Even though the Yamnaya culture probably originated in what is now Ukraine, the earliest Yamnaya samples currently available are from the modern-day Samara region of Russia. They mostly date to around 3,000 BCE. I can analyze their ancestry using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) data.
Target: RUS_Yamnaya_Samara
Distance: 3.2816% / 0.03281581
81.0 RUS_Progress_En
14.4 UKR_N
4.6 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Late
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
The above results show exactly zero ancestry from West Asia. Admittedly, both RUS_Progress_En and HUN_Vinca_MN are European ancients with significant
West Asian-related ancestry. However, this ancestry is very distantly West Asian-related, and, for instance, it almost certainly has no relevance to the Indo-Anatolian homeland debate.
The Afanasievo culture of Central Asia is regarded to have been an early offshoot of the Yamnaya culture. A good number of Afanasievo samples are available, so let's have a look if their results match those of the Yamnaya folks. And indeed they do, since BGR_C is very similar to HUN_Vinca_MN.
Target: RUS_Afanasievo
Distance: 3.4055% / 0.03405499
84.0 RUS_Progress_En
11.4 UKR_N
4.6 BGR_C
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.0 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Late
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
To try this at home, stick the PCA data in the text file
here into the relevant fields
here and cranck up the "Cycles" to 4X. You should see exactly zero ancestry from West Asia every time.
I can, more or less, reproduce these results with tools that are routinely used in peer reviewed papers. Below is a table of mixture models produced with the qpAdm software. I set the pass threshold to P ≥0.05, which is an arbitrary value, but the pattern is clear. The full output from each qpAdm run is available
here.
Importantly, qpAdm needs to be fed the relevant "right pop" outgroups to be able to discriminate accurately between reference populations.
right pops:
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
Levant_Natufian
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
HUN_Starcevo_N
HUN_Koros_N
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
Iberia_Southeast_Meso
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_West_Siberia_HG
RUS_Boisman_MN
MNG_North_N
TWN_Hanben
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
So, for instance, if one were to use in this role the modern-day Mbuti people, as opposed to, say, the ancient hunter-gatherers of Shum Laka, one might find that many models look statistically better than they should. And then one might also find that the Yamnaya samples carry significant West Asian ancestry.
Actually, I'm not opposed to the idea of some West Asian ancestry in Yamnaya. Indeed, considering the extraordinary mobility of the Yamnaya people and their Eneolithic predecessors on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, it would be unusual if they didn't come into close contact and mix, to some degree, with their neighbors from West Asia.
However, based on everything I've seen, from uniparental markers to different types of autosomal genetic tests, it's clear to me that there's no substantial West Asian ancestry in any Yamnaya samples, except for an outlier female from modern-day Ozera, Ukraine (see
here).
Admittedly, ancient DNA does have a habit of throwing curveballs, so I'm eagerly awaiting new Eneolithic samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, particularly those associated with the Yamnaya-like Sredni Stog culture, to help finally settle this issue.
Believe it or not, a contact recently sent me a supposedly unpublished female sample from a ~4,200 BCE Sredni Stog burial in modern-day Igren, east central Ukraine. So what the hell, let's assume for the time being that this sample is genuine. This is how Miss Sredni Stog behaves in my PCA mixture test.
Target: UKR_Sredni_Stog
Distance: 4.0769% / 0.04076877
75.6 RUS_Progress_En
17.8 UKR_N
6.6 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.0 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Late
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Wow, just wow. Have we actually found Miss Proto-Yamnaya? What does qpAdm have to say in the matter?
UKR_Sredni_Stog
HUN_Vinca_MN 0.034±0.028
RUS_Progress_En 0.796±0.045
UKR_N 0.170±0.034
P-value 0.41088
Again, this is an excellent match with the results from my PCA test, especially if we take into account the standard errors. However, with qpAdm it's also possible to model this individual's ancestry as part West Asian.
UKR_Sredni_Stog
AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN 0.056±0.039
RUS_Progress_En 0.761±0.061
UKR_N 0.183±0.036
P-value 0.465667
As I pointed out above, it's plausible for such people to harbor some West Asian ancestry, but I'm very sceptical that this is really the case here, despite the rather solid qpAdm statistical fit. That's because UKR_Sredni_Stog is not a high quality sample, and, from my experience, qpAdm often has problems analyzing fine scale ancestry in singletons or even small groups that show excess DNA damage and/or offer much less than a million markers.
See also...
Dear Iosif, about that ~2%
But Iosif, what about the Phrygians?
370 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 370 of 370Or rather than uninformed, they make you look dishonest.
@davidski
"It's not CHG you crackpot.
It's a different line of hunter-gatherers."
Sure, conjure more more garbage to make your ancestry local lmao.
Now, here are actual qpAdm rotating runs on Admixtools2 R for Khvalynsk_Eneolithic.
F2 was extracted with maxmiss=1 (allsnps: YES), adjust_pseudohaploid=TRUE. 21 rotating sources/references were used.
210 (21C2) 2-source models and 1330 (21C3) 3-source models were run. Results of those rotating runs are here
R output Screengrab: https://imgur.com/a/UN7bxXM
The only working 2 source models for Khvalysnk are:
EHG + [18% SehGabi_C or 17% Seh_Gabi_LN or 22% Sarazm_En]
EHG + CHG is REJECTED.
This perfectly explains how mtDna J1b1a1 (first found at Geoksyur 3000bce) made its way into Corded ware and bell beakers. J1b1a1 itself is formed around 4200-3000bce as per yfull.
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/J1b1a1/
This also explains how mtDna W3a1 (first found at Tepe Anau, and subclade W3a1b slightly later at ShahrSokhta BA1 and BA2) made its way into Yamnaya (W3a1a), Czech Cordedware, Germany_bellbeaker, Unetice etc (W3a1a, W3a1c, W3a1d).
When all the papers are now proposing 2 flows from the south into steppe, why are you selling garbage to your readers of some 'exotic HG' autochthonous origin? Can't bear external ancestry in your own blood?
@Simon_W
Thanks, I made most of the changes.
I don't get the Anc thing myself, but it's in that paper in a big way, so people might be looking for the Anc.
@copperaxe
Lol, I think I'm up to date. Sorry I don't have access to the magical exotic HGs (suspiciously similar to CHG/IranN/Sarazm) which Davidski has access to lol.
Allentoft et al preprint
"Interestingly, two herein reported ~7,300-year-old imputed
genomes from the Middle Don River region in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Golubaya Krinitsa, NEO113 & NEO212) derive ~20-30% of their ancestry from a source cluster of hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP)"
"We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as a mixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle Don River region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus(Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) "
From Southern Arc paper
"These results shift the quest for the ancestral origins of a component of Yamnaya ancestry firmly to the south of the steppe and the eastern wing of the Southern Arc. Determining the proximate source of the two movements into the steppe from the south will depend on further sampling across the Anatolia-Caucasus-Mesopotamia-Zagros area where populations with variations of the three components existed. "
"...emergence of the distinctive Yamnaya cluster, which we show has an autosomal signal of admixture dating to the mid-5th millennium BCE"
Pray tell where the presence of exotic local neolithic HGs are mentioned in these papers.
@vAsiSTha
You're missing a couple of important facts:
- those CHG-related hunter-gatherers from the Middle Don are far north of the Caucasus and already mixed, so there must be other hunter-gatherers south of them even more CHG-related
- Yamnaya doesn't actually have any Progress ancestry, with one important difference between Yamnaya and Progress is that Yamnaya lacks the Siberian admixture that Progress has, and this Siberian admixture is what you're picking up with your anachronistic models with the totally irrelevant Sarazm_En.
So grow a brain.
@vAsiSTha
You left out a quote from Allentoft, maybe you just forgot eh? Notice the last sentence:
"Our results thus document genetic contact between populations from the Caucasus and the Steppe region as early as 7,300 years ago, providing documentation of continuous admixture prior to the advent of later nomadic Steppe cultures, in contrast to recent hypotheses, and also further to the west than previously reported."
Take a stab what they are referring to with "recent hypotheses".
"Pray tell where the presence of exotic local neolithic HGs are mentioned in these papers."
Well genetic articles typically discuss the data they had acquired for the study as well as previously published findings and data. If these articles haven't sampled the afformentioned areas, how would they even habe genomes to discuss?
If Caucasian-related populations were north of the Caucasus in the mesolithic, then they weren't "exotic" in the slightest. It is Harvard who tries to make them exotic, I'm claiming these type of populations spread northwards after the Khvalylian deluge, which is archaeologically attested by the way.
"This perfectly explains how mtDna J1b1a1 (first found at Geoksyur 3000bce) made its way into Corded ware and bell beakers. J1b1a1 itself is formed around 4200-3000bce as per yfull.
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/J1b1a1/"
Where does it say 4200-3000 BCE? It says 4700-3500 BP on yfull. Just a small difference of 2k years... By the way, Yfull mtdna formation/tmrca dates are all out of whack because mtdna and ydna have completely different mutation rates. I'm not sure which scenario is more concerning, that you did not know this or that you did and still presented it as evidence? Either way not a good look...
@Tom
'@Simon Stevin
Wasn't R-DF19 found in pre-Germanic Holland (south and north)? I highly doubt it's associated with proto-Germanic. Probably more associated with a now extinct Beaker language. Nordwestblock maybe.'
I wouldn't say that these things are mutually exclusive. Proto-Germanic developed and expanded in the IA. Y-hgs associated with its expansion have to have existed somewhere in the BA. I think while R1b-U106 and I1 might be considered sort of "prime" Germanic Y-hgs, it's possible for several others to have been carried by PGmc-speakers and be associated with Germanic migration, depending on where we find them.
I don't think we can exclude Y-hgs typically associated with Celts from this list, considering:
1. The south-to-north radiation of R1b-U152 and G2a-L497 into Scandinavia.
2. The presence of both lineages in Wielbark males, i.e., proto-East Germanics, fresh from Sweden, with no recent Celtic admixture. (I raise this because it addresses a possible counter-argument to point 1, that such Y-hgs in modern Scandinavians might result solely from post-migration era Celtic admixture).
3. The Celtic loanwords in proto-Germanic (and more southerly material influence on what would become the Jastorf and Nordic IA zones; note that Celtic loanwords include "iron" and "byrnie", i.e., terms for new military technology!).
Ultimately, I find it likely that PGmc formed in what is more or less the region of the Jastorf culture, which is continuous with the southwestern region of the Nordic BA zone, and that some of its speakers' ancestry was derived from Nordwestblock individuals and even very early Celts.
It's worthy of note that we see typically Celt-associated lineages in Scandinavians and Swede-like Wielbark males, alongside Celtic loans into PGmc, but that we don't see any Finnic loans into PGmc despite the presence of Tarand graves in EIA Sweden, and nor do we see any Y-hg N-L550 or R1a-Z284, or Estonia_IA-like component in West Germanics, despite these things being present in Scandinavia, I think.
@vAsiSTha
I'm not sure why you think that EHG+CHG failing as a model is a valid point, when everyone is telling you that it is not actual CHG, as in Kotias/Satsurbalia themselves, that is the origin of this CHG-related signal on the steppe, but rather... Just that, something CHG-related. It's clearly something approximately like CHG, Sarazm_en, Iran_N, etc., but not actually any of these things, exactly.
The presence of CHG-related ancestry on the mesolithic steppe is clear.
Most EHGs have a degree of CHG-like admixture in them.
There are Karelian--as in, North-western Russia, like next to Finland--mesolithic EHGs with Y-hg J1, which isn't from ANE and isn't from WHG. Check out this subclade - https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-F2306/ - formed 6300 ybp, TMRCA 1250 ybp, with modern-day Finnish members.
There's a mesolithic north Russian lady--kar001--from this study - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7817100/ who carries the rather West Asian mt-hg T2a1b, which is also found in neolithic Ukraine, the eneolithic southern steppe, Yamnaya, and Corded Ware. Apparently she models as being approximately 15% CHG-like in G25 and qpAdm but I've not verified this myself.
And Davidski has already cheekily alluded to even more relevant HGs from Russia, further north than Progress/Vonyuchka, who are relatively rich in CHG-like ancestry, which will be very interesting to see released.
But even without these unreleased samples, there is clearly mesolithic ancestry in mesolithic HGs in not only the western steppe area, but even further north than it, as well, which comes from mesolithic or upper paleolithic West Asia. Of course, this doesn't preclude already-present, mesolithic-old, CHG-related ancestry in Eastern Europe from having been reinforced by later, additional CHG-related ancestry, though it remains the case that positive evidence for such later reinforcement remains lacking.
@Gaska
'I was telling you that L51 would never appear in Yamnaya culture. Then, like today, I was right and you are still spouting the same nonsense.'
For sure, there's still no R1b-L51 in any sampled Yamnaya culture individuals. But we do have it in the autosomally-identical and contemporaneous Afanasievo culture, and very-close-to-autosomally-identical and also contemporaneous Corded Ware culture, don't we? So clearly R1b-L51 was present in something directly ancestral to all three of these things.
'In Spain we have M269 without steppe ancestry what happens is that your mental block forces you to ignore everything that contradicts the dogma of faith that you try to defend.'
Demonstrate it. What sample are you referring to?
Personally, I don't know where R1b-M269 originated. I think "somewhere in Eastern Europe" is about as precise as I'd offer. Could be near the Baltic sea, could be the Balkan peninsula, could be the Pontic-Caspian steppe, could be the Russian forest-steppe zone - Eastern Europe is a pretty big case. What it is readily apparent that R1b-M269>L51 spread across northern, central and western Europe with a ton of western steppe ancestry in the Corded Ware culture, and R1b-M269>Z2103 is clearly associated with Yamnaya expansion.
You've been shown models of that Smyadovo outlier demonstrating that it carries western steppe ancestry and you can't--or at least won't--raise any meaningful counter to that point. It's literally the only pre-BA Balkans sample with R1b-M269, it's from right next to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, barely outside the steppe area (if at all?), it has a clear pull away from its contemporary neighbours towards contemporary steppe-dwellers, and it aligns with archaeologists like Gimbutas suggesting that there were introgressions from the steppe into the Balkans around this time. I am actually in disbelief that someone who's clearly not unintelligent can't see the writing on the wall, regarding this.
'Regarding L51>P312, Kurganist logic is wonderful, it allows a stubborn observer to conclude that the most overwhelmingly Df27 peoples spoke Proto-Italian Celtic when it is absolutely proven that they spoke Non-Indo-European languages.'
Since you seem to like answering questions by asking a question of your own rather than simply being direct: What do you suppose LN and EBA populations rich in R1b-L51>P310>P312>L21, R1b-L51>P310>P312>U152, and the closely related R1b-L51>P310>U106, living in North-western and Central Europe, spoke? bear in mind these are all clearly Corded Ware-derived lineages, all found in Bell Beaker culture populations which sit on clines radiating from Dutch Bell Beakers. What do you think were the common lineages among the BA ancestors of the speakers of proto-Celtic, proto-Italic, and proto-Germanic?
As a non-rhetorical question, what do you make of the linguistic affiliation of Lusitanian?
For what it's worth, I think it's clear that some Bell Beaker groups ended up speaking non-IE languages due to varying integration with non-IE peoples. The Basques and Etruscans are clear examples. But to argue that R1b-L51-bearing peoples weren't a vector for IE language into Western Europe takes some real mental gymnastics.
'Again calm yourself down, and be very careful with the words you use when referring to me because all these conversations are recorded and you are a specialist in insulting people who do not think like you. My patience has a limit.'
