Tuesday, January 18, 2022
Mistaken identity?
Ancient Bohemian I20509 is dated to 400-200 BCE, or the La Tene period, in Patterson et al. 2021 (see here). However, he belongs to Y-chromosome N-L550 and is most similar to northern Swedes in my Global25 analysis. So I reckon he's a Swedish soldier who may have died during the Thirty Years' War. In any case, he seems to be a lot younger than the La Tene period, so, for now, I've labeled him CZE_IA_La_Tene_oFennoscandian in the Global25 datasheets (see here).
See also...
They came, they saw, and they mixed
82 comments:
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
See also...
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
May I ask if there's anything unusual about PECH8? It's the oldest R-M222 we have... and M222 is a very North Irish lineage that I happen to belong to. It's marked as La Tene in the paper, but I have a hard time believing a North Irish lineage would be native to a trading oppidum on the Med. An interloping merchant?
ReplyDeleteYes I need to learn R. :(
I don't think so (from the context):
ReplyDelete"• an individual aged 30–50 years in grave 42 (P6567; 42, P7A-16130), wearing an iron arm-ring, yielding sample I20509 (male)"
Location:
"Prague-Jinonice (Holmanʼs Garden Centre), Prague 5 district, Central Bohemia, Czech Republic
Rescue excavations by the City of Prague Museum on the former site of Holman’s Garden Centre, during construction of the Prague metro in 1984–6, yielded a multi-period funerary site yielding graves from the Neolithic, Eneolithic, Early Bronze Age (Únětice culture) and La Tène period. The site is located in the south-western part of Prague at an altitude of about 320m asl, in the so-called Prague Barrandien Basin (Prague Plateau). The site contained: a few graves dating to the Neolithic (three Stroked Pottery inhumation graves with five burials, Petriščáková et al. 2016, graves 52, 70, 75) and Eneolithic (graves 66, 87 and 92; unpublished); a partial cemetery of the early Únětice culture, containing 29 graves and the skeletal remains of 41 individuals; and a total of around 55 La Tène graves (c. fourth–third centuries BCE; La Tène B1b–La Tène C1b) containing the skeletal remains of 65 individuals. The La Tène grave pits were generally rectangular with frequent rounding of the corners. The inhumation burials were predominantly supine, most often with the head towards the north-north-east, north or north-east. Preservation of the skeletal remains was generally poor."
I agree he is an autosomal and YDNA anomaly, but so is the Hallstatt-era I17607 (who is DF19>DF88>S4281). People from the north did travel to Bohemia.
I think I20509 was definitely Baltic, and I17607 was Frisian, though:
Distance to: CZE_Early_Modern_Bohemia:I20509
0.00000000 CZE_Early_Modern_Bohemia
0.04437952 FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o
0.04505352 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA
0.04666739 VK2020_NOR_Mid_VA
0.04682844 VK2020_NOR_Mid_IA
0.04732539 VK2020_SWE_Uppsala_VA
0.04772416 VK2020_NOR_South_IA
0.04808350 VK2020_Isle_Of_Man_VA
0.04927902 VK2020_SWE_Oland_IA
0.04988911 VK2020_NOR_North_VA
Distance to: CZE_IA_Hallstatt_low_res:I17607
0.00000000 CZE_IA_Hallstatt_low_res
0.04530866 England_EMBA
0.04580705 NLD_LBA
0.04763143 SWE_IA
0.04846090 England_C_EBA
0.04936066 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_IA
0.05054123 VK2020_GreenlandE_VA
0.05078729 ISL_Viking_Age_Pre_Christian
0.05086982 NLD_BA
0.05091059 NLD_MBA
What about I13780?
ReplyDelete@Ryan
ReplyDeleteLooks very BA/IA Iberian. No obvious Irish-like ancestry.
@Dave
If this guy is really from 400-200 BCE, then he's probably a Uralic speaker from somewhere in north Sweden.
Does anyone have a pic of the iron arm ring that he supposedly wore?
@Suevi
Doesn't stand out as much, but I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out that this was another soldier from the Thirty Years' War. But this time a German from Pomerania.
@All
ReplyDeleteI've settled for CZE_Fennoscandian:I20509. It's noncommittal, and based on his ancestry, so it'll work no matter what a future C14 dating might reveal.
