extending our temporal transect to 6000 years, doubling the number of available genomes from the region. We present the first genomic data from a Mesolithic individual (6100 calBCE) from the Northwest Caucasus that shows Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry, Neolithic individuals from Georgia, as well as new data from genetically unexplored regions/cultures in the northeastern highlands and the dry steppe. We observe a degree of genetic continuity through time within the main mountain and steppe genetic groups, but also identify various episodes of gene flow between these and the neighboring regions. In the Late Eneolithic period, we find evidence of admixture from the south into the steppe groups, detectable through the presence of Anatolian_Neolithic-like ancestry. During the Bronze Age, we found in Steppe Maykop individuals a genetic link to West Siberian hunter-gatherers, a component that is absent from Yamnaya, North Caucasus and Catacomb groups, but reappears in Bronze Age individuals associated with the Lola culture.

I'm not quite sure what it's saying though. Is the Mesolithc individual from the Northwest Caucasus actually an Eastern European hunter-gatherer, or, as I'm expecting, a mixture between Caucasus and Eastern European hunter-gatherers? If the latter, then it's game over for the Out-of-Iran and Out-of-Armenia Indo-European hypotheses that have been so popular among academics in recent years.

The authors also mention the spread of Anatolian-related ancestry into the Eastern European steppe during the Late Eneolithic. They're probably referring to the phenomenon that gave rise to the so called Steppe Maykop outliers. The ISBA9 abstract PDF book is freely available here.

See also...

Understanding the Eneolithic steppe

Ancient DNA vs Ex Oriente Lux

A note on Steppe Maykop

108 comments:

Davidski said...

What else is there in that PDF book?

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

I've just gone through it. There's a lot of cool stuff in there actually, especially if you're interested in Corded Ware and Beakers. Check out:

"An interdisciplinary study of the social structure from the early Neolithic to the
early Bronze Age in central Germany"

"Unraveling the genetic network of Bronze Age populations: complex genomic
structures in the 3000-800 BC East-Central Europe"

Andrzejewski said...

EHG already in the NW Caucasus already 8ykbp?

Could it be that these EHG brought their primordial language with them and created pre-Proto-IE when they merged with native CHG to create Progress and Vanyuchka?

It’s noted that Anatolian farmers migrated to the Caucasus at about the same time frame.

Did Lola go extinct and replaced by Darkveti Meshoko and Sioni?

Davidski said...

Lola came after Darkveti-Meshoko.

And there's no evidence that Progress/Vonychka spoke Proto-PIE.

They're currently just stand ins for the eastern steppe ancestry in Yamnaya.

Ric Hern said...

An EHG in the North Caucasus at 6100 BCE while not so long ago we heard of CHG at approximately the same age near the North Caspian....Mmm.

vAsiSTha said...

"Is the Mesolithc individual from the Northwest Caucasus actually an Eastern European hunter-gatherer, or, as I'm expecting, a mixture between Caucasus and Eastern European hunter-gatherers? If the latter, then it's game over for the Out-of-Iran and Out-of-Armenia Indo-European hypotheses "

How does one ehg rich sample do all that? CHG lived to the south and ehg lived in the north. Finding one ehg sample at the junction of these 2 regions is natural.

Genos Historia said...

I think in the last paragraph you mean West Siberian-related ancestry. Not Anatolian Neolithic related ancestry.

Genos Historia said...

@Ryan,

Sounds like they are saying an individual with EHG ancestry in the northwest Caucasus not an EHG individual. Thus a person with mixed ancestry.

The 6000 BC Yamnaya-like people come from a Volga tributary not North Caspian. Anthony just has a bogus fantasy of North Caspian being the migration which is why he talks about it so much. They don't have real samples from the North Caspian.

Matt said...

Bigger version of previous Caucasus paper.

Sounds like, at a minimum, Steppe_Eneolithic / Khvalynsk type people or full EHG were living in the mountain zone at 6100BCE. It sounds more like a full EHG but who knows. The Darkveti-Meshoko samples previously are at around 4500BCE and Steppe_En around 4000BCE. Khvalysnk samples that are published have that ridiculously wide dating from 5000-4200 BCE.

Maybe we'll see this sample end with 75% CHG and 25% EHG or something and provide a plausible admixing population to establish the Khvalynsk / Steppe En type.

From phrasing it sounds like the Late En and Bronze Age admixing phenomena (admixture of steppe and mountain, and West Siberian to steppe maykop) they describe are discrete, separate events.

MH_82 said...

''Is the Mesolithc individual from the Northwest Caucasus actually an Eastern European hunter-gatherer, or, as I'm expecting, a mixture between Caucasus and Eastern European hunter-gatherers''

Whichever the case, the dating of ~ 6000 bce is a perfect fit for the 'Ceramic Neolithic' in south of eastern Europe.
The presence of EHG toward the Caucasus enables lends further supports for the formation of bi-/ multi-directional networks amongst hunter-gatherers.
We no longer need the more imaginative scenarios of migrations from the Zagros the the Lower Don, which were never really tenable. Whatever true Neolithic elements appeared there probably came from the Balkans via the Azov inlet.


gamerz_J said...

These too seem quite interesting:

"Ancient DNA links genetic admixture to language shift in the medieval Upper
Volga" (About Uralics)

"Population genomic analyses of ancient Hungarians and related peoples in the
Volga-Kama and Ural regions"

"Rapid inference of demographic history with ADMIXTOOLS 2"

"Ancient DNA investigation at Photangkhun Longkhap, Nagaland, India"

"Uncanny genetic proportions from Hungary suggest a long lasting HunterGatherer ancestry in Central Europe at the Bronze Age"

Suevi said...

Ancient DNA links genetic admixture to language shift in the medieval Upper Volga
Peltola Sanni (1, 2), Majander Kerttu (3), Makarov Nikolaj (4), Dobrovolskaya Maria (4), Nordqvist Kerkko (5), Krause Johannes (6), Salmela Elina (1, 2, 7), Onkamo Päivi (7)
1 - Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki (Finland), 2 - Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Germany), 3 - Institute of Evolutionary Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich (Switzerland), 4 - Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia), 5 - Faculty of Arts, University of Helsinki (Finland), 6 - Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie (Germany), 7 - Department of Biology, University of Turku (Finland)

Uralic languages span a wide geographic area across northern Eurasia, and most of their speakers share a distinct genetic component. The extant members of the language family, however, represent only a subset of the former linguistic diversity. At least three other Uralic languages-Merya, Murom, and Meschera-endured in the Upper Volga region of central Russia until the Middle Ages. However, during the second half of the first millennium, the rising importance of Slavic language led to their gradual demise. Today, traces of these extinct Uralic languages survive only in historical literature and place names. Thus, the linguistic history of the Upper Volga region is relatively well known, but it remains unclear how Slavicization affected the local gene pool over time. In this study, we produced genome-wide data from 32 ancient individuals from the Upper Volga Suzdal region to investigate the subtle population dynamics associated with the language shift. We find that the Iron Age population, predating the arrival of the Slavs, was genetically similar to present-day Uralic-speaking populations of northeastern Europe. This local Iron Age population contributed a substantial proportion of ancestry to their medieval successors at the initial stage of Slavicization. In the following centuries, Slavic-like ancestry became the major component, while Uralic-like ancestry gradually decreased. Both ancestries, however, remain present in modern-day Central Russians. Finally, we observed several outlier individuals representing non-local ancestries in our medieval dataset. These individuals highlight the importance of the medieval Upper Volga region as a center of far-reaching trade and cultural contacts.

Copper Axe said...

Its not exactly a hot take but I bet most of the south Russians steppes were inhabited by "EHG"/"CHG" populations, but some major movement into the Volga is probably linked with the pottery Neolithic from the Kairshak/Jangar types, which also went north of the Caspian. Which I think is where they came across WSHG populations to form the profile we see with Steppe Maykop and Kumsay, as there was another movement of pottery neolithic westwards from Central Asia. Another migration was into the Volga which perhaps extended towards the Don. I doubt the people there prior to this migration there were 100% "EHG" 0% "CHG" but we will see.

Funny how this was discussed in articles from Vybornov freely available on researchgate in English but David W. Anthony is still struggling to make sense of it all. Isnt this region supposed to be his expertise?

Also for the most part they seem to habe been late to switch to agropasotralism (progress/vonyuchka were foragers contemporary to pastoralism on the steppe, and for the most part seem absorbed by other populations whether EHG or WSHG related. So for the people who basically are vouching for a "CHG-lite" theory with the original PIE speakers being these type of Neolithic EHG/CHG foragers from the N. Caucasus or Caspian shores, and the spread of PIE being linked to these types spreading from those regions (as opposed to pure CHG groups), I doubt that will work out.

Davidski said...

@Genos

The Steppe Maykop outliers have Anatolian ancestry.

Matt said...