Personally, I don't think we should be throwing the sorts of insults and comments around that we are, but let's be honest, you're not excluded from the group of commentators being less-than-polite in these discussions. I know it's not directed at me at all, but come on, what's this comment even about? Your patience has a limit? We're a bunch of spergs talking about the DNA of dead people on the internet, like let's not get silly about things.
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
I'm reposting this old comments on David's post from this August
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/08/mediterranean-pca-update.html
Waldemar posted this on Anthrogenica
Y-chromosome analysis of Goths from the Maslomecz group cemeteries in southeastern Poland
The Goths were an important part of European history from the 1st to the 8th century AD. For many years, various hypotheses have emerged among researchers regarding their origin and dispersal. Unknown is also the scale of assimilation of the local people they encountered during their migrations across Europe. The aim of this study was to determine the origin and genetic structure of the male lineages of the Goths from the Masłomęcz group who inhabited the Hrubieszów Basin (southeastern Poland) from the 2nd -4th century AD using Y chromosome. The material for analysis consisted of skeletal fragments collected from 43 individuals. Samples with the highest endogenous DNA content were sequenced directly to low genome coverage. For the others, after sex determination, we performed targeted enrichment with a custom panel of 10k Y chromosome SNPs. This allowed us to determine the Y chromosome haplogroup of 18 individuals.
A total of 14 individuals (78%) represents the Y chromosome haplogroups most closely related to the Scandinavian population. Thirteen individuals were classified into subclades of haplogroup I1, four to haplogroup R1a and one to haplogroup J2b. Haplogroup I1 currently occurs mainly among people living in Scandinavia. Ancient DNA analyses showed show that I1 has been present in the Scandinavian population since at least the Bronze Age. One of the individuals belonging to haplogroup R1a-Z284 belongs to a subclade found almost exclusively in the ancient and modern Scandinavians. The remaining four individuals belong to haplogroups R1a and J2b most probably represent the effect of assimilation of local people, met by Goths during their numerous war expeditions and settlement expansion.
The above makes me inclined to believe the U152 in Wielbark is from a local source.
"and nor do we see any Y-hg N-L550 or R1a-Z284, or Estonia_IA-like component in West Germanics, despite these things being present in Scandinavia, I think."
Apparently there is a Z284 in a Lombard and the Anglo-Saxon paper has R-Z284 at Sedgeford, Polhill and Drantum. It certainly looks pan-Germanic given its presence in ancient East, West and North Germanics.
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos,
You left out some crucial facts. Starting with linguistics, read Kallio, Jastorf is totally debunked as the origin of PGmc, just to mention there are 500+ loanwords in Finnic and Sami representing all the developments of Germanic. The Celtic loanwords in Germanic are mainly dated before the Jastorf Civilization. One faulty "fact" repeated is the six (6) tarand graves in Central Scandinavia, would be expected after centuries of the trade networks cross the Baltic Sea. Does not explain anything.
From aDNA we have zero data, all Germanic tribes that migrated south pick up more or less Celtic aDNA.
Basically, there is not one single scientific valid data that supports that Jastorf was Germanic. The whole idea started with Gustav Schwantes association of archaeology with the Urgermanen in 1911. This was an argument in the border dispute with Denmark, highly disputed already then. At one point the Germanists included the hole of Scandinavia in the Urheimat, that' s just funny today. This became the mainstream idea and was repeated by Mallory and other Germanists.
Until today, hundreds or maybe thousands of studies have repeated this "fact" and I think it is time to finally put this idea to rest, it's debunked and outdated.
@vAsiSTha
I should have done this first and included it in one comment, apologies, but take a look at the following to point towards CHG-related ancestry in mesolithic Eastern European HGs:
https://imgur.com/a/ovfWZ6Y
There's some playing around here that could be done, but we've got a load of Russian and Ukrainian mesolithic and neolithic HGs, modelled as a mix of WHG, ANE, and CHG. I also included a version adding in ROU_meso, and a version where a load of CHG-similar-ish samples are included alongside CHG.
The latter test shows that CHG seems preferred to anything like Sarazm_en or Geokysur_en, or Iran_N, in every case except a UKR_N outlier who seems to like Iran_N.
The former shows that CHG-related ancestry is present to a greater or lesser degree in the majority, or all, of the samples. It's possible that ROU_meso, being clearly part EHG-related itself, is eating up a bunch of CHG-related admixture that's present, and so its exclusion in this model is likely preferable despite giving a tighter fit due to proximity.
If we exclude it, we see:
- Between 0 and 8% CHG-like ancestry in our "core" EHGs (Samara, Sidelkino, Karelia).
- About 14% in that kar001 lady I mentioned above.
- 7-10% in UKR_meso.
- 7-13% in UKR_N.
- About 68% in that one UKR_N outlier.
Now, obviously the 7-14% CHG-related ancestry in most of these Ukrainian samples alone can't explain the level of CHG-related ancestry in Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Afanasievo, but again, this is just clear evidence of this ancestry already being present in lesser and greater degrees in mesolithic Eastern Europe.
The UKR_N outlier may be a clue.
As has been alluded to, it seems there are as-yet unsampled (or at least, as-yet unreleased) samples from the Middle Don area, or thereabouts, with high levels of this CHG-related ancestry, chronologically and geographically relevant to the formation of the steppe_emba cluster's EHG-CHG balance. Until we see them, we haven't seen them, but their suggested existence cannot be controversial or some ludicrous claim of a magic population, when we clearly have mesolithic-old variation in levels of CHG-related ancestry in Eastern European hunter-gatherers.
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos-
I think you should reread all the posts I have sent here, because you are insisting on issues that have already been addressed and that I will not repeat again (Afanasievo contaminated sample, ATP3, non-existence of CHG in Smyadovo). The only thing that has become clear to me is that you have no idea where M296 originated. Regarding the language spoken by the BB culture I have already said many times that in my opinion the possibility that it was Indo-European or any of its branches is absolutely zero (the genetic continuity of P312 in Iberia, southern France and Italy is the best existing proof), to pretend otherwise is mental gymnastics. And regarding my patience I have only reminded a Kurganist hooligan that all these conversations are recorded, that's all.
@Gaska
Fair enough that I might have missed a comment of yours regarding the Afansievo sample. I've Ctrl+Fed through the comments here for 'Afanasievo' and not found anything about any contaminated samples, but I'd be glad to look wherever you're willing to point me. But that aside, you still haven't addressed the point of R1b-L51 in autosomally Yamnaya-like Corded Ware. You still haven't addressed the point that no middle neolithic or earlier, steppe-lacking farmer samples carry R1b-L51.
You still haven't actually addressed the CHG/steppe signal in Smyadovo beyond repeatedly saying "someone else said no, and I can't be bothered to address the clear evidence that actually it does". Do you have an actual suggestion for why an eneolithic steppe-adjacent Balkanite has such a clear pull towards the steppe cluster, and models as partly steppe-descended? Occam's razor, for me, would nudge me towards saying, "it has ancestry from the eneolithic steppe", but if you have an alternate suggestion, I'm all ears. Of course, even if this sample does have ancestry from the eneolithic steppe, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the steppe is the origin of R1b-M269. Maybe, maybe, this sample's R1b-M269 comes from an EEF paternal ancestor of his, and his putative steppe ancestry is not from his paternal line. But then we must ask ourselves, where all the other R1b-M269-carrying EEFs are, and how an EEF lineage came to be the predominant lineage of the Yamnaya culture and Afanasievo culture, and one of the primary lineages of the early Corded Ware culture. Not impossible, sure, but it seems... a tad unlikely, no?
Your opinion regarding R1b-P312 is noted, but I also note that you're alone in having it. Iberia and Southern France are very cool, but what of Italy? What Y-hg lineages are predominant among early Italics and Celts? And Germanics? What genetic continuity in Italy are you talking about? Both IA Italics (IE-speaking) and IA Etruscans (non-IE-speaking) are rich in both R1b-U152 (clearly a Beaker lineage, of CWC provenance) and G2a (clearly an old lineage from middle neolithic farmers), and both autosomally similar in being of mixed steppe (from BBC) and local farmer ancestry. I think this makes it clear that BBC ancestry can end up in two groups, in approximately the same proportion, with different linguistic affiliations.
It would be daft to insist that Y-hgs or autosomal proportions must map 1:1:1 with linguistic affiliation, with Italics and Etruscans being an obvious case of this principle. Are you suggesting that because there were non-IE-speaking groups with partial BBC ancestry in Iberia, that BBC groups in Central Europe and North-western Europe must have also been non-IE-speaking? This seems like a very poor line of reasoning, if it is what you're arguing in favour of, but then, maybe it isn't, and I have the wrong end of the stick.
What is it that you think on the matter? Where do you think the roots of Celtic, Italic and Germanic (and potentially extinct IE languages in North-western Europe like Belgic) lie. Honestly, my ears and mind are open.
@Simon Stevin
Your posts are very informative and well written. They also have the power of the facts behind them, which gives them power.
Thanks.
@Gaska
I am determined to be kinder to you than I have been, but your propensity for lying really makes that difficult. For example, you claim there is ancient M269 in Spain with no steppe ancestry. That’s just not true, and you know it, which makes it a lie, but not your first.
Anyway, I suspect David might eventually get tired of this nonsense, but, in the meantime, it’s kind of fun, because you’re so easily overcome, and it helps me to acquire patience and tolerance. I do need to work on being nicer to you. That’s difficult, but it’s good exercise for my character. Not sure I can do it, since you don’t argue in good faith (i.e., you lie like a son of a gun), but I’ll try.
@Gaska
“Tons of EHG and steppe ancestry in Smyadovo?“
Yeah we have an outlier from that site (I2181, you may have heard of him), and he has relatively significant levels of steppe admixture (EHG +CHG); Mathieson et al., 2018 found that I2181 has relatively significant amounts of EHG and Yamnaya-like ancestry. I’ve linked Mathieson et al., 2018 to you several times; since you blindly believe the “professionals,” you should give it a reading.
“I was telling you that L51 would never appear in Yamnaya culture. Then, like today, I was right and you are still spouting the same nonsense.”
We don’t have any L51 in Yamnaya currently, however, we have L51>P310* in two Afanasievo samples (I6222 and C3341), one of which is brand new (C3341). Not one M269 bearing sample lacks steppe ancestry, so you have no argument anyway.
“most overwhelmingly Df27 peoples spoke Proto-Italian Celtic when it is absolutely proven that they spoke Non-Indo-European languages. It is going to be very difficult for you to overcome this disease.Don't worry this is only the third step in the final demolition of steppe theory in its relationship with M269>L51 and you are going to have the privilege of being on the list of the funniest kurganists.”
Yeah not one argument in there or piece of evidence. P312’s progenitor is L151, and the earliest L151 bearing males are from Early CW Bohemia sites, and Corded Ware is Indo-European, so even though M269 bearing proto-Basques and Iberians didn’t speak IE langauges, their distant paternal fore fathers certainly did.
“In Spain we have M269 without steppe ancestry what happens is that your mental block forces you to ignore everything that contradicts the dogma of faith that you try to defend.”
Citation needed, which ancient sample? Or are you just making crap up again? 100% the latter, and I’ve debunked all your dumbass bullshit ten times over, so whatever you have I’ll destroy it bit by bit, as usual.
“Again calm yourself down, and be very careful with the words you use when referring to me because all these conversations are recorded and you are a specialist in insulting people who do not think like you. My patience has a limit.“
I’m truly terrified of Don “the iceman” Gaska and the Basque mafia. Your baseless threats mean jack shit to me you drunken loon, and if you keep making these schizo threats Dave will ban you, which would be a god send from Allah himself.
@Gaska
“Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier [I2181] MAY have steppe ancestry but has NO evidence of CHG component (however number of SNPs is low)- That's what the professional researchers who analyzed the sample say. Then, there is no CHG in Smyadovo, that is, if you say that this sample has steppe origin you have to prove it, and as you can not do it, you say that the burden of proof is mine. You are very funny. Face it man, your models are crap.”
I did prove it, the burden of proof is still yours, since you’ve not disproven my model (which used the updated I2181); saying it’s “crap” is not an argument, it’s not a rebuttal of anything. And the fuckin irony, so now you’re going by what the professional researchers say, all of a sudden? What’s with the change? These are the same researchers that say M269 was spread into the rest of Europe from the steppes during the LNEBA. So again, which one is it you illogical crank? Do you blindly believe everything the so called “experts” say, or not? Well get ready for your world to be turned up side down. Turns out the Harvard/Reich lab resequenced I2181 for the Southern Arc paper. He has better coverage this time around (still low though), versus what Mathieson et al., 2018 had (0.103528 of 113471 SNPs vs 0.063 of 71542 SNPs). I2181 possesses 20.0-20.7% CHG (jackknife std. error 5.2%) in the Harvard paper’s F4 admixture models. Just like I said, he has CHG, which is obvious, because he also has a strong steppe affinity and M269. Well the professionals have analyzed I2181 and they’ve found CHG, guess you have no choice but to accept it now. In order to be logically consistent you have to, because all of a sudden, you only trust the “professionals” and experts. You only appeal to authority when it suits your agenda, which makes you logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest.
The following data below is from Supplementary Materials, Data S1 to S5 of the paper “The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe” (2022). Link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4247
Sample ID: I2181 (BGR_ChL_outlier)
F4dmix proportions
CHG EHG Levant_PPN SRB_Iron_Gates_HG TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N
0.207 0.090 0.000 0.192 0.511
F4admix proportions (jackknife mean)
0.200 0.099 0.000 0.184 0.518
F4admix proportions (jackknife std. error)
0.052 0.052 0.000 0.034 0.040
@copperaxe
"Where does it say 4200-3000 BCE? It says 4700-3500 BP on yfull. Just a small difference of 2k years... By the way, Yfull mtdna formation/tmrca dates are all out of whack because mtdna and ydna have completely different mutation rates. I'm not sure which scenario is more concerning, that you did not know this or that you did and still presented it as evidence? Either way not a good look..."
Lol. wtf are you talking about?
J1b1a1.. on Yfull, Formation date 4700BP, TMRCA 3500BP.
Now, this is important. Once you hover on the blue strip, it shows:
Formed CI 95% 6200 - 3500 YBP. ie ~4200-1500BCE. But since it has already been found around 3000BCE, it becomes 4200-3000BCE, just as I have written. Next time, try not to show your dimwittery.
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
"I'm not sure why you think that EHG+CHG failing as a model is a valid point, when everyone is telling you that it is not actual CHG, as in Kotias/Satsurbalia themselves, that is the origin of this CHG-related signal on the steppe, but rather... Just that, something CHG-related. It's clearly something approximately like CHG, Sarazm_en, Iran_N, etc., but not actually any of these things, exactly."
Till a couple of week back, I myself was a proponent of CHG admixture in Khvalysnk.
Till I run qpAdm models and found that fits with CHG fail, but those with Seh_Gabi_C/LN don't. So, respectfully, I don't care what 'everyone is saying'. Until they can show working proximal qpAdm models, its all fantasy. Btw, more often that not, qpAdm doesn't agree with G25. So G25 has to be used for guidance and not something more than that.
@ Gaska
Smyadovo has CHG , it’s just low because it’s ancestry is
- EEF rich ,
- has Ukr N
- and Khvalynsk like eastern admixture
Anyway, CHG details are Barely irrelevant in terms of the big picture being discussed
Let go of ATP3, all Iberian chalcolithic males are I2a and minority of G2a , some V88 in east
It’s not M269, it’s low coverage sample. I know the guys who worked with it
I2181, Smyadovo, Bulgaria, 4606-4447 calBCE
Here is another interpretation.