The “GalloRoman,” Bronze Age France sample I16184, also yielded N1a, which could be down to low coverage. That sample only has about 46k SNPs, and his assessment details are “damage.ss.half=0.075.” Furthermore, I16184 and I20509 were not directly dated (they were archeologically dated), so this could be similar to the issue we had with that Shulaveri-Shomu R1b sample a few years ago. Perhaps these samples are from more recent periods, and they got mixed up in the older sediment layers. I’m not sure what this phenomenon is called in archaeology, so perhaps someone more educated on the topic could elucidate further.
ReplyDeleteIn this way, we can question the entire heritage of archeology, as only a small amouts burials are radiocarbon dated. The vast majority of Patterson's samples do not have radiocarbon dating.
ReplyDeleteSwedish 17th century soldier with a Celtic iron arm-ring. Interesting!
Maybe it was someone else's arm wearing that ring?
ReplyDeleteRemember this?
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-hajji-firuz-fiasco.html
He's well outside of the modern genetic diversity, or even the genetic diversity of the Viking period samples:
ReplyDeleteTarget: CZE_Fennoscandian:I20509
Distance: 1.9974% / 0.01997438
24.2 Irish
23.6 Danish
14.6 HUN_MA_Szolad
12.2 Baltic_LTU_Narva
9.4 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA
8.0 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna
3.0 Dutch
1.6 Nepalese_F
1.0 DEU_Tollense_BA
1.0 England_MIA
1.0 Papuan
0.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.2 USA_Spirit_Cave_11000BP
That's to be expected for a low coverage sample.
ReplyDeleteOverall, he looks like some modern north Swedish samples that I ran a while ago.
By the way, the girl with the finches looks southern Polish, so I don't know why the authors of the paper are calling her Karelian or Baltic.
ReplyDeleteTW595_scaled,0.120652,0.122879,0.065996,0.043605,0.037545,0.0251,0.013396,0.018461,-0.02168,-0.01221,-0.014453,0.001649,0.007284,0.009358,-0.007736,0.013922,0.01017,0.007728,-0.004148,-0.014132,0.00262,-0.006554,0.014297,-0.009399,-0.016885
If the cultural context is La_Tene, shouldn't it at least be CZE_IA_La_Tene_o_Fennoscandian?
ReplyDeleteIn the 3-way model I tried, with Yamnaya:Barcin:Iron_Gates, I20509 was not an outlier in Yamnaya proportion and came out with 42% which was higher than average (39%) but within range, however did come out with an outlying Iron_Gates proportion 30%, against average 18% and with next higher sample having 23.5% (I15951).
I20509 was also outlying in the ratio of Iron_Gates:Barcin, with a ratio of 1.09, where the next highest (I17322) had 0.76 and a much lower level of HG overall.
The La_Tene set in CZE are fairly diverse group (like in the plots from my discussion with J.S. in the other thread, they're very sprawling in their affinities and don't really have a strong "peak" as much as most other population groupings we can look at).
But tentatively we can say that I20509 was an outlier anyway.
Ternary plot that shows the somewhat outlying status of I20509: https://imgur.com/a/bmP0O4v (couple plots showing tighter clustering of England_IA and present day Czech for comparison)
How west Eurasian was this sample?
ReplyDeleteAlmost 100% West Eurasian, with ~1% of East Asian admix.
ReplyDeleteAmateurishness on my part here, so pardon the question, but what would be considered low coverage? Anything less than 250k-300k SNPs?
ReplyDeleteAny coverage of less than 1 is relatively low coverage, because such samples are usually noisy and often hard to work with, but it's an arbitrary choice.
ReplyDeleteI20509 has a coverage of 0.247. That's pretty low in my opinion.
Target: CZE_Fennoscandian
ReplyDeleteDistance: 3.9095% / 0.03909479
50.0 FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o
41.0 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna
9.0 SWE_PWC_NHG
0.0 Baltic_EST_IA
0.0 DEU_MA_Alemannic
0.0 FIN_Levanluhta_IA
0.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
0.0 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_IA
Target: CZE_Fennoscandian
Distance: 3.8898% / 0.03889756
48.8 FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o
30.0 VK2020_NOR_North_IA
15.4 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna
5.8 VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
0.0 Baltic_EST_IA
0.0 DEU_MA_Alemannic
0.0 FIN_Levanluhta_IA
0.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
I can see this guy being from central/northern Sweden but not sure about it being from the iron age or from a much later context. Not sure either if the HG pull is from coverage issues or if it is legit. Are there any modern northern Scandinavians who show something similar?
