Tuesday, November 9, 2021
Crazy stuff
I'm hoping that 2022 is the year when this problem is finally straightened out. Over to you David Reich, Nick Patterson, Iosif Lazaridis, David Anthony, Wolfgang Haak, Johannes Krause and colleagues.
See also...
An early Iranian, obviously
The Hajji Firuz fiasco
A Mycenaean and an Iron Age Iranian walk into a bar...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
550 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 550 of 550@ Gamerz_J
The 'east Eurasian' in ANS/ANS is geographically just a north central Asian/ Siberian clade which branched off after BK but before TianYaun and other proto-East Asians
@Andrzejewski
Which is curious, but there was such a theory. The Ural-Altaic kinship was supported by Finnish linguists Martti Räsänen and Juha Janhunen
BAM files from "The genetic origin of Daunians and the Pan-Mediterranean southern Italian Iron Age context":
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB47831?show=reads
So East Asians are mostly IUP and IUP is essentially an ENA component? Or are East Asian IUP (minor) + something Onge like (majority)?
Arza, I wonder what these Balkan genomes will look like.
@ambron
The genetic origin of Daunians and the Pan-Mediterranean southern Italian Iron Age context
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.30.454498v1.full
Off Topic:
Genetic Continuity of Indo-Iranian Speakers Since the Iron Age in Southern Central Asia
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.04.466891v1
From the abstract:
:...The present Indo-Iranian populations from Central Asia display a strong genetic continuity with Iron Age samples from Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. We model Yaghnobis as a mixture of 93% Iron Age individual from Turkmenistan and 7% from Baikal. For the Tajiks, we observe a higher Baikal ancestry and an additional admixture event with a South Asian population. Our results, therefore, suggest that in addition to a complex history, Central Asia shows a remarkable genetic continuity since the Iron Age, with only limited gene flow."
So it was an Croatia IA.
@George
The paper concludes that there was actually admixture between BMAC people and Andronovo populations, contradicting Vagheesh Narasimhan et al (2019) conclusion. Davidski must be pleased.
@carlos “ The paper concludes that there was actually admixture between BMAC people and Andronovo populations, contradicting Vagheesh Narasimhan et al (2019) conclusion. Davidski must be pleased”
Why should he be pleased?
IIRC, he claimed that Andronovo didn’t mix significantly with either BMAC nor with Kumsay/Shazarm (WSHG) populations on their way to India.
But if they did, then the Burushaski must be either BMAC or Botai/Kelteminar related.
@All
As I understand the problem, there are two mutually exclusive opinions regarding Y/Mt/a DNA analised from samples taken from ancient and present human populations:
1. IRAN > ARMIENIA > CAUCASUS >EASTERN EUROPEAN STEPPE
This option is advocated by official modern progressive science represented by e.g .: 'David Reich, Nick Patterson, Iosif Lazaridis, David Anthony, Wolfgang Haak, Johannes Krause and colleagues'.
2. EASTERN EUROPEAN STEPPE > CAUCASUS > ARMIENIA > IRAN
This option is supported by Davidski and data ...
Is it possible to collate and compare here the evidence supporting both these options, such as the name and DNA of the sample and the paper where it was described and analysed?
I’ve done a summary of the El Argar paper here
https://archaeogeneticsblog.com/2021/12/04/cultural-demographic-flux-in-southeast-iberia-the-case-of-el-argar/
What is the significance of the Etruscan found with R-U106? He plots like this
Distance to: ITA_Etruscan_Tarquinia:TAQ013
0.03846656 French_Corsica
0.04094746 Spanish_Menorca
0.04268493 Italian_Bergamo
0.04301792 Spanish_La_Rioja
0.04427129 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
0.04445548 Italian_Lombardy
0.04457568 Spanish_Murcia
0.04467402 Spanish_Pirineu
0.04493754 Spanish_Peri-Barcelona
0.04506333 Spanish_Castello
0.04510850 Spanish_Baleares
0.04524243 Spanish_Terres_de_l'Ebre
0.04550044 Spanish_Valencia
0.04551300 Spanish_Lleida
0.04565577 Spanish_Catalunya_Central
0.04566136 Spanish_Aragon
0.04579317 Spanish_Eivissa
0.04657656 Spanish_Alacant
0.04700239 Spanish_Camp_de_Tarragona
0.04714791 Spanish_Navarra
0.04717649 Spanish_Mallorca
0.04718368 Italian_Veneto
0.04776990 Spanish_Andalucia
0.04778842 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.04799941 Spanish_Cantabria
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673
@Andrzejewski
"Why should he be pleased? IIRC, he claimed that Andronovo didn’t mix significantly with either BMAC nor with Kumsay/Shazarm (WSHG) populations on their way to India."
I was able to read time ago one of his posts rejecting "absolutely" the Narasimhan's view that there was not Andronovo-BMAC genetic relationship. But you say he only commented that there was no "significant" admixture. Maybe he himself can clarify this issue.
There was definitely mixing between Andronovo and BMAC populations. This must be how these sorts of individuals got their genetic structure.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/an-early-iranian-obviously.html
There's also BMAC or BMAC-like ancestry in the Swat BA/IA samples, and it's a mystery to me why Narasimhan et al. didn't pick this up.
On the other hand, there's very little of this type of ancestry in much of India today (except parts of the north).
So it seems to me that Andronovo-derived groups both rich and poor in BMAC ancestry spread Indo-Iranian languages across Asia.
@Rob,
You weren't explicit. I can now deduce you were implicitly talking about Y DNA in hunter gatherers in Ukraine, W. Russia, Latvia.
Are you saying PIE comes from hunter gatherers incorporated by Progress-EN like pastorlists?
I think the fact a basically Progress_EN-like hunter gatherer population existed in the Volga region is enough to say Proto-Indo European originated there. If true, it proves the vast majority of the ancestry of Kurgans originated squarely in Russian Steppe significantly east of those hunter gatherers. This has to be where their language is from.
@Rob,
You have been against the idea of a Steppe homeland.
In 2018, you liked to call the Steppe a sink not a source. Seemingly trying to link any IE language there to outside geneflow.
You linked IE language in Unetice to influx of I2a. In essence saying their Steppe ancestors didn't speak IE.
Might be of interest . https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160131092259.htm
@Genos H “ I think the fact a basically Progress_EN-like hunter gatherer population existed in the Volga region is enough to say Proto-Indo European originated there.”
I actually think that PIE originated on the banks of the Don to the west.
Progress or Khvalynsk may not have spoken PIE at all.
@Carlos @Davidski “ I was able to read time ago one of his posts rejecting "absolutely" the Narasimhan's view that there was not Andronovo-BMAC genetic relationship. But you say he only commented that there was no "significant" admixture. Maybe he himself can clarify this issue.”
And the WSHG’s contribution to Andronovo was 8%. So we know that the Indo-Europeans didn’t exterminate them. However, Botai-like contribution to Aryan populations wasn’t significant. In case of BMAC, maybe the BMAC-rich Andronovo were the ancestors of the Burusho/Burushaski.
@ Genos H
"You have been against the idea of a Steppe homeland.''
no I was against the caricature model of steppe homeland popularized as Khvalynsk raiders riding in on horses and destroying Varna. My critique of this was accurate. Now 10 years later everyone all of a sudden pretends to know that Khvalynsk isn’t the
PIE homeland
“In 2018, you liked to call the Steppe a sink not a source. Seemingly trying to link any IE language there to outside geneflow.”
Yes but you misconnect
Before Yamnaya expanded - out of the steppe obviously- people were moving onto the steppe.