R-M269 block:
Derived 2 SNPs, both 1x, 1 a possible deamination/degradation
Downstream…
No derived calls
Upstream…
R-P297 block:
Derived 1 SNP, 1x
R-M207 block:
Derived 2 SNPs, both 1x, 1 a possible deamination/degradation
Ancestral 2 SNPS, 1x and 2x, but the 2x is a possible deamination/degradation
If I had to bet, I would bet he was a was an P297+ partial M269 block person. There is mo conclusive evidence of anything here other than he has a Y chromosome.
@vAsiSTha
Sredny Stog is at least as old as Progress but lacks Siberian ancestry.
Ergo, Sredny Stog doesn't derive from Progress and certainly not from Sarazm.
@Rob
“@Gaska
. . . Let go of ATP3, all Iberian chalcolithic males are I2a and minority of G2a , some V88 in east
It’s not M269, it’s low coverage sample. I know the guys who worked with it“
Yeah, I kind of figured ATP3 was what he was driving at. He knows it was a bad sample. He’s known that for years.
I remember when ATP3 first came up for discussion. I think you were around for that and took part. The consensus at the time was that it was an unreliable sample, but that we would pay attention and wait and see if any solid M269s of similar age turned up in Iberia. Naturally, none ever did.
@Simon Stevin
“@Gaska
. . . Turns out the Harvard/Reich lab resequenced I2181 for the Southern Arc paper. He has better coverage this time around (still low though), versus what Mathieson et al., 2018 had (0.103528 of 113471 SNPs vs 0.063 of 71542 SNPs). I2181 possesses 20.0-20.7% CHG (jackknife std. error 5.2%) in the Harvard paper’s F4 admixture models. Just like I said, he has CHG, which is obvious, because he also has a strong steppe affinity and M269. Well the professionals have analyzed I2181 and they’ve found CHG, guess you have no choice but to accept it now.“
Well, that settles that, or it should, but it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that Mr. Smyadovo was a Neolithic farmer with no CHG in a few months - about the same time Villabruna and ATP3 come up again, and we hear once more that Aesch25 was a Neolithic farmer, despite his ~80% steppe DNA.
I’m agnostic about exact source-s of southenr ancestry
But whatever the case, it doesn’t change the local development of steppe groups. Southerners like Majkop were pulled toward this system
@Simon & Mike
And whoever else is debating the 4600bce I2181 sample, the Bulgarian outlier. It has low snps, and was marked 'very high contamination'. The yamnaya-related ancestry is probably from some modern contamination. The high distance on g25 also betrays that something isn't quite right with this sample. I am unsure if Davidski has rebuilt g25 coords with the southern arc (resampled) sample.
Target: BGR_C_o:I2181
Distance: 5.3270% / 0.05326980
54.4 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
25.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
20.4 UKR_N
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_N
0.0 BGR_Varna_C
0.0 GEO_CHG
0.0 Levant_PPNB
0.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.0 RUS_Progress_En
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
0.0 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG_o
0.0 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.0 UKR_Meso
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
“For sure, there's still no R1b-L51 in any sampled Yamnaya culture individuals. But we do have it in the autosomally-identical and contemporaneous Afanasievo culture, and very-close-to-autosomally-identical and also contemporaneous Corded Ware culture, don't we? So clearly R1b-L51 was present in something directly ancestral to all three of these things.”
Yes, and per Papac et al, apparently the first and oldest wave of Corded Ware was predominantly R1b-L151, which makes sense, since it was R1b-L151 that came to be the most numerous Y-DNA haplogroup in Western and Central Europe and in Corded Ware’s spin-off, Bell Beaker, which carried steppe DNA and IE language and culture to the westernmost reaches of Europe. It’s also interesting that centum IE
languages came to prevail in Central and Western Europe, and that that branch is considered the oldest branch of IE (aside from Anatolian). Tocharian is also a centum IE language. If it’s true that Afanasievo spoke a language ancestral to Tocharian, then it might not be so surprising that R1b-P310 has shown up in two Afanasievo samples thus far (which is not to say, obviously, that all or even most of the Afanasievo samples have been P310).
The current thinking among some of the Corded Ware experts I’ve read, like Polish archaeologist Piotr Wlodlarczak (pardon the spelling on that surname and the lack of Polish characters - I’m using my phone), is that Corded Ware first emerged from the CWC-X Horizon ~3000-2900 BC in SE Poland. I’ve mentioned that more than once before and the fact that Thomas Olander, in his Chapter 2 of the book, Tracing the Indo-Europeans, entitled, “The Indo-European Homeland: Introducing the Problem”, says, on page 26, “There are expansions from the steppes westward toward southern Poland around 3300-3000 BC . . .”
The oldest CWC-X Horizon burial sites, at Srednia and Hubinek in Malopolska, have not yet been subjected to archaeogenetic analysis yet, but they’re regarded as marking the transition between Yamnaya and Corded Ware. For example, ochre was used in both CWC-X and Yamnaya burials, but not usually in Corded Ware.
Regarding contamination in one of those Afanasievo samples, as I recall, that was considered a possible problem with his mtDNA but not with his Y-DNA or autosomal DNA. That was discussed at length over at AG when that result first appeared. As I understand it, that sample’s R1b-P310 result was recently confirmed by FTDNA, but I can’t vouch for that.
@vAsiSTha
I2181 has 113471 SNPs and 0.103528 coverage, according to Supplementary Materials Data S1 in Reich’s Southern Arc paper; he is marked as “PASS” under the S1 assessment column too. Supplementary Materials Data S4 also has this description of I2181 in the publication column: “This study (Increased coverage from a previously reported individual).”
Supplementary Materials Data S2:
S2181.E1.L1 I2181 PASS - Previously reported library, previously reported individual
S2181.E1.L2 I2181 PASS - Previously reported library, previously reported individual
S2181.E1.L3 I2181 PASS - Previously reported library, previously reported individual
S2181.E1.L4 I2181 PASS - Previously reported library, previously reported individual
S2181.E1.L5 I2181 PASS - Newly reported library, previously reported individual
S2181.E1.L6 I2181 PASS - Newly reported library, previously reported individual
So he has low coverage, but no sign of contamination.
Southern Arc paper for I2181
21% CHG
9% EHG
19% WHG
51% EEF
The ratio of CHG to EHG skews way more towards CHG than it should for a sample coming from the Steppe. It probably has Iranian Neolithic ancestry from directly from Anatolia.
Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia:
> It is noteworthy that ~7,300-year-old Neolithic man from the Middle Don region (NEO113) was placed in the basal clade R1a together with early humans associated with the corded pottery complex (poz81, RISE446), making it the earliest observation of this lineage reported so far.
> poz81 R1a (CTS4385*) 2880-2630 BCE Obłaczkowo Poland
> RISE446 R1a (CTS4385 > L664 > S3479) 2829-2465 BCE Bergrheinfeld Bavaria Germany
It turns out that NEO113 is at least R1a-M417, and possibly R1a-CTS4385.
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
My opinions about L151 in Bohemia and the Etruscans are in these threads-
Yamnaya is from Europe, but it's really from Asia-Friday, january 21, 2.022
Geography is hard (for some)-Wednesday, May 18, 2022
Population genomics of Stone Age Eurasia- Saturday, May 7, 2022
@Rob
I am only quoting what I have read in that paper “MAY have steppe ancestry but has NO evidence of CHG component” and I am also saying that the models cannot be anachronistic. ATP3 is in a similar situation to Smyadovo, low coverage but has been recognized as P297 by Harvard. Like the Bulgarian sample it has an M269 downstream SNP and is negative for Z2103 ergo it is an M269 with no steppe ancestry in Iberia (3,400 BC). Maybe there is a Balkan connection because mtDNA K1a26 appears in both Smyadovo and Atapuerca.
@simon
Yes that's correct. But in the latest v52 anno file released by harvard, in the column 'ContamLD warning' its marked as 'very_high_contamination'. In this file this is marked as 'PASS' as well.
In the southern arc supplement, the ContamLD column is missing. I'm not sure if they paid any heed to the previous contamination warning.
Also, the best G25 distances of this sample are just too high, there is definitely something off with this sample.
@gaska Regarding L51>P312, Kurganist logic is wonderful, it allows a stubborn observer to conclude that the most overwhelmingly Df27 peoples spoke Proto-Italian Celtic when it is absolutely proven that they spoke Non-Indo-European languages.
L51 and P312 spread rapidly along with autosomal steppe. They probably spread some language as well. The only language family that occupies much of this newly P312 rich land is Indo European. Its not Iberian, Basque, or Etruscan. Those are all isolate languages that dont seem to have had a major bronze age spread.
There was a spread of people and a limited spread of language. Your only criticism is that the language replacement wasn"t complete? but that doesn't do anything to disfavor the spread of p312 and italo-celtic. Thats just reality not fitting your expectation.
Pretty much everyone knows that ATP3, as Rob said, was not a good sample. It had very low coverage and was apparently contaminated. As I recall, it was derived for a number of I2a SNPs, but not enough to make a clear call for I2a, just as it could not be legitimately called for R1b. I think it far more likely that individual was I2a, given the prevalence of I2a in Iberia in that period and the fact that no R1b-M269 of a similar age has turned up there since.
Of course, we went over all this years ago. It shows the complete poverty of the anyplace-but-the-steppe perspective that ATP3 is still being dragged out as “evidence”.
@vAsiSTha
Thanks for the information, I was unaware of this, so I think—as you pointed out—that ultimately this is a compromised sample that should be invoked in a quite limited fashion.
@Vladimir
It turns out that NEO113 is at least R1a-M417, and possibly R1a-CTS4385.
We'll have to check this when the genomes are published.
But in any case, these samples show that the Corded Ware (and Yamnaya) gene pool started forming ~5,300 BCE on the steppe/forest steppe border.
Interestingly, the females there have significant levels of Caucasus-related ancestry.
@Matt
Can you get any half decent models for TUR_Aegean_Yassitepe_EBA/MBA with qpAdm, using these sorts of outgroups?
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
Levant_Natufian
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
HUN_Starcevo_N
HUN_Koros_N
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
Iberia_Southeast_Meso
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_West_Siberia_HG
RUS_Boisman_MN
MNG_North_N
TWN_Hanben
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
The re-sequenced I2181 from Smyadovo, Bulgaria still sits somewhere in the M269 branch.
Relevant derived SNPs:
P~: PF5867
P~: CTS3813
P~: CTS10081
R: CTS3622
R: P280
R1b1a1: CTS9018
R1b1a1b: L265
R1b1a1b: PF6452
The questionable contamination levels are more likely to effect admixture levels than Y SNP calls
My post on the southern ancestry in Khvalynsk & Steppe_en.
Hunter-gatherers like the CHG-rich Khvalynsk sample were already present on the Volga near Saratov as early as 5,200 BCE.
This is a local population that has nothing to do with Iran or Central Asia within any reasonable time frame.
These skewed X/autosomal ratio's tell a very interesting story.
Take e.g. Khvalynsk. Roughly 25% autosomal and nothing on X. These likely are the three samples from Mathieson 2018, I0122, I0433, I0434. They are all three male, from Khvalynsk cemetery 2, which was mainly male burials (!). Even if we account for minor other admixtures the results are pretty interesting as the ratio points to 1st generation sons of fathers with 50/50 EHG/CHG - again, we go for the simple model - and mothers 100% EHG. The Y-DNA are R1b1a, R1a and Q1a. mtDNA is H2a1, U5a1i and U4a2 or U4d.
According to an Anthony, Reich article the best dating would 4400 BC. According to that same article I0122 is the son of a mother there and an unknown father. Same for I0433 and I0434, albeit all three from different fathers.
This might mean that at ~4.5 ky BC there was already a mixed population which provided fathers for Khvalynsk, that bride-groom swapping was a practice that explains this and that the fact that the ratio is very much skewed in Khvalynsk 2 might have to do with such practices but may not necessarily mean that it was skewed in the mixed populations their fathers came from.
So we should have the ratio's of every individual in this article and might make some more sense of this.
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/10.1515_pz-2022-2034.pdf
@epoch
Like I said above, there are new samples from the Volga that are something like 70/30 or even 60/40 EHG/CHG dating to >5,000 BCE.
I can't believe this idiotic, shameless BS about migrations from Iran into the steppe kept being repeated for this long.
@Davidski
Maybe these were people that may have been speaking a language related to one of the three Caucasian families. There are linguists such as Bomhard that point to contact of early PIE with both NE and NW Caucasian languages.
But it is very interesting, as we can now see that even if we are generous and consider the suggestion that V1636 is CHG related, even then two of the three contributing fathers had steppe Y-DNA.
@epoch
V1636 can't be CHG-related, because R1b is a northern lineage closely associated with WHG/ANE-rich populations.
At best it can only be associated with a largely CHG-like population somewhere on the steppe, probably near the Caucasus/western Caspian.
Is Lazaridis suggesting something crazy like V1636 coming from Iran?
@davidski
IIRC the paper suggested the possibility.
@epoch
It's bullshit.
@Rob, the Bulgarian M269 sample was re-sequenced for the Southern Arc paper and does not have contamination. Thus it also now having EHG AND CHG.
Richard Rocca said…
“The re-sequenced I2181 from Smyadovo, Bulgaria still sits somewhere in the M269 branch.”
This is consistent, including Richard SNPs named, with the interpretation I posted above so there is at least some agreement.
The only additional info I received was a couple of ancestral calls upstream in both the R-M207 and P-45 blocks. This is what caused the other analyst to back off and say the haplogroup call was too risky. He went thru all versions of the raw data.
@Gaska
You may have to correct me if I'm mis-construing what you're arguing about R1b-L51, but...
https://imgur.com/a/RHtRtYA
Are you really of the opinion that guys like PNL001 and OBR003 are more likely to be paternally descended from Narva-related HGs from the East Baltic, than from the steppe population they share that absolutely colossal autosomal component with Yamnaya and Afanasievo? And we have eneolithic steppe samples from Sredny Stog, and apparently Ukraine and Moldova, which cluster right with CWC, Afanasievo, and Yammaya. They are clearly all very closely-derived from the same source population, and there's only one sensible suggestion for a geographical location for this source population. Bear in mind that Afanasievo, Yamnaya, and CWC all exhibit cultural similarity with Sredny Stog as well. Surely suggesting that R1b-L51 in early Czech CWC samples with >90% Yamnaya-like ancestry comes from Narva can't be anything other than special pleading.
And you still haven't addressed where you suppose Italic, Celtic and Germanic come from, or that Bell Beaker groups across Europe are clearly all descended from Dutch Beaker folk, autosomally, and rich in subclades of R1b-P312, which is found in Dutch Beaker males.
And as @Rich S. rightly points out, nobody else seems to contest the R1b-P310 calls in Afanasievo.
It's just clear as day, honestly.
I noticed something interesting in that Anthony article on Khvlaynsk at the link shared by epoch a couple of posts back. Since the article is dated 2022, I trust it’s not already obsolete, but in the field of archaeogenetics, you never know until someone corrects you. Anyway, on page 40 of 46 Anthony says the following:
“Also, the Khvalynsk/Progress-2 mating network has not yet yielded the Y-haplogroup mutations that were directly ancestral to the typical Yamnaya form of R1b (R-Z2103). The R-V1636 form of R1b, found in males at Khvalynsk, Ekaterinovka Mys, Berezhnovka II, and Progress-2, identifies a branch that split from the Yamnaya branch defined by R-P297 > R-M269 > R-L23 > R-Z2103 (yfull.com). This entire branch is absent from the sampled Eneolithic males from the steppes, appearing for the first time in Yamnaya males. The evolution of Yamnaya Y-haplogroup ancestry occurred in a still-unsampled Eneolithic population.
. . . The sampled Sredni Stog populations included individuals who autosomally resembled Yamnaya a millennium before the Yamnaya culture appeared. But within that population the Yamnaya Y-haplogroup patriline evolved in a region that has not been sampled.”
