However, the complete lack of association of R-haplogroup descendants and EHG ancestry in either Armenia or Iran is consistent with either a massive dilution of EHG ancestry in these populations resulting in the dissociation of Y-chromosome lineages from autosomal ancestry over time, or with a scenario in which R-M269 was not associated with substantial EHG ancestry to begin with.I thought they meant that they couldn't find any Eastern European hunter-gatherer (EHG) ancestry in samples from Armenia or Iran bearing Y-chromosome R1b-M269. Of course, they did find EHG ancestry in these individuals, it's just that they couldn't establish an association specifically between this type of ancestry and Y-haplogroup R1b. That is, males with Y-haplogroup R1b in Armenia, Iran and everywhere else generally show about the same level of EHG ancestry as their ethnic kin with other Y-haplogroups. But so what? Why mention this when discussing the origins of R1b-M269, when it has absolutely no value in this context? Y-haplogroups aren't linked directly to autosomal DNA, and Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. are obviously aware of this (hence their point about the potential massive dilution of EHG ancestry). In regards to the origins of R1b-M269, and the provenance of West Asian R1b-M269, the really powerful observation is that R1b-M269 shows up rather late and suddenly in the West Asian ancient DNA record along with EHG and steppe ancestry. That, and the fact that Eastern Europe is an ancient R1b hotbed (while West Asia a desert), means there's virtually no chance that R1b-M269 is native to West Asia. In other words, there was no R1b-M269 in West Asia until the steppe people brought it there from north of the Caucasus. See also... Dear Iosif... Dear Iosif #3 But Iosif, what about the Phrygians? Dear Iosif, about that ~2% Dear Iosif...Yamnaya
Sunday, August 28, 2022
Dear Iosif #2
In my last blog post I made a mistake in my interpretation of this quote from Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., because it confused the crap out of me:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
125 comments:
In general, the logic of the article is quite contradictory. Even if we agree with them about the two waves of GHG migration to the steppe. Although they see the first wave, they do not attach importance to it, they are focused on the second wave, this is confirmed by Lazaridis' comment. It is the second wave that they consider IE. The contradiction, however, is as follows. When they explain the increased levels of CHG in southern Europe, they attribute it to the influence of the Minoans. They also claim that the increase in CHG in Atatolia occurred from the beginning of the Eneolithic and further in the Bronze Age. Thus, they seem to associate the Minoans with an increase in CHG in Anatolia. But in this case, the Minoan language should be at least remotely related to IE, but this is not the case.
@All
I need some help, otherwise this will take me a week.
I need this datasheet updated with the samples from the Southern Arc dataset.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YKkEOtyV5SISvmY_FyS4YSLXCxxYt5_W
However, I need the duplicates removed, and I need the ancient samples that have been sequenced replaced with their new versions (unless they look really bad for whatever reason, and then let's leave the old ones in).
Thanks.
Huh? I thought they were claiming the split happened with the first wave when CHG moved into Anatolia and the steppe
The first "wave" into the steppe involved hunter-gatherers, because there's loads of CHG in some of the hunter-gatherers there.
I'm not sure yet if there was a second wave. I think Yamnaya has ancestry from the Balkans.
Catacomb might have Caucasus ancestry.
There are CHGs in East as well.
Turkmenistan 4600bce sample is IranN+CHG. Someone modelled it as 40% CHG with L1a2 Y haplo. CHGs in eastern Iran but for no reason they neglect them.
CHG with 40% CHG is not CHG.
Don't spam this thread.
Just to clarify
That sample is modelled as IranN (Ganj DarehN) + CHG.
CHG was modelled as 65% IranN + Causcasus UP + ....
Minoans have less CHG than Mycenaeans in fact. So the equation CHG = Minoan isn’t so straightforward either
They could be local Neolithics but of course still be CHG mediated .
Luwian and Greek share the -nth- -ss- elements which points to a shared Aegean substrate
This aligns with known late chalcolithic cultural Koine which was at least partly overrun by steppe-admixed groups from Balkan BA
@ Davidski
Is that list you linked to unscaled coordinates? Wouldn't it be better to do the scaled ones, since they are the most used and give more sensible results?
I agree, but yeah the link above is to the raw coords.
I need the raw datasheet done so that I can have both raw and scaled online just in case.
@Davidski
Were those bronze age samples from Dagestan with R-M269 from the Prisulak culture by any chance? Or are they from 1500 bc onwards?
A bit older than Prisulak.
I'm looking through the Southern Arc samples now...
But of course, this preprint brought to my attention as dropping last week:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.13.483276v2.full
Are these the raw genotypes for this IA Central Med paper or just bams again?:
www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB49419
Anyway, lots to think about!
Lazaridis claims that Hasanlu people were not Iranian speakers due to the absence of steppe_mlba and R1a signal, but rather the presence of minor Yamnaya and R1b signal.
Everything here is correct apart from the 'not Iranian speakers' part.
Kurds can be simply modeled as 100% Hasanlu. And we know Kurds speak Iranian.
Target: Kurdish_avg
Distance: 0.8454% / 0.00845443
93.2 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
4.2 Levant_Baqah_BA
2.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Target: Kurdish_avg
Distance: 0.9144% / 0.00914426
97.4 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
2.6 Levant_Baqah_BA
Target: Kurdish_Jew_avg
Distance: 0.7022% / 0.00702225
54.4 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
45.6 Levant_Baqah_BA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
The big bmac-like impact on this region post the MBA sample is what made them Iranian speakers.
I think we are finally on the right step in direction of finding a real solution to the non steppe origin of Indo Iranian.
The oldest R1b-M269 I can find in multiples is from they Yamnaya which we are all well aware of, with one exception.
Davidski has brought up this before and I rechecked:
Bulgaria_C I2181, Smyadovo, Bulgaria, 4606-4447 calBCE, mtDNA: HV15, Y-DNA: R1b-M269, MathiesonNature2018
As far as I can tell the R1b-M269 haplogroup call is based limited evidence, but it is still affirmative evidence of M269. Does anyone disagree? M269 has a very long phylogenetic block so I don't think ancient finds of R1b-V6136 or R1b-V88 or R1b-L754 are that relevant to M269. Of course, not having derived results for much of this M269 block does not make I2181 a spectacular R1b-M269 sample.
Nevertheless even if this guy was not in the M269>L23>Z2103 ancestral line, this guy may be oldest relation to the L23 people around. Smyadovo, Bulgaria - why not? This would about the Varna timeframe.
David, when you wrote "nudge, nudge, wink, wink", did you mean to imply that Harvard is sitting on samples that they did not include in this study, or that other labs have other relevant samples from the region that are on the way?
You can make the case that EHGs having basal R1bs means it's more likely that R1b-M269 can be found among them.
But R1b span is massive. It wasn't steppe-only like R1a. We have them all the way into Italy in the Mesolithic. Your logic by no means rules out M269 originating some place else like Central Asia/Iranian Plateau, which are really not that far from Siberia. M269 and Steppe R1b have a 15k period difference, or 10k before Yamnaya.
I truly don't care either way since they're not denying Yamna/CW origins of PIE, but I do think it's a little reckless for Harvard scholars to be writing papers like this without definitive proof. They should have presented this a "possibility".
@ Dragon Hermit
''
But R1b span is massive. It wasn't steppe-only like R1a. We have them all the way into Italy in the Mesolithic. Your logic by no means rules out M269 originating some place else like Central Asia/Iranian Plateau, which are really not that far from Siberia. M269 and Steppe R1b have a 15k period difference, or 10k before Yamnaya.''
Everything has to make sense .
The reasons why R1b appears in Italy is because it was part of the Epigravettian complex which spanned from the Rhone to the Volga. This didnt include Iran, hence we wont find R1b in Iran or south central Asia until Bronze Age
@Richard Rocca
Other labs have other relevant samples from the region that are on the way.
@DragonHermit
Your logic by no means rules out M269 originating some place else like Central Asia/Iranian Plateau, which are really not that far from Siberia.