We have (a) a slight WHG shift ~ 6/5000 bce , (b) arrival of CHG (c) movement of EEfs, esp GAC toward the steppe
Even the EHGs which formed the bulk of the pre-PIE moved into the steppe during the Late Paleo, from the foreststeppe
Before yamnaya, humans were not adapted to the open steppe. They lived along the rivers and forests further north and only occasionally utilised the steppe lands
Even after yamnaya, it was replaced by R1a-rich Srubnaja people, who in turn suffered a demographic collapse ~ 1200 bce, re-supplanted by pre-Thracian halstatt from thre west and "Cimmerians' from the East
They were then replaced by Goths; who were displaced by Huns then Bulgars then Slavs etc
''You linked IE language in Unetice to influx of I2a. In essence saying their Steppe ancestors didn't speak IE.''
Nonsense. I stated that Unetice was I2a rich due to some sort of shift in mobility and trade patterns; and that accounted for some of their technological and political shifts, incl creation of Chiefdoms instead of the more tribalistic , lineage -based GAC, CWC & BB cultures
So, Instead of making wrong accusations, you should ask for clarification & help
Carlos
There is indeed no significant proof on bmac andronovo admixture till the iron age swat and turkmenistan_ia sample.
Only a few outliers here and there before 1200bce.
"There's also BMAC or BMAC-like ancestry in the Swat BA/IA samples, and it's a mystery to me why Narasimhan et al. didn't pick this up."
Because his models and his p values are Shiite but he chose to accept them.
@david
"There's also BMAC or BMAC-like ancestry in the Swat BA/IA samples, and it's a mystery to me why Narasimhan et al. didn't pick this up.
On the other hand, there's very little of this type of ancestry in much of India today (except parts of the north)."
The Y-DNA of the Swat samples also is very odd.
"So it seems to me that Andronovo-derived groups both rich and poor in BMAC ancestry spread Indo-Iranian languages across Asia."
I recall reading a hypothesis a few years ago claiming that Indian or Indo-Iranian languages were created by at least two different sources.
@ D and re: "But I do know that there's at least one sample from a ~2,000 BCE Seima-Turbino site in Central Siberia that is basically 100% kra001 (Kransoyarsk BA)."
There still seems to be a mismatch compared to the linguistic model(s), assumed that the kra001 like sample found in Central Siberia above is supposed to be an early Uralic speaker:
”In my opinion, the areal linguistic arguments related with
the inner taxonomy of Uralic seem to favour the Western
Siberian homeland hypothesis. If the three Ugric linguistic
homelands really are situated close to each other, that
would be a good candidate for an area where an early split of
Proto- Uralic to several language forms has begun. The Ugric
languages, which seem to have had the longest mutual con-
tacts among all subgroups of Uralic, have been spoken on
both sides of the Urals, and they clearly represent the epi-
centre of the Uralic areal linguistic variation, considering
that Ugric is more diverse than the other Uralic groups.”
https://www.academia.edu/61676595/The_divergence_of_Proto_Uralic_and_its_offspring_A_descendent_reconstruction
Cf. also the map here, on page 4:
https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/162703612/UralicSpread_Text_Supplements_Accepted.pdf
@David
I referred to what apparently is called the Outer-Inner hypothesis, that even has a wiki entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner%E2%80%93Outer_hypothesis
We need to undertake 2 major projects:
1. Popularize the term “Beringian-Americans” for those US citizens whose ancestors predated European-Americans’ arrival.
2. Carry out a massive drive on Wikipedia to update outdated entries such as “Yamnaya” and “Western Steppe Herders”, among dozens more - which still refer to Yamnaya as “late PIE”, ascribe that latter culture the spread of IE languages, and use outdated models and schematics to describe PIE migrations.
@Davidski-"Based on what I've seen, Y-DNA G and J will be important in ancient Mesopotamia.
Not sure about T. I can't remember seeing that in any upcoming samples from the region.
But it's already quite clear how the Steppe Maykop outlier T arrived on the steppe.
It came from contacts between Steppe Maykop and Caucasus Maykop, because obviously the Steppe Maykop outliers have Caucasus Maykop ancestry."
Where do you think T originated during the Neolithic and Paleolithic periods? If the Ipatovo Steppe Maykop outlier T came from the Caucasus Maykop, then is Caucasus the region where T originated? If not, where? Did you see any unpublished information regarding this subject?
@David
On topic:
The premise of this entire post is that the "academic consensus" is that the Proto-Indo European source population originated in Iran.
"I've lost interest in anything David Anthony has to say."
Can you provide evidence for this?
In a now deleted Youtube video talk by David Anthony, he talks about "mating networks" and a specific "mating network" of Eastern Hunter Gatherers with people with Caucasus Hunter Gatherer ancestry who formed the Proto-Indo European "Yamnaya" population. He sees evidence for this as far north as Khvalynsk (where the admixture levels are still recent and uneven) and he also admits that because of the Y of Khvalynsk (mostly R-V1636 with some Q-L472) it cannot be the direct ancestor of Yamnaya.
He also mentioned that a very early Steppe-related culture in Hungary may be ancestors of the earliest split of PIE, the Anatolians.
His theory is that the PIE population developed among a mixed EHG + CHG group. He never said that the males of this group originated in Iran, or that the CHG contribution came from Iran vs. something on the Steppe just north of the Caucasus.
@David, can you give specific recent examples where any of these researchers claim that the majority component of PIE ancestry originated in Iran, or that the CHG ancestry originated in Iran itself vs. the Caucasus?
@ Genos
''I think the fact a basically Progress_EN-like hunter gatherer population existed in the Volga region is enough to say Proto-Indo European originated there. If true, it proves the vast majority of the ancestry of Kurgans originated squarely in Russian Steppe significantly east of those hunter gatherers. This has to be where their language is from.''
I call this the ''EHG/CHG red-herring''
People take this is some kind of a proto-Yamnaya population, hence simplistically tie it to PIE or kurgan genesis
I was always skeptical, because kurgans and domestic animals appear later in the Volga-Ural region than further west
Now, after DA's talk, he admitted that neither R1b-M269 nor the relevant R1a-M17 were found there.
''Are you saying PIE comes from hunter gatherers incorporated by Progress-EN like pastorlists?''
Progress & Vonuchka are extinct groups which were supplanted by Steppe Majkop, which itself was supplanted later by Yamnaya coming from northwest .
As for language; in theory, PIE could come from any group, because a vast zone of mobile hunter-gatherer networks from as far as the Tizsa to the Volga developed from 5000-3500 bce
Hence my original point, PIE likely emerged as a language from this network. I would also state that Anatolian IE emerged from an older , western variant (? Dnieper) and nuclear IE from ? Don . Roughly speaking . I can’t do justice to the topic in a couple paragraphs
@ Andrzejewski
"1. Popularize the term “Beringian-Americans” for those US citizens whose ancestors predated European-Americans’ arrival."
Why not just keep calling them Native Americans?
@Tom “ Why not just keep calling them Native Americans?”
Because it smacks of a political agenda
@Andrze proposal,
I second that. I need to get working on the youtube channel I already have. I have a video on pots=people which should be done in the next few days.
I prefer the term Ameridian because it is one word.
Americans refers to United States citizens. So we can't use it.
Ameridian is the same word but sounds slightly different. So we can use it.
@Rob,
In terms, of a network from Tisza to Volga.
If Yamnaya can be modelled as 80%+ from upcoming Volga hunter gatherers that narrows things down.
@vAsiSTha
"There is indeed no significant proof on bmac andronovo admixture till the iron age swat and turkmenistan_ia sample. Only a few outliers here and there before 1200bce."
But Narasimhan et al. (2019), based on their estimate, say Andronovo-Swat admixture happened between 1900 and 1500 BCE. It's not likely that the admixture was later unless it were with Iron age Yaz culture, not with Late Bronze Age Andronovo, which is doubtful.
@Open Genomes
David Anthony recently claimed in a book that CHG migrated specifically from Iran into the steppe to eventually give rise to Khvalynsk and Yamnaya.