I'm pretty sure I've seen some northern Swedes plotting in the same part of the North Euro PCA as this guy.
ReplyDeleteExcept they had a bit more East Asian/Siberian admix, due to distant Saami ancestry.
In a UMAP plot I saw I20509 in the middle of the Viking region. That would make for a much smaller dating error than the Thirty Years war.
ReplyDeleteThere were a lot more La Tene samples in the Viking region.
No, I20509 is clearly different from the other La Tene samples.
ReplyDeleteHis genomic ancestry aligns well with his unexpected Y-haplogroup N-L550.
I don't know if you have noticed, but Levänluhta burial is located not far from the Baltic coastline, it's less than 50 km's away. Swedish coastline, on the other hand, is only little more than 50 km's away from the Finnish one. Someone from the coastal communities, most probably, could be from either side of the Gulf of Bothnia.
ReplyDeleteAmber Roaders gonna Amber Road. That there were multiple visitors from the north (increasing from Hallstatt>La Tene isn't that surprising, but that the locals bothered to bury them in the same style as their own makes me think they were sufficiently assimilated into the local community (traders/factors?) and not invaders or prisoners.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteWhile we're at it, renaming samples, I'd suggest some other changes; when I was checking the new Iron Age samples from eastern France, I noticed there are now two population samples with very similar names: FRA_Grand_Est_IA2 and FRA_GrandEst_IA2, so I was wondering if there is some difference in geographic origin between these, and yes there is! The former are all from the Alsace, the latter all from the Champagne. This difference is not entirely irrelevant, as the Champagne during the IA2 was archaeologically part of the Marne-Mosel group, while the Alsace was part of the Rhine-Danube group. Of course anyone can look up the individual sample IDs and then google for the papers to look up where exactly they were from. But it would be a lot more user-friendly to make this explicit in the naming. So,
FRA_Grand_Est_IA2:COL11
FRA_Grand_Est_IA2:COL153A
FRA_Grand_Est_IA2:ERS1164
FRA_Grand_Est_IA2:ERS86
could be renamed into
FRA_Alsace_IA2:COL11
FRA_Alsace_IA2:COL153A
FRA_Alsace_IA2:ERS1164
FRA_Alsace_IA2:ERS86
and
FRA_GrandEst_IA2_low_res:I19359
FRA_GrandEst_IA2:I19356
FRA_GrandEst_IA2:I19357
FRA_GrandEst_IA2:I19358
FRA_GrandEst_IA2:I19362
FRA_GrandEst_IA2:I20815
FRA_GrandEst_IA2:I20817
FRA_GrandEst_IA2:I20827
FRA_GrandEst_IA2:I21399
FRA_GrandEst_IA2:I21402
FRA_GrandEst_IA2:I21931
renamed into
FRA_Champagne_IA2_low_res:I19359
FRA_Champagne_IA2:I19356
FRA_Champagne_IA2:I19357
FRA_Champagne_IA2:I19358
FRA_Champagne_IA2:I19362
FRA_Champagne_IA2:I20815
FRA_Champagne_IA2:I20817
FRA_Champagne_IA2:I20827
FRA_Champagne_IA2:I21399
FRA_Champagne_IA2:I21402
FRA_Champagne_IA2:I21931
For the sake of consistency we could extend this to all samples from the Grand Est, an administrative region that has been created as recently as 2016. Thus:
FRA_Alsace_EBA_o:RIX2
FRA_Alsace_EBA:BIS130
FRA_Alsace_EBA:BIS385
FRA_Alsace_EBA:OBE3626
FRA_Alsace_EBA:OBE3722
FRA_Alsace_EBA:RIX15
FRA_Alsace_EBA:RIX4
FRA_Alsace_EN_o:Mor6
FRA_Alsace_EN:Schw432
FRA_Alsace_EN:Schw72-15
FRA_Alsace_IA1:Jeb8
FRA_Alsace_IA1:NOR2B6
FRA_Alsace_IA1:NOR3-6
FRA_Alsace_LBA:NIED
FRA_Alsace_MN:BERG02-2
FRA_Alsace_MN:BERG157-2
FRA_Alsace_MN:BERG157-7
FRA_Alsace_MN:ROS102
FRA_Alsace_MN:ROS45
FRA_Alsace_MN:ROS78
FRA_Alsace_MN:WET370
FRA_Champagne_EBA:PSS4170
FRA_Champagne_MN:PSS4693
FRA_Champagne_MN:BUCH2
FRA_Lorraine_EBA:I16247
N-L550 probably entered the Swedish genepool 800-400BC with the early-Tarands that appear in Central Eastern Sweden.