Hmmm . . . interesting. A cautionary tale, it seems to me. If we were working our way through the ancient DNA of the steppe chronologically, and these Eneolithic samples were all we had so far, we might expect Yamnaya to be R1b-V1636, I2a-L699, R1a-M459, and some kind of J1, but not Z2103. We’d have people arguing that no, there couldn’t be any Z2103 in Yamnaya, because no Z2103 has turned up in the peoples of the Eneolithic steppe.
Sound familiar?
Pardon me. I think I might have left Q1a out of the list of Y-haplogroups from Khvlaynsk. Sorry for the omission.
Let me see if I can reword those lines from Anthony just a tiny bit to make my point clearer. I’m leaving the quotation marks in place to show that most of it is in Anthony’s original.
“Also, the Yamnaya mating network has not yet yielded the Y-haplogroup mutations that were directly ancestral to the typical early Corded Ware form of R1b (R-L51). The R-Z2103 form of R1b, found in males from the Yamnaya culture, identifies a branch that split from the early Corded Ware branch defined by R-P297 > R-M269 > R-L23 > R-L51 (yfull.com). This entire branch is absent from the sampled Yamnaya males from the steppes, appearing for the first time in early Corded Ware and some Afanasievo males. The evolution of the early Corded Ware Y-haplogroup ancestry occurred in a still-unsampled steppe population.
. . . The sampled early Corded Ware populations included individuals who autosomally resembled Yamnaya a few centuries after the Yamnaya culture appeared. But within that population the early Corded Ware Y-haplogroup patriline evolved in a region that has not been sampled.”
@ Richard R.
Good to know. I haven’t loooked at it yet but will
So why does vasistha keeps saying its contaminated ?
Epoch / Dave
“IIRC the paper suggested the possibility.”
All R1b has a post ice age split . so there must be or from somewhere between eastern Europe and western side mirror, including PH155 . So you can’t have lineages instead being from south central Asia or western Asia. It’s fairly basic stuff, but Lazaridis is engaging in mental gymnastics.
I had to pull him up on and on on Twitter in front of everyone. (Not that I normally go on that platform)
@Davidski,
I never got the impression that Piedmont Eneolithic has Siberian admix. My impression was always that they were Eastern Europeans with extra ANE.
My view is all CHG ancestry in the Steppe comes from people like them with extra ANE.
Khvalnksy shows this extra ANE too.
I was thinking the reason Yamnaya does not is because Yamnaya has "WHG-rich" West Russian, Ukraine hunter gatherer ancestry.
Yamnaya models as EHG, CHG, EEF. But this is unrealistic. As they certainly have Ukraine HG-like admix. I'm thinking the extra ANE hides the Ukraine HG-like admix.
I think this extra ANE admix is key to defeating Harvard's theory.
They reject European farmer ancestry because in their base model Yamnaya doesn't score any Iron_Gates HG. They only score EHG.
What I am saying is the reason why this is, is their Russian ancestor had a higher ANE vs WHG ratio than EHG does.
When you mix it with UkraineHG, IronGates it looks like EHG. It makes it look like Yamnaya doesn't have ancestry from "more western parts of Europe."
That's why distal models are hopeless for looking at fine scale ancestry.
They should only be used as a broad overview.
Comments like "Yamnaya has no EEF because it has no WHG" are completely useless and very strange, because unexpected shifts in distal ancestry proportions can cancel out minor admixtures.
How can Lazaridis, Reich etc. not know this? How did the idiot peer reviewers not know this?
Davidski wrote…
“That's why distal models are hopeless for looking at fine scale ancestry.
They should only be used as a broad overview.”
Well said. We have to recognize the limitations of our modeling techniques. This is why uniparental markers are an important cross-check as well as archaeological and linguistic information.
@Davidski,
Yeah you put that well. Down the line, I'd to talk to you about how I can put this in my video.
@Davidski,
But do you agree that there is extra ANE in Progress, Khvalnksy. Not necessarily West Siberian admix?
I've been wondering if the CHG ancestor of Steppe had lots of ANE.
@Samuel
There might just be an excess of ANE in Progress, but I remember seeing some West Siberian HG in some of the Khvalynsk samples.
By the way, yeah, this is really important, and this is basically the way it should be put IMO:
Unexpected shifts in distal ancestry proportions can obscure fine scale substructures and cancel out minor admixture.
from Vasistha’s link
“Sarazm_En-like ancestry first entered Golubaya Krinitsa before 5300BCE”
Sarazm wasn’t around in 5300 bc. The WSHG-related ancestry which it harbours was trickling in ~ 3000 bc.
This model lacks historical plausibility, in fact it’s quite nonsensical. We’re clearly looking at a hunter gatherer issue, Vasistha is looking to bring in west Asian farmers with a completely different material culture, lacking in the steppe record
and with rotating approach, if CHG or IranN is in pLeft , you can’t used Sarazm because there’s gene flow from the left sources. That makes the model tank
But in reality, EHG, CHG work for steppe
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos-
What seems clear as day to you seems like wisful thinking to me. Indo-European languages in Western Europe are a matter of the late Bronze Age and Iron Age, nothing to do with Chalcolithic. Celtiberian was the first branch to split off from nuclear Celtic and enter Iberia with the urnfield culture. That's when and where you have to look for Celtic. The Italic languages in my opinion have their origin in the Balkans. You should study Papac's paper well, he would not have debunked the Yamnaya culture if he did not have very good reasons to do so. At first those L51 were considered by Max Planck as outliers and they had to do gymnastic exercises to square their data.
And regarding Smyadovo & CHG, Mathieson did not find that component when he analyzed the sample, and yet in the distal model of Lazaridis it has 20% CHG. It would be a miracle if it did not have CHG because 99% of the more than 1,000 samples analyzed have that component. It also has EHG, but in my opinion the Lazaridis model demonstrates just the opposite of what some people claim. All the analyzed Bulgarian Chalcolithic samples have EHG, and some of them have more than the 9% that Smyadovo has (none other is M269), so it is obviously not an outlier. Smyadovo differs precisely in the WHG component (19.2%), i.e. 14% more than the rest of the Bulgarian samples between 4600 and 4300 BC. Reasoning that M269 has its origin in the EHG when in its autosomal, WHG is more than twice that EHG, for me is wisful thinking
@Rob
"and with rotating approach, if CHG or IranN is in pLeft , you can’t used Sarazm because there’s gene flow from the left sources. That makes the model tank But in reality, EHG, CHG work for steppe"
There's no problem in geneflow from left source into right reference. If that were the case, the whole of Lazaridis analysis in his supplement would be invalid.
Harney et al 2021 studies qpAdm best practices and explicitly states that it is not a problem.
"We also explored the impact of gene flow between reference populations (from 10 to 7) or from a source into a reference population (from 9 to 10) and did not observe any bias in admixture proportion estimates."
From the supplement (table S33 records the output) you can also see that it doesn't cause the optimal models to fail, the p-values don't crash.
The models with Sarazm in right tank because Steppe pops have affinity to Sarazm, as can be seen in generated dstats, and as can be seen in G25 as well.
"Sarazm wasn’t around in 5300 bc. The WSHG-related ancestry which it harbours was trickling in ~ 3000 bc."
Really? How do you know this? and how do Indus periphery samples from 3000bce Shahr-Sokhta in east Iran already have 10% ANE?
Sarazm is a proxy for SC Asian ancestry, and till older samples are published, it will remain so.
@ vasistha
''How do you know this? and how do Indus periphery samples from 3000bce Shahr-Sokhta in east Iran already have 10% ANE?
Sarazm is a proxy for SC Asian ancestry, and till older samples are published, it will remain so.''
We know there is some ANE-like ancestry in Iran since perhaps the Late Paleo (e.g.Y-hg R2-related), but the there was a significant rise specifically related to WSHG-ancestry in Turan ~ 3300 bc because that is when the 'central Asian steppe- IAMC network' got going.
From supplement of Narasinham et al
''A few burials were excavated at Sarazm. Third-millennium-BCE pastoralism in the region
can be inferred only from a few “steppe-type” burials, one recovered directly at Sarazm and another recently documented at the site of Jukov (160). Material from both sites reflects
atypical ceramics categorized by the analysts as broadly “Afanasievo type” with local
admixtures and dating to the mid-fourth millennium BCE''
For Sarazm
Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Kazakhstan_Dali_EBA
Turkey_TellKurdu_EC
best coefficients: 0.570 0.324 0.106
TP 0.22
Could be imrpoved with better west Asian source
Full output
Sharh-I-Shokta dates to ~ 2500 BC, and given its linka to Turan, it is not surprising scuh ancestry also made it further southm but more like 10-15%
So whilst anything is possible, the onus is on you to be validated, as your position relies on a hypothetical population. There is no issue with exploring possibilities with not-quite chronologically concordant formats, but it's not a strong position from which to lodge contentions.
Moreover, as per your own models, there is ~ 20% 'southern Arc' ancestry in steppe Eneolithic. Let's assume that this is correct, how did 20% impact 'indo-Europeanise' the steppe ? What cultural elements were imported from Iran which revolutionised the western steppe so much that the R1, I2a, Q1a clans switched to the language of their new brides ? What social processes were occurring ? Was it a language switch, koinization, convergence ?
the mtDNA actually paints a complex picture, with 'southern lineages' coming from far and wide including EEF, Caucasus-related and south Caspian.
@Rob
He means additional ANE in Shahr I Sokhta on top of what Iran_N provides.
S8728.E1.L1 (Shahr I Sokhta BA3) 2.59
Iran_N - 46.8
AASI - 44
ANE - 9.2
I8728 (Shahr I Sokhta BA2)
2.44
Iran_N - 46.2
AASI - 44.8
ANE - 9
@ Singh
Like I said - ''Shahr-I-Shokta dates to ~ 2500 BC, and given its linka to Turan, it is not surprising such (WSHG/ Dali-EBA related) ancestry also made it further southm but more like 10-15%''
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Kazakhstan_Dali_EBA
Andaman_100BP
best coefficients: 0.637 0.155 0.209
TP: 0.21
@Rob
"We know there is some ANE-like ancestry in Iran since perhaps the Late Paleo (e.g.Y-hg R2-related), but the there was a significant rise specifically related to WSHG-ancestry in Turan ~ 3300 bc because that is when the 'central Asian steppe- IAMC network' got going."
The R2 in the south is very old, from when IranN was formed or maybe even earlier, that ANE is part of IranN. As Singh said, there is additional ANE on top of that (~10%) which came later (via SC Asia). I don't know why you mention 3300bce because the Sarazm samples are from ~3550BCE and already have 20% ANE.
As far as the model with Dali_EBA is concerned, Dali_EBA is 1000yrs younger than Sarazm and itself receives ancestry from sarazm/geoksyur. This is unlike the case of Sarazm and PC steppe, because there's no EHG ancestry in Sarazm.
"Sharh-I-Shokta dates to ~ 2500 BC, and given its links to Turan, it is not surprising such ancestry also made it further south but more like 10-15%"
No, the oldest SiS samples are from ~3200-3100bce, one Indus periphery sample is carbon dated 3330-3018 calBCE (I11471).
"So whilst anything is possible, the onus is on you to be validated, as your position relies on a hypothetical population. There is no issue with exploring possibilities with not-quite chronologically concordant formats, but it's not a strong position from which to lodge contentions."
The strength is granted by arrival of domesticated animals at khvalynsk along with this ancestry (shift from fisher-hunter-gatherer culture), and also the fact that pottery in this region spread from central asia (Andreev & Vyobornov 2021 https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0169).
@vAsiSTha
The hunter-gatherers of Golubaya Krinitsa had nothing to do with Sarazm or any part of Central Asia you bullshit artist.
They're related, and possibly ancestral to Sredny Stog.
Proposal for Central Asian PIE is not new. Alexander Kozintsev (2020) places PIE near Eastern Central Asia in his study.
"On the Homelands of Indo-European and Eurasiatic: Geographic Aspects of a Lexicostatistical Classification"-Alexander Kozintsev et al 2020
https://www.academia.edu/43594756/On_the_Homelands_of_Indo_European_and_Eurasiatic_Geographic_Aspects_of_a_Lexicostatistical_Classification_2020_
"Conclusions
The two-dimensional (quasi-areal) model combined with the traditional genealogical model and the geographic approachoffers a useful tool for reconstructing language relationship and, indirectly, population history. The application of these methods to Eurasiatic languages has resulted in the second scenario of Eurasiatic (and, respectively, IE) dispersal, placing its center in eastern Central Asia. This is an alternative to the first scenario, outlined in my previous study, where this center was placed in western Central Asia mostly on the basis of archaeological and genetic evidence.With regard to IE, Scenario 2 is but an extension of Scenario 1. With regard to other branches of Eurasiatic,Scenario 2 may appear preferable to Scenario 1 because itminimizes the total length of migration routes. But this applies only to the time after the split of common Eurasiatic. Because we don’t know the routes the speakers of proto-Eurasiatic had to take before they had reached their last common homeland,wherever it was situated, making a choice between the two scenarios is impossible. Both alternatives appear to be viable working hypotheses"
@Gaska
Papac certainly did not “debunk Yamnaya” as the source of steppe DNA in Corded Ware. However, even if he did (he didn’t), Corded Ware still has ~75% Yamnaya-like steppe DNA, indicating that both groups descended from common ancestors on the Eneolithic steppe.
This part of what Papac actually said:
“Therefore, despite their sharing of steppe ancestry (3, 4) and substantial chronological overlap (45), it is currently not possible to directly link Yamnaya, CW, and BB groups as paternal genealogical sources for one another, particularly noteworthy in light of steppe ancestry’s suggested male-driven spread (23, 41–43) and the proposed patrilocal/patriarchal social kinship systems of these three societies (46–48).”
Notice what he said: “. . . it is currently not possible to directly link Yamnaya, CW and BB groups as paternal genealogical sources for one another . . . “
That means that, despite the great preponderance of the evidence indicating that Yamnaya probably was the paternal genealogical source of Corded Ware, and Corded Ware was the paternal genealogical source of Bell Beaker, no R1b-L51 or R1a-M417 has yet appeared in Yamnaya, and no R1b-P312 has yet appeared in Corded Ware.
That’s it: no “debunking”, just an honest assessment of the current state of things.
First, recall that up until quite recently, no R1b-L51 had been found in Corded Ware. That has since abundantly changed, and now we know that the very oldest CW samples are R1b-L151, including at least one that is R1b-U106. Since R1b-L151 is the most common Y-DNA haplogroup in Central and Western Europe, it makes sense that the oldest and first wave of Corded Ware steppe pastoralists into the West was mainly R1b-L151. As that earliest wave of CW transitioned to the newer and slightly different customs and religion called Bell Beaker, a second CW wave came in behind it, still practicing the old ways. It was mainly R1a-M417, although not entirely (as shown by Linderholm).
As for the Yamnaya connection to CW, that is to be found in the CWC-X Horizon, ~3000-2900 BC, mainly in SE Poland and nearby. It marks the transition between the two, just as the transition between CW and BB can be marked in Single Grave CW and in the evolution of the standard bell beaker from the All-Over-Corded and All-Over-Ornamented beakers of Single Grave CW.
Btw, has David Anthony “debunked” the Eneolithic steppe as the source of paternal genealogical ancestry in Yamnaya? In his recent paper on Khvalynsk, Ekaterinovka Mys, etc., Anthony points out that thus far R1b-Z2103 is missing. There is R1b-V1636, Q1a, I2a-L699, R1a-M459, and some kind of J1, but no R1b-Z2103. Hmmm . . . Guess we can count the Eneolithic steppe out as the source of the R1b-Z2103 in Yamnaya! Talk about debunked!