Quick dump of the existing samples from the Caucasus mountain and bordering steppe region into a time vs G25_PC3 plot: https://imgur.com/a/41HgSVn

It seems plausible that the Late Eneolithic (4000-3500 BCE?) pulse from Caucasus Mountain to steppe that they discuss happened into Steppe_Maykop or into another community. Not very clear from the abstract at all. They could be describing separate phenomena when talking separately about Steppe_Maykop in "Bronze Age" and "Late Eneolithic" introduction of ancestry, or just the same thing.

I still think even the PCAs have some trouble distinguishing between different plausible sources that were extant at the time. Even qpAdm gives me plausible models of Yamnaya with (Khvalysnsk+Steppe_En+Ukraine_N+Maikop) with high SNPs and low CHIS-SQ. Catching admixture "in the act" and finding outliers with profiles from either the Balkans or elsewhere will be easier than trying to sort this out by other means (if there's any luck with the right samples). Anyway it will be crucial to put these samples from this paper into a date sequence with the samples that Anthony has previewed from Khvalysnk and Sredni-Stog. (Within the likely time frame 4500-3500 BCE, are the Sredni-Stog samples dated after this pulse, or before?).

old europe said...



it seems to me that what happened with the IE expansionis more or less the same thing that we see in the genetic data pf the Imperial Rome period. Just like romans were a west mediterranean population at the start of their historical trajectory and ended up being eastern mediterranenan at the height of their expansion, mutatis mutandis the same we see among IE. They started being ukraine mesolithic ( western steppe) like to steppe like precisely at the pivotal moment of their movements out of the steppe. Because we have the dereivka samples and they do not show much eastern steppe ancestry till 3600-3300 BC

Arza said...

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB46958

A high-resolution picture of kinship practices in an Early Neolithic tomb

To explore kinship practices at chambered tombs in Early Neolithic Britain, we combined archaeological and genetic analyses of 35 individuals who lived about 5,700 years ago and were entombed at Hazleton North long cairn1. Twenty-seven are part of the first extended pedigree reconstructed from ancient DNA, a five-generation family whose many interrelationships provide statistical power to document kinship practices that were invisible without direct genetic data. Patrilineal descent was key in determining who was buried in the tomb, as all 15 inter-generational transmissions were through men. The presence of women who had reproduced with lineage men and the absence of adult lineage daughters suggests virilocal burial and female exogamy. We demonstrate that one male progenitor reproduced with four women: the descendants of two of those women were buried in the same half of the tomb over all generations. This suggests that maternal sub-lineages were grouped into branches whose distinctiveness was recognized during the tomb’s construction. Four males descended from non-lineage fathers and mothers who also reproduced with lineage males, suggesting that some men adopted their reproductive partners’ children by other males into their patriline. Eight individuals were not close biological relatives of the main lineage, raising the possibility that kinship also encompassed social bonds independent of biological relatedness.

vAsiSTha said...

"Ancient DNA investigation at Photangkhun Longkhap, Nagaland, India"
This is 2000bce. hopefully we get some aasi out of it.

Andrzejewski said...

@Suevi @gamerz_j “ This local Iron Age population contributed a substantial proportion of ancestry to their medieval successors at the initial stage of Slavicization. In the following centuries, Slavic-like ancestry became the major component, while Uralic-like ancestry gradually decreased. Both ancestries, however, remain present in modern-day Central Russians.”

Can anyone account for the Varangian proportion in today’s Russians, due to the House of Rurik? Is it 15%-20% on average?

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe “ Also for the most part they seem to habe been late to switch to agropasotralism (progress/vonyuchka were foragers contemporary to pastoralism on the steppe, and for the most part seem absorbed by other populations whether EHG or WSHG related. So for the people who basically are vouching for a "CHG-lite" theory with the original PIE speakers being these type of Neolithic EHG/CHG foragers from the N. Caucasus or Caspian shores, and the spread of PIE being linked to these types spreading from those regions (as opposed to pure CHG groups), I doubt that will work out.”

I personally think that PIE rose somewhere in Western Ukraine, closer to the Dnieper and within Sredny Stog, and it was a language isolate. Years ago I *used* to think that it originated either in Samara foragers, Khvalynsk or Piedmont but I’ve changed my mind.

Matt said...

@arza, another brick in the growing edifice of typically patrilineal and patrilocal structure of EEF. (I expect using Ringbauer's methods to some extent since its Harvard). I've added it to a reference of evidence for patrilocality (https://pastebin.com/zG6xUDMG). I think this could also be some of the first evidence for any Neolithic polygyny, after the Koszyce Massacre! (Unless its serial monogamy).

@old europe, while as a scenario that *could* have happened, bear in mind that any contribution of UKR_N to Yamnaya/Early Corded Ware (who are largely genetically interchangeable at an autosomal level) is much less than the contribution of Latins to the various Italian Imperial Era populations (although the contribution of genetically similar Etruscans etc complicates this).

However there is not too much comparison in the strength of evidence: We have good reason to know that Latin existed in the Italic population before the Imperial Period, but we have absolutely no way to know if pIE existed in the population at Dereivka before the changeover to the apparently Sredni Stog ancestry layer. We know this in the case of Latin because of direct epigraphic evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin), but even if we did not know this we would still have strong distributional evidence to believe it would be so (the general distribution of IE languages, the relationship with specific IE languages). Not the case for Dereivka - there's no distributional evidence of any kind for associated of pIE with the UKR_N population.

Andrzejewski said...

@Genos Historia @Copper Axe Can you find and post any link to supposed reconstruction of what Steppe Maykop and the WSHG early Tarim Basin Mummies looked like? I tend to think about Kett as relic speakers of a WSHG language, but they are overwhelmingly 75% Ymlakhtakh (Yukaghir, Tungus) East Asian and only 1/4 WSHG. It would be interesting to see if WSHG looked Europoid, and in what way do we see common ANE phenotypical traits with modern Eastern/Northern Europeans, who are majority CWC/WSH/Yamnaya-related.

Matt said...

Also: New Harvard Dataset just dropped - https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/allen-ancient-dna-resource-aadr-downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data

"*** V50.0: New data release: Oct 10 2021 ***"

Here's the new sample IDs - https://pastebin.com/k9pfrU6s

Download and open as .csv to view.

Many of them aren't new, but have "_published" added, indicated a higher quality unpublished sample.

Should be useful for anyone wanting to use ADMIXTOOLS to deep dive into samples published in the past year.

(Some are still not there of course. We've got the Mokrin samples in and Tollensee men now, but not the interesting Encrusted Pottery Culture samples from Freilich 2021 - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94932-9 ).

gamerz_J said...

@Vasistha

There is another paper on the western Himalayas, "Human demographic history of the western Trans-Himalayan region" but it seems to me like they once again suggest very early presence of East Asian-related ancestry in the region similar to Chokhopani from Nepal.

The Nagaland samples do seem likely to yield AASI (they def gonna have some of it) but may also be partly East Asian-like?

gamerz_J said...

Did Lola culture contribute to any subsequent cultures/pops? It's hard finding info about them online. They seem to have lasted till 1900 BCE but it's not clear to me after that.

Onur Dincer said...

Multiple isotopic and aDNA analyses of Nevali Cori shed light on a sociosection of ancient southeast Anatolia
Wang Xiaoran (1), Skourtanioti Eirini (2), Schultz Michael (3), Roberts Patrick(2), Krause Johannes (4, 5), W. Stockhammer Philipp (1, 6)
1 - Institute for Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology and Archaeology of the Roman Provinces, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich (Germany), 2 - Department of Archaeology, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Germany), 3 - Department of Anatomy, University of Göttingen (Germany), 4 - Faculty of Biological Sciences, Friedrich Schiller University (Germany), 5 - Department of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Germany), 6 - Department of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Germany)
[8:10 PM]
Nevali Cori in Southeast Anatolia, the eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent, is associated with a socio-economic system of Pre-pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of the 10th-8th millennium BC. Together with other sites in the eastern upper Tigris region, southeast Anatolia became another independent region with one of the earliest Neolithic lifestyles in sedentism and domestication. The site was repeatedly settled also later during the Halaf period, the Early Bronze and the Iron Age. In my paper, I will first present the results of strontium and oxygen isotopic analyses conducted on human and animal remains recovered from Nevali Cori. The results indicate a decline of mobility already during early PPNB. The carbon and oxygen data also revealed the seasonal hunting times of gazelles in that time. The carbon and nitrogen analysis informs about nutritional practices through time indicating changes in subsistence strategies. This enables a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and motivations of Neolithization in west Asia. The genetic analyses of the PPNB people in Nevali Cori shed new light on the genomic structure of aceramic southeast Anatolian farmers and their genetic relations to adjacent Anatolian and Levantine regions. The post-PPNB inhabitants of Nevali Cori showed a different genetic makeup compared to the PPNB people related to the admixture event of regional gene pools across Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus during the Late Neolithic.