ReplyDeleteConsidering I20509 was buried wearing an iron arm ring, I think it's quite possible he really was buried in the Iron Age. At least, I don't think his genetic profile directly disputes that he was.
Thanks David. Weird result then.
ReplyDeleteApologies for going off on another of my tin-foil hat tangents but...
ReplyDeleteNganasans - am I right in remembering that they have pretty much 0 European ancestry? And they're our best proxy for proto-Uralic genetics (notwithstanding their later admixture with other now-extinct Siberians)?
At the same time proto-Uralic has a bunch of loanwords from proto-Indo-European (but not visa versa), suggesting the proto-Uralic homeland was in proximity with Indo-Europeans or a related group, but proto-Indo-European does not show signs of admixture from Uralic.
And the PIE loanwords into Uralic are also extensive enough that you would think these contacts would have to be have sustained and extensive. Extensive enough to leave a genetic legacy. Yet they didn't.
Would it be crazy to think these loanwords didn't come from PIE, but rather a relative of PIE? A relative being spoken by people who lacked European ancestry?
It's okay to say I'm crazy.
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteNganasans are the most easterly Uralic speakers, so it's likely they were in constant contact with unadmixed Siberians to the east. If so, this would've helped them to sustain their overwhelmingly Siberian genetic structure.
On the other hand, all Uralic speakers west of them have significant European ancestry, and many are even mostly of European genetic ancestry.
@Anthony Hanken
ReplyDeleteIt is possible that this individual is straight from the Tarand graves culture.
If so, this would be an extraordinary catch.
But that's why I'm skeptical, and would love to see a C14 date.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteGiven his affinity to Scandinavian samples, I think he is probably decended from Swedish early-Tarands that were assimilated in the centuries following their arrival.
Like Dave said, the Amber road seems like a logical explanation for his location.
This would all line up with the 400-200BC date. Although I agree, this shouldn't be taken at face value without confirmation from C14 dates.
It would be pretty cool if it does turn out someone from northeast Baltic travelled all the way down to central Europe during La Tene
ReplyDelete@David - I think a recent mixing is a more likely explanation. Like, someone who literally had aa Uralic parent and a Swedish parent. Copper's exact 50:50 is too perfect.
ReplyDeleteRe: Nganasan - kra001 is also 100% Siberian, right?
@Ryan “And the PIE loanwords into Uralic are also extensive enough that you would think these contacts would have to be have sustained and extensive. Extensive enough to leave a genetic legacy. Yet they didn't.
ReplyDeleteWould it be crazy to think these loanwords didn't come from PIE, but rather a relative of PIE? A relative being spoken by people who lacked European ancestry?”
They came from Sintashta.
Hi, folks I have a question for those who know how to use qpAdm and interpret it. What do you think about the claim on AG that all the Anatolian farmers (except Boncuklu) have ANA admixture, thus not being entirely Eurasian?
ReplyDeleteQuote:
"The ancient Egyptian samples currently available can be modeled in condensed form as ~80% BA/IA Israel and ~20% of the North-African Bellbeaker outliers. The latter aren't perfect proxies but they deliver the extra ANA that the Egyptians need.
Levant_N themselves have ~10% ANA on top of what Barcin_N has which is probably ~6%..............."☝
Quote from AG:("Can you speak more of the ANA ancestry in Barcin N? That’s taken me by surprise, because, before now, I thought it was essentially entirely Eurasian. That also surprises me, because it implies that Europeans (or, I suppose, most Western Eurasian populations?), in general, have African ancestry much in the same way that most African populations seem to have a little bit of hidden Eurasian ancestry.")
"It shouldn't be too surprising, some of the Taforalt guys are pre-M78, a close relative to European V13. We haven't found V13 or L618 in Anatolian farmers yet but surely it was there in at least small numbers.
All of the Anatolian farmers (except Boncuklu) show some level of ANA. Oddly enough one of the clearest demonstrations is by using ZlatyKun, who is pretty much equally related to all Eurasians except those with ANA ancestry."