LOL
At least I have logic. You know, like Europe is a place.
You just mentioned three places in the same sentence that are totally irrelevant.
Central Asia, Iran, Siberia. WTF?
Dienekes was right all along
I can't remember Dienekes claiming that the PIE homeland was in Ukraine.
Last I looked at his scribbles, he moved the PIE homeland to South Central Asia because of his Gedrosia Admixture component. Haha.
Apart from that, I don't see Lazaridis being able to defend his Indo-Anatolian from Armenia hypothesis in the long run.
@David
In the supplement they reason CHG deriving from Hajji Firuz Chl related source , another with Meshoko , what is the rationale for this when Eneolithic Steppe sources are present ?
I don't have any interest in their reasoning.
There were hunter-gatherers in Eastern Europe with loads of CHG.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/05/population-genomics-of-stone-age.html
We'll have to look at these samples, as well as the new Yamnaya-like Sredny Stog samples from Ukraine, to work out precisely the origins of Yamnaya.
The data either support a modified steppe hypothesis or Renfrew, not this weird Iran/ CHG model
Probably more toward a hybrid model leaning toward steppe by British husband / wife team the Sherrats
Writing 20-30 years ago, they pretty much nailed most of the big topics
Last I looked at his scribbles, he moved the PIE homeland to South Central Asia because of his Gedrosia Admixture component. Haha.
I think you are correct about what his later hypothesis was. That Gedrosia component had little peaks in the british isles were r1b is dominant.
Unironically, he may have been correct about the Caucasus being the core of west Eurasian. Is the current thinking that a Dzudzuana like population was the source for WHG and EEF? Or does WHG partially derive from 40kya europeans like Kostenki?
Also, what is EHGs relation to 40kya europeans.
Dzudzuana is overrated - a blog post for the future
@All
Updated G25 datasheets are up.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html
Please let me know if you spot any errors and I'll fix them as soon as I can.
@pnuadha
It is the other way round
Dzudzuana is from proto WHG or Villabruna/ Common West Eurasian that was in Europe long before it reached Asia Minor and the Caucasus.
Dinka Tepe BIA group A is strongly shifted toward Mesopotamia. North Iraq. This is consistent with the apparition of Khabur ware in that region. Khabur ware was a MBA pottery made in North Mesopotamia which correspond to Hurrian period. And most importantly they don't have Steppe.
While the Dinka Tepe group B which comes later is shifted toward Iran Neo, has Steppe and low Levant.
An obvious migration from East that can be linked to Aryans or Kassites. Or both of them.
Vara
Hurrians from Steppe is game over with this Mesopotamian shifted samples in MBA of Urmia bassein. Iran. They were the Hurrians with Khabur ware.
Also the word tibira is attested twice between 3000-2500bc in Sumerian. Look at UPenn site
Hey David, you haven't included the samples from the Hun-Avar-Conqueror study in the updated datasheets.
Could you please change the label of sample I1708 from
JOR_PPNC_1d.rel.I1699 to just JOR_PPNC
Also, could you change the name of these samples from
ISR_Natufian_EpiP:I1072, Levant_Natufian:I0861 to Levant_Natufian_EpiP:I1072, Levant_Natufian_EpiP:I0861
Aram
These 2 are under ED IIIb in the UPenn website, which means both are after 2500BCE.
Check the chronology here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Dynastic_Period_(Mesopotamia)
R1b also exists in Botai although a different clade than with Indo-Europeans. The source is ultimately derived from ANE in Siberia.
If CHG was a source of anything to do with PIE, bear in mind that it itself was 35% ANE, and this originated partly in Siberia.
Since no R1b was ever detected in West Asia prior to BA period, therefore Broad MIT has no basis in reality.
Armenia Bronze Age has lots of R1b (from Steppe) but nothing before that, which coincides with the introduction of the language from Europe.
All right I’m gonna state this simply for some people who can’t understand it. I am R1a-L1029-YP445, and my male line originates from western Germany. The early Slavs who wound up in Franconia took partners from the larger Germanic community around them, and, in a few hundred years, the Slavic component had been washed out or reduced to irrelevant noise. That is what happened in Anatolia the only difference being that the steppe invaders did not convert to the Anatolians’ religion and adopt their language like the Slavs in Bavaria did with their German neighbors. If a geneticist cannot see that then science is in trouble.
I checked the scaled version, and there are coordinates that are repeated for several samples.
Baltic_EST_BA:s19_0LS11_1
Baltic_EST_BA:s19_V9_2
Baltic_EST_BA:s19_V14_2
Baltic_EST_BA:s19_V16_1
Baltic_EST_BA:s19_X08_1
Baltic_EST_BA:s19_X10_1
Baltic_EST_BA:s19_X11_1
Baltic_EST_BA:s19_X14_1
Baltic_EST_BA:s19_X15_2
Baltic_EST_BA:s19_X17_2
Baltic_EST_IA:s19_0LS10_1
Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V10_2
Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V11_1
Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V12_1
Baltic_EST_IA:s19_VII4_1
Baltic_EST_IA:s19_X04_1
Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IIa_1
Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IIf_1
Baltic_EST_MA:s19_IVLS09KT_1
CHN_Xiaojingshan_N:XJS1309_M4
CHN_Xiaojingshan_N:XJS1309_M7
DEU_Lech_BBC:WEHR_1192SkA
DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2
DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78
DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119
DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_6
DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415adult_d
DEU_Lech_EBA_contam:POST_44
DEU_Lech_EBA_contam:POST_50
DEU_Lech_EBA_contam:WEHR_1415child
FRA_EN_PEN:PEN001_real1
FRA_EN_PEN:PEN001_real2
Iberia_Central_CA_Afr:I4246
Iberia_East_IA:I3321
Iberia_IA_low_res:I3321_d
IRN_Hasanlu_IA:I4269
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_84001
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_84005
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_97002
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_97026
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_97029
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt035
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt036
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_gtm021
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_gtm127
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_KAL006
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_kls001
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_nuf002
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_stg020
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_stg021
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_stg026
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_urm035
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_urm045
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_urm160
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_urm161
It is the other way round
Dzudzuana is from proto WHG or Villabruna/ Common West Eurasian that was in Europe long before it reached Asia Minor and the Caucasus.
How do you know this? I need to catch up on some reading.
You didn't include samples from this paper https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0762
@ Davidski
Some samples have new dates:
https://slavicorigins.blogspot.com/2022/08/new-dataset-new-dates.html
Aren't ITA_Tagliente and ITA_Tagliente_Late_Paleo the same sample or am I missing something?
@Davidski
There seems to be something wrong with the G25 coordinates of the sample I4269 from IA Hasanlu.
@All
It might take me a couple of days to fix all the issues.
@Vasishta,
If this is attempt to portray Indo Iranien languages derived from BMAC or some late IVC culture , this is a great delusion. A significant portion of the Hasanlu samples already have plenty of Yaz ancestry and profusion of Yaz settlers is well documented both by Iranien and French researchers. In your twitter , your pronounce it death knell for Sintashta/Andronovo groups , this is very silly and it is clear from the comments, it is just flou for OIT/ Indien nationalists.
https://twitter.com/agenetics1/status/1564355011869454336
Say, has anyone posted the Y-DNA results from these papers? If so, can you provide a link where I can see them? Thanks in advance!
Has anybody seen the problem of weird Mbuti.DG affinity with some modern labels in the HO dataset?
Matt?
Hello, I am a firm believer in the steppe theory and R1a and also R1b coming from Europe
However there is a somewhat old and ignored leak of a rare and weird type or R1b in Oman. I want to ask the people here 1. When you look at this data does this leak seem valid esp the age. 2. If it is valid does it affect the steppe therapy or not /how can it be explained.
I kind of wish this leak wasn't there as it complicates things but the truth is the truth and I don't like ignoring leaks.
https://indo-european.eu/2021/01/r1b-in-eastern-arabia-late-neolithic-bronze-age/
@Andre,
Good to see you're back.