So Nevali Cori people had Iran N/CHG-like mix. But is it any surprising given they are from Northern Mesopotamia rather than the Levant? Comparing them to Levantine ancient DNA is misleading I think.

Tigran said...

@ Copper_Axe

Speaking of pottery did pottery arrive to West Asia through ANE or was it independently developed there?

@gamerz_J

What is the Western Himalayas defined as? SWAT?

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur Dincer “ So Nevali Cori people had Iran N/CHG-like mix. But is it any surprising given they are from Northern Mesopotamia rather than the Levant? Comparing them to Levantine ancient DNA is misleading I think.”

Did Barcin farmers arrive from SE Anatolia?

I think PPNB is when Anatolian farmers migrated into Levant and admixed with Natufians

MH_82 said...

In some graphs I see as much as 50% ANE in CHG. That's huge
I think it will have to revolutionise the way we understand the Epipaleolithic Caucasus

I think the claims of Dzudzuana paper are correct - some group appears to have been the major source of all Epipaleolithic groups, Villabruna, AHG, & the 'west Eurasian' component in ANE, Natufians, IBMs

Foxvillager said...

@ Onur Dincer

If its true,then it means transcaucasus mix started migrate from quite early...!It is very likely the homeland of CHG/Iran N to be somewhere to Armenian highlands or somewhere very close.Very curious to found out.

MH_82 said...

I'm not sure what the major defining features of the so-called 'Lola culture', but broadly the north Caucasus area was dominated by catacomb burials. The descendants of the actual Catacomb culture, the 'MBA North Caucasus' type groups, and their mixtures (late Kubano-Tersk) appear to have all utilised such constructions.
The Lola C. burial from Wang is described as an Oval pit.
With G25 its ~ 65% Steppe Majkop 25% Catacomb, but I can at some point check with qpAdm

Ric Hern said...

EHG Ancestry in Northwestern Russia at 10 000 BCE., the oldest sample with EHG Ancestry sofar. Interesting.

vAsiSTha said...

@gamerz_j

Yeah, east asian in Nagaland. Hopefully some aasi too.

Matt said...

@Arza, this may interest you. Although the new Reich lab dataset doesn't give us the Croatia Encrusted Pottery Culture samples, some things can be done with the Mokrian necropolis in terms of formal stats: https://imgur.com/a/udqsrVh

I've split the Mokrin Necropolis into two populations which cluster as the more HG rich and less HG rich* according to Global 25. (Also added on are a cluster I've made from the 3 Bohemian CWC that seemed richest in Steppe ancestry in Global 25).

A "Mokrin cline" between these two subpopulations doesn't seem to necessarily point at Latvia_BA. In that Mokrin1 (the HG rich population), seems richer in Iron_Gates HG affinity than is explained by Mokrin1+Latvia_BA.

That mirrors Global25 of course, but formal stat confirmation is nice.

Stats involving f4(Outgroup,X;Mokrin1,Mokrin2) also point to "Balto-Slavic drift" in Mokrin1.

*The Reich lab have also labelled one of the Mokrin samples as an Aegean outlier. I'm not sure why, but I've not included it

Matt said...

Few more stats showing the specific Balto-Slavic linked drift of the Mokrin1, HG rich subset - https://imgur.com/a/Y5pGo01

Producing stats that contrast W:E Europeans of broadly similar ancestry proportions strongly identifies ancient populations that existed in West and East Europe and plausibly contributed to later people (directly or through a common ancestor). The Mokrin1 HG rich subset has this characteristic.

Yamz said...

Really looking forward to all the new papers particularly the Nagaland study waiting to see some real AASI. I've noticed folks suggesting that there are variations of AASI based on simulations [lol] but this seems ridiculous to me.

Something has got me thinking recently though based on the maternal uniparentals I've noticed in some Indian populations such as L3i/L2a1d found in the HGDP Gujaratis which are very Nile-Valley specific (the samples in question don't hold any SSA autosomal ancestry either so Siddi ancestry is very unlikely) the L3* individual from Madhya Pradesh up on yfull and most recently I was surprised to find a bunch of L haplogroups in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in;

"Skin Pigmentation Diversity in Central East Indian Populations and its Correlation with Mitochondrial Haplogroups"

They found 14 instances of maternal L in their sample cohort and while some of them could be Siddi intermediated in doesn't make much sense considering the region and groups in question. They found instances of L1c1a1,L1c2a1a,L1c4,L4a but interestingly no instances of L3.

Anyone know what the hell is going on here? To me its worth further study considering finger/pearl millet and red sorghum are native to Africa and find themselves in India around 3-5k BC but we don't know anything about the who whats wheres and whys and these maternal HGs make no sense otherwise and are seemingly over represented here.

vAsiSTha said...

no bacho kiro or zlaty kun sample in new version though

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

Did Barcin farmers arrive from SE Anatolia?

Barcin Neolithic farmers have some Levant-related and Iran-related mixes compared to Pinarbasi Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Anatolia:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bcWPENKL9E2dqTBHi1QyzxMcP_fEHc88/view?usp=sharing

So yes, some people from the east arrived, but exactly from where is open to debate.

I think PPNB is when Anatolian farmers migrated into Levant and admixed with Natufians

Indeed, Levantine PPNB has a huge Anatolian Neolithic farmer-like mix compared to Natufians:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L2oiBGJgTQNJzs_gKjSfwNsM1e5qX4DP/view?usp=sharing

@Foxvillager

If its true,then it means transcaucasus mix started migrate from quite early...!It is very likely the homeland of CHG/Iran N to be somewhere to Armenian highlands or somewhere very close.Very curious to found out.

Do note that these new genomes are from Mesopotamia (Northern Mesopotamia specifically, within its part in what is now SE Turkey), not from Anatolia proper
or the Levant, but from east of them, so closer to Iran and the Caucasus. CHG/Iran N-like mix might be very old in those lands.

gamerz_J said...

@Andrzejewski

Do we have any "Varagnian" samples? Sorry, I do not know much about Medieval Russian history.

@MH_82

It is very hard to find good info on the features of the Lola culture (at least in English) but it's interesting they are part Catacomb given they appear to have succeeded it. I wonder where from the WSHG component entered Caucasus from. I would at least think not the SW, possibly from Iran?


"In some graphs I see as much as 50% ANE in CHG"

Was that not the old estimate of ANE in Iranian_Neolithics? But it looks to me (based also on G25/nMonte models which may not be too accurate cause said groups are old) a more eastern-shifted ANE than MA1.But not AG3-like. Rather MA1 just eastern-shifted.

As a more or less wild guess, for the main West Eurasian component, I think likely the possibility it's a mix of Kostenki and Goyet/IUP-type pops. UP-like pops like Goyet may have arrived in the Levant as early as the Aurignacian and so probably are present in both Natufians and IBMs along with more Kostenki-like western ancestry.


@Tigran

Seems more like Himachal Pradesh in NW India.

gamerz_J said...

@Onur Dincer

There was probably an Anatolian_N to Levant_N cline at the time (actually Anatolia_HG to Natufian from a bit earlier) with some additional Iran_N/CHG.

Would agree with the conclusions of Feldman et al on Pinarbasi and Ceramic Anatolian farmers.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur Dincer @gamerz_J “ There was probably an Anatolian_N to Levant_N cline at the time (actually Anatolia_HG to Natufian from a bit earlier) with some additional Iran_N/CHG. ”

There was a man who used to post here in the past, Samuel Andrews, and we agreed that were it not for the Steppe contribution, Europeans would’ve been much less diverged from current Middle Easterners, on accounts of both ancient Dzudzuana links and affinity between Pinarbasi HG and Natufians and also due to introgression of Barcin like pop into Levant, such as the Pequi’in population that Lazaridis wrote about.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur Dincer “ Indeed, Levantine PPNB has a huge Anatolian Neolithic farmer-like mix compared to Natufians:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L2oiBGJgTQNJzs_gKjSfwNsM1e5qX4DP/view?usp=sharing”

Wasn’t Tepecik Ciftlik where the mythical “Abraham” allegedly originated? Wasn’t it a more Iran_N/CHG shifted pop? If contemporary Lebanese are almost 50:50 PPNB : Iran_N/CHG, then some migration from the East did make an impact. Although, Samaritan population could be a proxy to the historical Hebrew Israelites, and they score 27% Anatolian farmer. I’m still perplexed as to what makes modern and even ancient middle eastern people so different than us.

MH_82 said...

I'm not sure why people are surprised / confused about Nevali Cori
The abstract refers to CHG/Iran presence in post -PPNB , but doesnt seem to have tried to distinguish


@ Gamerz-J

''As a more or less wild guess, for the main West Eurasian component, I think likely the possibility it's a mix of Kostenki and Goyet/IUP-type pops. UP-like pops like Goyet may have arrived in the Levant as early as the Aurignacian and so probably are present in both Natufians and IBMs along with more Kostenki-like western ancestry.'''


it doesn't look to be related to Goyet or Kostenki.
My original comment should have read the same, not 'some'. I.e. it seems that it's the same branch which gave off Villabruna provides the western component in ANE & CHG
This could explain the shared distribution of Y-hg R1 between VB & ANE




Andrzejewski said...