@Andre - "They came from Sintashta."
ReplyDeleteThere are distinct layers of IE loanwords in Uralic, and that's one of them, but not the one I'm referring to. I'm talking about genuine PIE loanwords.
Speaking of which, I'm now digging my teeth into this thesis which others might like:
ReplyDeletehttp://loanwords.prehistoricmap.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Bj%C3%B8rn-2017-Foreign-elements-in-the-Proto-Indo-European-vocabulary.pdf
Has anyone tried applying the TreeMix software to other non-genetic disciplines btw? Political science, linguistics...
There isn't any hard evidence of PIE loanwords in Uralic.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that Siberia was teeming with Indo-Europeans during the Bronze Age, so different layers of Indo-European loanwords in Uralic aren't a mystery, but they make it hard to decipher what happened exactly.
@ Wise Dragon
ReplyDeleteYeah I would on spec agree with that. The ANA admixture would have been mediated via Natufian (from current samples) but actually entered much earlier (Kebaran, Masraqian, etc)
''Early PIE sounding words' might have been mediated via daughter languages like pre-Tocharian and early Indo-Iranian, because languages retain archaic words within them*.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise there was no separate PIE loan word layer, unless one believes Fino-Uralic developed in Belarus
* An example of this is the Slavic liquid metathasis, where 8th/9th century southern Slavs, obviously already diverging from proto-Slavic. retain the archaic / proto-Slavic variant of names Ardágastos and Dargamērós (soon -> Radogastos, Dragomir, resp.)
https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/01/PIE-Proposal.html
ReplyDeleteI see upto 40% of the iranian like ancestors of IVC ancestry in steppe eneolithic.. qpgraph models of ehg+chg, ehg+iranN, ehg+chg+iranN don't work.
Only model which works is ehg + chg + IndiaN (ancestor of ivc) ..
If someone can build another model (which includes ivc as reference pop) to falsify my claim, I shall be obliged.
@Rob, @David - Tocharian and Indo-Iranian have specific sound laws, which is how that paper and other linguists distinguish between a PIE loanword or one from Indo-Iranian or Tocharian.
ReplyDeleteThere is actually a Tocharian layer in Uralic, but it is only found in Finno-Ugric languages and not in Samoyedic like Nganasan. So that tells us something about where and when Proto-Finno-Ugric developed - ie probably somewhere close (NW?) of Afanasevo. And I think that lines up pretty well with the genetic evidence we've seen here too, no?
There's another probably Indo-Iranian (or at the very least a satemized version of) IE layer in Uralic but I haven't read far enough in that thesis to see how universal it is in Uralic, or whether or not Samoyedic languages have it.
"Otherwise there was no separate PIE loan word layer, unless one believes Fino-Uralic developed in Belarus"
That's not true. It just means Uralic encountered speakers of PIE somewhere that hadn't differentiated into one of the surviving daughter language families.
I did see a paper arguing for Yenisian and Uralic influences on Tocharian by the way, which again supports Afanasevo as an origin for Tocharian.
@Wise dragon and @Rob
ReplyDeleteI caught a glimpse of that forum on AG, the one you were talking about. Am I the only one bothered by their models? They have a mix and match of Upper Paleolithic specimens (Iberomaurusians), 4500 year old East African samples, and some modern populations like the Sundanese. Isn’t ANA/AEA ancestry—that which is upstream from Eurasians, but still a part of the same branch—baked into almost all African components younger than IBM, especially those in the East and North? We’re still waiting for pure AEA/ANA and non-AEA SSA pops to appear. I’ve thought for the last two or so years, that Basal Eurasian admixture is just ANA/AEA related admixture. These pops would have brought Y-DNA E clades, mtDNA L, and maybe some Y-DNA A. There are E1b clades in both Neolithic Europeans and Neolithic Levantines. I guess we’ll just have to wait. Are there Paleolithic-Mesolithic specimens from Africa or West Asia in the works?
@vAsiSTha - All your model shows is both IVC and Steppe_Enelothic have ancestry from Iran. That's not a surprise. Your model doesn't back up your claim of an IVC input into Steppe Enelothic. In fact your model shows the exact opposite of that - it shows IVC as having an AASI component that Steppe Eneolithic lacks. You've falsified your own hypothesis I'm afraid. Good work on the model itself though IMHO.
