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?
He interprets some EEF and CHG ancestry from the Mesolithic as “West Asian”. I can agree with ANF being WA but the CHG in Yamnaya and Sredny Stog come from distal Steppe-based samples, not actual CHG as in the country of Georgia.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Lazaridis et al. clearly haven't yet come around to the fact that some indigenous Eastern European hunter-gatherers carried substantial levels of so called CHG ancestry.
ReplyDeleteDepending on how you define Yamnaya, Corded Ware and Afanfasievo could easily be considered brothers of Yamnaya and not descendants.
ReplyDeleteYamnaya 3300–2600 BC
Afanasievo 3300—2500 BC
Corded Ware 3000–2350 BC
Which indicates there could be a common source. Why not Sredni Stog?
Don't forget we have R1b-M269>L23>L51>P310/L52>L151 in Czechia early on as well as as R1b-M269>L23>L51>P310/L52 very early in Afansievo. L51 was somewhere in the Eneolithic.
I do find it interesting that none of these Sredny Stog samples were featured in any article prior to the Southern Arc and their claims. I checked the metadata my friend sent to me and this sample was sequenced for Lazaridis' article in 2016! Other Sredny Stog samples also have been sequenced, and from my brief message exchange with N. Kotova I know she sent a sample too. I asked David Reich why there is a gap in samples from the southern russian steppes from the meso/neolithic and if they were working on closing that gap, he mentioned there may have been a lack of availability, which makes sense because in terms of archaeology and physical remains the area during said period isn't the most well documented. From the Sredny Stog period we have a good amount to work with, we have sequenced genomes, yet none are published.
ReplyDeleteThe dataset my friend had access to was
kind of a preliminary version of the current reichlab dataset and guess which sample wasn't included in the version currently available :)
Btw since your coordinate doesn't gave the sample ID was this done on purpose? I think I did share it inadvertedly a few months ago lol.
Meh, I've got more of those samples, but let's keep things a bit mysterious for now.
ReplyDeleteThe answer obviously lies in those progress samples themselves, and not in Yamnaya.
ReplyDeleteThose Progress samples aren't relevant, but that's all I can use publicly for now.
ReplyDeleteSredni Stog got almost all of its CHG from hunter-gatherers north of Progress.
The book linked by Matt previously is pretty good.
ReplyDelete"Indo-Iranian does not have a clear next relative.
It is rather distinct in some respects, so an early split seems quite possible (Hamp’s scenario), but only under the assumption of continued areal contact."
It makes sense IIr is an early split after Anatolian with Proto-Indo-Aryan migrating from Afghanistan and Iranian being the more diverse group. Only problem is the supposed contacts of IIr and Uralic which aren't proven.
It's good to see Eric Hamp vindicated. Thanks Matt.
But why are you using Vinca? Wouldn't Yamnaya be mixing with a WHG-heavy Neolithic pop such as Globular Amphora or Tripolye? The Sredny Stog samples we have model best with such populations. A big point of the study was that Yamnaya supposedly didn't have WHG ancestry, which I found strange.
ReplyDeleteI understand the likelihood that these admixture events that led to the formation of the PIE ethnic landscape happened deeper in history, but how deep?
ReplyDeleteYou can't go back too far without this ccounter-argument falling apart because Neolithic people were serial encroachers into the lands of HGs. If we go back too far, Neolithic-like ancestry ceases to be a realistic factor. Also, we've seen that CHG in the North Caucasus in unsuitable for a donor. But it also doesn't make sense to suggest Southern Russia or the steppes always had this ancestry since the Paleolithic, otherwise all the hunters in the region would have some of this ancestry.
At some point, two or three distinct populations converged (I think we know where), when do you think that happened?
The recently released pre-print "Genetic continuity, isolation, and gene flow in Stone Age Central and Eastern Europe" (Tiina Mattila et al) has an Eneolithic individual UKR104 from the lower Dnipro Valley region (Deriivka II cemetery) archeologically classified as Serednjostogivs'ka (Sredny Stog) (3701–3528 cal BC).
ReplyDelete@ vasistha
ReplyDeleteThe ancestry in so-called Steppe Eneolithic are not the recent Iran-N or ''Indian_N'' you keep pushing. Instead, they came from the north - Volga mouth area. The archaeology and timing is very clear about this.
This means that CHG ancestry was already present there. In fact it was probably already moving up there during the Late Paleolothic.
@Richard Rocca
ReplyDeleteThe recently released pre-print "Genetic continuity, isolation, and gene flow in Stone Age Central and Eastern Europe" (Tiina Mattila et al) has an Eneolithic individual UKR104 from the lower Dnipro Valley region (Deriivka II cemetery) archeologically classified as Serednjostogivs'ka (Sredny Stog) (3701–3528 cal BC).
What does UKR104 look like?
The Sredni Stog samples that I've seen from around 4,200 BCE are very similar to Yamnaya.
That’s the sample we talked about on last thread. It looks like ukr.N but pulled toward Yamnaya cluster somewhat
ReplyDelete@Unknown
ReplyDeleteBut why are you using Vinca? Wouldn't Yamnaya be mixing with a WHG-heavy Neolithic pop such as Globular Amphora or Tripolye? The Sredny Stog samples we have model best with such populations. A big point of the study was that Yamnaya supposedly didn't have WHG ancestry, which I found strange.
First of all, please try to log in properly, so that we know who you are.
Secondly, Globular Amphora is too young to be relevant for Sredni Stog, and I think Sredni Stog and Yamnaya have the same type of European farmer ancestry.
You're probably right about Tripolye being important here.
But there are no decent sets of early Trypillia samples yet, so I went for high quality sample sets from the eastern Balkans and the Carpathian Basin.
It's important to use good quality samples in both the G25 and qpAdm, otherwise the results are questionable.
@MikeW
ReplyDelete“Depending on how you define Yamnaya, Corded Ware and Afanfasievo could easily be considered brothers of Yamnaya and not descendants.