There was a map in that book showing CHG all over Iran. Haha.
@ Genos
“ If Yamnaya can be modelled as 80%+ from upcoming Volga hunter gatherers that narrows things down. “
That’s self evident. But I’m not talking about where Yamnaya is from. I’m referring to processes before Yamnaya, the formative period when the western end of the HG network brought farmer influences- eg early cattle and copper- back toward the steppe
IMO the early western end was pre-proto-Anatolian. But it collapsed and was encroached upon by Cucuteni culture, TRB , etc. all that was left of it was on the Dnieper and the became rapidly immersed into the eastern end. But a persisting distinction between Anatolian and nuclear IE remained
@ Genos
“Yamnaya can be modelled as 80%+ ”
Another thing- as I maintain, perceived autosomal admixture % needs cautious understanding. Needs to constrained by uniparental Data and archaeology
Otherwise, people can claim that British farmers come from Anatolia & even villabruna is from west Asia, but that would be quite wrong
@Rob,
If the domesticated animals in Steppe is from geneflow from further west, why does Khavlnksy have domesticated animals but all of its ancestry is indigenous to Russia?
It seems indispitable domesticate animals did come to Steppe from the west. But Khavlanksy shows no accompaining geneflow.
Sredny Stog, Yamnaya have "western" admixture but we yet this is not convincing evidence is is where their way of life came from.
One, could also say Sredny Stog looks like a people from Russia who migrated to parts of Ukraine and absorbed the indigenous people they took land from. Hence why they have "western" admixture. This could be where their Anatolian & more western hunter gatherer ancestry come from.
@samuel
Khavlanksy has ancestry from Ukranian HG
Khvalynsk R1a and R1b can be modeled as having up to 40% Ukraine Neo ancestry
from anthrogenica
Khvalynsk sample I0122
Ukraine neo 43.4
ANE 32.6
Iran Sarazm 24
Khvalyns sample I0433
Ukraine neo 43.4
ANE 38.6
Iran Sarazm 18
Looks like someone pulled that model out of their ass.
https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2021/12/adnamap.html
Interactive map of all ancient samples with their date, ydna mtdna. can be filtered.
Regarding Khvalynsk, only I0434 outlier (should be renamed as such in G25) has any Sarazm like ancestry, the 2 main samples do not seem to have.
@carlos
"But Narasimhan et al. (2019), based on their estimate, say Andronovo-Swat admixture happened between 1900 and 1500 BCE."
This is just a model with high error margins. It is unlikely to be true.
unadmixed andronovo like ancestry existed late until 1100bce kashkarchi samples even. The admixture of bmac and swat locals likely happened post 1500bce.
Hi everyone, the Daunians data for some samples appears to be decent. Are we going to get them on g25 in the future? Also, I wonder if someone has info on the Al Agar data
"Andrzejewski said...
We need to undertake 2 major projects:
1. Popularize the term “Beringian-Americans” for those US citizens whose ancestors predated European-Americans’ arrival.
2. Carry out a massive drive on Wikipedia to update outdated entries such as “Yamnaya” and “Western Steppe Herders”, among dozens more - which still refer to Yamnaya as “late PIE”, ascribe that latter culture the spread of IE languages, and use outdated models and schematics to describe PIE migrations."
1. Do you also propose to use the term "Pontic-Anatolian Europeans" for native Europeans?
2. Who do you think wrote all those wikipedia articles on Yamnaya and the various steppe cultures in the first place? Archaeogenetics nerds wrote them, it wasn't UNESCO or the Cambridge Department of Archaeology lol
In any case things are clear about PIE
the screenshot of the video of Anthony tells the whole story
PIE were all early sredni stog like aka Dneper Don foragers aka ukraine neolithic like ( 70 % WHG 30% Afontova Gora)
full fledged Yamnaya are a mix of HG and progress ( mostly progress of course)
CWC is a western version of Yamnaya ( more HG and a tad more EEF)
Die hard caspianists will not surrender tough
I processed the Daunian paper BAMs, at least a couple should be high quality enough to make it into G25.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/rsa141hfccudatw/Daunians.zip/file
@ Sam
— “the domesticated animals in Steppe is from geneflow from further west, why does Khavlnksy have domesticated animals but all of its ancestry is indigenous to Russia?
It seems indispitable domesticate animals did come to Steppe from the west. But Khavlanksy shows no accompaining geneflow. “
Khvalynsk were fisher -HGs . They had cattle only for special occasions , probably given as gifts from allies . Their intake of cattle / sheep was so sparing that it didn’t even make an isotopic impact
Pastoralism was brought in much later, by Yamnaya from the southwest accompanied by a population replacement
By contrast; areas further west, there is more concrete & earlier evidence of domesticates, we see clear evidence of flux
genetically & with isotopes
— “ Sredny Stog, Yamnaya have "western" admixture but we yet this is not convincing evidence is is where their way of life came from. ”
True, G-W models show that Yamnaya have slight GAC admixture , which is a more recent source of western admixture than what I’m proposing
BUT earlier stuff is hidden; and that needs samples from 5000 & 4000
The Y-DNA of Yamnaya is neither from Russia nor GAC
(I) fhe I2a2 comes from Dnieper - Tisza HGs
(II) the closest thing to M269 is from Latvian HG P297. The earliest M269 is from Smyadovo in Bulgaria 4500 . Let’s see what it looks like autosomally
The R1a of CWC could also be from local Ukrainian HGs
— “ One, could also say Sredny Stog looks like a people from Russia who migrated to parts of Ukraine and absorbed the indigenous people they took land from. Hence why they have "western" admixture. This could be where their Anatolian & more western hunter gatherer ancestry come from.””
It might but not necessarily; following from above
What any serious scholar needs to do is plot out the shift in autosomal -genomic composition by 300 year time slices for every river basin Vs YDNA , isotopic signal and burial posture
Then we’ll see what occurred
Btw i have nothing against a Russian origin; but I just don’t see it self evident. I’m a Russophile & understand the language
@open genomes
"Eastern Hunter Gatherers with people with Caucasus Hunter Gatherer ancestry who formed the Proto-Indo European "Yamnaya" population"
May be this is the way to balance admixture and parental markers of peopling.
@alex “ 1. Do you also propose to use the term "Pontic-Anatolian Europeans" for native Europeans? ”
Steppe descendants could be a good definition.
@vAsiSTha
"This is just a model with high error margins. It is unlikely to be true."
Actualy the model to estimate admixture "backwards" is the most used now by subsequent academic genetic papers, most of them were published after that of Narasimhan et al.
Error margins are not high in Narasimhan's paper, estimated date of admixture into the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age individuals from the Swat District of northernmost South Asia is 26 generations before the date of Swat samples, a 95% confidence interval of ~1900 to 1500 BCE.
@claravallensis
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dD-iJL9KxGlNzZYvafttW5wAs16yGWbt/view?usp=sharing
Who else thinks that when WSH formed as a distinct genetic and cultural group, their language formed independently as well, as an isolate?
@carlos
actually the main argument used by Narasimhan is that post 1500bce, east asian ancestry becomes ubiquitous in steppe and central asia hence post 1500bce is not a good source for south asian ancestry.
This claim of his is not true (just part of Harvard's habit of overgeneralization), there are enough unadmixed steppe_mlba samples to be found till 1000bce.
"Given the East Asian ancestry pervasive on
the Steppe in the LBA. this leaves only a rather narrow time window for the arrival of Steppe
ancestry into South Asia, that is, between around 2000-1500 BCE.
We" - Pg 281, narasimhan et al supplement
Secondly, the Alder analysis they run is based on many imperfections, where random proxy populations are chosen are reference, plus he was running it on a model where he assumed complete absence of anatolian ancestry (whereas theres a sizeable chunk in SPGT through BMAC, which narasimhan misses).