ReplyDeleteCheers.
@ryan
ReplyDeleteI dont think you understood it well. Yeah there's iranian ancestry, but it's not related to ganj dareh, rather it's more related to the IVC one.
Steppe Eneolithic doesn't have any ancestry from Iran or Central Asia.
ReplyDeleteIt's just more southeastern than the sum of the currently available CHG and EHG genomes, which is to be expected considering geography.
Like I once said, population genetics is a state of mind.
I'd like to share a few excerpts from that thesis' conclusion btw, which I think folks here (especially supporters of a Pontic Steppe origin for PIE) will enjoy:
ReplyDeletethe host of agricultural terminology subsequently entering the language seems to indicate that the borrowings are tied to contacts with early Neolithic communities in the Balkans, whose language ultimately went extinct. Vocabulary pertaining to animal husbandry, another Neolithic trait, appear earlier and are predominantly transmitted through the Caucasus; at least two distinct words for goats were borrowed from the North Caucasian languages at different times during the latter stages of PIE.
Sounds about right, no?
Alliances through inter-marriage were probably a contributing factor to the increasing vocabulary exchange as is indicated by a number of foreign terms for in-laws, especially women, that are believed to have joined the family of the husband as is already indicated on internal PIE evidence
This section really jumped out to me, as David as long argued for exactly this.
A more composite picture of PIE thus begins to emerge, with Uralic tribes to the north, North Caucasian to the south, and the agricultural language to the west in Eastern Europe, while the eastern front remains unidentified. This latter contact zone disintegrated with the eastward expansions of the Tocharians and Indo-Iranians, and no obvious connections with extant languages have been established for ancient Central Asia.
Again, sounds about right, no?
@David - Agreed. I guess I should say Iranian-like.
ReplyDelete@vAsiSTha - I understood it fine.
"Yeah there's iranian ancestry, but it's not related to ganj dareh, rather it's more related to the IVC one."
I'm not disagreeing with that. Your hypothesis falls apart when you start looking for evidence that that Iran-IVC-like component came from India. There is absolutely 0 evidence of that (labeling it IndiaN is not evidence) - and in fact quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. If proto-Indo-Europeans descended from India, then every single person descended from that culture would have some AASI ancestry. We don't! In fact, the only Indo-Europeans with AASI ancestry are the ones living in or recently descended from people in the Indian subcontinent.
@ Ryan
ReplyDelete'' Tocharian and Indo-Iranian have specific sound laws, which is how that paper and other linguists distinguish between a PIE loanword or one from Indo-Iranian or Tocharian''
You did not understand, those 'sound laws' do not occur instantaneously and across every single system of the language. Thus, early Tocharian and In-ir will have preserved 'archaic PIE' formulations /
'' It just means Uralic encountered speakers of PIE somewhere that hadn't differentiated into one of the surviving daughter language families.''
Not necessarily, and in fact unlikely unless, as per above, you believe that F-U developed in Belarus or western Russia.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteA yesterday's paper in Antiquity journal reports that a reassessment of eight gold and silver tubes discovered in 1897 in a burial mound in the northern Caucasus, belonging to Maikop culture and found next to one of three individuals buried in the Maikop kurgan dated to around 3,000 BCE, actually shows they are drinking straws, and not scepters, as had been previously thought.
And as artwork dated to the fourth and fifth millennia BCE depicting a communal use of straws has been found in Iraq and western Iran, authors claim that such practices must have been important and popular enough to spread between the two regions.
See the paper at:
https://tinyurl.com/vh9zszz8
@Rob - "You did not understand, those 'sound laws' do not occur instantaneously and across every single system of the language. Thus, early Tocharian and In-ir will have preserved 'archaic PIE' formulations /"
ReplyDeleteUh. That's not how phonology works.
"I'm not disagreeing with that. Your hypothesis falls apart when you start looking for evidence that that Iran-IVC-like component came from India. There is absolutely 0 evidence of that (labeling it IndiaN is not evidence)"
ReplyDeleteYou should read my post fully. I haven't claimed it to be necessarily from India
There were multiple population expansions from around the Caspian deep into Central and South Asia from the Upper Paleolithic to the Iron Age.
ReplyDeleteThat's all this is.
Yea but there was one specific expansion from east of caspian into piedmont steppe between 5000-4000bce too. add that too.