Yamnaya 3300–2600 BC
Afanasievo 3300—2500 BC
Corded Ware 3000–2350 BC
Which indicates there could be a common source. Why not Sredni Stog?
Don't forget we have R1b-M269>L23>L51>P310/L52>L151 in Czechia early on as well as as R1b-M269>L23>L51>P310/L52 very early in Afansievo. L51 was somewhere in the Eneolithic.”
As far as Corded Ware is concerned, the experts currently seem to see its genesis in the CWC X Horizon, ~3000-2900 BC, with the oldest sites being Srednia and Hubinek in Malopolska in SE Poland. CWC X appears to mark a transition period between Yamnaya-style burials that included the use of ochre and the typical CW burials of the beginning of the A Horizon. Thomas Olander mentions “expansions from the steppes westward towards southern Poland 3300-3000 BC” in his “The Indo-European Homeland: Introducing the Problem” on page 26 of the book, Tracing the Indo-Europeans (Olsen, Olander, and Kristiansen, editors, 2019).
I’m sure you recall the Y-DNA results from the recent Papac et al Corded Ware paper, which show the oldest and earliest wave of CW in Bohemia composed mostly of R1b-L151. Although the CW samples from Linderholm et al were several centuries younger than CWC X, they were L51 and were recovered not from from Hubinek and Srednia in Malopolska.
So, in other words, I think it is possible that some Yamnaya subculture could indeed have been ancestral to Corded Ware. It’s just that no CWC X Horizon burials have been subjected to archaeogenetic analysis yet.
I think of Yamnaya as a loose kind of catch-all term for what was going on on the steppe at the time: it was a big melting pot of similar cultures, all of which had adopted Indo-European speech and steppe pastoralist practices. I think probably to start with they practiced female exogamy, which over time spread essentially the same steppe DNA throughout the region, while the different tribes/subcultures retained their own dominant Y haplogroups: in some places this, in others that.
Anthony derives Afanasievo from Repin, but it was essentially an early Yamnaya-type variant.
@bellbeakerblogger
ReplyDeleteAt some point, two or three distinct populations converged (I think we know where), when do you think that happened?
They were converging slowly during the so called Neolithic, and then much faster during the Eneolithic when mobility increased dramatically.
The earliest evidence of CHG-rich hunter-gatherers mixing with EHG hunter-gatherers is from the Middle Don dating to ~5,300 BCE.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/05/population-genomics-of-stone-age.html
But these samples aren't directly relevant to Yamnaya and Sredni Stog.
There were other hunter-gatherers on the steppe with a lot more CHG.
@Davidski “ You're probably right about Tripolye being important here.”
ReplyDeleteTriploye was 80% ANF, 10% WHG and 10% EHG, turns out.
Their collapse following the WSH’s westbound migration was rather rapid.
They may’ve been instrumental in the ethnogenesis of Sredny Stog and descendants cultures - Yamnaya and Corded Ware, but I don’t think that they contributed anything meaningful at 2800BCE or afterwards. GAC must be a much likelier source (of farmer admixture).
And the earliest discernible PIE speech must’ve been formed In Sredny Stog. Khvalynsk may or may have not been IE speaking but it was a dead end. Sredny is ancestral to English.
@Rich S “ I think of Yamnaya as a loose kind of catch-all term for what was going on on the steppe at the time: it was a big melting pot of similar cultures, all of which had adopted Indo-European speech and steppe pastoralist practices.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think so. My bet is that any tribe with the WSH genetic component was already IE speaking and pastoral economically. Lower Don Culture created the earliest PIE speech which was continued in SS. They then spread via demic diffusion
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteGAC is too young.
The basic Yamnaya genotype already existed in Sredni Stog in ~4,200 BCE, and realistically earlier than that.
Some sort of early or proto Trypillian group is the most likely culprit. There are no such samples available yet, but Balkan and Carpathian Neolithic farmers must be fairly close.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete“I don’t think so. My bet is that any tribe with the WSH genetic component was already IE speaking and pastoral economically. Lower Don Culture created the earliest PIE speech which was continued in SS. They then spread via demic diffusion.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, but Yamnaya was a cultural horizon that spread over most of the steppe across numerous local cultures that adopted the traits that made them part of the Yamnaya phenomenon. It wasn’t a single, homogeneous, local culture. You can take that and divide it into its component parts, reducing Yamnaya to something much less than the term actually means. If that’s what you want to do, okay, but we will no longer be talking about Yamnaya the big-tent steppe horizon.
@David
ReplyDeleteUKR104 clusters with Yamnaya on the PCA. It's from Dereivka layer II.
@epoch
ReplyDeleteYeah, but it's only 66.8% Yamnaya in their anachronistic qpAdm model. By the way, I sent this email to the lead author...
I noticed that you modeled the ancestry of your Sredny Stog sample ukr104 as a mixture between Yamnaya and Neolithic foragers from Ukraine.
However, obviously you're aware that Yamnaya is younger than Sredny Stog. Indeed, it's also possible that Yamnaya was an offshoot of a specific Sredny Stog subgroup from Ukraine.
So your model, although statistically sound, is anachronistic. Moreover, I suspect that using Yamnaya as the "eastern" source of gene flow into Sredny Stog might be hiding some crucial minor gene flow in Sredny Stog from the Balkans. That's because Yamnaya may have this type of Balkan admixture.
Indeed, there are hypotheses based on archeological data suggesting that steppe populations were significantly influenced by Neolithic farmers from the Balkans and the Carpathian region.
In my opinion, it'd be useful to see a more chronologically sound mixture model of ukr104, because the results might even change the conclusions in your paper.
Potentially, apart from Ukraine Neolithic samples from Mathieson et al., and also trying a wide range of Neolithic Balkan and Hungarian samples from various papers, these might prove to be an effective reference population for ukr104: Eneolithic steppe from Progress, Russia, from Wang et al. 2020.
All seems sensible enough. I still wonder if we won't be able to be 100% understand this totally until we can catch any samples in the act of acquiring the ANF admixture. Basically because then we don't have to be concerned about which outgroups to choose, we'd just have the admixing population.