@gamerz_J “As a more or less wild guess, for the main West Eurasian component, I think likely the possibility it's a mix of Kostenki and Goyet/IUP-type pops. UP-like pops like Goyet may have arrived in the Levant as early as the Aurignacian and so probably are present in both Natufians and IBMs along with more Kostenki-like western ancestry. “

Did Goyet or Kostenki14 type pops even survive in Europe? The only HG type that seemed to have survived besides Villabruna cluster are the Magdalenians, in small pockets and in small proportions in Iberia and Poland.

MH_82 said...

@ Onur

''Barcin Neolithic farmers have some Levant-related and Iran-related mixes compared to Pinarbasi Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Anatolia:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bcWPENKL9E2dqTBHi1QyzxMcP_fEHc88/view?usp=sharing

So yes, some people from the east arrived, but exactly from where is open to debate.''


Anatolian farmers are actually a completely different population to AHG. Feldmen et al massively underestimated the amount of genetic discontinuity. G25 models alone are also inadequate

Their origin is not controversial at all - they come from the PPN sphere in the northern Fertile Crescent

Andrzejewski said...

@MH_82 “ . it seems that it's the same branch which gave off Villabruna provides the western component in ANE & CHG”

Finding out the affinity between the ANE in EHG to that in CHG could go a long way towards solving the PIE enigma. We know that Yamnaya was 50% ANE from both sources combined.

@All Will we ever figure out where the Sumerians and the Elamites came from? I have a hunch that the former are Anatolian migrants whereas the latter otoh were Iran_N. Which begs the question, if Elamites were indeed Iran_N, did their (extinct, isolate) language originate with their ANE side or with their Dzudzuana one.

Genos Historia said...

@Andrze,

The Samuel Andrews you speak of is I.

Onur Dincer said...

@gamerz_J

There was probably an Anatolian_N to Levant_N cline at the time (actually Anatolia_HG to Natufian from a bit earlier) with some additional Iran_N/CHG.

Would agree with the conclusions of Feldman et al on Pinarbasi and Ceramic Anatolian farmers.


Agree on both points.

@Andrzejewski

There was a man who used to post here in the past, Samuel Andrews

He is still here. Goes by the nick Genos Historia today.

Wasn’t Tepecik Ciftlik where the mythical “Abraham” allegedly originated? Wasn’t it a more Iran_N/CHG shifted pop? If contemporary Lebanese are almost 50:50 PPNB : Iran_N/CHG, then some migration from the East did make an impact. Although, Samaritan population could be a proxy to the historical Hebrew Israelites, and they score 27% Anatolian farmer. I’m still perplexed as to what makes modern and even ancient middle eastern people so different than us.

No, Abraham was born in Ur Kasdim
in Southern Mesopotamia. Tepecik Ciftlik, on the other hand, is in Nigde Province in Southern Cappadocia, where my father and all his known ancestors were born. Thus distant locations. Tepecik Ciftlik Neolithic farmers are genetically like that:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jLlVhT2HZGTDzFWNxs4xQ0wDE_BQ6KTk/view?usp=sharing

After the Neolithic Anatolia and the Levant received further CHG/Iran N while Anatolia N and Levant N spread in all parts of West Asia (including the Caucasus), so West Asia became a genetically more mixed and homogeneous (relatively speaking) place than before, but still preserving many sub-regional distinctions.

Onur Dincer said...

@MH_82

Anatolian farmers are actually a completely different population to AHG. Feldmen et al massively underestimated the amount of genetic discontinuity. G25 models alone are also inadequate

Their origin is not controversial at all - they come from the PPN sphere in the northern Fertile Crescent


We are limited by the samples we have. It is the samples that are actually inadequate. We need samples from more parts of the PPN sphere and from more precedent populations on its territory.

MH_82 said...

@ Andrze

“ Finding out the affinity between the ANE in EHG to that in CHG could go a long way towards solving the PIE enigma. We know that Yamnaya was 50% ANE from both sources combined.”

Given this was occurring between 30 and 20,000 bp, I’m not sure how it’s directly relevant for PIE

MH_82 said...

@ Onur

''We are limited by the samples we have. It is the samples that are actually inadequate. We need samples from more parts of the PPN sphere and from more precedent populations on its territory.''


True, with more samples from PPN Syria, for example, different % would be derived.
However, even without such samples, we might observe the significant uniparental shift during the AHG -> preceramic -> fullblown Neolithic. Moreover, large parts of Anatolia were not populated until the Neolithic.

T/f a 90% continuity is simply not a realistic scenario. I would have expected this to have at least been mentioned in the paper.




ambron said...

Matt, Arza he written about Mokrin once before like this:

"Tollense shares its specific WHG ancestry (aka "Balto-Slavic drift") with Baltic_BA, Balto-Slavs, and many groups from the Balkans or Carpathians. From the samples we currently have: Mokrin, Kyjatice, Fuzesabony, Mako, Hungarian Bell Beaker, Hallstatt, La Tene, Vekerzug. All these groups are closely related to each other and are a part of a Carpathian metapopulation (Baltic_BA and Balto-Slavs included)."

MaxT said...

Villabruna has ANE, around 12% or 11%, likely minor steppe forger (EHG) contribution. Something which Loschbour/Chedder lacks. However, none of these populations contributed to moderns. Closest WHG who contributed to moderns is the ones that carried I2 and I1, they were interacting/trading with Mesolithic steppe forgers (ANE), which lead to emergence of EHG.

"Given this was occurring between 30 and 20,000 bp"

Not at all, EHG and CHG emerged between 14k-11k bp when ANE showed up, as shown in Lazaridis study.

CHG in steppe groups likely formed in north Caucasus around same time Satsurblia (current CHG proxy) were formed further south. Dzudzuana ancestry present in north and south caucasus must have been very drifted from each other by the time ANE arrived.

Onur Dincer said...

@MH_82

However, even without such samples, we might observe the significant uniparental shift during the AHG -> preceramic -> fullblown Neolithic. Moreover, large parts of Anatolia were not populated until the Neolithic.

We should not rush to conclusions based on the even more limited Y-DNA haplogroup data we have. We have only one Y-DNA result from Mesolithic Anatolia. Also, we find Y-DNA haplogroup G2a2 already among Preceramic Neolithic Anatolian Boncuklu, maybe Mesolithic Anatolians had it too, we need more Y-DNA data to know.

MH_82 said...

@ Onur

''We should not rush to conclusions based on the even more limited Y-DNA haplogroup data we have. We have only one Y-DNA result from Mesolithic Anatolia''


yes we understand that more data can change this, but we don't need to make such cautionary footnotes every time we make a comment. # Be bold

In reality, however, I'm not rushing but merely observing the patterns. The amount of data we have is quite large if we understand that mtDNA also constitutes uniparental data, and we have a sizable corpus of comparative data from across Eurasia.

As such, what is immediately obvious is that Pinarbasi has typical 'European HG" lineages - C1a and K/U8b.
by contrast, Neolithic Anatolians feature Y-hg G2a, H2 and mtDNA H, V, X, T2, etc which are obviously 'non-local', although of course C1a & I2c, mtDNA U3, etc; are preserved as a notable minority

And btw, Pinarbasi is not Mesolithic, but Epipaleolithic (there is no mesolithic in Anatolia, technically)



''Also, we find Y-DNA haplogroup G2a2 already among Preceramic Neolithic Anatolian Boncuklu, maybe Mesolithic Anatolians had it too, we need more Y-DNA data to know.''

Boncuklu (~ 8000 bc) is a Neolithic site 6/5,000 years after Pinarbasi. You can't conflate the two.
At this point, the mass exodus of PPN people from the fertile crescent had reached south-central Anatolia, and by 6200 BC - with even more people moving- they reached west Anatolia & Greece.


Garvan said...

vAsiSTha said...”Yeah, east asian in Nagaland. Hopefully some aasi too”

Why AASI? I know the Naga from the Burmese side of the border, and they share cultural similarities and appearances typical of forest area hill tribes stretching eastwards to the highlands of Vietnam. In contrast to their neighbors, they do not appear in any way an Indian population, so I think they must be roughly copper age arrivals, or later. But I don’t know Indian population very well.

vAsiSTha said...

sample is 2000bce. who knows if the ancestry there is similar to modern or not. maybe it is.

vAsiSTha said...

@maxT
"Not at all, EHG and CHG emerged between 14k-11k bp when ANE showed up, as shown in Lazaridis study."

Please quote the relevant parts of the paper confirming the above dates

Onur Dincer said...

@MH_82

yes we understand that more data can change this, but we don't need to make such cautionary footnotes every time we make a comment. # Be bold

This is about knowing statistics. Of course you should be cautious with few data.