CHG and EHG have something in common - CHG has 35% ANE component and EHG has 70% of the same component; It is not impossible that some of the EHG had more than 70% ANE. If a set of PIE speaking, ANE-rich (above the typical, say 80% or more) EHG had moved to NW Iran (not Caucasus, but NW Iran) just prior to formation of Yamna, mixed in proportion 1 to 4 with the locals and later moigrate to Anatolia and become the predecessors of Anatolian languages, could they have looked like 0% EE steppe and 100% CHG for dna ancestry calculations, since CHG ANE component would overshadow the imported, steppe ANE component?
Lazaridis & company have made a great effort to try to resurrect Yamnaya. They seem to disagree with Max Planck and try to justify the Narva signal in the Bohemian CWC by saying that it can be perfectly explained by straight migrations from Yamnaya. It seems that Harvard does not understand that this signal was previously detected in the TRB and that its presence excludes Yamnaya as the origin of L51 (hence Max Planck effort to locate this lineage in the forest steppe). Good luck Lazaridis, by the way LYG001 is another typical Yamnaya Z2103.
Regarding M269, it is not worth arguing with them, the oldest is in a Neolithic farmer from Smyadovo, Lazaridis has improved the coverage of Mathieson's sample and confirmed what all of us non-fanatics already knew.
A few days ago I was asking if someone could explain to me the role of M269>L23>L51>L151 in the spread of IE. This work has served to confirm what we already knew, i.e., that this lineage did not have even a marginal part in the matter, simply because it had none. It does not exist in Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Anatolia, Levant, Greece, eastern Balkans and western Balkans, at the time of the Yamnaya migrations (3.300-2.600 BC).
There are only two cases in the Palace of Nestor PF7562 but they are dated when the Palace had already been destroyed, and the Mycenaean civilization had disappeared by the collapse of the Bronze Age. The rest of the Greek and Mycenaean markers are overwhelmingly of Anatolian Neolithic origin (G2, J2a), so the "Greeks from the east thing" seems to make some sense. Also the steppe signal (EHG) is ridiculous, because many samples have Zero. Lazaridis has done a great mental gymnastic exercise to link the Mycenaeans with Yamnaya, when there is no evidence for it, why?
Regarding Anatolia, the problem is not to find some R1b outlier or some samples with 1 or 3% Yamanya ancestry. Those samples will appear sooner or later, but can anyone believe that Anatolian Indo-European languages have their origin in a direct migration from the steppes?
In Europe we only have these samples
Bulgaria-Smyadovo-M269 (4,500 BC), one sample at Mogyla-R1b-L23-(sure Z2103-2,750 BC), and three late samples at Ezero (2,350-2,250 BC)-the rest of the males are Z2103, R1a, I2a1a, I2a1b, Q1b2b, G2a. Then only E1b-V13 which seems to be a lineage spread by the Thracians to the rest of the Balkans.
Albania-1 sample M269 (2,600 BC)
Croatia-Late migrations of U152 (1-800-1,500 BC) related to the Cetina culture that expanded that lineage and J2b-L283 to both shores of the Adriatic.
Greece, three samples of M269 in the Late Bronze Age (1,135 BC).
That's all folks, hundreds of samples and a ridiculous result for L51>L151>P312.Maybe Lazaridis and company could elaborate a bit on their theory and explain to us how they have come to the conclusion that the Balkan IE languages (Illyrian, Thracian... and even Mycenaean) are linked to the Yamnaya culture.
@Davidski
"I'm not sure yet if there was a second wave. I think Yamnaya has ancestry from the Balkans."
I thought that Yamnaya had ancestry from nearby EEF populations, in this model it has extra ancestry from the Balkans? In this case which Neolithic population would that be?
Perhaps some good tests would be to see if said EEF population was entirely Barcin-like like or had extra Iran_N (like Peloponnese_N or possibly BGR_N) or plausibly Iron_Gates_HG admixture.
However, their f4admix model showed an unmodeled affinity with the Levant on top of what the Barcin samples had, and unless that has to do with Iran_N it's very hard to see where it could have come to in Europe, although I know that so far you have argued for lack of 2nd West Asian wave in Yamnaya.
It's interesting to see why Allentoft et al didn't see this affinity with West Asia while the Reich lab did. Since their West Asian hypothesis rests on this combined 6.5% Barcin and Levant pop I think it's probably the most crucial thing to see if it's really there, least as a starting point. For what's worth I am not seeing it in G25.
@Vasistha
Huh? Which moderns have affinity with Mbuti.DG in the HO dataset? Sometimes there's some attraction when using Chimp as outgroup depending on an individuals archaic levels, that's as far as I know of it.
@Sam
“ @Andre,
Good to see you're back.”
Thank you. 🙂
@St “ If a set of PIE speaking, ANE-rich (above the typical, say 80% or more) EHG had moved to NW Iran (not Caucasus, but NW Iran) just prior to formation of Yamna, mixed in proportion 1 to 4 with the locals and later moigrate to Anatolia and become the predecessors of Anatolian languages”
Something tells me that PIE or anything resembling it only formed in Russia/Ukraine and that ANE or EHG didn’t sound like it at all. IE only formed after EHG and CHG merged to form WSH and Sredny Stog adopted pastoralism.
@ Aram
So where do you take Hurrians to be from ? Any link possible to NEC ?
Blažek thinks that Botai Culture influenced PIE and that “equus”was a loan from Botai. This is completely a joke. He also claims Botai to be related to Yenisseyan languages. First of all, Yenisseyan were “Paleo-Siberian”, namely predominantly East Asian with a significant ANE. As such they had much in common with Beringian and Ancestral Native Americans than to Botai. The latter, in contrast, were mostly ANE and a significant minority (33%-45%) East Asian. Moreover, whereas Yenisseyan speakers had uniparental Ydna Q (ANE, paradoxically) at 93% frequency, with Botai the Ydna found were all East Asian, including the Siberian basal N. I do see however a plausibility that 15,000 years ago a Ural-Altaic macrofamily had existed on the transbaikal side.
The Europoid described by the Han of the Tang Dynasty as being Xiongnu and who were mistaken as Yenisseyan speaking such as the Jie were Indo-European Saka, Yuezhi, Tocharian, Wusu and Paszeryk European descended warriors who spoke various Andronovo spectrum derived IE speeches.
Steppe Component speakers did not speak EHG languages; the closest thing to such one is the trace amount of sibilant hydrological snd typological place names in Baltic languages deriving from the Combed Ceramic and Volosovo. They sound nothing like PIE.
I think that PIE was formed by Sredny Stog in the lower Don by some foragers rich in CHG whose mothers were Vonyuchka or Progress migrants; the switch from forager to pastoralist lifestyle and the intense contact and intermarriage with Tripolye and GAC to their immediate West made putative Proto-PIE invent vocabulary adapted to their contemporary needs and that’s how PIE was formed, a language isolate in Eastern Europe.
Pinarbasi was formed in Anatolia 15,000BP from a group of Villabruna-related European immigrants from the Balkan admixing into the locals, who were related to Natufians, an even with a 1:1 ratio. The Dzudzuana was indeed overrated. I suspect that the core all 3 major components constituting post Bronze Age Euros - WHG, Barcin and WSH - are all derived from a a Kostenki14-like pop.
Anyone looked deeper into R1b from Urziceni yet ? Probably V88-related
Gaska posted
"... the role of M269>L23>L51>L151 in the spread of IE ... this lineage did not have even a marginal part in the matter, simply because it had none. It does not exist in Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Anatolia, Levant, Greece, eastern Balkans and western Balkans, at the time of the Yamnaya migrations (3.300-2.600 BC)."
I don't recall anyone claiming that R1b-L151 was the most common haplogroup in the PIE homeland, wherever it was. It probably didn't even exist prior to the expansion of IE speakers.
However, there is a very strong correlation between R1b-L151 and IE languages that ended up in West and Central Europe, namely Celtic, Italic, Germanic. It's not all about the Yamnaya. Corded Ware was an important migration too.