@ Andrzejewski
"Because it smacks of a political agenda"
I would argue that refusing to call indigenous peoples what they are shows a political agenda. We must be able to call an apple an apple and a pear a pear. Native Americans are native to their continent hence the name?
@Andrzejewski
That "Beringian Americans" project of yours is really a most interesting thing. How would we apply it to other places and populations though?
As far as I understand (my understanding might be a bit simplistic at times), in the area of contemporary Poland for example (where I live) the CWC/IEs replaced the LBK etc. Anatolian-derived farmers, who themselves had partially replaced the Mesolithic WHGs, who again used to be some amalgram of earlier small-scale population mixing.
I do get it that those Neolithic/Copper Age migration events in Central/Eastern Europe were perhaps not as drastic as the colonization of Americas, in the sense that admixture had occurred more often that it did between the Beringian Americans and the European Americans, etc., but... If we were to follow the rules of logic at all times, shouldn't we include renaming the contemporary Polish people to, I don't know, "Western Pontic Steppe Poles" in the project?
Being a Pole myself I guess that it is the most neutral name I could come up with.
As I can see, no one is interested in any data exchange and proving anything related to the topic of this post, so I will post here two works that contradict each other:
1.
The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran
M. Gallego-Llorente
(…) We show that Western Iran was inhabited by a population genetically most similar to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus, but distinct from the Neolithic Anatolian people who later brought food production into Europe. The inhabitants of Ganj Dareh made little direct genetic contribution to modern European populations, suggesting those of the Central Zagros were somewhat isolated from other populations of the Fertile Crescent. (…) While some degree of cultural diffusion between Anatolia, Western Iran and other neighbouring regions is possible, the genetic dissimilarity between early Anatolian farmers and the inhabitants of Ganj Dareh supports a model in which Neolithic societies in these areas were distinct. (…)
2.
The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, David Reich
(…) farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe (...)
I described it in 2019 here:
https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2019/06/05/187-ganj-dareh-watpliwy-prapoczatek-hodowli-rolnictwa-i-pra-slowianszczyzny
Based on the X chromosome to autosomal ancestries ratio (X/A ratio) observed in this study, we propose that the East African pastoralist migration was strongly male-biased (Fig. 3). In addition, the E1b1b Y chromosome haplogroup has been associated previously with the spread of pastoralism into southern Africa [64]. We observed that five Hessequa descendants carried this Y chromosome haplogroup contrasting with lower levels of San-related haplogroup lineages. On the mitochondrial level, very little evidence of East African gene flow has been detected in modern Khoe-San mtDNA, either in this study or previously reported [60,61,62]. Therefore, evidence from uniparental markers provides further support for a heavily male-biased East African expansion into Southern Africa. A similar male-driven migration has previously been described on the genetic level in ancient Europe, where Pontic-Caspian Steppe herder groups represented by the Yamnaya culture spread across the Eurasian continent during the late Neolithic/Bronze Age [90]. Male-mediated admixture as a dynamic of the interaction between resident communities and incoming groups seem to be a general pattern across several populations on different continents. This pattern has also been reported previously across Southern Africa [88, 89].
Looks like Africans are Indo Europeans too!
https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-021-01193-z
So with IUP having origins in West Asia does that mean West Eurasians and East Eurasian split there all while Basal Eurasians were also running around as a distinct population too?
@Romulus, although that said their pooled Khoi-San group doesn't have a lot of East African ancestry; 5.3% X vs 8.9% autosome.
Good comment. "academic slap-fighting and boutique online ethnonationalist agenda"
Scientific curiosity and history perspective will become like that.
@vAsiSTha
"This claim of his is not true (just part of Harvard's habit of overgeneralization), there are enough unadmixed steppe_mlba samples to be found till 1000bce."
That's because currently only Fedorovo and Alakul variants are considered as belonging to Andronovo culture's dispersal, and their period is before 1500 BCE.
Anyway, it's evident that Andronovo-Swat admixture did not contribute to most South Asia's genetic ancestry nowadays, to which new research is needed.
@all, some daily links:
Wolfgang Haak and Ayshin Ghalichi on "The genomic history of the Caucasus region", lecture courtesy of the ARWA Association - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt6Jsn-0ros.
Sadly no interesting preview of upcoming paper, just recaps the Wang paper. So we will have to wait.
Also, Frachetti offering his interpretation on Central Asian Ancient dna - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSkQb-ZMp-4
Finally (and of least interest) https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/first-example-of-roman-crucifixion-in-uk-found-in-cambridges-9229668/ - some ancient dna findings from Iron Age England: "Forty adults and five children were buried in the five small cemeteries that dated to the third to fourth centuries AD, while three isolated burials and a cremation also occurred.
Ancient DNA study of the skeletons identified only two family groups, despite this being a small rural settlement where you would expect many people to be related.
A man and woman buried next to each other in one cemetery had a first-degree relationship – either as mother-son or as siblings - while two men in adjacent graves in another cemetery were second-degree relatives, so could be either half-siblings, uncle-nephew or grandfather-grandson...
The results of the excavation will be formally published when analysis of the site’s finds and evidence has been completed."
Not the most important thing in the world but interesting to see low relatedness in small settlements at this time.
Going back to the Egypt paper will Afrocentrists finally shut up? Or will they try to claim West Eurasian ancestry is native to North Africa and thus "African". Egyptian mtdna wasn't its own indigenous thing
To Tigran
Most Y haplogroups of the Old kingdom will be E, so how are they supposed to shut up?
“ Phylogeographic refinement and large scale genotyping of human Y chromosome
haplogroup E provide new insights into the dispersal of early pastoralists in the African
continent.” Trombetta, Cruciani et al
Looks like a northeast African dispersal of Hg E
@Davidski
David, pardon my questions in this thread, but I have a few in regards to Vahaduo G25. I was modeling some populations such as CWC and Afanasievo, and I found I was getting weird, very minor ancestral signals, such as Yoruba and Han. The fits were around .04-.02, so not terrible but verging on an overfit in some cases. I was using the Global 25 standard calculator scaled. What should the source pops be in regards to age? Would a pre-5000 BCE source group be better, or is Yamnaya acceptable, despite being roughly contemporaneous to CWC and Afanasievo? I find that sometimes source pops too similar to their targets produce weird results, and .02 and below for a fit is usually a give away (unrealistic overfit with too many source pops?). Do you have any advice as to how many pops to use, the age range relative to the target, what’s a realistic fit, what should be considered noise, and scaled vs un-scaled? Thanks, sorry to drop all that on you here in the comments.
Many ancient samples will show noise in their results because they're low coverage and/or severely damaged.
To minimize this problem, use only historically plausible reference samples. That is, for CWC you don't need any African references, because there's no way that CWC had African ancestry.
By and large, the scaled coords produce more realistic outcomes.
Apart from that, try not to overfit your models by using too many (more than 12, 10 or even 8) references pops.
There's a basic outline of the G25 workflow here...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/modeling-genetic-ancestry-with-davidski.html
@Desailly
And? Autosomal DNA will be shifted to the Levant.
@ Romulus
That paper is very interesting especially the radio carbon dating which does not seem to be in step with the genetic analysis. Differences/Overestimations up to a 1000 years in some cases. Makes me think that there are a lot of History based on Archaeology to rectify regarding Southern Africa and maybe even broader Africa...
Do es anyone recall a PhD on Crimea linked on this blog a few months ago ? It featured an EHG-plotting , mtDNA U5a forager
Everything that Anthony writes is garbage, including his essays about the Volosovo Culture HG being of the “Ural-Lappoid” cranial type, and the (non-existent) absorption of them into Fatyanovo.