And all that despite the shared steppe autosomal DNA and cultural traits.
I thought this supposed WSHG signal in Progress and Khvalynsk is bunk, for WSHG has like 20-38% East Asian ancestry, and none of that is present in Vonyuchka, Progress, Khvalynsk, Yamnaya, Afanasievo or Corded Ware. If there is something WSHG-like in Progress and Khvalynsk it has to be something that’s pre-Tyumen (proto-WSHG = WSHG without the EA admixture).
@vAsiSTha
"Formed CI 95% 6200 - 3500 YBP. ie ~4200-1500BCE. But since it has already been found around 3000BCE, it becomes 4200-3000BCE, just as I have written. Next time, try not to show your dimwittery."
Yeah so its not "as per yfull" but more like "as per my own estimations" because that isnt a window given by yfull, you took the figure from the confidence interval which is something different as a hard date of formation as these often exceed the tmrca of its parent clade. Furthermore as I said earlier those mtdna calculated dates are based on y-dna mutation rate, which has a completely different mutation rate than mtdna does. Just go one or two clades upstream and you can see how messed up they are, with things such as tmrcas being far older than formation dates or dates postdating ancient samples etc.
So were you unaware of the yfull mtdna business or were you doing a spin again? I'm curious.
As for this statement:
"The strength is granted by arrival of domesticated animals at khvalynsk along with this ancestry (shift from fisher-hunter-gatherer culture), and also the fact that pottery in this region spread from central asia (Andreev & Vyobornov 2021 https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0169)."
A few things:
- We have a descendant of the Elshanka culture. It is the Samara_HG sample, is it similar to "Sarazm"?
- Khvalynsk diet is basically just fish so for the most part they kept their fisher hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
- Does the ancestry show up during the neolithic or during the transition of subsistence economies? There is quite the timegap between the two.
- How does this sit with the Steppe_en samples which were hunter-gatherers, some well into the 4th millenium bc? What does the Volga neolithic look like anyways, seen any samples? How else would you know that it only shows up when the economy transitions? Pretty decent chance the Volga steppes during the neolithic already has profiles similar to steppe_en given the archaeology as well as unpublished samples alluded to here and by Anthony. Maybe some of us have seen a tjing or two as well :)
- Where are the domesticates in the northeast caspian at this time? The subsistence economy there remains forager after Khvalynsk let alone during it.
This all takes place in a timecrame well before PIE, especially nuclear PUE which Indo-Iranian belongs to. So if this is your (or rather FrankN's rehashed) argument then congrats Indo-Aryan comes from Andronovo :)
I seems to me that the Harvard team came to their conculsions about Indo-Anatolian based on these three findings:
1. The relative lack of Balkan WHG ancestry in Anatolian samples.
2. The relative lack of EHG in Anatolian samples.
3. The appearance of Levantine ancestry in Yamnaya and Corded Ware, which according to them, older steppe populations lacked.
Taking all three of those points together and with ONLY the samples the Harvard team had in hand, could a better conclusion have been reached?
@Signh
Very funny, but the Arctic has also been proposed as a PIE homeland.
@Richard Rocca
Taking all three of those points together and with ONLY the samples the Harvard team had in hand, could a better conclusion have been reached?
Yes, the conclusion should've been that there's no point looking for the so called Indo-Anatolian homeland with such broad, irrelevant signals of ancestry from the Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic.
For example, Balkan hunter-gatherer ancestry is irrelevant. Mycenaeans don't have Balkan hunter-gatherer ancestry and they're from the Balkans.
Also, the so called Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry in Yamnaya is actually Eastern European. Yamnaya doesn't have any substantial Armenian-related ancestry. It has some minor European farmer ancestry instead. So this doesn't square too well with the oddball idea that the homeland was in Armenia.
Moreover, Kura-Araxes has some steppe ancestry, and this might be very important, but it was ignored, because there isn't enough ancestry from Mesolithic Eastern Europe to make things interesting.
The point is that details will decide this issue. Details such as minor admixture from proximate sources in individuals from certain burials.
Lousy effort overall.
Ceramic Traditions in the Forest-Steppe Zone of Eastern Europe.
Konstantin Mikhailovich Andreev (2021)
"The forest-steppe Volga region is one of the earliest centers of pottery production in Eastern Europe. The first pottery is recorded here in the last quarter of the seventh millennium BC. Its appearance is associated with the bearers of the Elshanskaya cultural tradition.The most likely source of its formation is the territory of Central Asia. Later, due to aridization, these ceramic traditions distributed further westward to the forest-steppe Don region. During the first half of the sixth millennium BC, groups associated with the bearers of the Elshanskaya cultural tradition moved westward."
Note figure 6.
This is within time frame of Eneolithic steppe formation.
@Singh
This is within time frame of Eneolithic steppe formation.
This has absolutely no relevance to the formation of Sredny Stog and Yamnaya. It's more relevant to Samara HG, and no one cares about Samara HG.
The Caucasus-related ancestry that is relevant came to the Volga from the south, and even from the southwest, not from Central Asia.
You're as desperate and stupid as vAsiSTha.
Well at least that’s in the relevant epoch- ceramic hunter gatherers. But this “central Asian” is WSHG admixture known from Khvalynsk & other Volga sites
@Singh
Its appearance is associated with the bearers of the Elshanskaya cultural tradition.
Actually, it's funny that you posted this quote.
There are samples from the Elshanskaya culture coming, and they look nothing like Golubaya Krinitsa, Sredny Stog or Yamnaya samples.
They're like Khvalynsk with the lowest amount of CHG. That is, with barely any.
@ Vasishta
''As far as the model with Dali_EBA is concerned, Dali_EBA is 1000yrs younger than Sarazm and itself receives ancestry from sarazm/geoksyur. This is unlike the case of Sarazm and PC steppe, because there's no EHG ancestry in Sarazm.''
Sure maybe Dali_EBA is younger , but the IAMC population which it represents is ~ 3500 bc. And 5-700 years leeway is not unreasonable. yet you have no issue with your 2,000 year time gap ? LOL talk about double standards
And Dali_EBA is important excatly becuase it has no Sarazm ancestry. It was WSHG people which connected northern and southern central Asia, from steppe to south and back again. The Iran_N rich -villagers were mosly settled, which is also why one of the reasons there is no Sarazm in Eneolithic steppe.
''The strength is granted by arrival of domesticated animals at khvalynsk along with this ancestry (shift from fisher-hunter-gatherer culture), and also the fact that pottery in this region spread from central asia (Andreev & Vyobornov 2021 https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0169).''
That article discusses pottery which is of Siberian origin . In fact it says - “ There is no data for the existence of a productive economy, the basis of life support was hunting and gathering. Bones of domesticated animals were identified only at Ayakagitma site”
the earliest domesticates in Volga region are from 4200 BC, date from a sheep bone at one of the sites. This is the Khvalynsk late Copper Age, not 5300 BC, and even then isotopic ranges of humans speak of an almsot exclusive fisher-hunter diet. By contrast, the earliest domesticates in the Dnieper region are there ~ 5300 BC of fully -fledged farmers, and this is matched by istotopic data of adoption of new diet by some individuals.
eg http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1411232/FULLTEXT01.pdf
So we dont need made-up stories about 'ghost' migrations from Iran to Russia when there were central European farmers on their door-step. This has been discussed amply and clarified by me, but you have either not grasped, forgotten or chosen to ignore.
You should dedicate energies investigating Andamanese hunter-gatherers and Dravidians, because these are neglected histories from the India region
''And Dali_EBA is important excatly becuase it has no Sarazm ancestry. ''
sorry to correct myself, it does have some minor levels, but overwhelmingly WSHG. So WSHG-guys were the main mobilists
@Rob,
Its pointless explaining to Vashishta, because he is hard wired to prove Sarazm is IndiaN and ultimately Harappans were Sanskrit speaking horse riders . First Hasanlu LBA is 55% Sarazm now the CHG related ancestry on the Volga lol. Logic is not needed when your delusional, David calls him a Bullshit artist, I would say he is worse , he is a Con artist.
That is true, outside of NW India and outside of the Brahmins , Indo Iranian related ancestry is low to non existent in most Indian populations , rather they inherit enormous amounts of ancestry from local hunter gatherer populations, which looks (AASI + MA1) , There is 0 interest in these populations even on the part the main marquee of Indian scientists as well, oddly many of them are more obsessed on claiming some local origin for the main West Eurasian populations which contributed to these populations.
@ David when will you have the coords for the samples in that Allentoft Neolithic West Eurasia paper
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.04.490594v4.supplementary-material
A quick run on Vahaduo shows no or negligible Levant in pre-Yamnaya or Yamnaya groups. Anyone able to find Levant in these samples with more formal techniques or using better source samples?
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 3.3051% / 0.03305124
80.8 RUS_Progress_En
14.4 UKR_N
4.8 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 Levant_PPNB
0.0 Levant_PPNC
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
Distance: 3.6844% / 0.03684359
80.0 RUS_Progress_En
13.8 UKR_N
6.2 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 Levant_PPNB
0.0 Levant_PPNC
Target: UKR_Sredni_Stog_En
Distance: 4.0877% / 0.04087669
75.4 RUS_Progress_En
18.2 UKR_N
4.6 HUN_Vinca_MN
1.8 Levant_PPNC
0.0 Levant_PPNB
Target: PSS
Distance: 3.8113% / 0.03811270
83.2 RUS_Progress_En
9.6 UKR_N
7.2 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 Levant_PPNB
0.0 Levant_PPNC
@Davidski: "Can you get any half decent models for TUR_Aegean_Yassitepe_EBA/MBA with qpAdm, using these sorts of outgroups?"
My skills at working with the direct genotype data are embarrasingly bad when it comes to more than just using admixtools 2.0, so I haven't even merged the new Southern Arc data with the publicly released 1240k anno.
...
Couple off-topic things:
1) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.28.509988v1 - "Polygenic scoring accuracy varies across the genetic ancestry continuum in all human populations" - "Here we evaluate PGS accuracy at individual-level resolution, independent of its annotated genetic ancestries. We show that PGS accuracy varies between individuals across the genetic ancestry continuum in all ancestries, even within traditionally "homogeneous" genetic ancestry clusters. ... We show that PGS accuracy varies between individuals across the genetic ancestry continuum in all ancestries, even within traditionally “homogeneous” genetic ancestry clusters. Using a large and diverse Los Angeles biobank (ATLAS, N= 36,778) along with the UK Biobank (UKBB, N= 487,409), we show that PGS accuracy decreases along a continuum of genetic ancestries in all considered populations and the trend is well-captured by a continuous measure of genetic distance (GD) from the PGS training data"
And the genetic distance is: "GD is defined as a principal component analysis (PCA) projection of the target individual on the training data used to estimate the PGS weights .. The genetic distance is defined as the Euclidean distance of an individual’s genotype from the center of the training data when projected on the PC space of training genotype data."
i.e. your distance on well-constructed scaled PCA is not only tightly predictive of the Fst scores between groups (as Florian Prive already shows), but also the predictive value of polygenic risk scores *down* to the level of the individual. (Check that out, scaled PCA haters ;) ). (Note the names of clusters in this analysis are somewhat arbitrarily chosen for the main country they identify of interest, not like the very tight methods in other papers that look for country of birth etc).
2) Ringbauer uploaded a test version of his package for calling IBD segments in ancients, https://pypi.org/project/ancIBD/ . However I don't imagine anyone would easily use it as it requires imputed data.
The Klosterneuburg samples are already on My True Ancestry. Does that mean there is enough public information to create at least preliminary G25 coordinates for them?
Late Roman Era Klosterneuburg Lower Austria
R10656 (407 AD) -- DF13
R10657 (126 AD) -- DF19
R10654 (407 AD) -- G2a
R10658 (407 AD)
R10659 (126 AD) -- U106
R10660 (407 AD)
@Richard Rocca
Yamnaya doesn't have any direct ancestry from the Levant.
It has very minor indirect Levant ancestry that was mediated via early European farmers on one hand, and groups like the Eneolithic Progress people on the other.
Using distal ancestry to work out fine scale ancestry isn't a good idea.
Indeed, using very distant, indirect admixture from the Levant to claim that the Indo-Anatolian homeland was in Armenia is really out there.
so Yamnaya doesn't come from Natufians.?
Lets try Iberomaurisians + ''basal Eurasians''. Maybe for the next Laz paper..
@Blue Caviar
Is the Allentoft data available already?
@David
Eneolithic Progress has distal Levantine ancestry? I thought the Eneolithic steppe samples lacked Eneolithic_Caucasus and/or EEF. Wouldn’t the best proxy be Natufian instead of PPN too? For the latter has ANF and Iran_N/CHG, so an affinity may show up that isn’t really there to begin with. Though WSHs definitely have very minor, distant Levant via ANFs (ACFs specially like those at Barcin, Mentese, and Ilipinar). Additionally, I’ve seen several qpAdm runs on this supposed WSHG affinity in Karelia_HG, Khvalynsk, Samara_HG, and Progress/Vonyuchka, and it’s just excess AG3-like ANE. If it were WSHG proper there would a be significant East Asian component, which simply isn’t present—there’s too much of it in WSHG to begin with. This proto-WSHG affinity should’ve arrived in Eastern Europe before the time of the EA admixed Tyumen _HG (6367-6072 calBCE).
@Rob
We now have samples from megalithic south india to 300bce. There seems to be genetic continuity in the population down south to the modern times.
As for Harappans they are the primary contributer to Modern Indian populations, hence important to us. Most samples are low in AASI even by 2000bce.
IVCp
3100bce sample is 11% AASI
2100bce sample is 18% AASI
2500bce samples are 25-30% AASI
Then 2 samples with 40% and 50% AASI from 2500bce or there abouts.
@Blue Caviar
Yes Yes Harappans became expert chariot warriors as well as Elephant warriors.
Progress definitely has WSHG
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic1
Samara_HG
Kotias_HG
WSHG
right pops:
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
MA1
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Kostenki14a
Tianyuan
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Pinarbasi
Tagliente_LPaleolithic
Mongolia_North_N
Serbia_EN_Starcevo
best coefficients: 0.447 0.415 0.138
TP: 0.27, SE < 5%
2-way models of CHG + EHG for Progress arent optimal.
Also, the model fails if CHG is subtstituted for IranN, Shuvaleri-Shomu, Meshoko-Darkveti, or any other historically / chronologically feasible CHG/ Iran-like proxy.
The sham Sarazm models for Progress_EN are picking up CHG & WSHG in Sarazm which themselves are novel in Turan & Iran. i.e. there was a partial population turnover in Iran & south central Asia, due to migrations from Caucasus lowlands and northern central Asia/ Siberia some time after ~ 4000 BC, although some Neolithic data from Turan and northern Iran would be nice
@ Assuwatama
Most Indian pops represent language shifters due to Iron Age kingdoms in Haryana or whatever the details
Iran N has nothing to do with PIE , neither does Harappa
>50% steppe derived scythians adopted Indo-Aryan sanskrit. Kushans also adopted Bactrian language. So did Turkfied R1a men.
If any thing R1a men are the language shifters :)
Magdhans didn't adopt the language of Haryana. Ardha-Maghada, Pali and Ghandara languages have different ancestors.
Vedic ---- classical Sanskrit ----- Dead
Gandhara language arose among the populations of Swat whose men were mostly L1a, R2a, E1b1b. Autosomes are also in favour of Indus-BMAC source and not steppe for Gandhari Prakrit.