ReplyDeleteOnly in your warped imagination.
ReplyDeleteProve me wrong rather than make inane proclamations.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one making idiotic claims, so the onus is on you to provide the proof.
ReplyDeleteYour immature interpretation of the data doesn't qualify as proof.
Meat Loaf just died from Covid.
ReplyDeleteDamn.
@Vasishta
ReplyDeleteSo you don't mean "East of the Caspian" but "South-East of the Caspian". What male parental marker can we find in the East-European steppe that originated from that South-East of the Caspian presumed PIE homeland?
Whole genome analysis sheds light on the genetic origin of Huns, Avars and conquering Hungarians
ReplyDeletehttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.19.476915v1
This is funny:
“The rest of our Hun period samples with European genomes carried derivatives of R1a1a1b1, a Hg typical in North-Western Europe, in line with the Germanic affinity of many of these samples, detected with qpAdm”
But R1a1a1b1 is not a Hg typical in North-Western Europe and cannot be associated with Germanics. Here are the derivatives of R1a1a1b1 found in ancient samples, a typical Slavic Hg in Eastern Europe:
Y36
Y9082
S3358
YP295
CTS9412
FGC19233
FGC13709
Z685
FGC10190
Not Slavic:
S5730
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteWell he had a full life. 75 is a good age.
@all, I mentioned in the previous post that I had found a list online which listed the samples in the upcoming Orkney study ("Continental migrants and Neolithic male lineages in Bronze Age Orkney") among many other Scottish adna samples (https://archaeologyscotland.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/DES-Volume-19-DNA-section.pdf).
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wishes, I've sorted out which ones in that list are in the upcoming study: https://pastebin.com/pufJgUPu
.CSV file.
Most samples were specified, and only a few were not.
The male samples for y-dna buffs are as follow:
KD026 - NEOLITHIC
KD006 - MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE
KD044 - MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE
KD045 - MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE
KD047 - MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE
KD049 - MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE
KD057 - MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE
KD059 - MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE
KD060 - MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE
KD061 - MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE
KD064 - MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE
KD004 - EARLY AND MIDDLE IRON AGE (to c. AD 200)
KD043 - EARLY AND MIDDLE IRON AGE (to c. AD 200)
KD001 - LATE IRON AGE AND EARLY MEDIEVAL
KD073 - LATE IRON AGE AND EARLY MEDIEVAL
------
Most are the MLBA cemetary, but there may be a few in there which are from later periods.
@ Ryan
ReplyDelete“ Uh. That's not how phonology works.”
Oh right, well thanks for taking the time to explain it to me nevertheless :)
Btw this is the developing consensus
“ The widespread Uralic family offers several advantages for tracing prehistory: a firm
absolute chronological anchor point in an ancient contact episode with well-dated Indo-Iranian; other points of intersection or diagnostic non-intersection with early Indo-European (the Late PIE-speaking Yamnaya culture of the western steppe, the Afanasievo culture of the upper Yenisei, and the Fatyanovo culture of the middle Volga); lexical and morphological reconstruction sufficient to establish critical absences of sharings and contacts. We add information on climate, linguistic geography, typology, and cognate frequency distributions to reconstruct the Uralic origin and spread. We argue that the Uralic homeland was east of the Urals and initially out of contact with Indo-European.“
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the African ancestry in Neolithic Anatolians, presumably it would be mediated by Levantine admixture, but I thought Neolithic Anatolians showed a signal of admixture with something more related to Iran_N populations? Maybe I'm not remembering correctly. I did also see a comment from Chad recently saying that he now believes that there is indeed African-ish ancestry in West Eurasians.
ReplyDelete@epoch no, east of Caspian is possible too - bactrian region.
ReplyDeleteThe spread of this eastern iranian ancestry is simply unknown at this point but I'm guessing the whole of Turan region was also covered by it. Glimpses of it are seen in sarazm (most eastern of turn samples).
The problem with turanian samples from geoksyur, namazga, bmac and even Shahr I sokhta is that they're too late and already zagros iranian + Anatolian ancestry has made huge impact here, possibly erasing y haplogroups from the little male samples we have from there. Although SiS has 25% direct ancestry from IVC.
Y haplos of interest are R1a, R1b and Q. (Old clades of R1a and R1b found in tarim). Just need samples to dig deeper.