Before the EBA, we haven't yet found ancestor R1b-M269 in West and Central Europe. We didn't have IE languages in West and Central Europe prior to the EBA.
@ Rob
Re: Urziceni
Yes & yes.
>R1b from Urziceni
looks like a pre-V2219, totally ancestral at the P297 and V1636 level
at the level of V2219, I get 11/26 ancestral calls and the rest 15 derived, under V2219 all ancestral
@Andrzejewski
What do you think the origin/migration path of K14 like populations was? Would these have all carried y C?
Is there any possible link between Northwest Caucasian languages and PIE? They have a very Indo-European / Steppe Iranian influenced mythology (the Nart Epos) and in one of the stories someone travels south to the "Land of Goom" and stays as a guest with locals who speak ""Khattiag"" (Hatti language). There was also an argument from some linguists that PIE has similarities to Northwest Caucasian e.g.
Proto Northwest Caucasian */pNa/ ‘lightning strike’, /-Xwa-/ (/X/ is a palatal fricative) -fall.down. Ubykh /fa/ ‘to ignite by a lightning bolt, for lightning to come down’, Circassian, /pNe-LeLe-/ down-dangle, and /-f-/ or /-XW-/ ‘to fall, drive out, down’
PIE *paxwer ‘sacred fire’ (nominative case), *paxweni (dative case, “in the fire”), Hittite pahhur, pahhweni, pahhenes, Greek pu:r, English fire.
But apparently genetics tells a very different story. Correct me if I'm wrong but do circassian tribes have a lot of genetic samples of them? Because they were mostly displaced into the middle east by Russians in the 1800s.
@Agelmund “ Is there any possible link between Northwest Caucasian languages and PIE? They have a very Indo-European / Steppe Iranian influenced mythology (the Nart Epos) and in one of the stories someone travels south to the "Land of Goom" and stays as a guest with locals who speak ""Khattiag"" (Hatti language). There was also an argument from some linguists that PIE has similarities to Northwest Caucasian e.g. ”
Of course! Yamnaya and Catacomb have influenced Caucasian languages deeply and profoundly. Ramzan Kadyrov looks like a typical Steepe PIE reconstruction. NWC and NEC have typically 25%-30% Yamnaya.
Something tells me that the trajectory was Bacho-Kiro (Oase-related) —> Kostenki14 —> Ulchi/transbaikal.
My (controversial) theory is that Oase/Bacho Kiro expanded both eastbound and westbound 45kybp.
La Brana and the Magdalenian ancestry is still existent in trace amounts in Poland and Spain.
The Bacho Kiro pops who migrated east towards Siberia became the forebears of Kostenki14, but also Ulchi and the East Asian component of Native Americans. Hence, both North American Indian languages and later on Turkic and Mongolic ones (“transeurasian”, Altaic) are offsprings of who the Bacho Kiro/Oase1 were. Like PIE in much later times, they were formed in Europe.
@MikeW “ However, there is a very strong correlation between R1b-L151 and IE languages that ended up in West and Central Europe, namely Celtic, Italic, Germanic. It's not all about the Yamnaya. Corded Ware was an important migration too.
Before the EBA, we haven't yet found ancestor R1b-M269 in West and Central Europe. We didn't have IE languages in West and Central Europe prior to the EBA.”
Sredny Stog and CwC were overwhelmingly R1a so I presume that PIE arose among R1a1 tribes and later spread on to R1b of Yamnaya and Single Grave Culture.
I5737, the oldest Mycenaen-like sample that belongs to y I-P58
what is I-P58? I see no SNP on Y-Full for P58 under I, there is a J-P58 though
I don't care about the PIE question. I don't care that M269>L23>L51>L52>L151 is not the Y-DNA haplogroup that caused the spread of PIE into southeast Europe and West Asia. I don't even care about Bulgaria-Smyadovo-M269 (4,500 BC) and so on.
What I do care about is that M269>L23>L51>L52>L151 is at least 4800 years old and none of it's upstream SNPs are found in central or western Europe prior to 3000 BC and all specimens that have been found since that date that are positive for R-L52 or a subclade such as R-L151 have all been shown to also have Steppe autosomal DNA.
What I also care about is that there are no ancient samples between 4000 BC and 3200 BC from anywhere that are positive for M269>L23 and that nothing can be proven yet about where it originated or that it did not already have Steppe autosomal DNA in 4000 BC.
I also care that the two oldest M269>L23>L51>L52 so far are from Afanasievo. The 3rd oldest is from Bohemia which also happens to be positive for L151 and U106. All with Steppe autosomal DNA.
@Gaska
If you’ve read David Reich’s book, Who We Are and How We Got Here, you know that ancient DNA testing has revealed that Europeans west of the steppe between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago were a two-way mixture of hunter-gatherer DNA and Anatolian farmer DNA. After 5,000 years ago, a new, third element began to arrive: Ancient North Eurasian DNA, which persists in modern Europeans and persons of European descent. ANE entered the European genome as a component of steppe DNA, which showed up in Western Europe at the same time R1b-L51 showed up there. That’s when archaeologists and historical linguists tell us Indo-European language and culture arrived there, as well. There is no other Y-DNA haplogroup in Western Europe so closely and so clearly connected to the advent of steppe DNA and Indo-European language and culture.
Aside from its obvious association with steppe DNA, and the fact that Western Europe became overwhelmingly Indo-European in language and culture, what makes us think R1b-L51 is Indo-European in origin? Well, when R1b-L51 first shows up in the ancient Y-DNA record, it is as the very earliest Corded Ware samples thus far known (Papac et al). It’s no exaggeration to say that most scholars of the subject regard Corded Ware as an early Indo-European culture and its people as the primary transmitters of Indo-European language and culture into Northern Europe. Subsequently, R1b-L51 is found in Beaker, which was derived from Single Grave Corded Ware, and in Proto-Nagyrev, which was derived from Vucedol.
The chief objection to the otherwise overwhelming evidence that R1b-L51 originated among Indo-European steppe pastoralists is that it has not yet been found in Yamnaya. My answer to that is that the steppe and forest steppe are vast expanses. We’ve barely scratched the surface of them when it comes to ancient DNA testing. Recall also that L51 and Z2103 are phylogenetic brothers under L23, with similar age estimates roughly coterminous with the genesis of PIE. It hardly seems likely that, while both were the sons of L23 fathers, one of them was born on the steppe and was Indo-European, but the other was not.
Gaska referred to the Smyadovo sample (I2181, Mathieson 2018) as a “Neolithic farmer” . Is that accurate? Was he all EEF and completely lacking in steppe DNA?
I understand from MikeW’s earlier post the M269 result is somewhat shaky.
@Davidski
Samples from this study have been given genotypes thanks to Teepean47: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14_eFTmhZ10j-1RkoG9TvXoHl2BPztQD5?usp=sharing
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.13.476259v1
While there's no archaeological context to the unpublished ones, it'd be great to have coordinates for them.
@Mike
It is evident that L51>L151>P312 also has nothing to do with Balto-slavic, maybe you could elaborate your theory about the relationship between this lineage, italo-celtic and germanic. Regarding Italo-Celtic, we do not know what language was spoken in the British Isles before the arrival of Celtic and we know that Celtic reached Iberia and Italia with the migrations related to the urnfield culture at the end of the Bronze Age. We also know that CWC and its most common lineages (i.e. R1a-M417) never reached Western Europe, so relating L151>P312 to these Indo-European languages at the moment seems very risky. Btw you may not know that there are M269 in the Belgian and Iberian Neolithic.....