@ Assuwatama
Anyhow thanks for highlighting that Megalithic sample. Looking forward to some older genomes from the region
@Rob
Have you tried modeling with ANE rather than WSHG? From my experience Progress just has less WHG than most EHG references, leading to WSHG getting wedged in. However I don't think it has the east eurasian ancestry present in WSHG populations.
@ Copper Axe
''Have you tried modeling with ANE rather than WSHG? From my experience Progress just has less WHG than most EHG references, leading to WSHG getting wedged in. However I don't think it has the east eurasian ancestry present in WSHG populations.''
What stats suggest that there isn't any recent northeast Asian in steppe Eneolithic ?
Shifing WSHG for ANE (e.g. Afontova Gora 3) produces a much worse fit (TP 0.066) [1]
Tail Prob improves to 0.75 if I remove WSHG from pRight
Trying MA-1 is an outright fail
Given the origin of eastern pottery, at least in broad terms, in eastern Asia, the presence of such ancestry in western steppe is not surprising. But then with Yamnaya expansion it drops to undetectable levels.
I also doubt there were any 'pure ANE' populations left in ~ 5000 bce
@Rob,
We aren't saying pure ANE admixed with EHG in 5000 BC.
We are saying after ANE moved to Europe like in 15,000 BC, some parts of Europe were left with more ANE than than others.
We are saying Piedmont Eneolithic descends from a part of Europe that had more than others.
The oldest, easternmost, and most-ANE sample- Sidelkino- fails in a 2-way model with CHG.
So finding a more 'pure EHG is not the answer. WSHG are needed.
in fact, even Progress Eneolithic steppe can be modelled as having ~ 20% Tripolje ancestry
@copperaxe
"Yeah so its not "as per yfull" but more like "as per my own estimations" because that isnt a window given by yfull, you took the figure from the confidence interval which is something different as a hard date of formation as these often exceed the tmrca of its parent clade."
No. Yfull gives formation date of 4200-1500BCE (95% confidence) for mtDNA J1b1a1. But its already found in 3000BCE, so 4200-3000BCE makes most sense. Nothing to discuss further. Stop attacking me with things you have no clue about.
Formation of J1b1a has also been discussed in literature, eg Palanichamy et al 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25832481/
The paper uses multiple mtdna mutation rates. The oldest date in that too comes to 4200BCE (lowest range), and high being 1100CE. Since its already found in 3000BCE sample, again the formation date can be collapsed to 4200-3000BCE. Be sure to do the math properly, otherwise you will again come and attack me with nonsense. Relevant table from the paper https://imgur.com/a/ygZt2p3
"- We have a descendant of the Elshanka culture. It is the Samara_HG sample, is it similar to "Sarazm"?"
This sample already sees minor 'CHG' ancestry. You can see it with G25 too. From Lazaridis 'When we model this hunter-gatherer as a mixture of CHG and the two remaining EHG hunter-gatherers from Karelia(8), the resulting model fits (p=0.08) and assigns a non-significant 3.7±2.4% proportion of CHG ancestry.'
"- Khvalynsk diet is basically just fish so for the most part they kept their fisher hunter-gatherer lifestyle."
Incorrect. Khvalysnk sees a major shift from mostly fish diet to including domesticated animals as part of diet. There a huge no of sacrificed domseticated animals at khvalynsk. This can be seen via much lower reservoir effect (55-400yrs) vs 730 years at Lebyazhinka IV.
North caspian sites like Kairshak VI (5000-4700bce) even show some evidence of dairy use and mostly vegetarian diet (Vybornov et al 2018, Diet of Neolithic-Eneolithic cultures in Lower Volga')
"- Does the ancestry show up during the neolithic or during the transition of subsistence economies? There is quite the timegap between the two."
Sarazm ancestry shows up post 5300BCE. But more sites need to be sampled, especially north caspian sites.
" Pretty decent chance the Volga steppes during the neolithic already has profiles similar to steppe_en given the archaeology as well as unpublished samples alluded to here and by Anthony. Maybe some of us have seen a tjing or two as well :)"
Dnieper region has nothing to do with the Volga during the 5500-4500bce period. The sredny stog sample in Davidski's post is irrelevant to the whole debate. He claims it is 4200bce without proof. Even if he is correct, this proto yamnaya sample is nothing but an outlier in the dnieper region. Dnieper got domesticated animals only post 4000bce (Budd et al 2020). Yes, volga steppes might see SC asian ancestry starting 5500bce onwards.
"- Where are the domesticates in the northeast caspian at this time? The subsistence economy there remains forager after Khvalynsk let alone during it."
Domesticated animals are already there at Kelteminar, Jeitun sites by 6000BCE. You may read more about that in this paper. Obishir V in Kyrgyzstan has domesticated sheep by 6000BCE.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350741147_Evidence_for_early_dispersal_of_domestic_sheep_into_Central_Asia
Don’t mean to pick of poor Vas , but some important corrections are required
The article Taylor et al shows domesticates spreading to inner Asia , and we know that was effected by WSHG, not Iran N populations. There’s no arrow there pointing to the Volga region
The article says nothing about kelteminar, which requires serious modern study
The earliest domesticate in the Volga is from Oroshaemoe, middle layer, ~4700 BC as shown in Vyborbovs table . He also concludes by saying “It is worth noting that in Europe, the development of cattle herding has earlier dates.” By this time the Volga region was part of the Sredni Stog network connecting western farmers & Meshoko & East European HGs. Copper, animals, ideas were exchanged . Simple
@Rob
"The article Taylor et al shows domesticates spreading to inner Asia , and we know that was effected by WSHG, not Iran N populations."
Ahahahahahaha. Stop drinking/smoking whatever you are smoking. This is probably the stupidest line you have ever written.
"The earliest domesticate in the Volga is from Oroshaemoe, middle layer, ~4700 BC as shown in Vyborbovs table ."
Yes, this is part of my blogpost. But we have no adna from this site.
"He also concludes by saying “It is worth noting that in Europe, the development of cattle herding has earlier dates.”
Yes, in the Bug-Dniester region. Which has nothing to do with the Don/Volga regions. Animal domestication was absent at Dnieper sites till 4000bce (Budd et al, the same paper you had cited earlier).
@ vasistha
''Ahahahahahaha. Stop drinking/smoking whatever you are smoking. This is probably the stupidest line you have ever written.''
no it's 100% on point
WSHG-rich groups took domesticates with them from southern central Asia up north. Jeitun farmers did not move much beyond their villages, they didnt even make it beyond the mountains,let alone the Caspian steppe
''Yes, in the Bug-Dniester region. Which has nothing to do with the Don/Volga regions. Animal domestication was absent at Dnieper sites till 4000bce (Budd et al, the same paper you had cited earlier).''
pfft the LBK culture was in Ukraine by 5300 BC, you clown.
And yes, all these string of steppe groups which were clearly interconnected since the Paleolithic ''have nothign to do with each other''. OK
@vAsiSTha
"Incorrect. Khvalysnk sees a major shift from mostly fish diet to including domesticated animals as part of diet."
Major shift?
Anthony 2015 -Two IE phylogenies, three PIE migrations, and four kinds of steppe pastoralism:
"In the Eneolithic the population buried at Khvalynsk and one other cemetery had minimal reliance on domesticated animals in their daily diet, which was strongly based of fish, according to new evidence obtained from stable isotopes in human bone (Fig. 5). But domesticated animals were 100% of the food sacrificed in funeral rituals at the Khvalynsk cemetery, dated about 4500–4200 bc, where sacrifices of a minimum 29 cattle (22.3%), 85 sheep-goat (65.4%), and 16 horses (12.3%) were concentrated principally in or near graves containing individuals with elite ornaments and stone maces (Agapov 2010).
...
In the Dnieper Rapids region, elite individuals like Dereivka grave 49 showed stable isotopes that might suggest a diet containing more domesticated animals and less fish than others (Lillie et al. 2012: 86). We have previously suggested that the earliest and first domesticated animals in the western steppes might have been used more as an elite currency for feasthosting and ritual-hosting than as a principal source of daily food (Anthony 2007: 220, 225; Anthony and Brown 2011: 138). The Eneolithic diet probably depended to a large extent on fish, and was significantly different isotopically from the diet that characterized Bronze Age pastoralists in the middle Volga steppes beginning with Yamnaya. In Ukraine, unlike the middle Volga steppes, some Eneolithic pottery contains imprints of wheat, barley, and millet, although the numbers are very small (Kotova 2008: 124–125); and stable isotopes in human bone are more variable than in the middle Volga region and show less reliance on fish. So in the Dnieper steppes, domesticated animals might have been more important in the daily diet, while in the Volga steppes domesticated animals were used principally in a new field of social competition between elites."
Wilkin 2021 - Dairying enabled Early Bronze Age Yamnaya steppe expansions
"Overall, our results point to a clear and marked shift in milk consumption patterns between the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Pontic–Caspian Steppe. The majority of Eneolithic individuals (10 out of 11 (92%)) in our assemblage lack any evidence for milk consumption, whereas the overwhelming majority of Early Bronze Age individuals (15 out of 16 (94%)) contain ample proteomic evidence for dairy consumption in their calculus. Although a single individual at Eneolithic Khvalynsk with somewhat equivocal evidence for the consumption of dairy from cattle may indicate small-scale dairy use, the reliability of this single identification is questionable."
So little to no dairying and almost all their protein intake being derived from fish. Not much of a major shift here.
"Domesticated animals are already there at Kelteminar, Jeitun sites by 6000BCE. You may read more about that in this paper. Obishir V in Kyrgyzstan has domesticated sheep by 6000BCE."
Jeitun is barely over the border of Iran how is it "there" in the context of the northeast caspian?
I'm aware of the ovicaprids at Obishir V. The site is hundreds of kms removed from the northeast caspian and is not Kelteminar. As you can see on the map of the article you posted yourself, there was no movement of domesticated sheep an goats in the northeastern caspian.
Kelteminar is an obviously fisher oriented hunter-gatherer culture, there are no strong signs of stockbreeding anywhere aside from some sites having bones from domesticates, which really need assesment whether they are actually from domesticated animals or belong to the suggested time periods.
Again:
"Continuation of fishing subsistence in the Ukrainian Neolithic: diet isotope studies at Yasinovatka, Dnieper Rapids" Budd et al 2020
"In Ukraine, one of the dominant factors characterizing the research framework to date is the ubiquitous evidence for a continued reliance on aquatic proteins well into the Neolithic period. Whilst domesticates are integrated into Bug-Dniester subsistence strategies from the end of the VIIth millennium BC in southwestern Ukraine, the earliest reliable isotopic evidence for a reliance on terrestrial domesticates further east, in the Dnieper region, only occurs at the onset of the Eneolithic period, with the Trypillia farming culture, and in the Dnieper River region at the site of Molyukhov Bugor at c. 4000 calBC (Lillie et al. 2011).This pattern of continued dependence on aquatic proteins into the Neolithic period is rarely observed in NW Europe, if observed at all"
Regarding Khvalynsk. As per Wilkin et al supplement:
"If we compare the radiocarbon ages of the ruminants to those of the humans, the resulting offsets range between 55±47 and 405±47 14C years."
Compare this with
1. Lebyazhinka IV - 730 yrs Reservoir effect. (Shishlina et al 2018)
2. Ekaterinovka Mys - 800 yrs Reservoir effect (Wilkin et al 2021 supplement)
Higher the fish% in diet, higher the reservoir effect. There are some human samples from Khvalynsk with minimal reservoir effect (55+-47yrs). The worst reservoir effect is still half of that of Lebyazhinka IV and Ekaterinovka Mys. So yes, the diet at Khvalynsk was moving away from a full fish diet.
Khvalynsk isn't relevant, Sredny Stog is, and Sredny Stog is from ~4,200 BCE Ukraine.
In fact, the sample I have is from the Dnieper.
@Copper Axe, also look at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01701-6 - "Emergence and intensification of dairying in the Caucasus and Eurasian steppes"
The Progress Eneolithic people liked their domesticates' dairy, although their Sredni Stog (Vasilevsky Kordon 27) did not, which somewhat muddies the idea of the Eneolithic->EBA boundary being a dairy/hunting boundary.
Lillie, M., Budd, C. (2020)
Diet Isotope Analysis and Related Studies in Prehistoric Ukraine: Fact, Fiction and Fantasy
Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine, 37(4): 251-267
https://doi.org/10.37445/adiu.2020.04.20
"...as shown by the finds from the Neolithic settlements of Sobachky, Sredny Stog I and Buzky (Telegin, Potekhina 1987), and the Eneolithic site of Dereivka II (Telegin 1986), included a broad range of both wild
and also some domesticated species. For the Neolithic period these included aurochs, red and roe deer, wild pig and beaver, alongside domesticates such as cattle, sheep / goat, pig, horse and dog (Dolukhanov 1979; Mallory 1987). In most cases however, the evidence does not support the significant integration of domesticated species within a production economy, and instead the data probably suggest increasing trade and exchange between the fisher-hunter-foragers in the Dnieper region and adjacent groups of pastoralists and / or farmers."
@Davidski
"Khvalynsk isn't relevant, Sredny Stog is, and Sredny Stog is from ~4,200 BCE Ukraine.
In fact, the sample I have is from the Dnieper."
All the samples from Dnieper till 4500BCE cluster around UKR_N ancestry. These include samples from Vovnigi, Volniensky, and Dereivka, all on the Dnieper.
If what you claim is true (wrt dating and location, is it adjusted for reservoir effect? likely not), then at best this sample is a migrant into a predominantly UKR_N region. Clearly the bulk of steppe_en and yamnaya ancestry is formed from a Khvalynsk like base, found more on the east near Don and Volga.
We also have 3500bce samples from Dereivka I4110 & I5882. Really does not give confidence that Yamnaya was born there.
Target: UKR_Dereivka_I_En1:I5882
Distance: 2.4491% / 0.02449108
59.0 UKR_N
16.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
11.2 UKR_Trypillia_En
7.4 UKR_Trypillia
6.2 HUN_Vinca_MN
Target: UKR_Dereivka_I_En2:I4110
Distance: 2.6367% / 0.02636714
46.8 UKR_N
28.4 HUN_Vinca_MN
24.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
@Matt
Hunter-gatherers living in proximity to pastoral populations will trade with them, and dairy/livestock are some of the products they wished to acquire by way of trade. I've witnessed this personally.
As for this study in general their sample sizes are too low to take their conclusions to heart.
@vAsiSTha
If it wasn't clear enough, here is Wilkin on twitter herself:
"The previous Eneolithic people (~4600-3500BC), the Khvalynsk, were hunter/gatherer/fishers, that occasionally ate domesticated animals. During this period in nearby Europe people were farming and dairying, demarking a “frontier” differentiating subsistence between the regions."
https://mobile.twitter.com/shevanwilkin/status/1438157174698651648
You're now shifting the goalpost from a "major shift" to "it definitely shifted away". I'm not argueing against the latter but it is painstakingly obvious that the diet at Khvalynsk had a large continuity with the neolithic subsistence strategy, larger than in the west.
Besides you cant compare resevoir effect calibrations like that to gauge the amount of fish consumed, unless you are dealing with the exact same site and within a reasonable timeframe. These values are dictated by a multitude of factors and two different tributaries or different fish species can lead to different rates of resevoir effect.
Matt, Vasilevskiy Kordon is too far from steppe to have domesticated animals. To attest the presence dairying in the north pontic steppe they should test animal remains of larger monuments such as koisug, Bessergenevka and Leventsovsky in the lower Don, or dronika and ivanobugor in the middle don.
Those labs are always looking for the wrong area.
@CopperAxe: "Hunter-gatherers living in proximity to pastoral populations will trade with them, and dairy/livestock are some of the products they wished to acquire by way of trade. I've witnessed this personally."