ReplyDeleteI tried a model with target Afanasievo (as the biggest and best covered set of Steppe_EMBA), allsnps and the following outgroups: 'Cameroon_SMA','Morocco_Iberomaurusian','Russia_Kostenki14','China_AmurRiver_Paleolithic','Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG','Turkey_Epipaleolithic','Georgia_CHG.SG','Iran_GanjDareh_N','Israel_C','Italy_Sicily_LateMesolithic','Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic','Russia_West_Siberia_HG','Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP','Mongolia_North_N','China_NEastAsia_Coastal_EN'. Not saying these choices are better or worse than in the model on the post.
This arguably confuses the shotgun and capture which we don't want to do, and is reliant on some single samples, but the SNPs looked OK (high) for main f4 stats, and CHG should be esssential. Thought this would capture the Basal Eurasian, the early East/West Eurasian, the epipaleolithic/early neolithic West Asian splits, and the clines of HG (Italian refugium vs Balkan refugian vs EHG cline, with the East Asian samples splitting off the ANE vs East Asian element.). I avoided the Natufians in favour of Israel_C (3950 BCE) despite Natufians being early because of their weak coverage in the 1240k 52.2.
Found that for that none of the Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic+Ukraine_N+PopX or Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic+Russia_Karelia_HG+PopX models I tried worked to get p above 5.
All I could get to work to scrape above p=5 was Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic+Khvalynsk+Hungary_MN_Vinca or Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic+Khvalynsk+Russia_Caucasus_Maikop_Novosvobodnaya. Vinca worked slightly better and gave a higher p above 5 (but only by 1).
Then I introduced Iberia_EN and Levant_PPNB to the pRight (to try and get more precision on European farmer or Levant related flows) and each one respectively made Hungary_MN_Vinca and Russia_Caucasus_Maikop_Novosvobodnaya fail. With both in, the model only succeeded with Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic+Khvalynsk+Hungary_MN_Vinca/Russia_Caucasus_Maikop_Novosvobodnaya (44:34:7:15 at p=0.1). (That incidentally works out around 10% ANF between the two sources).
Mind, caveat that I tried relatively few combinations; there might be a lot more viable ones, especially at 4 sources many more than could really test.
I can't say that this is right and in fact mixing the .SG and capture may be wrong and the pRight may lack the SNPs or relevance in some places.
It seems plausible enough that the Yamnaya would derive from extending the Progress->Khvalynsk cline and then displacing towards a source with ANF. Maybe the finding of the Don_River_HG would completely change this, and the cline from which Yamnaya/Sredni Stog is displaced could actually look like Progress->Don_River_HG and that might change the models in details. I am not totally sure we will know without the direct evidence.
@Davidski, how do you explain the lack of WHG/Balkan HG in BA Anatolia samples? That is the key argument in the paper regarding Iranian/EAnat. route for Proto- Anatolian; South-of-Caucasus PIE homeland stems from this argument. Did Proto- Hittites cross Caucasus in your scenario or is there WHA/BHG component in Anatolia samples? Speaking of which, is there WHG in any BA/IA Iran samples?
ReplyDelete@St
ReplyDeleteThere are serious problems with looking for recent population movements via trace amounts of really ancient ancestry like that.
For example, minor WHG is easily cancelled out via closely related lines in the Near East, which are very similar to WHG.
And who in the Balkans actually has Balkan HG ancestry after the Neolithic? Do the Balkan Mycenaeans even have Balkan HG?
I'll never understand how Iosif, David Reich, Nick Patterson etc. sat down and actually convinced themselves that this was the right approach.
I haven't even said what I really think about this paper and the methods in it. I've been very, very restrained here.
@ Matt
ReplyDeleteIf you have IberiaN in pRight and you’re testing Vinca in Left, isn’t there potential gene flow from Vinca to Iberia ?
And does mixing SG and capture really confound results? I don’t think so
@Matt
ReplyDeleteI've seen quite a few new samples from the Neolithic and Eneolithic steppe, and this blog entry is based in a roundabout sort of way on my observations with these new samples.
There are indeed some signs of North Caucasus admixture on the steppe during the Eneolithic, maybe even in Sredni Stog.
But I can assure you that Yamnaya is not from this sort of Eneolithic population, but one with minor Carpathian or Balkan farmer ancestry.
@Rob, if the Vinca samples are earlier then it's possible. Flow from some common ancestor instead is kind of the point of including Iberia EN.
ReplyDelete@ StP
ReplyDelete''how do you explain the lack of WHG/Balkan HG in BA Anatolia samples? That is the key argument in the paper regarding Iranian/EAnat. route for Proto- Anatolian; South-of-Caucasus PIE homeland stems from this argument. ''
It's not a great argument.
Firstly, there were different kinds of HG ancestry from different donor regions in the Balkans (because southern Balkans & Greece lacked much HG populace), so just using Iron Gates is too limited.
Secondly, its fairly uninformative to model middle Bronze Age populations with Epipaleolitihc genomes. I'm sure harvard know that, so I can't help but think they're being intentionally deceptive. Im mean , why dont they throw Neanderthal in there for good measure ?
Thirdly, there is Y-hg I2a-L68 link for guidance, which is found in Balkans, Carpathian basin, Anatolia & steppe, even Swat valley. Seems pretty clear, but a lot of details to be aware of.
@ Matt
Ok, yes, both parallel chronologically. I'll try it
@Rob said: St write ''how do you explain the lack of WHG/Balkan HG in BA Anatolia samples? That is the key argument in the paper regarding Iranian/EAnat. route for Proto- Anatolian; South-of-Caucasus PIE homeland stems from this argument. ''
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't my question. Rob, some other St. wrote to David!
@Matt
ReplyDeleteYeah, I didn't want to mix capture and SG data.
But I just had a look at what adding CHG does to my setup, and it doesn't fundamentally change the results from what we see in the G25 models.