As such, what is immediately obvious is that Pinarbasi has typical 'European HG" lineages - C1a and K/U8b.
by contrast, Neolithic Anatolians feature Y-hg G2a, H2 and mtDNA H, V, X, T2, etc which are obviously 'non-local', although of course C1a & I2c, mtDNA U3, etc; are preserved as a notable minority


What is typical European hunter-gatherer about mtDNA haplogroup K (U8b)? Anatolian and European Neolithic farmers have plenty of K, even Levantine PPNB has K (not to mention CHG Satsurblia). What percentage of European hunter-gatherers have K? Also, again, you are coming to too many conclusions based on a single tested Mesolithic Anatolian hunter-gatherer individual.

And btw, Pinarbasi is not Mesolithic, but Epipaleolithic (there is no mesolithic in Anatolia, technically)

Some call Anatolian Epipaleolithic Mesolithic. Anyway, that is just semantics, no significant change in meaning.

Boncuklu (~ 8000 bc) is a Neolithic site 6/5,000 years after Pinarbasi. You can't conflate the two.
At this point, the mass exodus of PPN people from the fertile crescent had reached south-central Anatolia, and by 6200 BC - with even more people moving- they reached west Anatolia & Greece.


Boncuklu is from Aceramic Anatolian Neolithic and shows less of eastern mix than later Ceramic Anatolian Neolithic farmers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bcWPENKL9E2dqTBHi1QyzxMcP_fEHc88/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jLlVhT2HZGTDzFWNxs4xQ0wDE_BQ6KTk/view

As you see, Boncuklu does not show more Levantine genetic contribution compared to Pinarbasi, just a bit more Neolithic Iranian-like contribution compared to him and overall not genetically significantly different from Pinarbasi (conclusions reached by Feldman et al. 2019 too, so Global25 works fine).

Genos Historia said...

@MH_82,

Pinsarbi HG is the main ancestor of Neolithic Anatolians. His Y DNA, mtDNA aren't exotic.

Several Neolithic Anatolians carry C1a2. There is only one example of C1a2 in Mesolithic Europe, La Brana man. C1a2 is found in quite a few Neolithic Europeans, their C1a2 is definitely of Anatolian origin.

mtDNA U8b/K is the most common haplogroup in Neolithic Anatolians. Yes K1a is by far the most common clade. But they also carry K2. It is not strange that Pinsarbi HG has K2b.

The K2b subclade Pinsarbi has is especially rare. But it does exist in Neolithic Europe.

gamerz_J said...

@Andrzjewski

"There was a man who used to post here in the past, Samuel Andrews, and we agreed that were it not for the Steppe contribution, Europeans would’ve been much less diverged from current Middle Easterners"

More or less my impression too (also good to see he is still around-had interesting takes), but the presence of heavy Iranian and Natufian-type ancestries in the Near East etc are also a distinguishing factor. In some instances recent SSA further increased divergence.

"Did Goyet or Kostenki14 type pops even survive in Europe? The only HG type that seemed to have survived besides Villabruna cluster are the Magdalenians, in small pockets and in small proportions in Iberia and Poland."

Something related to them did, no? What is the main ancestry component of Villabruna? It seems to me deeply related to Kostenki but more IUP like + some ANE. There is also an alleged link with the Near East (Pinarbasi) but maybe it's actually SE European ancestry.

gamerz_J said...

@MH_82

"T/f a 90% continuity is simply not a realistic scenario."

Do you think a more likely scenario is many small semi-distinct pops in Anatolia and abouts with similar overall components but different uniparentals mixing to form ANF? Some of them would be Pinarbasi-like some others more Basal or more eastern-shifted (closer to Iran_N). Since we only have one AHG sample though, perhaps it's haplogroup is not that representative.

G and H always seemed Basal-related to me (but H is trickier because it's found in ISouth Asia also) , and Anatolian farmers sometimes appear as AHG but more basal+ minor ANE, ofc that doesn't necessitate actual Pinarbasi descent.

"it doesn't look to be related to Goyet or Kostenki.
My original comment should have read the same, not 'some'. I.e. it seems that it's the same branch which gave off Villabruna provides the western component in ANE & CHG
This could explain the shared distribution of Y-hg R1 between VB & ANE"

This is why I mentioned something mixed between Goyet or Kostenki or related to them both. Because I agree that it doesn't look like either of them.

gamerz_J said...

@Yamz

Perhaps Vasistha will know more about this, but I would think that most of the L2/L3 mtDNA lineages in India are historical/relatively recent. Siddi have a presence of at least 1400 years in India, and these lineages are found among them.

Though I was unaware that sorghum arrived to India from Africa, maybe then remnants of an ancient Africa to India trade route?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-018-9314-2

Genos Historia said...

@Arza,

Can you test the Etruscan DNA samples for these phenotype SNPs........

rs16891982
rs12913832
rs1042602
rs4988235

Cy Tolliver said...

Regarding Dzudzuana being sort of the Ur-West Eurasian lineage, I find it strange that the Caucasus and Eastern Anatolia could've really been the well spring for such a broad range of ancestry, could that area really have the carrying capacity to support such a dense amount of hunter-gatherers who would go on to largely replace (or at least extensively admix with) other groups within an area as massive as Europe, North Africa, Southwest and Central Asia?

Also, did we ever straighten out the relationship between Villabruna and Anatolians? IIRC, Villabruna doesn't show any of the 'Basal' type ancestry found in Anatolia/Caucasus, which would imply that movements were Europe > Anatolia than the other way around, no?

Matt said...

Re; Naga, it would be interesting to see when the Naga got to where they are. They are very "Northern" East Asian and Tibetan like, with no or no major AASI admixture, and lack as much of the Neolithic Southern Chinese admixture that their Han relatives tend to have - https://imgur.com/a/HOsmBtx

So that suggests to me that they diverged early, before as much South Chinese ancestry made its way north, but who knows when they diverged from Tibetans? The material culture suggests they're pretty ancient, but it seems hard to say.

(Naga:Han_Jiangsu distance is about 0.077 on Global25, which is about comparable in West Eurasia to Scottish:Ukrainian at 0.07 and similar to Japanese:Han_Jiangsu at 0.064, which suggest about similar levels of divergence in all these cases.)

@ambron, yes, I agree that what Arza says there is plausible and I don't think any of this comes as a surprise to you. I thought it was interesting as there is often a suggestion that Global25 has created a false affinity between these WHG-rich samples and Baltic or Slavic peoples, but I haven't had a group of samples that's good enough before to test if this is the case in formal stats. And the formal stats to me seem to support the affinity being real and not false, and moreover that these samples aren't necessarily well explained by being between Latvia_BA and other populations, necessarily.

Ric Hern said...

@ MaxT

"Not at all, EHG and CHG emerged between 14k-11k bp when ANE showed up, as shown in Lazaridis study."

When ANE showed up where ? If ANE was spread as far as Italy 14 000 ybp then surely it had to be somewhere in Europe West of the Urals long before that time....

MaxT said...

@Vasista

It's from Dzudzuana study. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/09/20/423079.DC1/423079-1.pdf

"The Dzudzuana population clarifies the origin of these populations by showing that European affinity in the Caucasus decreased between Dzudzuana at ~26 kya and Satsurblia at ~13 kya as additional ENA/ANE ancestry arrived. Thus, Iran_N/CHG are seen as descendants of populations that existed in the Villabruna→Basal Eurasian cline alluded to above, but with extra Basal Eurasian ancestry (compared to Dzudzuana), and also with ENA/ANE ancestry."...“Eastern” Near Eastern populations, including Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) and Neolithic Iranians (Iran_N) traced most of their ancestry from populations of this cline, but also had additional Ancient North Eurasian/Eastern non-African (ANE/ENA) admixture."...."Similar ANE/ENA admixture was represented in Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG) from Karelia; both Europe and the Near East was impacted by this eastern influence."

Genos Historia said...

Pinsarbi Hg is basically the same as Anatolia Neolithic.

For, Anatolia neolithic to mostly descend from new waves of people into Anatolia, it'd have to come from people who are mostly the same as Pinsarbi HG.

If you just use Epipaleolithic SW Asian hunter gatherers, then Anatolian farmers come out 85%+ Pinsarbi_HG.

Ric Hern said...

@ MaxT

Where did ANE show up ?
If you think about it ANE showed up much earlier than 14 000 ybp. in Europe, West of the Urals because it was already in Italy by that time.

Yamz said...

@gamerz_J

Ahh I didn't know the Siddi presence goes that far back, I assumed 600bp max.

However how and why would random "low castes" in Uttar Pradesh carry these lineages? Its an odd one for sure.

It seems both finger/pearl millet and sorghum made their way to India from Africa but I believe millet is attested as early as 2000 BC if not earlier and that paper suggests 1700 BC for sorghum? I wonder if the Nile-Valley specific mt clades are from the people that bought these cereals to the subcontinent (L3i/L2a1d) while the rest being perhaps Siddi in origin although as far as I understand Siddi genetic introgression is rare and confined to Gujarat and Karnataka

The SCB/OBC Uttar Pradesh peoples from that study are blowing my mind lol.