Ancient DNA and deep population structure in sub-Saharan African foragers
Multiple lines of genetic and archaeological evidence suggest major demographic changes in the terminal Late Pleistocene and early Holocene of sub-Saharan Africa. Inferences about this period are challenging to make because demographic shifts in the past 5,000 years have obscured more ancient population structures. To probe deeper time, we present genome-wide ancient DNA data for six individuals from eastern and south-central Africa spanning the last ~18,000 years (doubling the time depth of sub-Saharan African ancient DNA), increase data quality on 15 previously published ancient individuals, and analyse these alongside data from 13 other published ancient individuals. The ancestry of the individuals in our study area can be modelled as a geographically structured mixture of three highly divergent source populations, likely reflecting Pleistocene interactions ~80-20 thousand years ago: deeply diverged eastern and southern African lineages, plus a previously unappreciated ubiquitous distribution of central African ancestry. Once established, this structure remained highly stable, with limited long-range gene flow. These results provide a new line of genetic evidence in support of hypotheses that have emerged from archaeological analysis but remain contested, suggesting increasing regionalisation at the end of the Pleistocene.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB49291?show=reads
Ok found that Mesolithic Crimean sample (u5a2, plots with EHGs).
Ive been looking at EHG all over again, might flesh out soime ideas/ details soon. Even might be some Natufian/ West Asian Epipaleo related admixture in MA-1 (?!)
@Arza
Thank you. That is going to be an epic paper.
Damn they are really pushing the SE Asian origin for y K on AG. Seems unlikely but the other theory of ENA in Anatolia seems dumb too.
@Arza
So I suppose this argues against the idea of ancient Eurasian admixture in Africa?
@MH_82
Natufian/West Asian admix into Ma-1 is a bit iffy, though not implausible (Natufian I think is implausible but West Asian one is not). However, I think it would also be worth checking if there is ANE-related admixture in Natufians and/or IUP ancestry shared between both of them.
Another alternative would be shared Caucasus-related ancestry as I think Sikora et al, 2019 had found something similar.
Another issue may be that Natufians samples are relatively low quality so this may create artefacts (?)
@gamerz_J
I don't know much about Africa. But I'd very cautious when it comes to the f-stats involving Africans (including these with Africans as an outgroup).
@MH_82
Can you share the link to this study with the Crimean HG?
@ Gamerz_J
Agree Natufian does funny things, as does sometimes AfontovaGora3. So I stick to using Yana & MA1. I'm only beginning to look at West Asia, at present if anything it looks like something ANE related -> West Asia
@ Arza
This one https://d-nb.info/1209245647/34
IMO EHG all the way in Crimea has big archaeological/ historical implications
I made a cartoon of steppe genesis. Its mostly for lolz but it's actually pretty accurate
It'll be formally beefed up in next 2-3 years.
https://youtu.be/8VNShJT0uUE
@Arza
The abstract in the ENA archive not mentioning Eurasian ancestry to me hints at it not being there. And I don't think they would use Mbuti or Yoruba as outgroups in a paper focusing on Africa, sounds very counterintuitive. Or do you mean that even in other positions in the stats, using Africans may create artefacts?
Now of course there is the issue that most Africans show Neanderthal ancestry, I guess we should have to wait for the paper.
@MH_82
"I'm only beginning to look at West Asia, at present if anything it looks like something ANE related -> West Asia"
That would make more sense to me (rather than the reverse). I bet this is related to the ENA affinity in Iran_N/CHG. And IIRC, Afontova Gora was of low coverage.
Btw, does MA1 still look as more ENA than Yana to you?
Neat video also.
@Rob
"In samples that were found in Central European hunter-gatherer context, the blue component was maximized, while in the hunter-gatherer samples from the Russian site of Minino, as well as the Ukrainian sample and one sample from Zvejnieki in Latvia (Zv317), an additional orange component was present at intermediate levels. In all but one case (Lec2), the orange component was bigger compared to the blue component."
That looks like more WHG admixture in the Crimean sample. In the Buran Kaya paper the sequence of cultural layers was Gravetin, a lot of nothing during and after the LGM and on top of the latter a Swiderian layer.
@Arza
"I don't know much about Africa. But I'd very cautious when it comes to the f-stats involving Africans (including these with Africans as an outgroup)."
Why, what's the deal with Africans and f-stats?
@Tigran
"Damn they are really pushing the SE Asian origin for y K on AG. Seems unlikely but the other theory of ENA in Anatolia seems dumb too."
There does seem to be east asian related ancestry in barcin_N.
@vAsiSTha
Give us something more though, is it East Asian, South/Southeast Asian and how did you find it?
Btw, K is probably East Eurasian related, or rather IUP (which seems to be the biggest/exclusive -idk- component of ENA pops)
And also are you sure it is East Asia-> Anatolia? Granted, not much evidence for the reverse but I am obliged to ask because there is technically not much evidence for the into Anatolian direction either.
Well, unless it is related to ANE/ENA wave say 25kya. Either directly to Anatolia or via Europe or/and Iran.
@ Epoch
''That looks like more WHG admixture in the Crimean sample. In the Buran Kaya paper the sequence of cultural layers was Gravetin, a lot of nothing during and after the LGM and on top of the latter a Swiderian layer.
'''
We've been through this before. 'Swiderian' is entirely inaccurate for Crimea and little more than an attempt to correlate eastern parts of Europe with areas further west. The Final Paleo - Mesolithic industries in Crimea are called Shan-Koba culture and have little to do with the Ahrensburgians / Swiderians to the northwest. Rather, they have close affinities with EHG-related complexes (geometric trapezes, pressure percussion technique, etc).
And this genetic data clearly demonstrates that
- the individual has mtDNA U5a
- in the ADMIXTURE plot, it has almost as much 'orange' component as the Minino
- in PCA, it projects with EHGs (tope left corner, Fig 4)
@ Gamerz_J
'Btw, K is probably East Eurasian related, or rather IUP (which seems to be the biggest/exclusive -idk- component of ENA pops)''
In fact, 'IUP' is just one of 3 major Eurasian branches which preferentially survived in the East. Hence its pseudo-East Asian affinities.
But given that Anatolia N is different population than Anatolia Epipaelolithic (despite what everybody thinks), i would not be surprised for it to have trace amounts of ENA via IranN/CHG
When did the change from classifying UstIshim/BachoKiro/Oase from undifferentiated crown Eurasians (or something that is neither east or west at least) into east eurasians occur?
@MH_82
But isn't ENA mostly IUP?
Yes, ANE/Easteurasian would have come to barcin_N in the wave post 30kya.
MH82 is also right that oinarbasi_epipaleolithic is not the same as barcin_N, i will have to go through my qpGraphs to see exactly what is different.
Also, AG3 is not a low coverage sample. it has 265k snps, more than enough to use freely in admixtools. That is why it is not labeled _lc in the harvard dataset. with the new allsnps:YES feature in admixtools even<100k snp samples can be used which give low Std errors in the output.
@ Tigran
ENA is a sub branch of “IUP”. IUP is in turn one of 3 major Eurasian branches (ZK, “west Eurasians”, IUP).
So ENA is like a sub-sub-group. Moreover it’s likely to be from eastern West Asia (like Iran) or Central Asia
@MH_82
Thanks for the explanation.Is the IUP in Yana actual ENA or something more akin to a sister group of ENA? And ZlatyKUn would be Basal Eurasian in this model?
@MH_82 @Vasistha
Interesting comments, would you both agree that the ENA in ANE and that in Barcin/other West Eurasians is related or do you think it's different sources.
Also, what would then the phylogeny of ENA look like? Would the Tianyuan/Onge model still be accurate? A Central Asian origin for ENA does make some sense it could explain these signals you are describing and those I've seen in published papers. It seems populations closer to or in Central Asia show higher ENA affinity, though it doesn't seem as much as in ANE.
Anatolia_N probably is not directly descended from Pinarbasi-type pops yet obviously related to them, they seem as Pinarbasi but more basal and maybe slightly more eastern (ANE?). I do think that both Pinarbasi and Anatolia_N have some WHG admixture though possibly in 2 waves.