Vinca still passes relatively well, although I actually doubt it's very close to the real source of admixture.
By the way, what can you say about this sample?
ReplyDeletePSS,0.118376,0.093429,0.036204,0.105622,-0.032929,0.044344,0.003055,0.001154,-0.05563,-0.073441,-0.004709,0.004946,-0.00892,-0.026561,0.03488,0.019623,0.000391,0.002534,0.002388,0.011005,-0.003369,0.004822,0.008504,0.022292,0.000599
@Matt
ReplyDeleteMittnik 2018 has 2 Corded Ware samples that show no extra EEF. So technically speaking they should be unadmixted arrivals from where Yamnaya also came about. It would be interesting to see if they behave the same as Afanasievo in your models.
"Computing D-statistics for each individual of the form D(Baltic LN, Yamnaya; X, Mbuti), we find that the two individuals from the early phase of the LN (Plinkaigalis242 and Gyvakarai1, dating to ca. 3200–2600 calBCE) form a clade with Yamnaya (Supplementary Table 7), consistent with the absence of the farmer-associated component in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 2b)."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02825-9
Also described on this blog before, as you can see Latvia_LN1 can be added to that list as well.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/early-baltic-corded-ware-form-genetic.html
ReplyDelete-------------- PSS ANCESTRY BREAKDOWN: -------------
80.804% RUS_Progress_En__PG2004
15.195% BGR_MP_N__I1297
4.001% RUS_Khvalynsk_En__I0433
------------------------------------------------
Fit error: 0.03167508866317102
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteInteresting sample, do you know more about it? When is it dated? Where did it come from?
Some models for it and the most related averages.
Target: PSS
Distance: 0.0644% / 0.06441697
32.0 GEO_CHG:KK1
25.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Sidelkino
24.0 UKR_Meso:I1763
7.9 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1945
5.9 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3
5.2 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014
Target: MNG_Afanasievo_1_contam
Distance: 0.0638% / 0.06383440
54.8 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Sidelkino
31.9 GEO_CHG:KK1
6.9 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1945
6.4 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014
Target: MNG_Afanasievo_1
Distance: 0.0562% / 0.05624887
31.8 GEO_CHG:KK1
28.8 UKR_Meso:I1763
17.3 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Sidelkino
10.1 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3
6.4 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004
4.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954
0.9 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1945
0.7 RUS_Veretye_Meso:PES001
Target: RUS_Kubano-Tersk
Distance: 0.0574% / 0.05741828
35.6 GEO_CHG:KK1
22.5 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Sidelkino
21.2 UKR_Meso:I1763
7.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954
7.3 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3
5.8 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 0.0592% / 0.05924999
33.8 GEO_CHG:KK1
28.8 UKR_Meso:I1763
22.5 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Sidelkino
7.5 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3
3.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1945
3.6 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014
Or is PSS Mr. Proto-Sredni Stog?
ReplyDeleteNot a hundred % related but a new article gives some new approximate linguistic dates from Kloekhorst that need to be considered.
ReplyDeleteHe gives 3100 BC for Proto-Anatolian and 4400-4100 BC for the split between Proto-Anatolian and Core Indo-European.
Interestingly the oldest attestations of the Anatolian branch are moving eastwards with Anatolian names from the 23rd or 24th century BC in Ebla in Syria, but this probably is due to the earlier use of writing in the East.
The article is: Kloekhorst, Alwin "Anatolian" in "The Indo-european Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective" Chapter 5 ed.: T. Olander (Cambridge: CUP, 2022) pp 63-82 and is available on academia.edu.
Have you actually written to dear iosif?
ReplyDelete@Rob: "And does mixing SG and capture really confound results? I don’t think so"
ReplyDeleteIt might do on some level. There are quite a few .SG and capture versions of the same populations in HO/1240k with good coverage to them (e.g. Afanasievo is there in both forms, GAC albeit from different sites, NW Turkey N), so you can test this a bit with f4(Mbuti/Cameroon_SMA, X.Capture / X.Shotgun ; Y.Shotgun,Y.Capture), and identify what effect is purely due to capture or shotgun methods showing attraction.
When I did this I found that f4(Mbuti, X.Capture; Y.Shotgun, Y.Capture) regularly showed attraction between the capture samples. On the other hand f4(Mbuti, X.Shotgun; Y.Shotgun, Y.Capture) didn't show any tendency. I didn't filter for transversions or anything like this that some people might do.
So I think it could bias things a bit, at least enough that for some formulations of the pRight and pLeft you might just find that qpAdm couldn't find a solution that would work because there's some capture-capture attraction that can't be solved by varying ancestral proportions. Perhaps more relevant if you're looking for very close/fine models.
@Davidski, ah, OK, that must be quite an annoyance to have to sort of address it roundaboutly.
PSS: very close to Yamnaya/Afanasievo; less so in West Eurasia plot terms than the Sredni_Stog_En sample, but without some drift or sample noise in that sample.
Plots: https://imgur.com/a/S9ZO47f
Compared to averages, it's slightly directly south shifted relative to Yamnaya_Samara/Kalmykia/Afanasievo and NW shifted compared to Yamnaya_Caucasus.
But it looks like its within the variability of all these populations so can't read too much into that. However, if you had an assumption this was an average of its population, you could have some small admix of EHG to get to Yamnaya_Samara, or Progress_En into this sample to get to Yamnaya_Caucasus and etc.
@epoch if I get any time I'll have a look.
@Dumpling
ReplyDeleteFirst I'm going to take down their Indo-Anatolian House of Cards, then I'll talk to them.
"Post-SredniStog" does seem to be behaving a little southern compared to Yamnaya/Afanasievo samples.
ReplyDeleteTo see if it could be covered by 51 samples with Yamnaya or Afanasievo in the pop label, from Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, I put it in Vahaduo to see what the lowest distance sample from those was: https://imgur.com/a/TRpnv2d
That's RISE552 and it's pretty close distance (very little distance).