@Dospaises
If you are interested in the origin of R1b-M269>L51>L151..... I think you should take into account not only Smyadovo who is a Neolithic farmer of the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture, but also all the WHGs that have been documented in Europe during the last ten years to get an idea of the path followed by this lineage. And, contrary to what the academy and thousands of Kurganists around the world think, the route is not from east to west but the other way around. L754-Italy, P297-Balkans/Baltic, V88-Serbia, M269-Bulgaria, L51-Switzerland, L151-Bohemia, U106-Bohemia, P312-Germany-Only V1636 and Z2103 have for the moment the honor to say that they are older in the Russian and Ukrainian steppes. And do you know why?, because Yamnaya and the steppes are not the origin but the sink of R1b-M269
@Rich S.
He’s a schizo Basque dipshit that should be banned from this blog, and he repeats his lies over and over; it doesn’t matter how many times he’s been debunked. But to answer your question, I2181 is not a “Neolithic farmer.” He dates to the Chalcolithic (4606-4447 calBCE), and he has EHG and steppe autosomal DNA. From MathiesonNature2018: “In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe-related ancestry (Figure 1B,D).” When they modeled him in D stats (Mbuti.DG, CHG, Balkans_Chalcolithic, Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier) they found the following: “Varna_outlier has Steppe ancestry. Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier may have steppe ancestry but has no evidence of CHG component (however number of SNPs is low).” In the paper’s supplement, I2181 has 46.1% Yamnaya in qpAdm, with a standard deviation of 17.4%. In admixture analysis, he picked up EHG, and a larger Yamnaya_Samara component. I2181 and the Varna outlier are both on the Khvalynsk cline, unlike the other Balkans Chalcolithic samples: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gpo-jpYFsY0/WST-FhAWHMI/AAAAAAAAFpU/VISsvervHfQ34fSBLM7c1KOIkLMAxxhTwCLcB/s1600/Steppe_clines.png
Those old Kurganist tactics and arguments, i.e. trying to ignore or criticize samples (low coverage) recognized M269 by professional geneticists, considering the steppe signal as exclusive of L51>P312, thinking that it has its origin in the steppes because Z2103 has been found there, justifying the fact that L51>L151 has not been found in Yamnaya or in any other steppe culture by saying that it is a region hardly genetically analyzed (when we have hundreds of ancient DNA samples in the steppes) or by saying that M417 and L51 were “low class people” and had no right to be buried in the kurgans, etc etc, they ceased to be effective a long time ago. So I don't need to read any book signed by Dr Reich, because he has too much imagination and because I am able to analyze the available data independently.
@Rich S.
From the Mathieson paper:
"In a few individuals from southeastern Europe, we find evidence of steppe-related ancestry far earlier (defined here as a mixture of EHG and CHG similar to the genetic signature of individuals of the later Yamnaya; Figure 1B,D). One individua (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dates to 4711-4550 BCE, one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dates to 4550-4450 BCE, and a third individual (I1927) from Verteba cave, associated with the Cucuteni-Trypillian complex, dates to 3619-2936 BCE."
@Rich S “ The chief objection to the otherwise overwhelming evidence that R1b-L51 originated among Indo-European steppe pastoralists is that it has not yet been found in Yamnaya. My answer to that is that the steppe and forest steppe are vast expanses. We’ve barely scratched the surface of them when it comes to ancient DNA testing. Recall also that L51 and Z2103 are phylogenetic brothers under L23, with similar age estimates roughly coterminous with the genesis of PIE. It hardly seems likely that, while both were the sons of L23 fathers, one of them was born on the steppe and was Indo-European, but the other was not.”
Don’t forget about Yamnaya Bulgaria, Y Hungary and the Steppe introgression into late Tripolye
@Rich @Gaska “ If you’ve read David Reich’s book, Who We Are and How We Got Here, you know that ancient DNA testing has revealed that Europeans west of the steppe between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago were a two-way mixture of hunter-gatherer DNA and Anatolian farmer DNA. After 5,000 years ago, a new, third element began to arrive: Ancient North Eurasian DNA, which persists in modern Europeans and persons of European descent. ANE entered the European genome as a component of steppe DNA”
Yep, 50%: 75% in EHG and 35% via CHG, although in later stages it hot diluted due to admixture with EEF.
Interestingly, Reich lab has confirmed that it was the Steppe component which has been responsible for the lightening of skin and hair in post BA Europeans:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091220/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/exd.14142
Especially the book you’ve mentioned above- “who we are snd how we got here” - https://books.google.com/books?id=uLNSDwAAQBAJ
And now we have a new Afanasievo sample (sample ID: C3341, 4815-4526 cal BP), one who belongs to the exact same R1b-M269>L51>L52*/P310* subclade as the Afanasievo sample I6222. So the link to the East European and Pontic Caspian steppes (located in Eastern Europe of course) is confirmed—it was obvious to begin with.
Smyadovo-I2181/21 (4.545-4.450 AC)-4.497 AC-Burial 29-Skeleton in flexed position on the left side-Orientated to the East - 110°- The arms were bent, with the palms in front of the face, hips close to the chest and shins were touching the hips. The length of the skeleton in situ is 0.76 m the femur is 0.45 m long. Anthropological determination: male ~25 years old. Grave good included a flint artefact, two ceramic vessels and beads of serpentine, bone and Spondylus
Probably someone who only has steppe in the brain when reading this description will think that we are talking about a horseman of the steppes, or a chief of the Khvalinsk culture, or a Dniper-Don forager (Suvorovo-Novodanilovka king or prince), but the truth is this is a typical cemetery of the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture, that is, a burial of a Neolithic farmer (old Europe)-If you are interested, you can read the opinion of the chief archaeologist of the excavation, Mr Stefan Chohadzhiev.
And regarding its percentage of steppe ancestry I have already seen more than 20 different models using Khvalynsk, Eneolithic Progress, Yamnaya-Samara etc, in any case the steppe signal is much lower than its percentage of european farmer so, in the worst case, M269 should have been settled in Bulgaria for several generations, which rules out all the neolithic and chalcolithic cultures of the steppes as the origin of this lineage.
Lies, bans? When people are frustrated and have no arguments to prove the dogmas of faith in which they believe, they end up insulting, bothering and attacking those who do not think like them. It has been many years that a sector of these fanatics behave in this way. I will never insult or ask for anyone to be banned from participating in any blog and expressing their opinion.
@ Gaska,
has U152 been found in Cetina samples?
There’s not one R1b-M269 sample without Steppe autosomal DNA, and I2181 has around 28.7% to 46.1% WSH, which is very significant. 4606-4447 calBCE is also around the time of Khvalynsk, Progress/Vonyuchka, and early Sredny Stog, and according to David Anthony, there were Khvalynsk related incursions in Hungary as early as 4400-4200 BCE. Additionally, these early incursions brought Q1b Y-DNA lineages and steppe autosomal DNA.
From “The Eneolithic cemetery at Khvalynsk on the Volga River” (2022): “A migrant from the steppes buried in Hungary at Csongrad-Kettëshalom Bastanya, contemporary with Khvalynsk, had Y-haplogroup Q1b, and autosomal DNA similar to Khvalynsk. This steppe male was part of a diaspora of steppe males into the Danube valley that occurred about 4400–4200 BCE. The Q1a and Q1b patrilines were then mobile and wide-ranging, and at Khvalynsk II had the richest grave at the cemetery.”
@ A
there's one, but it'd best be to check the specific site/ sample context. Overall, Cetina is solidly J2b2. R-U152 is central-western-italic. Indeed, west Balkan groups obtained metal from the Alpine region.
@Romulus
I5737 is not a Mycenaean, he's solidly outside the Aegean/mainland Greek BA cluster.
@Rich S.
I don't disagree with your overall argument but it's disingenuous to project the current distribution of IE languages in Western Europe to the Bronze Age. Iberia is speaking IE because of Celtic and Roman expansions, same for parts of France and there's still the mystery of what languages were spoken in Britain and Ireland prior to Celtic.
while R1b is mainly from ANE it looks like ANE could be ultimately from central western europe:
"Beringia and the settlement of the Western Hemisphere"
V V Pitul'ko, John F Hoffecker, E.Y. Pavlova.