Hunter-gatherers who acquire dairy and livestock by trade are unlikely to remain hunter-gatherers for long. (Although I'm interested now where you live around the world where there's regular trade between hunter-gatherers and pastoralists in livestock that does not result in hunter-gatherers keeping livestock!)
@copperaxe
Dr Wilkin's paper and comments are specific to the use of dairying. The paper itself only checks for 'dairy peptides' from dental remains. None of my points made so far mentioned dairying, I only mentioned meat. Furthermore, at least in 1 sample there is clear evidence of milk proteins and they reject it just because it isn't found in the other 8.
"You're now shifting the goalpost from a "major shift" to "it definitely shifted away". I'm not argueing against the latter but it is painstakingly obvious that the diet at Khvalynsk had a large continuity with the neolithic subsistence strategy, larger than in the west."
Now this is a pissing contest about semantics. I'm not interested. Nowhere I have I mentioned that Khvalynsk people stopped fish consumption. A 'major shift' meant a landmark shift from a millennia of fish consumption to a clear use of domesticated animals for meat.
Now, with respect to % of fish in diet and reservoir effect, from Shishlina et al 2014 (below is wrt yamnaya)
"Four out of the eight paired cases do not show any age offset. This can be explained in two alternative ways.
One is that the human diet did not include aquatic components; rather, the diet was based on C3 vegetation with high δ15N values (13–15‰), and flesh/milk of domesticated animals.
An alternative explanation is that humans consumed food from freshwater resources without a reservoir effect."
The appearance of large numbers of domestic animals at this site, and the presence of human bones with low offsets compared to paired herbivore (55+-47 yrs), definitely indicates a big shift away from fish for those humans. Also, for freshwater aquatic grave goods found at khvalynsk, the reservoir effect is ~1500yrs. From Kirillova et al 2008
"Mollusk shells found as grave goods in Khvalynsk Eneolithic cemeteries excavations I and II were dated with high precision radiocarbon AMS determinations. Also, the stable isotope test on some items confirmed a freshwater origin of mother-of-pearl and Painter's mussel Unionidae shells. Radiocarbon dating of Unio shell confirmed its contemporary origin with Khvalynsk culture, if expected significant reservoir effect is taken into account. The required reservoir age correction of about 1500 years agrees well with values known for East European rivers and water bodies from
the region adjacent to Khvalynsk settlements."
A fish diet would have caused a very large reservoir effect for Khvalynsk humans, because we have dates for herbivores, human & aquatic grave goods from the same graves. So for those humans who have relatively small offsets, we can assume a decent reliance on terrestrial animal meat.
Anyway, I interacted with Dr Wilkin. She said the following:
1. "The lower the offset, the less fish a person is assumed to have eaten
But of course, it’s never exact"
2. Wrt to the dairy peptide found from 1 khvalynsk individual
"Yes, that was impossible to determine whether it was "real" or not. There are a few reasons for this. First is that caseins are much less stable that beta-lactoglobulin (BLG). BLG is globular and can protect itself to preserver for longer, while caseins are a long twisted protein that is more exposed to damage and usually preserves for less time. So, when we only found two casein peptides and no BLG it was strange. Also, as it was a bovine casein (coming from a cow, yak, or bison, and only cow was around at the time) it was extra suspicious. Many laboratories and proteomics mass spec facilities use reagents that have bovine casein in them, so there is also a chance that it came from contamination in the mass spec facility.
So it doesn't seem to make sense with the archaeological data, and while I cannot discount that it is 100% not really ancient, I doubt that it is."
@ Vasistha
You dont have to quote (your misunderstood & curated) blocks for me.
You missed the part about individuals 45 and 19 from the Budd study - dating to 5300 BC - have ratios suggestive of a terrestrial diet of domesticated animal & plants. Marked with 'chiefly' boar-tusk pendants,' etc. What the aDNA has revealved is that these were hunter-gatherers themselves who'd 'wintered' with farming communities to the west, or had even been born there from Farmer women, but retained the HG Y-DNA via their Fathers, then retruned back to ancestral lands. This is the same with WSHGs in central Asia.
Yes, a mass switch everyywhere on the steppe occurred much later, coincident with Yamnaya'ization, but what we are seeing is the very beginnings of a 'Neolithic' agropastoral diet being imported & tried out by some individuals. Coupled with that, there are the Caucasian Meshoko farmers also coming in ~ 4700 BC.
Jeitun is irrelevant.
@All
Is ART038 with R1b-V1636 still the oldest R1b sample in Near Eastern ancient DNA?
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/maykop-ancestry-in-copper-age-arslantepe.html
@Davidski
Yes he is, though there are rumors of slightly older R1b samples from Arabia, thought they might be contaminated, and they’re very low coverage/quality.
@Matt
"Hunter-gatherers who acquire dairy and livestock by trade are unlikely to remain hunter-gatherers for long."
This might be the case if you take a bird's eye perspective and condense thousands of years into ten minutes, but with a "boots on the ground" perspective this is absolutely not the case as life isn't a unidirectional civilization ladder. What matters is being able to securely sustain yourself and your community. If this is easily accomplished by living forager lifestyles then a switch isn't imminent. It is just the case that in many parts of the world a forager lifestyle will be more intensive than an agricultural one.
I live in the Netherlands, but I met "Dorobos" (Maa for "without cattle") in Kenya when spending time with the Maasai, most likely a subgroup of Ogieks but I was a teenager then so I can't tell you which one exactly. They came to trade honey and pelts for milk and two sheep as they were having a feast.
These hunter-gatherer groups in Kenya have had thousands of years of interaction with pastoral populations such as southern Cushites and various Nilotic groups. And it isn't just slight contact, these hunter-gatherer groups ended up speaking Cushitic languages and now speak Nilotic languages. Genetically they mostly have Cushitic-Nilotic ancestry as well.
The last century has lead to more disruption in their hunter-gatherer ways than thousands of years of interaction with agricultural populations did. The Sengwer right now are a good example of this.
Nobel to paleogenetic, Svante Pääbo!!
Svante Paabo
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-63116304
"Further comparisons between Neanderthal DNA and humans from around the world showed their DNA was a closer match to humans coming from Europe or Asia.
This tells us that Homo sapiens had sex and children with Neanderthals after migrating out of Africa around 70,000 years ago.
And you can still see the legacy of that today. Between 1-4% of modern human DNA comes from our Neanderthal relatives and this even affects our body's ability to respond to infection."
COVID-19 vs Nanderthal haplotype from Vindija?
@Unknown, people in relict forest zones, unsuitable for pastoralism, as an analogy... It seems possible dealing with relationships with say the EHG HG to the north, but I don't know for those Progress people; I don't see people who are living on the grassland of the steppes as being as likely to take the milk and animals for slaughter without adopting the domestic animals for raising on the rich pasture.
If it could be so, then it seems like this requires quite a close relation between these peoples (such that milk/cheeses is enough a part of diet to be showing up in the calculus, but all through between group trade). Not the occasional rare trade! These 'Dorobos' speak the same languages as the pastoralists and switched to their language - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorobo_peoples - "A historical survey of 17 Dorobo groups in northern Kenya found that they each maintained a close rapport with their surrounding territory through their foraging. Speaking the same language as their nomadic pastoralist neighbours, they would maintain peaceful relations with them and accepted a lower status. Occasional intermigration and intermarriage between the two groups was even possible. If the political landscape shifted and new pastoralists entered the area, then the local Dorobo would switch to the new language and build up new relations, while clinging to their territorial niche.".
It doesn't look like there is necessarily gene flow though? The ADMIXTURE plots here seem to indicate that the 'Dorobo' group is genetically isolated between groups, to lack the West Eurasian geneflow from the Maasai that form their patrons, per this paper - https://www.science.org/cms/asset/6eb44343-80ca-49ed-86f8-5cc64b8146e7/pap.pdf
Perhaps this could be how the Steppe_Maykop type phenomenon would get started though.
@Matt - "I don't see people who are living on the grassland of the steppes as being as likely to take the milk and animals for slaughter without adopting the domestic animals for raising on the rich pasture."
The problem is that "adopting" domestic animals doesn't always make economic sense, even within a single group. Hunters, fishermen, etc. still had something desirable to exchange. And wild and domestic animals and plants supplied a lot more than food. Leather, tallow, bone for tools, etc., could be of considerable value. The market for fur-bearing animals, beavers, bears, etc. might have needed full-time hunters and trappers. You already needed specialists even if you counted on cattle for food.
On the American Great Plains, there are stories of huge mounds of stripped buffalo carcasses rotting away because the meat had little value compared to the hides, which were rushed to market.
At that Corded Ware settlement in Germany, the total mass of wild fauna remains was rather larger than the cattle remains. They weren't "hunter-gatherers" but they did a lot of hunting and gathering. They may have consumed dairy but that's not all they lived on.
The problem is that we really can't draw easy lines based on how a whole community fed itself (or its livestock.) They may have been exposed to the idea of raising cattle, but that's a learning process. And there's a cost to that. Maybe sticking with salmon, deer and horse meat and wild blueberries may have made more economic sense -- at least while the supply was still there.
Now, if you started making good money selling that to the sheep, goat and cow people, then you might have needed to find a common language when you showed up every morning at the market.
@All
Are the genotypes from this new paper officially available yet?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2205272119
@LivoniaG, well, mostly the ideas would've been about raising sheep I think, taking https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01701-6 - "We find that sheep dairying accompanies the earliest forms of Eneolithic pastoralism in the North Caucasus. During the fourth millennium bc, Maykop and early Yamnaya populations also focused dairying exclusively on sheep while reserving cattle for traction and other purposes" and that's what they found at Progress, though they didn't actually have any samples from the mountain flank itself.
All that stuff you said does hold true, and it's possible that the niche of the Eneolithic people on the steppe near the Caucasus was still more favourable for hunting/fishing/foraging to be their main occupation or to lack stockraising entirely, but if so to find the evidence of milk in teeth implies that the settlements of agro-pastoralists from the south must have been in quite constant close proximity to them and contact must've been quite intense, for this sheep milk trace to still be found. I guess it feels a bit more likely to me that they just raised the sheep themselves, but possibly it is not so.
If these are all pottery using eneolithic groups, if pottery is found along river settlements/camps, then perhaps that will provide some more useful evidence, if skeletal remains of teeth are rare.
The rivers to which Eneolithic groups were bound provided plenty of resources and the groups also hunted & collected. Probably traded or received as gifts domesticate animals from west. The details of transition to a more concrete reliance on pastoralism are still not understood, but seems to be in the near pre-Yamnaya period. Changes in climate & resource availability, economics, ideological factors might have driven the switch. Sheep might have been better suited as you moved into the drier eastern parts of the western steppe, and central Asia. Sheep might have gone with horses, and this combination allowed mobility across the steppe itself rather than containment to riverine environments.
We would need details sheep aDNA to understand where they came from, but techniques could have been adapted from Uruk or east Anatolian highland groups, although theyre not immediately obvoius in the 4500bc north Caucasus. Meshoko groups were often pigfarmers. Majkop wasnt around tat the time. No clear evidence of contact with Shuvaleri-Shomu either. All a bit odd.
Corded Ware is different - cattle & hunting iirc.
@ Matt
''Perhaps this could be how the Steppe_Maykop type phenomenon would get started though.''
Are you able to eloaborate ?
@Matt
"it doesn't look like there is necessarily gene flow though? The ADMIXTURE plots here seem to indicate that the 'Dorobo' group is genetically isolated between groups, to lack the West Eurasian geneflow from the Maasai that form their patrons, per this paper - https://www.science.org/cms/asset/6eb44343-80ca-49ed-86f8-5cc64b8146e7/pap.pdf"
You're misinterpreting the graphs and not paying attention to the actual ethnic groups such as Ogiek, Sengwer, El molo, Yaaku etc. They all score similar amounts of components relative to their proximate neighbours, notice the purple lcuster associated with Cushitic groups such as the Rendille or Iraqw. It is also extremely obvious from just looking at the people that they share significant ancestry with their neighbours and thus also would have said west eurasian ancestry.
"If these are all pottery using eneolithic groups, if pottery is found along river settlements/camps, then perhaps that will provide some more useful evidence, if skeletal remains of teeth are rare."
THe archaeology of the region is quite established, these north caucasian steppe eneolithic populations were mainly fishermen and remained so centuries after PG2001. PG2001 himself had quite a significant resevoir effect with a 600-800 year discrepancy between charcoal and radiocarbon, and is from a burial complex adjacent to a river.
David, very interesting article about genetic origins of a Classical period Greek army:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205272119
Sicily_Himera_480BCE_3 cluster has soldiers with Slavic/Baltic DNA autosomal and Y-DNA
https://i.postimg.cc/gktPJ8T6/screenshot-149.png
R-Y35* R1a1a1b1a2b
I-L233* I2a1a(xI2a1a2)
“This observation of the derived allele in I10943/W0396 agrees with his genetic ancestry, with the greatest affinity to BA and IA Eastern Baltic groups. Notably, this individual also has an uncommon physical appearance among the studied samples, with HirisplexS estimating highest probabilities for a combination of blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin. This phenotype also rose in frequency in the Eastern Baltic in the 1st millennium BCE”
These mercenaries could be Thracian, which would confirm theories about Slavic/Baltic influences in Thracian military elites.
@Copper_Axe, I must say I only looked at the groups labelled specifically Dorobo and Maasai on that graph. I thought this "Dorobo" group was our topic here. Should I be looking at others?
@Copper_Axe, it seems worth it took look for traces of dairy fats on pottery. If we just made assumptions, we'd have missed the dairy traces in PG2001's teeth, and likely have some dogma of "Never consumed domesticates products, purely fisher gatherer subsistence" etc. If you look you may not find, but if you don't loo, you definitely won't find!
Would love to see the exact same models, no changes in the populations used for Target: RUS_Progress_En.
Previous "Unknown" comment was mine by the way, no idea why it commented under an unknown profile. Maybe I used a browser tab where I wasn't logged in on blogger...
@Matt
"people in relict forest zones, unsuitable for pastoralism, as an analogy..."
You're missing the point, it is about the fact that if sustainable in the area hunter-gatherer populations can remain hunter-gatherers while having significant contact with agricultural populations. I just cited it as an example because I have witnessed it with my own two eyes in the 21st century.
Also none of those areas are isolated or densely forested, and they are mainly inhabited by pastoral and agricultural populations so they aren't very unsuitable either. The Elmolo and other groups such as the Akie of Tanzania do not live in forests but in the plains, the Elmolo live in a very arid area on top of that.
I-L233* I2a1a(xI2a1a2) isn't a Slavic or Baltic marker, it's Germanic.
@Matt
"@Copper_Axe, I must say I only looked at the groups labelled specifically Dorobo and Maasai on that graph. I thought this "Dorobo" group was our topic here. Should I be looking at others?"
To clarify, Dorobo (Il-Torobo) is a term meaning "without cattle" in the Maa language, which is also used in a derogatory manner towards these peoples by them. The perceived lower status has lead to some groups switching to the Maasai language and becoming cattle-owning herdsmen.
The samburu and maasai applied it to all hunter-gatherer populations they came into contact with and it is a catch-all term for hunter-gatherers in Kenya and northern Tanzania. Those ethnic groups I mentioned were/are Dorobo.
All of the Greek Mercenary R1a from this Greek paper falls on this branch: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2124/
though on an autosomal level they are not related.
PG2001 has very clear traces of dairy peptides of the right kind, even though it has high reservoir effect of 700yrs.
None of the issues with khvalynsk dairy peptides (as per Dr Wilkin) are applicable to PG2001. The protein is BLG instead of casein, and multiple peptides were found (vs only 2 casein at khvalynsk).