MH_82 said...

@ Gamerz_J

''Do you think a more likely scenario is many small semi-distinct pops in Anatolia and abouts with similar overall components but different uniparentals mixing to form ANF? Some of them would be Pinarbasi-like some others more Basal or more eastern-shifted (closer to Iran_N). Since we only have one AHG sample though, perhaps it's haplogroup is not that representative.

G and H always seemed Basal-related to me (but H is trickier because it's found in ISouth Asia also) , and Anatolian farmers sometimes appear as AHG but more basal+ minor ANE, ofc that doesn't necessitate actual Pinarbasi descent.''



Anatolia appears to have been a terra deserta during much of the Paleolithic. This only changes after the Ice Age. The corollary is that any overly evolutionist paradigms for Anatolian farmers are a priori problematic.

In broad terms we require two major migrations into Anatolia :

(a) AHG type people. To me at least, the fact that Pinarbasi is Y-hg C1a and mtDNA U8 (with the oldest representatives in Europe) is a smoking gun, in addition to the well described archaeological appearance of epigravettian in Anatolia. The other possibility is Dzudzuana peple themselves moving toward Antalya & the nearby plains.

(b) An even larger migration of Farmers from the Fertile Crescent in 2 sub-waves ~ 8000 & 6200 bce into south-central, then western Anatolia; most of which still remained virtually unpopulated until their arrival.

IMO the actual contribution of AHG-type people to later farmers is more along the lines of 30% than 90%; and it is the northern Mesopotamians which caused the demographic boom which followed, at least until ~ 5000 bc, where a crash followed, but thats another story..


@ Onur

''What is typical European hunter-gatherer about mtDNA haplogroup K (U8b)? Anatolian and European Neolithic farmers have plenty of K, even Levantine PPNB has K (not to mention CHG Satsurblia). What percentage of European hunter-gatherers have K? Also, again, you are coming to too many conclusions based on a single tested Mesolithic Anatolian hunter-gatherer individual.''



The oldest U8 is in BK, U8c is present Kostenki, U8a is typical of the Magdalenian.
Do you think that U8b somehow has it's own, wholly separate origin in the Levant ? The problem is you don;t understand how U8b is nested within U8 diversity
So the appearance of some branches of U8b in post-Ice Age western Asia in fact consistent with what I am saying


''As you see, Boncuklu does not show more Levantine genetic contribution compared to Pinarbasi, just a bit more Neolithic Iranian-like contribution compared to him and overall not genetically significantly different from Pinarbasi (conclusions reached by Feldman et al. 2019 too, so Global25 works fine).'''


The problem is neither you nor Feldmen at al. seem to aequately synthesised genetics and archaeology, in fact, I mostly hear crickets...
It seems some chapters of MPI promulgate dubious continuity narratives for Anatolia (also refer to Skourtioniti et al, who completely missed the memo about the Chalcolithic shifts in Anatolia).


@ Genos

''Pinsarbi HG is the main ancestor of Neolithic Anatolians. His Y DNA, mtDNA aren't exotic.''

They aren't exaclty prevalent either. Surely a celebrity YouTuber knows that ?

Onur Dincer said...

@MH_82

LOL do you pretend your on-line automated G25 effort constitutes 'statistics' ?

I was specifically referring there to your inferences based on a single Y-DNA haplogroup result and a single mtDNA haplogroup result from Mesolithic Anatolia, not to anything related to the autosomal results.

You obviously do not understand the distribution of mtDNA U, hence are making stupid statements. Nor do you understand the nesting of Pinarbasi's mtDNA lineage

It is foolish to lump all U mtDNA haplogroups together in the European hunter-gatherer haplogroup category when U is likely older in age than the earliest successful modern human colonizers in Europe and probably arose somewhere in West Asia and many of its subclades probably arose in West Asia as well.

You also keep referring to the Paleolithic sample as "mesolithic" . Youre understanding of Anatolian archaeology and demography is non-existant

You first learn that Epipaleolithic does not mean Paleolithic and is often used along with Mesolithic for the same time period of a specific region. Anatolia is one such example.

What this shows is that you in fact have little understanding of what you are talking about, although your tenure as a Token Mod at Anthrogenica (like all those reptiles) has molley-coddled you into believing that you somehow know what you are talking about

LOL. I have been commenting at prominent genome blogs since 2009, many years before I became a mod at Anthrogenica, and I created my own FTDNA project years before that as well. You are personalizing the discussion.

There is nothing to see. Some context-less g25 models from a noob talking out of his ass

Provide your analysis or someone else's analysis backing your claim instead of name calling like kids.

The oldest U8 is in BK, U8c is present Kostenki, U8a is typical of the Magdalenian.
Do you think that U8b somehow has it's own, wholly separate origin in the Levant ? The problem is you don;t understand how U8b is nested within U8 diversity
So the appearance of some branches of U8b in post-Ice Age western Asia in fact consistent with what I am saying


You probably mean Gravettian rather than Kostenki by "Kostenki." Anyway, again you are making assumptions based on limited sampling. West Asian ancient DNA is very poorly tested for the pre-Neolithic times, and even worse when we come to the UP times. So again: learn statistics before talking on these issues.

The problem is neither you nor Feldmen at al. seem to aequately synthesised genetics and archaeology, in fact, I mostly hear crickets...
It seems some chapters of MPI promulgate dubious continuity narratives for Anatolia (also refer to Skourtioniti et al, who completely missed the memo about the Chalcolithic shifts in Anatolia).


The Chalcolithic genetic shift in Anatolia is huge, a fact I never denied. We are discussing the Neolithic genetic shift in Anatolia here, I do not take the estimates of Feldman et al. on that at face value, I already referred to the limited sampling as a major hurdle. I said that my Global25-based analyses and the analyses of Feldman et al. using the same source and target populations arrive at similar results, but that does not mean those source populations accurately represent the ancestry of those target populations due to the issue of limited sampling.

vAsiSTha said...

No idea about the Indian L mtdna lineages. Maybe siddi related admixture in Muslims.

@maxT
The quote doesn't say 14-11kya though. It says post 26kya there was increased ANE admixture in Caucasus.

ambron said...

Matt, it is indeed fascinating that in the case of Balto-Slavic drift, the formal stats are in line with the G25.

vAsiSTha said...

HG03742.SG This is a telugu sample with Y-Hg K2
and ancestral for all P, N, O & R

https://www.yfull.com/tree/K-Y28299/
Yfull has this sample along with other south asian samples, 1 from kashmir too.

vAsiSTha said...

K2a* has been found only in Upper Paleolithic remains from western Siberia and the Balkans, known respectively as "Ust'-Ishim man and "Oase-1'.".[5] The only primary branch of K2a, known as K-M2313*, has been documented in two living individuals, who have ethnic ties to South Asia and South East Asia respectively: a Telugu from India and an ethnic Malay from Singapore. In addition, K-Y28299, which appears to be a primary branch of K-M2313, has been found in three living individuals from India.

SKRiBHa said...

@Andrzejewski
@All if we agree that Corded Ware were identified with the speakers of what could be deemed “Late PIE”, then do we agree that the dialects spoken by Yamnaya, Khvalynsk, Afanasievo and speakers of the Anatolian branch could all be regarded and defined as “Para-PIE”?

The facts are as follows:

1.
The CWC and their language is a direct ancestor for both Proto-Slavs > Proto-Balts, Proto-Indo-Iranians (Fatianovo > Andronovo > BMAC / Yaz), Proto-Armenians & S/Hellenes, and for Proto-Celts / Italics / Germans (Bell Beakers) and their languages.

2.
All these languages are IE languages, so CWC also had to be IE, but an earlier version of it.

3.
I refer to the CWC language not as ‘Late PIE’ but as ‘Post-PIE’ because there is no credible proof so far that PIE was the language of 'Yamnaya, Khvalynsk, Afanasievo'.

Take a look at these:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/09/one-genomic-formation-of-modern-balkan.html?showComment=1632666511031#c6786863783064409187

In this comment, as a response to 'ambron', I described my 'reverse wave theory' which describes the formation of all major Post-PIE languages.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-pie-homeland-controversy-june-2021.html?showComment=1629812861271#c1763298311345031019

In this comment I described my version of the formation of PIE and all Post-PIE languages.

I do not derive PIE from steppe cultures, but I associate its origin with the formation of the first kurgans, i.e. with the Balkans, mining, metals, metallurgy, and the Suvorovo and Varna cultures. According to this, the steppe was only Indo-Europeanised, see the borrowing of a wheel, wagons, metallurgy and kurgans.

Do you have any comments?

Yamz said...