Then I ran the mixed model to see what the sample prefers to be modelled as:
It takes 87% from the "normal" Yamnaya and Afanasievo, and then 13% from Yamnaya_Ozera_o (https://i.imgur.com/6OC8FHF.png).
If I drop in to those 51 samples, the ARM_Aknashen_N average as well, it still asks for a slight top up with that, when 'Dist Col - No' is set (https://i.imgur.com/juGedKB.png).
However that may just be some sample quality thing. There's not a massive distance difference from just forcing the model to use the best fit of the main / normal Yamnaya/Afanasievo.
Visually it's also generally within the variation of the most southern part of the range of Afanasievo samples (https://i.imgur.com/VxrRpCq.png).
So there's
ReplyDeleteR1b-M269* in 4500 BC northern Bulgaria
R1b-Z2013 3700 BC west Ukraine / Dobrudja
@Matt
ReplyDeleteDon't think it's a quality issue.
The issue is modeling an earlier sample with later samples after about a thousand years of dilution of Progress-like ancestry on the North Pontic steppe.
@ StP - noted !
ReplyDeleteRob said...
ReplyDelete"R1b-M269* in 4500 BC northern Bulgaria"
This sample is very questionable. FTDNA won't call it but it clearly could be M269 of some type. Is YFull calling it? Keep in mind the M269 phylogenetic equivalent block is about a hundred SNPs long so this sample, if M269, may or not be closely related to the ones below.
Here are some of the earliest relevant samples:
SHT001 M269>L23>L51>P310/L52 about 3100 BC - Afansievo - Bayankhongor Province, Mongolia
OBR003A M269>L23>L51>P310/L52>L151 about 2900 BC - Corded Ware - Mělník district, Czechia
PNL001 M269>L23>L51>P310/L52>L151>U106 about 2900 BC - Corded Ware - Hradec Králové district, Czechia
I0429 M269>L23>Z2103>Z2105 about 3100 BC - Yamnaya - Lapotina I, Samara Oblast, Russia
I0438 M269>L23>Z2103>Z2105 about 28006 BC - Yamanaya - Luzhki I, Samara Oblast, Russia
I0443 M269>L23* L51- Z2105- about 2950 BC - Yamnaya - Lapotina II, Samara Oblast, Russia
I0444 M269>L23 ?downstream 3100 BC - Yamanaya - Kutuluk I, Samara Oblast, Russia
@Rob, what's the sample number for?
ReplyDelete"R1b-Z2013 3700 BC west Ukraine / Dobrudja"
@MikeW
ReplyDeleteIt's not questionable. The reason it's not at Yfull is because it's capture data.
@Davidski
ReplyDeletePSS is this the sample Rob is writing about, or is it another sample?
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteYou are confident the Bulgaria Eneolithic R1b M269 is actually R1b M269? I was never confident of it.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteWasn't this sample re-sequenced for this paper? What's your lack of confidence based on?
CTS3622 DER
CTS9018 (-P297) DER
L265 (-M269) DER
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThanks
There is a good work on the Eneolite of the northwestern Black Sea region by Alekseev I. L. 1992. Mounds of the Paleometallic epoch in the north-western Black Sea region. After reading it, much will be clear in matters of genetics.
https://www.academia.edu/39894633/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%98_%D0%9B_1992_%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D1%8D%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%B2_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteCan you translate the main points?
@ MikeW
ReplyDeleteSure they’re related .
Afanasievo is too late to reveal where M269 was lurking during eneolithic
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of details, descriptions of burials and inventory. But in short, the essence boils down to the fact that about 4000 BC the Suvorov group, which is a group of Novodanilovka culture, penetrates into this region. Novodanilovka itself is considered an late stage of the Stedniy Stog culture. On the basis of this group, Budjak culture subsequently arises, which is considered a branch of Yamnaya culture. At the same time, elements of the Nizhny Mikhailovka culture penetrate into this region, which through certain elements are transformed into the Usatovo culture. For some time, these two groups coexisted together in this region, but over time, the tribes of Usatovo leave the region, and there remain the tribes that subsequently formed the Budjak culture (Yamnaya).
In general, I would not expect L51 in this region, but rather there will be Z2103, which will later be in the Balkans and possibly in Greece (apparently the Suvorov group). The second group in this region will probably be Z645, the future Z93. Either this is proto Fatyanovo, or some kind of related group. There was also a third group in this region - Chernavode, which was just moved further west by the Suvorovo group. It is still difficult to say anything definite about this group.
ReplyDeleteI’d defer to modern data and adna rather than articles from 1992. They have problems with poor dating and presumptions that Yamnaya were newcomers from the Russian east
ReplyDeleteI have the impression that the Novodanilovka culture strategy somehow fills the BBC strategy. This group, considered to be the Sredniy Stog trade group, penetrates into all steppe regions. The graves of Novodanilovka are found on the Dnieper itself, on the Volga, in the Caucasus, on the Dniester and the Danube. Samples of Progress and Vonuchka are also, ultimately, the Novodanilov group. This group in the period 4500-4000BC spreads proto Yamnaya traditions throughout the steppe. I think this group is Z2103, and maybe even L23. How R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 relate to this group is not yet clear. Apparently, R1a-M417 are some local local steppe/forest-steppe groups that have fallen under the influence of this group. R1b-L51 is probably one of the subgroups of Novodanilovka that went to the forest-steppe, where the group R1a-CTS4385 lived, with which they went to Central Europe.
ReplyDeleteI don't see a read for L265/PF6431 position 8149348 in accession file SAMEA110396701 run ERR769626 for I2181 4606-4447 calBCE from Smyadovo, Bulgaria.
ReplyDeleteI do see P280 C>G derived so it's definitely R.
CTS9018/PF6484 C>T is possibly due to deamination and the same thing goes for PF6452/YSC0000167 G>A.
It's probably the possible false positives from deamination causing some people to say it is very questionable.