@Rob
I know in the original paper Zlaty Kun was said to be a dead end lineage, but out of curiosity, have you seen any scenarios in any of your graphs where a ZK-esque lineage contributes to other downstream Eurasian branches?
@Cy Tolliver
So in this scenario ZK is Basal Eurasian and does not actually contribute to anything?
And West Eurasians are a mixture of West Eurasians + IUP but not the ENA subgroup?
https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2021/12/l657-roopkund.html
about the L657 in roopkund lake, and qpAdm of all 23 samples.
@Tigran
Zlaty Kun is still closer to Asians despite being dead end lineage, they note this in study. Extended Data Fig. 6 addresses Basal Eurasian admixed and Non-Basal admixed groups.
We first compared Zlatý kůň with present-day European and Asian individuals using an African population (Mbuti) as an outgroup and found that Zlatý kůň shares more alleles with Asians than with Europeans (Extended Data Fig. 6). A closer relationship to Asians has also been observed for other Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers compared with present-day Europeans and can be explained by ancestry in present-day Europeans from a deeply divergent out-of-Africa lineage referred to as basal Eurasian21. European hunter-gatherers generally do not carry basal Eurasian ancestry, whereas such ancestry is widespread among ancient hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus, Levant and Anatolia.
Extended Data Fig. 6
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01443-x/figures/9
You could say it's oldest IUP we have.
@Rob,
You should make more youtube videos. Also, what would you think about collabing on a video about hunter gatherer-farmer relations in Neolithic Europe sometime in the future?
@ Cy T
Yes...
@ Sam
You make them, Im happy to help with details, stats or images. You've got the presentational flare
@MaxT
We first compared Zlatý kůň with present-day European and Asian individuals using an African population (Mbuti) as an outgroup and found that Zlatý kůň shares more alleles with Asians than with Europeans (Extended Data Fig. 6). A closer relationship to Asians has also been observed for other Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers compared with present-day Europeans and can be explained by ancestry in present-day Europeans from a deeply divergent out-of-Africa lineage referred to as basal Eurasian21. European hunter-gatherers generally do not carry basal Eurasian ancestry, whereas such ancestry is widespread among ancient hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus, Levant and Anatolia.
Of course modern East Eurasians are closer to Zlaty Kun than modern West Eurasians are as modern West Eurasians have Basal Eurasian admixture both Zlaty Kun and East Eurasians lack. This does not show that Zlaty Kun is closer to ancient and modern East Eurasians than she is to ancient West Eurasians without Basal Eurasian admixture.
@ Ounr
''Of course modern East Eurasians are closer to Zlaty Kun than modern West Eurasians are as modern West Eurasians have Basal Eurasian admixture both Zlaty Kun and East Eurasians lack.''
I don't think that's true
@MH_82
That West Eurasians have Basal Eurasian admixture or that East Eurasians lack it?
Since that relationship is defined by Ust'Ishim I wonder if interactions with related populations and Paleolithic Europeans create a false positive BE, although the lower inferred Neanderthal for Near Easterners seems real while at the same time not-SSA driven. Well, maybe African pops are relevant also to some extent, particularly for Arabians.
Can't remember if I ever saw this poster noted before - https://eaa.klinkhamergroup.com/eaa2021/full_paper/files/830/Perachora%2520Poster%2520EAA%2520congress%25202021_03.08.21.pdf
EBA Greece samples (probably post 3000BCE pre 2000 BCE?); looks like apparently no steppe, lower CHG/IranN than Minoan.(half or so).
@MH_82
I don't think that's true
Can you explain which part of it is not true?
@Matt
Your link is broken.
@Onur
I also recall UstIshim and Oase being in-between ancient West Eurasians(Kosenteki) and ancient East Eurasians (Tianyuan). But everybody here seems to say UI/Oase cluster with East Eurasians.
@Davidski
If I were to get into modeling populations with computer programs, do you have any advice as to where an amateur can start? There is this East Eurasian admixture section over at Anthrogenica. Chad Rohlfsen and a few others, have been posting these qpgraph models. What do you look for, as far as being able to tell what's realistic/unrealistic? Ryukendo said that qpgraphs are extremely flexible.
P.S. I accidently emailed you this exact question with my friends laptop, and it lists his email address as the author, do you mind not approving/deleting that first one. A very stupid mistake on my part. Thanks, and sorry again.
@MH_82
What is your view as far as the ENA in ANS/ANE? It appears to be on a Tianyuan/Onge related branch. Chad modeled a specific Tianyuan related affinity into Yana, while both Yana and Mal'ta have Onge related ancestry. Could this Onge-like affinity in both be a sign of ancestry from a basal, Central Asian, IUP population? Tianyuan related admixture could have been acquired later. The other oddity is that the Onge have large amounts of Y-DNA D, and D has a very limited presence in West Eurasians. Is there a flaw in using the Onge--a modern population--to model Upper Paleolithic individuals, such as Yana and Mal'ta?
This link should work for the pdf Matt referenced above.
https://eaa.klinkhamergroup.com/eaa2021/full_paper/files/830/Perachora%20Poster%20EAA%20congress%202021_03.08.21.pdf
@Simon
There are lots of different programs out there for analyzing DNA. You always have to follow the same basic rules.
That is, look at the overall stability and plausibility of your output, and if the statistical fits are significantly off, then your model is rejected and the resulting ancestry proportions are probably not valid.
@Matt
"...Can't remember if I ever saw this poster noted before -
[https://tinyurl.com/4encn5uz] EBA Greece samples (probably post 3000BCE pre 2000 BCE?); looks like apparently no steppe..."
Months ago I already mentioned a paper with similar information and edited it in Wikipedia's article 'Mycenaean Greece', but my following contribution was deleted by editor 'Demetrios1993':
"...recent genetical studies in ancient DNA show that people from northern Greece during the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2600-2000 BC) were considerably different from those of Early Bronze Age, suggesting migration of herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in this period..."
So it seems there are some Greek nationalists in Wikipedia that do not like to aknowledge Mycenaeans arrived there after 2000 BCE. This earlier paper with such an information is Clemente et al. (2021) and can be found here:
https://tinyurl.com/mtvr9jdr
One of Dienekes' idiot buddies probably.
@Garvan and Carlos Aramayo
Thanks for the links.
@Carlos, yeah, actually I think there was some leak of early steppe ancestry in the Balkans and Greece which has made people expect an early branch (as in a lot before 3000 BCE), but this really doesn't seem to be the case, and even in the case of the relatively early steppe ancestry (well before 3000 BCE) in some of the Balkan samples in the paper by Mathieson years ago, this seems on quite a shaky foundation to me since so many are now considered to be contaminated.
Re; previous paper in the year, I think the plot in that poster (https://tinyurl.com/4encn5uz) lists the published samples from Clemente et al. (2021) from Helladic EBA and Cylcadic EBA in the ADMIXTURE bar plot. Those ones seem to have similar IranN/CHG as Minoan in that plot, while these samples from Perachora cave seem to have less. Maybe once more of these samples come out from more sites, it will be helpful in characterising the process in Greece, and how widespread Minoan/EBA Anatolian related ancestry was through Greece at this time.