@vasistha

That's the thing, its the Gujarati (hgdp) harboring L3i/L2a1d and the skin-pigmentation study had the following populations exhibit L from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh:

Brahmins UP+Bihar
Bhumihar
Prasad
Muslim Bihar
Sah
Paswan
Manjhi
Prajapati

Don't you think this is really weird for what am assuming are non-Muslim groups? I can't quite get my head around it except for the possibility that the group that brought millet+sorghum in prehistory had a genetic impact? Strange L groups like L2b1a4* shared by two Italians on yfull [I'm assuming as part of the continuum of those southern-euro specific L clades] are apparently harbored by Brahmins in UP.

Somewhere in the back of my mind there's a ridiculous idea that maybe the Iran_N ancestry in South Asia were direct descendants of persian-gulf basal Eurasians and that's how these L (L3* Madhya pradesh!) lineages made it there lol

I mean it probably is all Siddi intermediated but something still quite isn't right imo looking at the distribution.

Can anyone get those HGDP Gujaratis on to yfull mtree?

vAsiSTha said...

id:GU480004.1 is L3* mtdna.

Given that L3 is the mother of M, maybe its related to OOA event idk. There are some M* from india as well on yfull Mtree.

id:FJ770945.1IND
id:GU480011.1IND

These 2 are M*

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L2'3'4'6/

vAsiSTha said...

The oldest M* so far i believe is the teenage girl 5200bce from Leang Panninge.

id:MN706602
id:MN706607

and if these 2 are Bacho Kiro samples, which i think they are, then these 2 are the oldest M*.
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/M/

vAsiSTha said...

Has someone studied those amur river chinese samples?

The 33kya sample is similar to tianyuan and closer to onge(not by much) than tianyuan. However the samples after that (19kya -8kya) are completely different, rather similar to modern north east asians. thoughts?

MH_82 said...

@ Onur


''I said that my Global25-based analyses ''

Your 'runs' are in fact meaningless, because you have zero understanding of the demorgaphic background.


'You first learn that Epipaleolithic does not mean Paleolithic and is often used along with Mesolithic for the same time period of a specific region. Anatolia is one such example.''


Not a single paper dealing with the site calls it Mesolithic. All refer to it as Epipaleolithic .[1] [2] [3]



''Anyway, again you are making assumptions based on limited sampling. West Asian ancient DNA is very poorly tested for the pre-Neolithic times, and even worse when we come to the UP times. So again: learn statistics before talking on these issues.''

No, I'm not making assumptions, you lack any merit to judge that . Im commanding understanding and knowledge. Even one sample is very powerful.


'I have been commenting at prominent genome blogs since 2009, many years before I became a mod at Anthrogenica, and I created my own FTDNA project years before that as well. You are personalizing the discussion.''

hardly a glowing resume. Two years back you were begging for a leg up to gain entry to University, so I don't think you're in any position to lecture anyone, especially someone who is worlds above you. There is nothing worse than an arrogant fool. Stick to pontificating to the reptiles and soyboys of the Anthrogenica community

MaxT said...

@Vashista

It's due to internal divergences and genetic drift that took place in East Asia post splits.

Onur Dincer said...

@MH_82

Your 'runs' are in fact meaningless, because you have zero understanding of the demorgaphic background.

You are criticizing me for the sake of criticism. Where have I said that my or Feldman et al.'s analyses should be interpreted literally? All I stated is that Feldman et al. did analyses based on the limited ancient genomes they had and I replicated their results on Global25 using the same populations. I did not mean to say those source populations necessarily accurately represent the ancestry of those target populations. I stressed this over and over, yet you are still criticizing me for claims I have not even made to begin with.

Not a single paper dealing with the site calls it Mesolithic. All refer to it as Epipaleolithic .[1] [2] [3]

Your second and third links are broken. Anyway, the term Mesolithic is used interchangeably with Epipaleolithic when it comes to Anatolian contexts. I think using Mesolithic makes sense for Anatolia proper given that agriculture appeared there via migration (the degree of which is open to debate) and thus developed more abruptly than in the Fertile Crescent.

No, I'm not making assumptions, you lack any merit to judge that . Im commanding understanding and knowledge. Even one sample is very powerful.

You are imposing your speculation (which may ultimately be vindicated through more sampling) as if it is confirmed truth. You need more than one sample to make firm statements like that.

hardly a glowing resume. Two years back you were begging for a leg up to gain entry to University, so I don't think you're in any position to lecture anyone, especially someone who is worlds above you. There is nothing worse than an arrogant fool. Stick to pontificating to the reptiles and soyboys of the Anthrogenica community

You are again personalizing the discussion and resorting to bluster and name calling in ways reminiscent of children and uneducated third worlders. These issues have nothing to do with the topic we discuss. I did not even know you were Rob when I wrote my above comments, someone informed me about your identity after my last reply to you.

Just to clarify: It was you who started the PM conversation you are referring to and it was for getting details from me about the early Oghuz/Turcoman skeletons in Anatolia, following which I provided you details on them and also mentioned the even earlier Oghuz/Turcoman skeletons in Kazakhstan. Then I asked you if you were in contact with any ancient DNA geneticists who could conduct ancient DNA research on them, and later in the conversation I asked you whether you knew a university in Western countries where I could do master's at a decent price or free, these are the only things I asked you in that conversation. Also, I am neither a mod nor an actively participating member on Anthrogenica for a long time and, like I told you before, I played no role in your ban from AG, so stop bringing up your personal issues with AG when discussing with me as if I am a representative of AG.

ambron said...

Matt

Thus, the Balto-Slavic drift is a real phenomenon, not an artifact of the adopted method. The Balto-Slavic drift is not an effect to the admixture of the Baltic BA. And that's the most important thing.

MH_82 said...

@ Omur


''Also, I am neither a mod nor an actively participating member on Anthrogenica for a long time and, like I told you before, I played no role in your ban from AG, so stop bringing up your personal issues with AG when discussing with me as if I am a representative of AG.''

Nobody approached you for anything, and Anthrogenica is low -bar & irrelevant. You're not going to see anybody reference it. So you should stop imagining things about years ago just because I could not bring myself to 'respect' some clueless admins there. I speak it like it is. I was just making the point that your attitude has been shaped by it , but it's good you are no longer in its dark shadows



''You are criticizing me for the sake of criticism. Where have I said that my or Feldman et al.'s analyses should be interpreted literally? ''''You are imposing your speculation ''

On the contrary it is you debating for the sake of debating. I was making a 'positive' hypothesis (right or wrong), not imposing anything. And this is more worthwhile than any 'negative' hypothesis (''we can't tell'', ''there is no samples'').

The bottom line is C1a/U8 versus G2/H2 & corresponding mtDNA are worlds apart. Frankly, I don't know why someone who claims to be a DNA veteran is even debating against it.



Ebizur said...

vAsiSTha wrote,

"The oldest M* so far i believe is the teenage girl 5200bce from Leang Panninge.

id:MN706602
id:MN706607

and if these 2 are Bacho Kiro samples, which i think they are, then these 2 are the oldest M*.
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/M/"

According to Fuzuki Mizuno, Jun Gojobori, Masahiko Kumagai, et al. (2021) ("Population dynamics in the Japanese Archipelago since the Pleistocene revealed by the complete mitochondrial genome sequences," Scientific Reports 2021 11:12018), the mtDNA of the approximately 20,000-year-old Minatogawa 1 specimen from Okinawa Island belongs to haplogroup M*:

"We successfully determined a highly accurate complete mitogenome sequence of 20,000-year-old Minatogawa 1 (Minato1), a plausible direct descendant of the initial migration into the Japanese Archipelago (Fig. 1, Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1). Its sequence obtained with average depth of 52 was classifed into haplogroup M, and carries no substitutions that are defining subgroups of haplogroup M. Haplogroup M is found at high frequency in present-day Asians, Australasians, and indigenous Americans [13–16]. The sequence of this ancestral type of haplogroup M is not seen in any of 2,062 present-day Japanese samples newly determined in this study, 672 present-day Japanese [15], 21,668 Han Chinese [17]. Figure 2 shows a Bayesian phylogenetic tree of mitogenome of 18 ancient and 171 present-day individuals in the Japanese Archipelago. Figure 3 shows a Multi Dimensional Scaling (MDS) plot of mitogenome of 1 Palaeolithic, 13 Jomon, 4 Yayoi, and 2,062 present-day individuals in the Japanese Archipelago. Supplementary Figure S1 shows a MDS plot including present-day East Asian samples. These results show that Minato 1 does not make clear cluster with any of the other samples, suggesting the Minato 1 is not directly related to the Jomon, Yayoi, and present-day Japanese. But it located near the root of haplogroup M. This suggests that Minato1 belongs to the ancestral population of present-day Japanese but also to the ancestral population of present-day East Asians."

vAsiSTha said...