I don't see any signs that there are other possible false positive calls from deamination though so it is doubtful that CTS9018/PF6484 and PF6452/YSC0000167 are actually from deamination when also taking into consideration there are no contradictions with the other derived, or ancestral, calls and the sample is definitely derived for P280.
So I2181 4606-4447 calBCE from Smyadovo, Bulgaria should cautiously be called R-PF6452 (R-M269 block) at the very least and especially so if it really is derived for L265.
As I understand it, that R1b-M269 from Smyadovo c. 4400 BC had plenty of steppe DNA. It’s unlikely that M269 originated in eastern Bulgaria just because that sample turned up there, not too far from the west coast of the Black Sea.
ReplyDeleteThere's no real dilemma with the early R-M269 from Bulgaria, and it certainly does nothing to support Lazaridis' scenario where R-M269 may not be associated with steppe ancestry. From the original published paper (Mathieson 2018):
ReplyDelete"In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe-related ancestry (Figure 1B,D). These findings push back the first evidence of steppe-related ancestry this far West in Europe by almost 2,000 years, but it was sporadic as other Copper Age (~5000-4000 BCE) individuals from the Balkans have no evidence of it. Bronze Age (~3400-1100 BCE) individuals do have steppe-related ancestry (we estimate 30%; CI: 26-35%), with the highest proportions in the four latest Balkan Bronze Age individuals in our data (later than ~1700 BCE) and the least in earlier Bronze Age individuals (3400-2500 BCE; Figure 1D)."
Rob said...
ReplyDelete"Sure they’re related .
Afanasievo is too late to reveal where M269 was lurking during eneolithic"
A single sample of just one M269* or some upstream block of it is still very nonclusive. Let's back up one step at a time. We know where L23>Z2103 was (Yamnaya) and probably some L23* with it.
The R-L23>L51>P310 in Afansievo and R-L23>L51>P310>L151 (&U106) in Early Corded Ware are are quite distant in opposite directions (east and west) from the Steppes. This was the early Early Bronze Age so to find a common source is quite possibly an Eneolithic launch.
Some may call it Pre-Yamnaya or even Proto-Yamnaya, but I think to be specific, Sredni Stog II could have spun off both Afansievo and Corded Ware. Sredni Stog II had corded ware pottery as well as stone battle-axes.
@ rich S, Rocca , MikeW
ReplyDeleteI didn’t suggest that M269 is from Bulgaria , because we know that Bulgaria was originally full of G2a Farmers
And there’s no point being fixated with “steppe ancestry “ because that only gets us to a certain point . Pre-M269 did not live on the steppe since For Ever, nor did “steppe ancestry” exist since For Ever . R1b-M269 had to get to the steppe and some point and acquire steppe En ancestry from the EHG/ CHG group , which lacked M269
That’s what I’m after, and everything points to the relative west so far
Btw Afanasievo js irrelevant here
@Rob,
ReplyDeleteR1b M269 could very well have originated in the EHG/CHG mixed Steppe people.
Allentoft's article contains a huge amount of R1b from all over central Russia. Among them there will probably be R1b-Y13200, similar to Narva, but mostly it is R1b-M269*. All these cultures are somehow connected by their origin with the Volga. It's even strange that this issue is being discussed now.
ReplyDeleteOh my god, suddenly we have all the Anthrogenica hooligans propagandizing that M269 has its origin in the steppes
ReplyDeleteGuys, you just have to accept reality, because Smyadovo means what Villabruna and Zvejnieki meant years ago, i.e. L754 is Italian, P297 is Latvian and M269 Bulgarian until older samples of these markers are found in other regions.
This means that, as we have been saying for years, Yamnaya is not the origin but the sink of M269 (Z2103) and that all the subclades of M269 (also V88) that appear in the Russian or Ukrainian steppes or forest steppe have a Balkan or Baltic origin (for the moment).
The occurrence of Z2103 in Ukraine (4.000-3.500 BC) was known long ago and possibly can explain why Yamnaya has blood from Balkan farmers (together with some mtDNA markers).
Even more important is the fact that the dating of Smyadovo (4,500 BC) is even earlier than the existence of PIE, and this, together with the fact that it belongs to the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture, disassociates this lineage from the spread of IE. I know it is very difficult for you to accept the harsh reality and recognize that you have been wrong with the hundreds of posts saying that M269 would never appear in the neolithic farmers. Now that it has been confirmed (Arza did it on this blog more than two years ago, and Lazaridis confirmed it on twitter before this paper was published), you simply have to look for its descendants in any culture that has a cultural and archaeological relationship with Gumelnita.
We have already talked a lot about the new Kurganist mantra i.e. Afanasievo and the samples in China and Mongolia, as Rob says that culture is totally irrelevant to the origin of M269 and the subclades found there will always have origins in the West
Bulgaria, although it is a Balkan territory and therefore in Eastern Europe, is west of China and Mongolia, right?
I think we're going to see a civil war at Harvard, because Patterson is not going to let Lazaridis get away with it. Also Max Planck is not very happy with his conclusions because last year they destroyed the Yamnaya culture because of the Narva signal at the CWC sites in Bohemia and Lazaridis although he recognizes that there is no L51 and M417 at Yamnaya has done gymnastic mental exercises to keep linking that culture with all IE languages (except Anatolian). The role of L51 in this whole affair is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, although genetic continuity in Ukraine from the Mesolithic to the Eneolithic has recently been advocated, the Sredni Stog culture is super heterogeneous in its autosomal composition, we even have 100% anatolian farmer samples such as Dereivka-I3719 (4.874 BC)-Ychr-I2a2a, mtDNA-H1 and others with very high percentages of WHG
@ Vladimir
ReplyDelete“ Samples of Progress and Vonuchka are also, ultimately, the Novodanilov group. This group in the period 4500-4000BC spreads proto Yamnaya traditions. I think this group is Z2103, and maybe even L23.”