The HE 4 cold interval (40–38 ka) was followed by a protracted interstadial (GI 8) that apparently promoted rapid human population growth in the most biologically productive area of northern Eurasia. People in southwest Europe expanded eastward <38 ka and occupied the central East European Plain 38–32 ka (e.g., Kostenki)20. Their earliest known representatives in Northeast Asia (Ancient North Siberians [ANS]) are found at the Yana River site complex in western arctic Beringia dating to ~34–32 ka21 (see Figure 3). Younger representatives of the same lineage (Ancient North Eurasians [ANE]) are found in southern Siberia during and after the LGM at Mal’ta (~24 ka) and Afontova Gora (~17 ka)
@Rich S.
I made a slight error, MathiesonNature2018 modeled I2181 (Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier) in qpAdm, and these are the results. I2181 has slightly higher proportions of Yamnaya-like ancestry than ANF ancestry (around half of his autosomal makeup is Yamnaya-like).
Supplementary Table 3: qpAdm models with 7-population outgroups:
11.9% (7.8-16%) WHG, 42.0% (30.2-53.8%) ANF, 46.1% (33.7-58.5%) Yamnaya, p-value: 0.951, Yamnaya Z-score: 3.72
Supplementary Table 4: qpAdm models with extended 14-population outgroups:
11.9% (8.1-15.7%) WHG, 39.9% (29.4-50.4%) ANF, 48.1% (38.2-58%) Yamnaya, p-value: 0.960, Yamnaya Z-score: 4.86
@simon stevin
more realistic models are these
Target: BGR_C_o_Smyadovo:I2181___BC_4508___Coverage_6.12%
Distance: 0.0443% / 0.04426436
41.9 HUN_Tisza_LN:I2358___BC_4750___Coverage_31.46%
41.4 ROU_Trestiana_BA:I6184___R-M417___BC_5650___Coverage_19.68%
10.9 BGR_MP_N:I1297___BC_5600___Coverage_10.30%
5.7 FRA_Hauts_De_France_MN:Es97-1___BC_4550___Coverage_26.84%
0.1 ROU_N:I17835___G-PF3177___BC_5750___Coverage_14.50%
Target: BGR_C_o_Smyadovo:I2181___BC_4508___Coverage_6.12%
Distance: 0.0481% / 0.04811636
35.4 HUN_Tisza_LN:I2358___BC_4750___Coverage_31.46%
31.3 BGR_MP_N:I1297___BC_5600___Coverage_10.30%
13.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0122___BC_4838___Coverage_48.69%
8.0 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001___BC_4900___Coverage_76.47%
6.6 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0434___BC_4975___Coverage_5.31%
5.5 FRA_Hauts_De_France_MN:Es97-1___BC_4550___Coverage_26.84%
@A
I am not an expert in Balkan archaeology but I remember reading that Cetina is influenced by the eastern domain of the BB culture. Those samples of U152 in Croatia are abundant in middle Bronze Age and together with L283 can be considered as Proto-Illyrians. Movement of U152 from central Europe to the south (Italy) and southeast (Croatia) is totally reasonable, although I don't know if this marker is still frequent in the western Balkans.The connection between Illyrians and the eastern region of the Italian peninsula also seems evident (Z2103, L283, U152....).
The problem with trying to connect Khvalynsk with Smyadovo is that there is NO M269 in Khvalynsk (the cemetery has already been analyzed twice in depth). So I'm afraid Harvard has to keep looking. And of course there is M269 without a steppe signal, how many years do you think it takes for a given autosomal signal to disappear - or maybe someone thinks that the descendants of R1b-M269 only inherit the DNA through the paternal line?
With the data we currently have, the only male R1b-P312 lineage that can be linked to Indo-European languages is U152 (Latins), and the fact that it is the majority marker among Etruscans and that his brother DF27 is absolutely linked to the Iberians, Tartessians and Aquitanians has further complicated the issue. It is also possible that U106 is somehow linked to Germanic languages, and Z2103 with some Balkan Indo-European language. but at the moment we cannot say for sure. For me, only M417 can be considered as an IE marker (Balto-Slavic) the rest is pure fantasy. Anatolia and Greece have absolutely nothing to do with R1b-M269 (in any of its branches) and paradoxically the spread of IE in Asia seems easier to explain than in Europe.
@Simon Stevin “ The Q1a and Q1b patrilines were then mobile and wide-ranging, and at Khvalynsk II had the richest grave at the cemetery.”
Khvalynsk was a dead end. It didn’t contribute much to any modern pop.
The Q1 WSHG/Paleosiberian hap did not procreate into Yamnaya or CWC. Steppe Maykop may’ve been a potential descendant of Khvalynsk.
The real game changer here was Sredny Stog.
Someone should tell Mathieson that ancient samples dated 4,500 BC should not be modeled with Yamnaya (1,500 years later). Using Progress eneolithic (which is also anachronistic because it is later than Smyadovo) and Khvalynsk, the steppe percentage is around 25%. Maybe he won't mind continuing to make mistakes
Thanks to Simon Stevin, Epoch, and Andrzejewski for your responses to my post. I thought the “Neolithic Farmer” moniker was probably less than accurate. Thanks for confirming that.
It seems to me we’re at the point now where arguments against an IE steppe pastoralist origin for R1b-L51 are anachronistic and quaint, harkening back to about 2005. That’s an attempt to cast them in a positive light.
I5737 is P78 not P58; looks definitely Balkan-Yamnaya/Steppe related lineage
@Norfern
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qyViFiNx6ONvQs80RQ2RqTS8ArXpRtmX/view?usp=sharing
@Gaska
You mentioned that Corded Ware didn’t make it into Western Europe and so cannot be responsible for the introduction of IE language and culture there. Of course, CW made it to the Lower Rhine and to Switzerland, arguably parts of Western Europe, but okay. It is clear that CW Indo-Europeanized Western Europe in the form of its successor, Bell Beaker. Pretty obviously, Beaker was derived from Single Grave Corded Ware. It was Beaker descendants of Corded Ware ancestors who carried IE language, culture, steppe DNA, and Y-DNA R1b-L51 into Britain, France, Italy, and Iberia.
You also claimed that L151 arose in Bohemia. That’s interesting. How did you arrive at that conclusion? No doubt you are aware that Papac et al included a “Pre-CW” population among the samples published with their recent paper. Although the paper included many very early Corded Ware samples that were R1b-L151, none of its pre-CW samples was R1b-L151 or anything ancestral to it. So, L151 arose among Bohemian Corded Ware? If so, where did its ancestors come from? Pretty obviously not from the west.
You really ought to read Reich’s book. Besides being very informative, it is extremely well written and engaging. You also ought to take the time to read some of the old standard works on the Indo-Europeans by Gimbutas, Mallory, Anthony, and even Renfrew. Of course, there’s a lot of new stuff worth reading, as well, but it’s good to have a grounding in the fundamentals first.
@Simon Stevin
Re the new R1b-P310 Afanasievo sample, C3341, that you mentioned, which is the second such Afanasievo sample. Is that from one of these new Southern Arc papers? It’s good news to me. A P310 from Afanasievo is as good as a P310 from Yamnaya.
If I recall that first Afanasievo sample correctly, which I, among others, discussed at Anthrogenica when it first appeared, it was of low coverage, which allowed for somewhat reasonable objections to it. I hope this one is better.
@vasistha, what's going on with Mbuti specifically?
@Davidski / Norfern: @Davidski, most of those twist samples match to the Reich Lab anno with S for the library ID substituted for I. I did some matching before on that when it was a preprint: https://imgur.com/a/aNwxFW1
(Only one that's added to that list above is I4532 who was in the Southern Arc papers, a Roman Byzantine sample from Turkey that matches closest to West Asian Jews).
Here's the scaled file with the IDs where I could match them, and "Not Known" where I couldn't match them (kept in the same order as Davidski uploaded it): https://pastebin.com/WShfH0GV
Looking at closest matches to population averages, for the most part the samples match uncontroversially the population average of the previously released version: https://imgur.com/a/jKQb23u
The mystery libraries samples match closest to a various different populations. S20703 (with 2x libraries) looks like ancient dna from the Arabian Peninsula while S21299 looks like from Northern France Iron Age. S1965 and S1961 likely from some Siberian site. S4795 seems quite specifically a Basque.