@Yamz

"These results are congruent with a model proposing an out-of-Africa migration into Asia, following a northern route, of early anatomically modern humans carrying pre-L3 mtDNA lineages around 125 kya, subsequent diversification of pre-L3 into the basal lineages of L3, a return to Africa of Eurasian fully modern humans around 70 kya carrying the basal L3 lineages and the subsequent diversification of Eurasian-remaining L3 lineages into the M and N lineages in the outside-of-Africa context, and a second Eurasian global expansion by 60 kya, most probably, out of southeast Asia."

Carriers of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup L3 basal lineages migrated back to Africa from Asia around 70,000 years ago (2018)
https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-018-1211-4

@Ebizur Thanks.

MaxT said...

@Ebizur @Vasista

Along with that 20,000-year-old Minatogawa, I believe 45,000 years old Zlaty Kun female is also mtdna M*. HistAndaman sample from Mayar et al who carried Y-DNA P is also mtdna M* .





Andrzejewski said...

@Max T @Ebizur @Vasistha Yayoi are current modern Japanese, closely related to Chinese and Koreans.

Jomon are ancestors of the Aino, if I’m not mistaken.

So what’s the affiliation of the allegedly 1st wave of migrants, the so-called “Japanese HG”, who are they and where did they come from?

And what exactly is the genetic affiliation of the Ainu?

Onur Dincer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vAsiSTha said...

I don't know anything about japanese pop genetics.

@maxT thanks. a lot of M* found in the samples

Onur Dincer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vladimir said...

One of the oldest dates, about 5400 years ago, comes from a horse’s leg bone buried with a small child in a kurgan built by the Maykop culture at Aygurskiy, in southern Russia. Another early relative of the DOM2 horse was found at Repin Khutor, a site on the Don River that was home to the famed Yamnaya herders who make up a significant part of Europeans’ genetic ancestry. Some researchers had thought the Yamnaya rode into Europe 5000 years ago on the ancestors of modern horses. But samples from the new study show that once they got to Europe, the Yamnaya used earlier European horses rather than the DOM2 variety.

The new horse’s spread and takeover between 4200 and 3000 years ago coincide with a “cultural genesis” during the late Bronze Age in the Volga-Don region, Kuznetsov says. First came the DOM2 horse, followed by the spoked wheel and chariots. Together, those innovations gave people the ability to travel off well-trodden paths, allowing them to find new sources of tin, gold, and other metals; set up long-distance trade networks; and herd other livestock farther to new pastures, says Natalia Roslyakova of RAS.

Climbing on top of the DOM2 horse was a “complete game changer,” says University of Oxford archaeologist Greger Larson, who wasn’t part of this study. “You now have an advantage over anyone else who wants to get around quickly.” This paper also shows, he says, that data from animals can reveal major cultural changes in the past. “I love the part that it’s animals that can be used to test what happens to people … to understand their culture.”

https://www.science.org/content/arti...-modern-horses

https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...d-9fcf98a8b912

Simon_W said...

@ Onur

"I did not even know you were Rob when I wrote my above comments"

:D His style is unmistakeable. After reading one or two comments, I knew for sure that MH_82 must be Rob.

capra internetensis said...

New horse paper is out: "The origins and spread of domestic horses from the Western Eurasian steppes" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04018-9

Zlaty Kun had N* (a unique branch). The other Palaeolithic European M, unrelated to the Bacho Kiro branch, was carried by GoyetQ116-1 and a few others. These, both extinct, are the oldest attested subclades of mt hg M, but obviously this is sample bias.

I4011, from central Myanmar, not directly dated but thought to be 1200-700 BC, already has a large proportion of Yellow River-type ancestry. The Naga languages are very diverse and quite divergent from other Sino-Tibetan languages, which could indicate an early arrival in that area. Northeast India is little known archaeologically, but local Neolithic with South Chinese affinities appears 2500-1500 BC. Prior to that Hoabinhian-related cultures. Millet and rice farmer settlements in Tibet and Yunnan well before 2000 BC. So I doubt we will find AASI in Nagaland, more's the pity.

Onur Dincer said...

@MH_82

Nobody approached you for anything, and Anthrogenica is low -bar & irrelevant. You're not going to see anybody reference it. So you should stop imagining things about years ago just because I could not bring myself to 'respect' some clueless admins there. I speak it like it is. I was just making the point that your attitude has been shaped by it , but it's good you are no longer in its dark shadows

Well, it is you who brought up Anthrogenica, my work as a mod there and my personality and past in general in the discussion, I am not someone who brags about my past, let alone my Internet past, shapes attitude based on it or personalizes discussions, and like I said, I did not even know who you were until my last comment.

On the contrary it is you debating for the sake of debating. I was making a 'positive' hypothesis (right or wrong), not imposing anything. And this is more worthwhile than any 'negative' hypothesis (''we can't tell'', ''there is no samples'').

I already made it clear that your hypothesis is worth considering, but added that only with more sampling it can be verified or refuted.

The bottom line is C1a/U8 versus G2/H2 & corresponding mtDNA are worlds apart. Frankly, I don't know why someone who claims to be a DNA veteran is even debating against it.

We do not have any grasp of the haplogroup composition of Mesolithic/Epipaleolithic Anatolia yet, when we have it, we can discuss these issues better.

A final note of clarification: The PM conversation between you and me you referred to was 4 years ago, not 2. This detail is important since back then you were still an Anthrogenica member, and in fact that PM conversation took place on AG.

Matt said...

@ambron, I'm not 100% sure where it came into existence (I think the Arza theory that it is from a HG subpopulation is very well explained with it being correlated with different HG rich samples), but yeah, I think the formal stats are very clear to me that it isn't something that is being randomly put into HG rich samples by PCA projection but is really there.

@all; everyone checking out the horse paper now its released?

Onur Dincer said...

@Simon_W

:D His style is unmistakeable. After reading one or two comments, I knew for sure that MH_82 must be Rob.

I only realized that MH_82 is Rob when a friend of mine informed me about it showing hard evidence. Before that I did not even think or suspect such a thing. I have not been following the discussions at the comment section of Eurogenes for quite some time, that must be why.


Copper Axe said...

So what I took away from the article:

- Closest relatives of DOM2 are found on the steppes, with Yamnaya and Yamnaya derivatives
- DOM2 likely originated in the Don-Volga steppes
- DOM2 brought behavioural selections with it
- DOM2 began spreading from 2200-2000 bc, prior to the proper chariot (proto-chariots existed) perhaps with early horse riding into Europe and Anatolia

I think an issue in their wording is that they assume the Corded Ware was simply just Yamnaya expanding into Europe, which it wasn't. Even if they were born within the Yamnaya horizon from an archaeological/geographic perspective they were different. And because Corded Ware horses were of different stock, the "Yamnaya" expansion wasn't associated with it.

But it seems like they are also be implying is that this horse breed developed within Yamnaya/Catacomb/Poltavka territory and timeframe, because it spread prior to the big spreading event of steppe_mlba populations, at least in Europe. If so, then perhaps the cultural influences from the southern steppe on Balanovo/Abashevo might've brought the DOM2 lineage with it.

Those are my impressions at least, not sure if its fully correct. What did you make of it @Davidski?

Romulus said...

Yamnaya pastoralism did not spread horses far outside their native range, similar to the Botai horse domestication, which remained a localized practice within a sedentary settlement system2,36. The globalization stage started later, when DOM2 horses dispersed outside their core region, first reaching Anatolia, the lower Danube, Bohemia and Central Asia by approximately 2200 to 2000 BC, then Western Europe and Mongolia soon afterwards

Very definitively, neither Yamnaya, nor Corded Ware, nor Bell Beaker had or spread any domesticated horses.



Davidski said...

@Copper Axe

If so, then perhaps the cultural influences from the southern steppe on Balanovo/Abashevo might've brought the DOM2 lineage with it.

Yes, possibly, and this is exactly what the authors should have tested considering their other findings.

Singh said...

@Yamz

That looks like very poor resolution study, they also didn't mention which software they used to make mtdna calls. Random L1 calls for those groups & that region is very unlikely to be accurate. Considering dozens of mtdna studies over the years has not shown this. I suspect those calls could be some kind of downstream mtdna N or W since they were not used for calls in the study.

Reminds me of this for example https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12890-Oddly-specific-WeGene-mtDNA-haplogroup

MH_82 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Onur Dincer said...

@MH_82

Well i though I did have a decent grasp, but thanks for telling me what to think
Good luck with your studies.


Thanks.

Ric Hern said...

So Corded Ware Horses ALMOST completely lacked DOM2 ancestry. ALMOST is an interesting word. And Pre-CWC horses had LIMITED DOM2 ancestry. LIMITED Another interesting word.

Arza said...

@ Matt

Interesting findings. Although I'm not sure if these stats are driven by "the drift" alone. It may be that Mokrin was closely related to a population which has contributed to the modern day Balto-Slavs or that the position on WE PCA helps a lot in this case (compare with Ukraine_Eneolithic, which at least theoretically should be neutral).