This isn’t supported by evidence, Vlad. Progress and Vonuchka had V3616 & J1. Balkan Suvorovo had H2 and Q1a for ex
This is more complex than you think
ReplyDeleteSo if some are predicting M269 in “Latvia HG like” people all over central Russia and presumably Belarus, then M269 could have made its way onto the Dnieper steppe ~ 5000 BC and married into the “Eneolithic CHG / EHG” population . This is a possibility
Before 3100 bc, the steppe was a population sink
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThere are Suvorovo samples? I missed that, are these from this triplet of papers?
@Rob “ So if some are predicting M269 in “Latvia HG like” people all over central Russia and presumably Belarus, then M269 could have made its way onto the Dnieper steppe ~ 5000 BC and married into the “Eneolithic CHG / EHG” population . This is a possibility
ReplyDeleteBefore 3100 bc, the steppe was a population sink.”
Who’s your best candidate for spreading the putative PIE speaking nucleus? Would you claim that Latvia HG-like people could’ve been the ones, or would Proto-Pre-PIE related to Tripolyan?
My estimate is that it came with R1a1 clan in Sredny Stog.
My point of view is that R-M269 came from a population nearby R1a-M417, maybe further south in the lower don. Also, the steppe ancestry of the Smyadovo guy is middle-don like.
ReplyDelete@Mike So PIE came with R1a1. Sweet!
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure where R1b-M269 arose, but it seems to me the best clues are immediately up and downstream of it. As I recall, and I don’t have the dates in front of me, those P297 HGs from the Baltic are too late to be of much help in pinpointing the birthplace of M269; but, okay, at least they’re something. Much more significant is the fact that R1b-L23 and two of his “sons”, Z2103 and L51, show every indication of having arisen on the Eurasian steppe someplace. Therefore, IMHO, R1b-M269 is most likely of steppe/forest steppe origin.
ReplyDeleteIf Villabruna had any real significance for the larger history of R1b, we would be finding evidence of his putative descendants and/or downstream relatives in Central and Western Europe in subsequent eras, i.e., the Mesolithic and Neolithic. Except for a small handful of V88s, we aren’t finding that. And V88 is on a line that separated from the line leading to M269 about 17,000 years ago.
As for the Smyadovo R1b-M269, well, as has been pointed out a number of times, he had steppe DNA and was found in eastern Bulgaria, not too far from the Black Sea coast. How anyone (i.e., Gaska) could think that is a real plus for the anyplace-but-the-steppe argument is one of the mysteries of the contortions of which a sufficiently motivated human mind is capable.
@Rob... All I did was mention that the Bulgarian R-M269 sample had steppe ancestry. As you mention, the farmers that were there before-hand belonged to G2a and had no steppe, and the samples after him lacked steppe as well, so probably a dead-end. Therefore, this sample is likely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. If by "more western" you mean a line from the eastern shores of Bulgaria to the Baltic for the origin of R-M269, then I have no objections one way or another. Nobody thinks the fully formed R-M269 with its 100+ SNPs originated in Mongolia, no matter hom much the Basque chearleader accuses ;)
ReplyDelete@Rob: I give it a lower probability, but of course it is "possible" that the fully formed R-M269 branch (with BTW contains 100+ SNPs) was born somewhere between Bulgaria and the Baltics and may even have lacked EHG. However, I mentioned that the specific Bulgarian Copper Age R-M269 sample had steppe ancestry because it is obvious, as you pointed out, that the preceding Bulgarian farmers were G2a+ and lacked steppe ancestry. Gimbutas, on archeological grounds, theorized an early steppe incursion into the Balkans around the time of that sample, and both the Y-DNA and autosomal makeup of that sample shows just that; an east-to-west geneflow. So, there is nothing in that specific sample that proves a Bulgarian nor WHG/ANF/CHG origin for R-M269. So again, Lazaridis' propsal of a non-EHG R-M269 origin has exactly zero samples to back it up.
ReplyDelete@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete“@Mike So PIE came with R1a1. Sweet!”
I realize your post was light hearted, which is great, so I’m not trying to make a big deal out of it, but I do want to use it to make a point. That point is that I don’t think we’re going to ever be able to identify the original Y-DNA haplogroup of the first Indo-Europeans. I think we know what handful of Y-DNA haplogroups were represented among the early Indo-Europeans, but that’s the best we can do and probably the best we’ll ever be able to do.
The ubiquitous steppe autosomal DNA that accompanied the spread of Indo-European was probably originally spread on the steppe via the spread of women as wives anyway, so it wasn’t accomplished anyway by some all-conquering Y-DNA haplogroup to begin with. Now that’s not how things went when the Indo-Europeans crossed into Old Europe. Then exogamy enabled the entrance of EEF into the IE population. That’s a different story, as we see with Corded Ware, it’s derivative Bell Beaker, and subsequent cultures.
Historical linguist Birgit Annette Olsen points out, in her article, “Aspects of Family Structure Among the Indo-Europeans” (in Tracing the Indo-Europeans, Olsen, Olander, and Kristiansen editors, 2019, page 160), “marriages were exogamous, often implying long-distance traveling as suggested by a new etymological interpretation of the word for ‘husband’s brother’s wife’ as ‘traveller’.
@ Epoch
ReplyDeleteFrom:
- Genetic continuity, isolation, and gene flow in Stone Age Central and Eastern Europe" (Tiina Mattila et al. Rom 047 is from site DM, a Transylvanian variant of Suvorovo
- From the Anthony article which Matt mentioned a few weeks ago, Csongrad site ~ 4200 BC
- I guess this Smyadovo outlier would also qualify as such
@ Andrze
''Who’s your best candidate for spreading the putative PIE speaking nucleus?''
My view is the same as it had been for a while - originally from the cline of hunter-gatherers which existed just east of the Farmer frontier. The frontier was originally the Danube itself, but then the C-T Farmers expanded and whiped most of it out. Maybe Luwian-Hittite represents a remnant of this. Then east of the Dnieper would begin the nuclear IE.
Vladimer said...
ReplyDelete"Allentoft's article contains a huge amount of R1b from all over central Russia. Among them there will probably be R1b-Y13200, similar to Narva, but mostly it is R1b-M269*."