Rob
We have three new J1-Z1842 in Kur-Arax. This Y dna
expanded with KA. Today it has excellent correlation with NEC languages. There is now little doubt that NEC people are somehow related to Kur-Arax.
The archaeologic trail is also good.
KAC>Guinchinskaya culture >Kharachoy-Kayakent.
But the case of Hurrians linking to KA becomes problematic with this data. They are very Mesopotamian shifted, even those who are in mountains
Sagona was saying Hurrian culture is different from KA. But maybe an Y dna connection can create a link. I don't know yet.
Alexei Kassian recently made a case of Hurrian-Sumerian connections. This DNA data is more supportive of this latter theory than the NEC connection proposed by Starostin-Diakonov.
Anyone seen that recent article by "Dr. Eran Elhaik" rubbishing 'principle component analysis'?
Can anyone find out wherher the pre-Uralic substrate in Nganasan, the pre-Laplandic and the Volosovo/Combed Ware derived hydronyms and typonyms in the Baltic had anything to so with an ANE language?
@John Thomas “ Anyone seen that recent article by "Dr. Eran Elhaik" rubbishing 'principle component analysis'?”
Nope, although the Erfurt Jews finding makes his Khazarian origins of the Ashkenazi Jews and ‘Knaanim’ a little bit more plausible.
Samuel Andrews and myself have bern suspecting for a while that the Steppe WSH component amongst Eastern Euro Jews was much underrated and underrepresented.
@Aram “ Alexei Kassian recently made a case of Hurrian-Sumerian connections. This DNA data is more supportive of this latter theory than the NEC connection proposed by Starostin-Diakonov.”
My strong hunch is that Sumerians spoke a Barcin farmer language that might’ve been related to LBK speech.
@Andrzejewski
How does that make sense in light of BachoKiro/Oase being ENA/East Eurasians?
@Andrzejewski
“Khvalynsk was a dead end. It didn’t contribute much to any modern pop.”
I said Khvalynsk related not Khvalynsk proper, there’s a difference.
“The Q1 WSHG/Paleosiberian hap did not procreate into Yamnaya or CWC. Steppe Maykop may’ve been a potential descendant of Khvalynsk.
The real game changer here was Sredny Stog.”
Q1 is not a “WSHG” haplogroup. It’s been found in Afontova Gora (ANE) and in EHG/WeRuHG samples (MUR009, I4550, and BER001), and in WSH/PIE derived populations:
Latvia_HG I4550, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 6633-6470 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2a7, Y-DNA: Q1b-Y2700*, MathiesonNature2018
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic I6299, Saratov Oblast, Russia, 5209-4958 calBCE (FRE: 4500-4300 BCE?), mtDNA: U2e2a1, Y-DNA: Q1a-M25>YP1669, AnthonyDeGruyter2022
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic I6740, Saratov Oblast, Russia, 5206-4909 calBCE (FRE: 4500-4300 BCE?), mtDNA: U5a1i, Y-DNA: Q1a-M25, AnthonyDeGruyter2022
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic I0434, Saratov Oblast, Russia, 5198-4853 calBCE (FRE: 4500-4300 BCE?), mtDNA: U4d, Y-DNA: Q1(xM25, xM346), MathiesonNature2015
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic I6407, Saratov Oblast, Russia, 4983-4795 calBCE (FRE: 4500-4300 BCE?), mtDNA: U2e1b, Y-DNA: Q1a-M25>YP1669, AnthonyDeGruyter2022
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic I6739, Saratov Oblast, Russia, 4540-4369 calBCE (FRE: 4500-4300 BCE?), mtDNA: U2e2a1, Y-DNA: Q1a-M25>YP1669, AnthonyDeGruyter2022
VolgaKama_Eneolithic MUR009, Murzikhinsky II, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia, 4500-4350 BCE, mtDNA: U5a1d2, Y-DNA: Q1a-F746, KeyNatEcolEvol2020
WeRuHG BER001, Berendeyevo, Yaroslavl Oblast, Russia, 4447–4259 calBCE, mtDNA: K1, Y-DNA: Q1b-L804*, SaagSciAdv2021
Russia_Afanasievo I3950, Karasuk III, Altai Mountains, Russia, 2879-2632 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2a1a-a*, Y-DNA: Q1b-FT380500, NarasimhanPattersonScience2019
Bohemia_CordedWare_Early DRO001, Droužkovice_20B-2, Bohemia, Czech Republic, 2872-2633 calBCE, mtDNA: H2b, Y-DNA: Q1b-FT380500, PapacSciAdv2021
Russia_Afanasievo I3949, Karasuk III, Altai Mountains, Russia, 2844-2496 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1d2b*, Y-DNA: Q1b-FT380500, NarasimhanPattersonScience2019
Russia_Afanasievo I6714, Karasuk III, Altai Mountains, Russia, 2618-2468 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1d2b*, Y-DNA: Q1b-FT380500, NarasimhanPattersonScience2019
Also, not sure if you’re implying WSHG admixture into Khvalynsk, but that is also false because WSHG has East Asian admixture, which Khvalynsk and Vonyuchka/Progress completely lack.
@Rich S.
The Afanasievo sample C3341 (the second R1b-L52* sample we have next to I6222) is from this paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk1534?fbclid=IwAR1Yt-Ja6RBi-Klxr4PpIbivotB7l0UwHrmyGwEd59udcReRRC_JEe8zBb8&
@ Alex
I would reckon this guy is part of Balkan late-IE stock which led to Greek
Mycenaean developed somewhat later, within southern Greece itself
@ Aram
Thanks, agree.
Seems like NWC, on the other hand, cam down from the mountains fairly late
Hurro- Sumerian makes sense too
@ RichS
I think you’re over-rating Reich’s book tbh
@ Aram
Who do you link Majkop with ? Kartvellian
Where is the Dzudzuana sample?
@Simon Stevin “ Also, not sure if you’re implying WSHG admixture into Khvalynsk, but that is also false because WSHG has East Asian admixture, which Khvalynsk and Vonyuchka/Progress completely lack.”
There was some Kelteminar-like introgression into both Khvalynsk (minor) and Steppe Maykop. As far as I can remember, the Q1a guys in Khvalynsk had a lower status. I think that R1b, I1 and to a lesser extent R1a were the ruling elite, same as Dnieper Donetsk and Sredny Stog.
Yanyuchka and Progress, AFAICR had no Q1a.
Also, it’s interesting that Botai (archeological) Culture had mostly East Asian ydna haps with a majority ANE adna, whereas Yenisseyans are overwhelmingly Q1a while being 85% East Asian. That’s the reason why I believe that Botai spoke nothing like a Paleosiberian/Native American/Aleut ilk of a language.
@Tigran “ How does that make sense in light of BachoKiro/Oase being ENA/East Eurasians?”
Well, this is what @old europe wrote, quote:
“ The HE 4 cold interval (40–38 ka) was followed by a protracted interstadial (GI 8) that apparently promoted rapid human population growth in the most biologically productive area of northern Eurasia. People in southwest Europe expanded eastward <38 ka and occupied the central East European Plain 38–32 ka (e.g., Kostenki)20. Their earliest known representatives in Northeast Asia (Ancient North Siberians [ANS]) are found at the Yana River site complex in western arctic Beringia dating to ~34–32 ka21 (see Figure 3). Younger representatives of the same lineage (Ancient North Eurasians [ANE]) are found in southern Siberia during and after the LGM at Mal’ta (~24 ka) and Afontova Gora (~17 ka)”
————————
Who knows? Maybe Tianyuan and any basal East Asian/North American Native has deep origins in Paleolithic Europe?