The abstract that accompanied this Perachora poster at EAA (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354805082_Absract_of_Poster_EARLY_BRONZE_AGE_AEGEAN_GENOMES_FROM_PERACHORA_CAVE_CORINTH_GREECE) seemed to indicate that they thought this was a difference worth noting: "In this study we provide archaeogenomic evidence from an Early Bronze Age (Early Helladic) population located in central present-day Greek mainland (Perachora cave, close to the Early Helladic settlement of Perachora in the Gulf of Corinth), in order to examine if the Bronze Age ‘eastern’ ancestry was present in the mainland Aegean area from the early onset of the Bronze Age. Our preliminary results suggest that the Early Bronze Age Perachora population is clustering together with Early/Middle Neolithic farmers from Europe, Aegean, and Anatolia, an indication of distinctiveness from Middle/Late Bronze Age Peloponnesian and Cretan populations. Hence, southern mainland Early Bronze Age Aegean people may not have been genetically admixed yet, with populations carrying the additional ‘eastern’ ancestry, an event that possibly occurred immediately after, during the Middle Bronze Age and the advent of the intensified Minoan mobility and interchange network"
@Davidski
Aside from Admixtools and your own G25, do you like to use any other tools, or are there any softwares/programs you think are interesting and you'd like to utilize more in the future?
Quote from the article Kristian Kristiansen, Volker Heyd from the collection of articles « 2021, YAMNAYA INTERACTIONS Proceedings of the International Workshop held in Helsinki, 25–26 April 2019 Edited by Volker Heyd, Gabriella Kulcsár, and Bianca Preda-Bălănică».
«By adding a biological component, a more complete scenario could emerge in which Yamnaya, and Corded Ware alike (Haak et al. 2022, in press), might well start from one or several core group(s) of people having the same genetic ancestry, being maybe even related to each other and forming wider kinship groups based on shared DNA. By expanding and moving to new regions they integrate other people of diff erent backgrounds into their group; people who are willing to adhere to aspects of their original lifestyle, ideology and culture. In this process the group enlarges but also diversifi es, thus creating the polythetic cultures we recognise, while still preserving some of the core traditions of the original cultural package and transplanting it to regions far away.”
https://academia.edu/resource/work/65331414
"Davidski said...
One of Dienekes' idiot buddies probably."
You mean his Reich Lab buddies or Greek Nationalist buddies?
I mean a Greek nationalist, who probably thinks that Greeks haven't changed in terms of genetic ancestry since the time of the dinosaurs.
@Cy
The usual stuff: Admixture for basic clustering, Plink for IBS, Beagle for IBD, TreeMix for quick graphs (although now Admixtools 2 is probably better), etc.
@Vladimir
Kristian Kristiansen, Volker Heyd
Besides burial- @ 2900 bc techniques and IBD segments in time/geographical distance; they will be able to distinguish the difference between Yamnaya from Corded Ware in the following fields 1) wagons(types of wood used for steppe and forest steppe)-2)horses-proto Dom2 / Dom2 3)metallurgy -copper bronze- iron silver 4)pottery egg shaped EHG versus corded.
As more burial of domesticated samples like the recent proto-Dom2 and Dom2 found in Yamnaya and Potapovka culture-- are collected perhaps, some day they will be able to use the same techniques on domesticated animals like Dom2 and parse the difference between Yamnaya and Corded Ware
Admixture for basic clustering, Plink for IBS, Beagle for IBD, TreeMix for quick graphs (although now Admixtools 2 is probably better)
Btw all, you might expect the big British paper today - https://www.eurekalert.org/specialtopic/archaeology/embargoed
Archaeology
Embargoed: 22-Dec-2021 11:00 ET (22-Dec-2021 16:00 GMT/UTC)
Ancient DNA reveals the world’s oldest family tree
Newcastle University
Peer-Reviewed Publication
Embargoed: 22-Dec-2021 11:00 ET (22-Dec-2021 16:00 GMT/UTC)
Ancient DNA study reveals large scale migrations into Bronze Age Britain
University of York
Peer-Reviewed Publication
16:00 GMT
"Carlos Aramayo said...
Months ago I already mentioned a paper with similar information and edited it in Wikipedia's article 'Mycenaean Greece', but my following contribution was deleted by editor 'Demetrios1993':
"...recent genetical studies in ancient DNA show that people from northern Greece during the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2600-2000 BC) were considerably different from those of Early Bronze Age, suggesting migration of herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in this period..."
So it seems there are some Greek nationalists in Wikipedia that do not like to aknowledge Mycenaeans arrived there after 2000 BCE. This earlier paper with such an information is Clemente et al. (2021) and can be found here"
I don't know what's going on with Greek wikipedia, judging by other articles it's very possible most active contributors are right-wing nationalists.
But I'm not sure the Clemente et al Logkas samples is particularly vital information regarding Mycenean Greece (which is a southern-central Greek phenomenon), personally I'm not convinced the Logkas women even spoke Greek. Is there something special in their burial that makes them proto-Greek rather than proto-Thracian/Illyrian/etc?
Anyway, we're going to have a lot of new Mycenean samples in the coming years so the Wikipedia articles can wait a bit longer :)
OK folks, re; British MBA paper, here's a merge of the preliminary G25 data Davidski gave us last month(?) with the sample IDs from the now released paper:
https://pastebin.com/LwYQkXSR
*Paper - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04287-4
*Media Coverage - https://phys.org/news/2021-12-harvard-geneticists-ancient-britain-insights.html
The British Celtic paper is out:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04287-4
So, the Amesbury Archer is R1b-M269, though has a higher EEF level! Confirmed.
..
On another topic, one more for Arza and ambron, when Davidski released the preliminaries, we noted that some of the samples were linked to present day Eastern Europe by their best overall match.
Here's an incomplete set of those samples, based on those I found had closest overall match to present-day or ancient East-Central Europe samples that show at least some "Balto-Slavic Drift": https://imgur.com/a/y7Ge4Qp
Other people will probably have better ways of identifying these samples, but this should get some of them.
It seems like there were some (not very many but some) people who were quite Polish or Ukrainian like about in Hungary LaTene? Not necessarily very many considering how large the sample set is, but some.
@Davidski
If I may ask, regarding IBD, do you think it's possible with ancient DNA you might get more false positives than on average? Running IBD between modern-ancient samples for example.
The Celtic study appeared:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04287-4%22
@ Alex & Carlos
I would still place the arrival of proto-Greeks in the mid-late M3 (i did not notice any specific dates in that poster for Perachora? ).
Illyrians formed in the Northwestern Balkans, and only expanded toward Macedonia and Greece in historic periods. Prior to that, the region was replete with para-'Greek' groups like Paeonians, Brygians, so forth
Using labels from "Celtic Study", all samples transect for England, Scotland and Wales (excluding only Mesolithic and a few odd outliers who looked misdated), with dots coloured by y-dna: https://imgur.com/a/fk4JzKB
The y-dna switchovers are pretty clear and absolute in the record. There's some degree of diversification in the Iron Age, but it really still isn't very much. Without going into the R1b subclades (which someone more adept in y dna than me will do), the biggest switchover in high level haplogroups after the 2500 BCE transition happen with the Viking Era samples (which are of course not representative of Britain so much, etc). Even R1a and I1 aren't even about at all even by the Iron Age and Roman period and only really show up with Vikings (and probably would with more Saxons at least).
Fitting splines does confirm the same sort of picture as this paper, of acceleration of homogenisation in the period 1000 to 500 BCE, though I'd be happier about that with more sampling from 1000 to 600 BCE.
@ MH_82
Thanks for the link!
@ Matt
Obviously La Tene is not a Proto-Slavic culture, but I think now we have enough data to conclude that La Tene was in a direct contact with the Early Slavs.
BTW, we have a new "ROU_C_o":
Target: Czech_LN:I16108
Distance: 1.3550% / 0.01355037 | R3P
57.6 Iberia_North_MLN
28.6 DEU_LBK_HBS
13.8 Baltic_EST_BA
Likely it has zero steppe, but still picks up Baltic_BA because the WHG-half of the Baltic_BA reduces the error faster, than the steppe-half increases it.
"Because l657 origin was 1 person in south asia itself."
So who was his daddy? An Indian guy? Who was not l657? Also one guy who was not l657.
@MH_82,
"I would still place the arrival of proto-Greeks in the mid-late M3..."