Romulus, you missed something. One is from the R-Y35 line.
@Copper_Axe: "You're misinterpreting the graphs and not paying attention to the actual ethnic groups such as Ogiek, Sengwer, El molo, Yaaku etc. They all score similar amounts of components relative to their proximate neighbours, notice the purple lcuster associated with Cushitic groups such as the Rendille or Iraqw. It is also extremely obvious from just looking at the people that they share significant ancestry with their neighbours and thus also would have said west eurasian ancestry."
Even should you focus on these groups and not the explicitly marked "Dorobo" group, none of these groups in Tishkoff's plot (https://www.science.org/cms/asset/6eb44343-80ca-49ed-86f8-5cc64b8146e7/pap.pdf) have the blue West Eurasian component at K4 that Maasai have, and rather some other stabilized components. Some low K link is not an indication of recent geneflow.
If they are hunter-gatherers in some client relationship with the Maasai that leads to adopting language and frequent exchange of milk for goods - which is the reason we're talking about these groups in this thread in the first place; we're not just discussing the idea that HG populations can exist, which is a shift - there is little sign of geneflow. (Which relationship seems arguable anyway per group - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akie_people - "The Akie are one of the last actual hunter-gatherer groups left on the African savanna. Beside hunting they collect honey, which involves 'steaming' out the bees, making it possible for to reach into the hive and grab the honey. They enjoy beer which they make from honey. Due to competition for land with the Maasai, they have recently been more reliant on maize, although this rarely produces enough food to last year around.The Akie's closest ethnic and linguistic relatives may be the Ogiek who live farther north in Tanzania and mainly Kenya. They may have been farmers, but were forced to migrate south and resume a hunter-gatherer lifestyle after some hardship. The Akie used to cover the Maasai Steppe, but now agriculture, poaching and other hunters have diminished the natural resources forcing the Akie into a bitter rivalry with the Maasai over land and water. ")
Hey copper Axe- where Would one “ dig” for proper royal Scythians of the Black Sea region ?
Cemetery H culture
1900bce-1300bce
Identified with Indo-Aryans
Location: Greater Punjab
"The distinguishing features of this culture include:
The use of cremation of human remains. The bones were stored in painted pottery burial urns. This is completely different from the Indus civilization where bodies were buried in wooden coffins.
The urn burials and the "grave skeletons" were nearly contemporaneous.
Reddish pottery, painted in black with antelopes, peacocks etc., sun or star motifs, with different surface treatments to the earlier period.
Expansion of settlements into the east.
Rice became a main crop.
Apparent breakdown of the widespread trade of the Indus civilization, with materials such as marine shells no longer used.
Continued use of mud brick for building.
Some of the designs painted on the Cemetery H funerary urns have been interpreted through the lens of Vedic mythology: for instance, peacocks with hollow bodies and a small human form inside, which has been interpreted as the souls of the dead, and a hound that can be seen as the hound of Yama, the god of death."
I don't see any cultural trace from the Andronovians. Urnfield culture of Central Europe appears to have similar burial practice but they post date the cemetery h people of Punjab.
Hey copper Axe- where Would one “ dig” for proper royal Scythians of the Black Sea region ?
The steppe areas roughly between the Dnieper and the Donets. The exact borders of Royal scythian terrain are unknown because two of the rivers described by Herodotus cannot be properly identified. Also you have nomadic Scythian tribes outside the "Royal Scythian" territorial boundaries.
There are some extremely wealthy burial mounds on the west bank of the Dnieper as well. Afaik most of these mounds were looted centuries ago so I doubt it would be helpful for genetics, smaller burials of the general royal scythian population would be a more fruitful endeavour I think.
Herodotus described a tradition where the bodies of Scythian kings would be carried by subjected tribes until it reached the final tribe and then the remains would be buried there. Those mounds could be connected to that phenomenon, or perhaps the borders fluctated and Herodotus only presents us the scope of a particular period.
@ Matt
The Akie being "farmers" in origin is laughworthy as they speak the Ogiek dialect of Kalenjin. Given the perceived social status'of Dorobo peoples within pastoral communities a whole-sale permanent switch towards foraging is very unlikely. Maize is a recent thing, I mean it is Africa it has only been there for five centuries and these foragers have even less exposure to it, mostly only taking it up in the last few decades.
Perhaps as an advice, but if you are unfamiliar with an ethnic group maybe read anthropological works (or in the case of the Akie study the lack of ethnographies) to inform yourself about these people rather than relying on wikipedia sections that quote the sources such as the BBC. Especially not when discussing it with someone who actually is from that corner of the world.
"Even should you focus on these groups and not the explicitly marked "Dorobo" group, none of these groups in Tishkoff's plot (https://www.science.org/cms/asset/6eb44343-80ca-49ed-86f8-5cc64b8146e7/pap.pdf) have the blue West Eurasian component at K4 that Maasai have, and rather some other stabilized components. Some low K link is not an indication of recent geneflow"
The geneflow does not have to come from the maasai per se (as most of these groups speak different Nilotic languages) but the nilotic-cushitic ancestry is obviously present in significant amounts:
Target: Ogiek_Kenya:T_Ogiek-1.DG
Distance: 2.1128% / 0.02112765
49.8 KEN_Pastoral_N
32.0 Dinka
15.2 KEN_LSA
3.0 Cameroon_Mbo
Target: Ogiek_Kenya:T_Ogiek-2.DG
Distance: 2.1529% / 0.02152921
50.2 KEN_Pastoral_N
25.4 Dinka
12.8 Cameroon_Mbo
11.6 KEN_LSA
Target: Sengwer:T_Sengwer-1.DG
Distance: 2.0023% / 0.02002252
54.4 Dinka
32.0 KEN_Pastoral_N
13.6 KEN_LSA
Target: Sengwer:T_Sengwer-2.DG
Distance: 2.3749% / 0.02374872
55.8 Dinka
31.8 KEN_Pastoral_N
12.4 KEN_LSA
Furthermore we know from anthropological works that there definitely was/is mixing ocurring in recent times, particularly as these populations are adopting pastoralism and new identities, such as the akie or the mukogodo.
@ Copper Axe
That makes sense. I think even the ‘nomadic - iranic’ Scythians were diverse
Some steppe Scythian samples should help clarify things
@Copper_Axe, I'm really interested here in the relationships between the Maasai and their HG clients, with the exchange of milk and language shifting without geneflow between these groups, because that's the model that you offered up about the subject that was of interest - e.g. explaining away milk consumption by the "hunter-fishers" of Progress without the adoption of domestication by them; I'm not going to read some anthropology on a bunch of groups that I really have no major interest in, and not much relevance to that subject, and I don't have any interest at all in whether they have some form of geneflow from early Pastoral Neolithic populations. If you want to talk about it, do so happily, but it doesn't seem that relevant and almost a distraction.
@vAsiSTha "@Davidski
"Sredni Stog got almost all of its CHG from hunter-gatherers north of Progress."
How and when did the Iranian ancestry get there? Why haven't we seen it in any of the samples so far? Where was it hiding? Anything concrete or do you want to keep building castles in the air.
@Rob
"This means that CHG ancestry was already present there. In fact it was probably already moving up there during the Late Paleolithic."
Based on what? your wishes? Haha, you both sound as ridiculous as those who think R1a was born in India."
@Davidski and @Rob are actually correct here. CHG-related ancestry was present North of Caucasus.
Lazaridis et al. 2022 confirms it too.
"Finally, 3 Eneolithic individuals from Khvalynsk II in the Samara region of Russia(9) dated to 5000-4500BCE, a territory in which Yamnaya culture would later appear can be modeled on average as having mostly EHG ancestry, but also 21.5±1.7% CHG ancestry. These individuals postdate an EHG hunter gatherer from Samara (Lebyazhinka IV)(8) by a thousand years. When we model this hunter-gatherer as a mixture of CHG and the two remaining EHG hunter-gatherers from Karelia(8), the resulting model fits (p=0.08) and assigns a non-significant 3.7±2.4% proportion of CHG ancestry."
@Legend
There's no Iranian ancestry in Sredny Stog or Yamnaya.
This is just bullshit made up from wrong assumptions and bad mixture modeling.
Sredny Stog/Yamnaya is a mixture of Progress-like steppe people, Ukraine foragers and European farmers from the western forest steppe.
There isn't even any CHG in Sredny Stog/Yamnaya, because the so called CHG in Progress is only CHG-related hunter-gatherer steppe ancestry.
A number of steppe hunter-gatherers with a lot of CHG-like ancestry will be published soon, and I have some of the samples already.
If any Iranian or Armenian-like ancestry shows up in Sredny Stog/Yamnaya, then this is either due to some cryptic Meshoko ancestry in their Progress-like ancestors, and/or noise created by combining Progress-like ancestry with minor European farmer ancestry.
Is there a reason why Steppe En get modelled with so much Sarzarm/Geoksyur En ancestry in G25?
Sarazm has excess hunter-gatherer ancestry which makes it look Progress-like.
And what exactly is this excess hunter gatherer ancestry supposed to be? Also Steppe En can also be modelled with Iran_N aswell
We don't really understand anything about how the Sarazm_Eneo formed yet. There just enough samples for us to claim we can except maybe in very, very loose, distal terms.
They could have some ancestry from some CHG like population than fanned out north or southeast of the Caucasus at some time in deep history, independently of the Iran_N like ancestry, and this could be confusing things (or something ancestry that trifurcated from CHG:Iran_N split... or some other sort of genetic paths in other directions entirely where the centre of gravity is further east).
In the Vahaduo model they like some CHG: https://imgur.com/a/jSMs4T5
And you also find comparing to the model (57 IranN:26 CHG: 14 Tarim_EMBA: 3 WestSiberiaHG), that the real Sarazm_EN has slightly more drift overall/less Basal Eurasian (further from Africans), and is slightly closer to a variable mix of Central Asian/South Asian groups (real and historical) and early Steppe_EMBA, compared to the model. That suggests higher drift and some unmodelled relationship (which could be mediated various ways).
(You get these sort of results comparing Model to real populations on this, where using ancient references on the G25 data as a literal model with no extra drift would of course mean that the model tends to be closer to outgroups. Same is true with modelling Progress_EN itself, it's closer to the real Steppe_EMBA than the model, reflecting unmodelled extra drift, though in that case the model that tends to be more close to ancient Upper Paleolithic Eurasian outgroups, probably because the model is undershooting Basal Eurasian - https://imgur.com/a/aydeThj
Similar thing with CZE_Globular_Amphora - https://imgur.com/a/TDn33K5 . There is unmodelled drift that places the real CZE_Globular_Amphora closer to MN Euro farmers while the model of Barcin+IronGates HG is closer to groups from Anatolia/Balkans that experienced less drift than Euro farmers on the wave of the expansion, as we see clearest in Ariano's paper - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007059 ).
So there isn't any clear reason we can explain yet IMO.
Data from the Magna Graecia paper here: ftp.ebi.ac.uk/vol1/run/ERR101/
the relevant folders are ERR10163341-ERR10163428
@Legend
"@Davidski and @Rob are actually correct here. CHG-related ancestry was present North of Caucasus."
'..and assigns a non-significant 3.7±2.4% proportion of CHG ancestry.'
This is the kind of slamdunk proof I was looking for. Lol.
Yamnaya most likely got its Iranian ancestry (if it does have it) from the same source it got its EEF ancestry from, i.e. EEFs from the Eastern Balkans. We know Iranian Neolithic ancestry was spreading out of Western Anatolia before the formation of the Yamnaya culture, if these individuals rich in Iranian Neolithic ancestry were able to colonize Crete 3500 BCE then there is no doubt they could also sail around the Western coast of the Black Sea and colonize the Danube River Basin where we found the oldest R1b-M269.
As per the mtDna, there is multisource southern ancestry in steppe eneolithic (EEF, paleo CHG, meshoko). This multifocality actually makes a southern origin of IE even less likely, because you would have one person pleading that the trivial amounts of IranN are somehow relevant & transformatory
@David,
"Sarazm has excess hunter-gatherer ancestry which makes it look Progress-like."
That what it is, comparable samples from the same time period from much further west do not yield that, this essentially destroys any notion Sarazm played some role in the formation of Eneolithic Steppe , it even has minor IVCp too, probably why Vashista is rabidly obsessed with Sarazm being PIE and calling it IndiaN . That all but evaporates that possibility as well. This pseudo Progress affinity is picked up via interactions Siberian forager populations in the East.
sample: Sarazm En:I4910
distance: 3.3339
Ganj_Dareh_N: 48
CG_IVCp: 20
GEO_CHG: 19.5
Tarim_EMBA1: 12.5
Marmara_Barcin_N: 0
sample: Parkhai En:I4635
distance: 2.3254
Ganj_Dareh_N: 77
GEO_CHG: 17
Marmara_Barcin_N: 4.5
Tarim_EMBA1: 1.5
sample: Parkhai En:I4635
distance: 2.3462
Ganj_Dareh_N: 77.5
GEO_CHG: 17
Pinarbasi_HG: 4
RUS_AfontovaGora3: 1.5
Ones on the Iranian plateau border pretty much lack that affinity.
@Romulus
“. . . We know Iranian Neolithic ancestry was spreading out of Western Anatolia before the formation of the Yamnaya culture, if these individuals rich in Iranian Neolithic ancestry were able to colonize Crete 3500 BCE then there is no doubt they could also sail around the Western coast of the Black Sea and colonize the Danube River Basin where we found the oldest R1b-M269.”
Maybe I misunderstood you, but it sounds like you’re attributing R1b-M269 to Neolithic Iran. If so, why?
You realize that so-called “oldest R1b-M269” has steppe ancestry, right?
I am not saying that at all.
J2 is associated with Neolithic Iranian ancestry in Europe. Maybe some others too.
@Bluecaviar
"sample: Sarazm En:I4910
distance: 3.3339
Ganj_Dareh_N: 48
CG_IVCp: 20
GEO_CHG: 19.5
Tarim_EMBA1: 12.5
Marmara_Barcin_N: 0
....it even has minor IVCp too, probably why Vashista is rabidly obsessed with Sarazm being PIE and calling it IndiaN"
Its amusing that I live rent free in your head. Also, just because you are garbage at modeling does not mean others are too.
There is no IVCp ancestry in Sarazm, it's the other way round.
@Romulus
“I am not saying that at all.”
Okay. Thanks. Like I said, I might have misunderstood you, and I guess I did.
@Vashishta
Work on your come backs, your just an over the hill incel who talks out of his ass, hence why you have made a career as a Bullshit artist. Kudos! Find a new hobby spare us your stupidity, we have Assuwatama for that.
An interesting new linguistic article written by a group of historical linguists:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275744
They are saying on the basis of shared agricultural words that late (core) Indo-European cannot have been spoken on the Eastern Yamnaya steppe but could well have been spoken in Western Yamnaya (west of the Dnieper) with Sredny-stog possibly being Indo-Anatolian.
Dear Davidski,
You have defined Yamanaya at 3000bc, but none of the research revealing W. Asian ancestry in the Steppe region are suggesting that Indo-Europeanization of the Steppe occured that late. 3000 BC is very late, by modern accounts. In fact Reich and others have converged on a much older been suggesting 8kybp, which is fine. The Yamanaya (or at least 'Proto-Yamanaya') are heavily influenced by South Caucasus/Iran input, and that is the most parsimonious explanation of their Indo-Europeanization.
I can't see any South Caucasus or Iranian input in Yamnaya, except in one outlier female from Ozera who was found with no grave goods.
It'll be interesting to see how Reich handles this problem when he finally confronts it.
Post a Comment