@Sam / @Andrezjewski: Interestingly, Reich lab has confirmed that it was the Steppe component which has been responsible for the lightening of skin and hair in post BA Europeans
While Davidski doesn't like the phenotype discussion, I'll note that the new Lazaridis paper gives Hirisplex results for lots of populations in supplement S5 of the main paper and the historical paper.
To compare early Steppe_EMBA vs Middle_Neolithic European farmers of the same time period, I took the results for the groups from roughly 3000-2500 BCE.
For MN Euro that is Switzerland_Late_Neolithic and Spain_Copper_Age with 35 results. For Steppe_EMBA, it's Afanasievo, Poltavka, MDA_Catacomb_MBA, Yamnaya_Kalmykia, Yamnaya_Samara, Catacomb, and Caucasus_Yamnaya which total 31 results. So it's a fairly straight comparison in sample size.
Here's a link to the results: https://imgur.com/a/MjUvCHw
Overall it seems that both groups are fairly more similar to each other than later people, and are darker. To the extent either group edges a lighter phenotype, it's the MN Euro farmers with a slightly higher frequency of lighter skin, brown hair rather than black hair (both groups have only like one blond each detected), and blue eyes. But both groups are majority dark in the hair and eye traits and majority have the olive skinned intermediate pigmentation.
Lazaridis supplement also has this to say about Beakers "Interestingly, light pigmentation phenotype prevalence was nominally higher in the Beaker group than in Corded Ware than in the Yamnaya cluster (where as we have seen it was rare), in reverse relationship to steppe ancestry, and thus inconsistent with the theory that steppe groups were spreading this set of phenotypes.". It does seem like the steppe admixed groups are lighter in the Hirisplex inferred traits than the root steppe cultures.
This is the comparison between Beaker and Corded Ware from Laz's results: https://imgur.com/a/Jo9C8Gx
It does seem that the Corded Ware have more dark (eye/hair) traits here. The sample size is unbalanced, so minority traits will crop up more among the larger Beaker sample, but the average does seem different.
This is all pretty inconsistent with light pigmented steppe men invading among darker European farmers. However the sign of selection of lighter traits in the more farmer admixed cultures is consistent with Marnetto's finding of an association that lighter pigmentation alleles tend to be linked to more local ancestry across the genome with EEF. Probably as I guessed there, the steppe men, as they entered Europe, had some mild bias to select lighter EEF females?
So the steppe migration was responsible, but the steppe component was not.
Also Andrezjewski:
Lazaridis's paper also notes that the post-Corded Ware MBA groups in the east (that under the convention interpretation gave rise to Indo-Iranians) were lighter: "Blue eyes were not inferred for all 19 individuals of the Yamnaya cluster examined (Table S4) and for 1/15 individuals of the Afanasievo culture. They were found at a higher frequency (~29-55%) at the later Middle-to-Late Bronze Age samples of the Srubnaya, Sintashta cultures and at Krasnoyarsk in Russia and Kazakhstan (Aktogai and Maitan Alakul), i.e., populations with elevated Anatolian/European farmer ancestry. ... Similarly, blond hair was inferred for 1/34 individuals of the combined Yamnaya and Afanasievo cluster, but reached ~14-60% in the aforementioned later steppe groups.".
Direct Yamnaya related pulses into Greece and Armenia may not have given rise to any lighter change (particularly since the admixture was relatively small?) while the movement through Europe and also back into the steppe by post-Corded_Ware groups may have changed the phenotypes there.
(Finally about pale skin, the distinctive present day North European phenotype, they note: "As for the category of pale skin that is very limited in samples from the Southern Arc as a whole (1.7%), it appears to have been rare in all the studied samples in general, exceeding 1/4 in frequency only in Medieval Germany," (37%) " Saxons from England, " (40%) "Central European outliers from Late Antique Italy," (40%), " Pre-Christian Icelanders," (29%) " with the earliest high frequency found in Bronze Age Latvians" (500 BCE) " at 37.5%".)
@Matt “ This is all pretty inconsistent with light pigmented steppe men invading among darker European farmers. However the sign of selection of lighter traits in the more farmer admixed cultures is consistent with Marnetto's finding of an association that lighter pigmentation alleles tend to be linked to more local ancestry across the genome with EEF. Probably as I guessed there, the steppe men, as they entered Europe, had some mild bias to select lighter EEF females?”
But maybe it stems from admixing with a much more lighter pop further west - WHG, ANF, EEF - that could’ve been *much* lighter than both Steppe and MN farmer groups. I would’ve bet GAC as my first choice, unless it was found out about the Katorice mass graves - most of the buried were “darkish”.
Or that from some reason there was a gradual lightening process taking place among EEF pops between MN and EBA.
I would resoundingly rule out SHG or Narva HG admixture as responsible to the aforementioned process, since their share in post-BA Europeans is marginal at best.
@Matt
I don’t trust Hirisplex prediction for the ancient population's pigmentation. And I also do not buy Marnetto's conclusion that Anatolian Farmers are responsible for blondism and blue eyes in modern Europeans. WHGs were nearly uniformly blue-eyed whereas ANF were mostly dark-eyed but according to Marnetto not WHG but ANF transmitted blue eyes to Europeans.
"This is all pretty inconsistent with light pigmented steppe men invading among darker European farmers."
The suggestion that ANFs are responsible for blond hair and blue eyes, is inconsistent with what we can observe with our own eyes, in reality, majority or rich in ANF/EEF are everywhere typically dark-eyed and haired past and present.
Andrzej; I think there may be kozysce gac data in lazaridis table too.
"Wise"_Dragon: if you wish to discard the Hirisplex results showing for ex the significantly lighter Sintashta culture you may do so. However, I think the mainstream will not do so. I'm not really big on the whole "I don't need no ancient DNA 'cos I seen them Sardinians wit' m' own eyes!!!" type approach though to refute this. Everything in the mainstream suggests selection happened. The most simple locii like SLC45A2 and OCA2 are not differentiated between MN farmers and steppe emba. Your argument here makes me think Davidski's version of your screen name may be accurate.
Also "Wise"-Dragon, Marnetto found that light eye associates variants did have enriched WHG background (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.03.454888v1.full) so your own example about how it was supposedly wrong is incorrect. How you manage the mental gymnastics of accepting Hirisplex when it comes to WHG light eyes but reject it for other topics I also cannot guess.
@Andrezjewski, incorporating the Koszyce GAC into the comparison: https://imgur.com/a/gGVnkUV
It does look like GAC tend to have a lighter result than what I've grouped as West Euro MN (really Iberian LNCA + Switzerland LN) or the Steppe_EMBA. No frequency of black hair, higher % blue eyes than other groups.
Albeit the problem is this is based on only 6 samples in a closely related community in a mass grave. But it is plausible that the GAC had a lighter pigmentation.
@Simon Stevin
Thanks!
I saw that sample I6222 from Wang et al has been confirmed by FTDNA's lab as R1b-P310. There's a post over at Molgen that has sample C3341 from Kumar et al as R1b-L151, so that's even better.
Anyway, two from Afanasievo that are at least R1b-P310 is pretty good to me. That's as good as a couple in the Yamnaya column.
Hello. There are three Saltovo-Mayaki samples: SA190, DA189 and DA188.
There is only DA190 with coordinates.
Could you make and post G25 coordinates of DA189 and DA188 to complete the list of Saltovo-Mayaki samples?
It's interesting that the ultra-rare *M269 is found 15% among modern
Zoroastrians, and Assyrians, and amongst Persians. Iranian/S. Caucauses origin of M269 cannot be ruled out with such limited sampling of ancient DNA.
You're a total crackpot.
There's no chance that M269 originated in Iran or any part of the Near East.
Ancient DNA clearly shows that all major clades of R1b originated in Eastern Europe.
There's no R1b in the Near East until the Copper Age.
The ~3,000 BCE R1b-V1636 in the Arslantepe Royal Tomb is the earliest R1b in the Near East.
And that came from the steppe.
Haha.
Post a Comment