If we take into account exclusively the archaeological issue, Mycenaean people were already present in Greece since Middle Helladic III, c. 1750-1700 BCE, as per new accepted chronology, commented by archaeologist Alex Knodell (2021). And indeed it was me who edited the whole information about this that still can be found in the article "Mycenaean Greece" in Wikipedia.
@Matt, Alex
We hope forthcoming papers can clarify more the genetic issue. But the other editors of Wikipedia should avoid absurd claims like this one found in "Mycenaean Greece" article:
"The Mycenaeans were autochthonous Greeks..."
A bit of weird wording from that British paper. Eg. "who arrived at this time and over previous centuries" So immigrants arrived from Continental Europe since the start of the Middle Bronze Age (1600 BCE.?) but somehow 1000 BCE to 800 BCE is exceptional ? This type of Ancestry only contributed to half of the Ancestry of Iron Age England and Wales, so what about the Other Half plus Scotland and Ireland ?
@arza, yes, sure, agree. I guess the interesting thing to me here is that some of the ancients found in LaTene_IA or Knoviz_LBA in particular are almost as close in their distance to some present day people in East-Central Europe as those people are to other people in the same population. E.g. - https://imgur.com/a/1zyuKCf
So I think that's interesting in terms of the argument that "Oh, actually all ancient samples before traditional time of Slavic migration who have actually got some Balto-Slavic related drift but will be wrong in the proportions and not good fits". Even if only sporadically, there were people who were similar to present day people who lived in East-Central Europe of this time (as close to them as they are to others of the sasme population).
@Ric, I'm reserving judgment until I see the paper properly. (It's closed access but a print usually gets around one way or another from Reich Lab's work). But yes, I don't know how strong the confidence is that the period 1000-800 BCE is exceptional. It's when there's a jump in Barcin_N, if you set plot the ancestry proportions and then set a smoothing spline, under some conditions.
However, there are other ways to optimize the spline smoothing that would just find a continuous model up from the arrival of the Beakers in 2500 BCE until 500 BCE (at which point ancestry proportions are probably too homogenized to easily detect migration between Britain and neighbours).
Same set of plots as I put up before, with a couple added where I asked PAST4 to "optimize smoothing" with the spline:
https://imgur.com/a/U2zXLUi
Which just gives rise to a smooth increase.
So, I'd say that this model where there is a jump somewhere around 1300-800 BCE is plausible, but it also might just be chance from finding a few more outliers in this period due to changing burial practices, and also some gap in sampling between 800-600 BCE. However the details in the paper may be more persuasive.
Matt, Arza, but we have to take the correction for the fact that the Slavs cultivated the cremation rite at that time. Thus, skeletal burials come only from acculturated individuals.
Am I the only one not surprised that Polish-like people already existed during the Iron Age or even Bronze Age?
You know, like if you mix a Proto-Slav with a Celt you might get something Polish-like in the modern sense.
The challenge here is actually proving that a Polish-like population already existed back then and today's Poles are an uninterrupted continuation of this phenomenon.
Of course, anyone who knows basic Polish history and population genetics knows that this need not be the case.
Moreover, if anyone wants to prove that the Slavic homeland was in Poland, then the sporadic appearance of people of apparently mixed Slavic and Celtic origin in Hungary isn't exactly a smoking gun for that. Obviously, you'd need such samples to be from Poland.
David, nevertheless genetic and linguistic data allow to exclude the origin of the Slavs from Pripyat.
@ambron, cremation is a big problem in many senses. I don't know if it's particularly a problem for what you propose.
...
As another experiment here with the data, tried a 3-way model for the entire British transect, using GAC (Czech+Poland+Ukraine), ESP_CA and the 3 earliest Czech Corded Way (close to Yamnaya like). Then looked at whether the ratio of GAC/ESP_CA ancestry in the transect varied over time.
Spline plot: https://imgur.com/a/NgNT3Zs
GAC/ESP_CA is highly variable through the samples, so there's not a very decisive difference here.
The ratio of GAC/ESP_CA as an ancestry source doesn't seem to change too much; hovers at around GAC as 45% of EEF ancestry (exclusive of any in the earliest CWC 3 already), shifting to 50% in Iron Age, then a bigger shift is seen with the Vikings (which seems to make sense).
@ Carlos
That’s great that you’re having a go at editing Wikipedia . I know some of the clicks there militantly guard their vision of history
But it seems many people are confused between the “Mycenaean era”, which is indeed from ~ 1600, and the issue of invasions or migrations. The widespread destructions and abandonments occur at the MH II - III transition (~2200 bce) and . This is fairly well understood in literature. adna has repeatedly shown that the “old school” archaeologists knew what they were taking about
Did you manage to find out the dates of the Perachpra samples ?
I’m not surprised we find Slavic like people in IA Bohemia. It’s northeastern parts were within the Laustiz cultural sphere
As a quick thing, just taking the metadata file from this paper, filtering it for only post 1000 BCE and above latitude 35 and between longitude 13 to 45, to isolate for broadly Iron Age / LBA and East-Central Europe: https://imgur.com/a/jkNtUUH
(First sorted alphabetically by label, second sorted by longitude, third is sorted by longitude and removed some columns, fourth is as third but males only)
Does seem at an impression that even within the overarching labels as you go West->East in this broad timeframe there is some change in y-dna and frequency of samples labelled as "_o"?
May also be the case that due to patrilineality, we will find that some samples with a shift within traditions / material cultures like La Tene are disproportionately female biased, or at any rate biased against a y-dna infusion?
Str isotopes on these outliers to detect how far they've come from (if they are 1st gen migrants) and from where could be informative?
Davidski is obviously right that samples from Poland from between 1000BCE to 600AD will be the premium for really determining if some kind of "Slavic from the Middle" scenario is correct, where the language family forms somewhere more in the territory of present day Poland in the LBA to Iron Age and expands more substantively from there is the early "Common Era". I know there are many reasonable reasons to have doubts about this idea...
(Its not surprising to anyone I guess, btw, that the Germanic diagnostic I1 is absent in the sample set of post1000BCE samples from the Patterson and Isekov metadata, save for one low quality "Hungarian Scythian" dated from between 400 BCE to 100 CE.)
Celts in England were not descendants of Beakers but they actually replaced half of their gene pool
Matt, do we have any genetic evidence that the Slavs come from Pripyat - a place indicated by some archaeologists, who also do not have archological evidence for it?
However, we already have a whole lot of pre-medieval Slavic genomes from Central Europe, including several from Poland, with a large share of Balto-Slavic drift.
@ Andrzejewski
So you think the people who migrated to Britain had nothing to do with Beaker people ? Did they come from a place that was not influenced by the earlier Bell Beaker Culture ? There was already a link between Britain and the Alps as seen with the earlier Amesbury Archer...
It is kind of obvious that Steppe migrants mixed more with locals West of the Rhine as clearly can be seen in Iberia. Intensive trade between Britain and the Continent since the early Bronze Age makes me think that there were not such a huge Linguistic barrier between Bell Beaker peoples on both sides of the channel.
Indo-European certainly didn't originate from EFF so Celtic developing out of Bell Beaker dialects still stands.
@ambron, as far as I know there isn't anything genetically speaking to directly support the "Common Era expansion from Pripyat" idea. Indirectly, I also don't think it's the most promising place genetically speaking, given that the people to the north are likely to be Baltic or Uralic, while to the south are generally Scytho-Sarmatian. If the genotype lacks the Central / North Eurasian influences then it makes more sense I guess to assume more westerly origin than lack of geneflow. If a group looks like they are between the genetic groupings we find in the Baltic and Carpathians, thats probably most likely geographically? But nothing is totally implausible direct genetic data is needed for everywhere from Poland to Belarus from the 1000 BCE to 800 CE, if inhumations can be found.
Post a Comment