All of the earliest ancient R1a in Central Asia is associated with Andronovo.
ReplyDeleteSo R1a moved from west to east.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"All of the earliest ancient R1a in Central Asia is associated with Andronovo. So R1a moved from west to east."
R1a movement was from Southern trans-Urals towards Central and South Asia indeed, but I'm not sure that this necessarily involved Andronovo, especially in formation of R1a-L657, as the only two sub-cultures of Andronovo (2000-1450 BCE), Alakul and Fedorovo, do not have a sub-clade giving birth R1a-L657. They have R1a-Z2123 and R1a-Z2122 which are not part of South Asian sub-clades. Please see the samples in Shoendykol and Satan, Kazakhstan.
@Carlos Aramayo
ReplyDeleteAndronovo males belonged to a wide range of R1a lineages. Most of them were Z93+, but at least one was Z93-.
Since L657 is derived from Z93, then I wouldn't bet against it being a minor lineage in the Andronovo population that expanded rapidly somewhere in or near South Asia.
Keep in mind that currently available ancient data isn't always going to reflect the diversity that was found in ancient populations.
What old R1a lineages were found in the Tarim? Really curious.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete"Since L657 is derived from Z93, then I wouldn't bet against it being a minor lineage in the Andronovo population that expanded rapidly somewhere in or near South Asia."
That's a possibility, but estimate considers L657 formed around 2200 BCE, and by that time Andronovo culture (c. 2000-1450 BCE) was not formed archaeologically yet.
Yes, but Z93 is even older and it's an Andronovo lineage.
ReplyDeleteObviously, L657 has its origins in Eastern Europe somewhere, and very likely in a population that was ancestral to Andronovo.
@tigran
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838831/ tarim had 7 R-M198
No one knows what subclades these were because the tests were done with PCR.
ReplyDeleteThose Tarim R1a samples need to be tested again. They might even come out R1b with proper testing.
"Obviously, L657 has its origins in Eastern Europe somewhere"
ReplyDeleteLol, this is only obvious to you in your head.
Well, both in and outside of my head Z93 > L657, and Z93 is from Eastern Europe.
ReplyDeleteSo sucked in.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete(…) No one knows what subclades these were because the tests were done with PCR. Those Tarim R1a samples need to be tested again. They might even come out R1b with proper testing. (...)
How do you know that these Tarim Basin samples were badly tested again, see e.g. Vasilievka, Locomotiv, etc? What if other samples were also wrongly tested? How do we know what was properly tested / researched and what was not?
According to what you say, similar errors are more and more common. This is not a good sign of a reliability of genetic testing, is it?
12 years since that paper comes out and we still don't know the subclade. I'll take it with a grain of salt. And Bronze Age Tarim could have easily had R1a from Europe (assuming it was R1a to being with).
ReplyDeleteIt's not that complicated.
ReplyDeleteAnything done with next generation sequencing technology, like shotgun or capture, and with a coverage of around 1 and with a C14 dating is pretty solid stuff.
Old PCR results, like those R1a Tarim Basin mummies, need to be retested with NGS technology.
After 2015 things started to make more sense genetically. Not all things, but most I think.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete(…) Anything done with next generation sequencing technology, like shotgun or capture, and with a coverage of around 1 and with a C14 dating is pretty solid stuff. (…)
Do you have any idea what proportion of the samples have already been retested and the results have been confirmed to be correct and reliable?
"Well, both in and outside of my head Z93 > L657, and Z93 is from Eastern Europe."
ReplyDeleteThats like saying R1a is ultimately from Siberia, or better still "all Y lineages are from Africa."
And it's Z93 > Z94> Y3/Y2/Y26>L657.
Each and every male sample (51 in all) from Sintashta or central_steppe_mlba with available Snps at Z2121 is +ve for Z2121 and =ve for Y3.
Haven't checked other western_steppe like srubnaya yet, but i dont think much will change. Z2121 of course has nothing to do with South Asia except minor occurrence here and there.
The Z2121+ males of sintashta/andronovo/fedorovo have absolutely 0 to do with the languages of south asia. Find me a culture with L657, which you cant and won't.
Seems more and more likely that there was a Tarand derived population in northern Sweden with minimal to zero Siberian, maybe the Kvens? Not sure if they spoke Uralic or Germanic though, altough the lack of Siberian could point to Germanic.
ReplyDelete