True R1b-M269* with L23- PF7689- is pretty hard to find. Do you mean true R1b-M269*? or just R1b-M269 unknown downstream?
R1b-Y13200 is another name for R1b-M73.
@Rich S “ The ubiquitous steppe autosomal DNA that accompanied the spread of Indo-European was probably originally spread on the steppe via the spread of women as wives anyway,”
ReplyDeleteAccording to Anthony, WHG and EHG males interacted with ANF and CHG females to produce Steppe ancestry. If wives were the vector in spreading early PIE speech then according to this hypothesis PIE was either an ANF sourced language (Tripolye?) or a CHG one.
I’m open to Rob’s suggestions about PIE’s evolution and formation: I wouldn’t rule out being a C-T influenced one or even its origins amongst Bug Dniester or Dniester Donetsk.
Richard Rocca said...
ReplyDelete"I give it a lower probability, but of course it is "possible" that the fully formed R-M269 branch (with BTW contains 100+ SNPs) was born somewhere between Bulgaria and the Baltics and may even have lacked EHG. However, I mentioned that the specific Bulgarian Copper Age R-M269 sample had steppe ancestry..."
Agreed, but I want to re-emphasize what seems to be lost on some. R1b-M269's MRCA is barely related to the the rest of R1b. There are some hundred or so SNPs in its phylogenetic block. For an ancient sample to be found positive for a couple of SNPs in this string does not mean an it is closely related to the R1b-M269 MRCA.
Much of the action is from L23 on down and perhaps R1b-M269>L23's MRCA should be the focus of attention. Let's compare. The M269 MRCA was a lonely person before he started his family!
R-M269 - 97 variants
R-M269>L23 - 3 variants
R-M269>L23>L51 - 4 variants
R-M269>L23>L51>P310 - 6 variants
R-M269>L23>L51>P310>L151 - 3 variants (this is the big West/Central European hg)
R-M269>L23>L51>P310>FT377377 - 1 variant
R-M269>L23>L51>P310>FT186340 - 21 variants
R-M269>L23>L51>P310>FT123498 - 1 variant
R-M269>L23>L51>PF7589 - 9 variants
R-M269>L23>Z2103 - 3 variants
R-M269>L23>Z2103>M12149/Z2105 - 7 variants
R-M269>L23>Z2103>FT130482 - 1 variant
Wait for the those new Volosovo samples. Some of them might be pre-M269.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete@ Rocca
I agree that R1b-M269 is correlated with EHG, and that *post-expansion* M269 with steppe ancestry. What interests me is the pre-Yamnaya phase in the steppe, which was not static. Although genetically clinal, clans were shifting around and competing for prized watering holes, like the Dnieper rapids.
Im aware that the Smyadovo outlier is a lone ranger, and not ancestral to the main bulk of M269 which expanded a few hundred years later, but it is striking that M269 groups were in western Ukraine & Bulgaria already ~ 4500 BC whilst missing from doznes of samples in the Volga-Caucasus, the oft hypothesised homeland. So i think it is very signifiicant.
@ MikeW
Yes we are talking about R1b-M269, not every other R1b.
@Davidski “ Wait for the those new Volosovo samples. Some of them might be pre-M269.”
ReplyDeleteVolosovo as in the EHG forager population of the forest zone which was closely related to Combed Ceramic in the Baltics, and which was subsequently driven away/exterminated by the advancing CWC-offspring culture Fatnayovo?
@Rich S and Rich R
ReplyDeleteAgain “Oh my god”, people who have not read the comments you have written on AG over the years will not understand how glad I am that you have written these sentences.
“I’m not sure where R1b-M269 arose” by R.S
“I give it a lower probability, but of course it is "possible" that the fully formed R-M269 branch was born somewhere between Bulgaria and the Baltics and may even have lacked EHG” by R.R
Ha Ha Ha-You are beginning to doubt, aren't you? It must be very hard to admit that you have made such a brutal mistake.
*I2181-M269 predates Sredni Stog, Volosovo, Yamnaya, Maykop, GAC and eneolithic_steppe ergo only models using pre-eneolithic components-WHG, UKR_Meso, UKR_Neo, Lyalovo, CHG, Anatolian Farmers and Khvlaynsk can be taken into consideration, the rest are anachronistic and therefore useless and irrelevant. So, what steppe ancestry are you talking about ? Khvalynsk? -That site is one of the most studied in the world and there is zero M269, all males are V1636. UKR mesolithic/neolithic?-Also Zero M269 only V88-Hard times are ahead of you
*I4630 (7.272 BC)-ZVEJ30-Zvejnieki II, Latvia_HG-HapY-R1b1a/1a-P297 (xR1b1a/1a2-M269 xY13202)- MathiesonNature (2018)-Burial 305, adult male, 25-30 years old, 8240±70 BP (Ua-3634)-Grave goods include: Bone spearhead with one-sided serration. Ochre addition-There are almost 3,000 years between ZVEJ30 and Smyadovo, more than enough time for this lineage to appear between the Baltic and the Balkans.
1-Regarding the Baltic-The relation of the Baltic HGs with Lyalovo and Volosovo is obvious, then M269 could have come to Russia from the Baltic. This has been evident for years but very few people have been willing to acknowledge that this possibility existed. In any case, the origin of M269 in the Baltic or Russian HGs indicates that IE was not the mother tongue of this lineage.
2-Regarding Smyadovo, the important thing about this sample is its antiquity because it also dissociates it from the IE (which did not even exist according to the consensus reached by linguists). It is true that it could be an eastern outlier, but even if this were true, it should have been in the Balkans for several generations, so you have few options to find it in the steppe or the forest steppe. And by the way, it is already comical, that every time a sample appears that disturbs your Kurganist dogma you have to use the argument that it is surely a dead line. You have not changed anything in all these years.
Rocca I am still waiting for you in Ibiza.Together we will celebrate the phrase "Delenda est Yamnaya".
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete“According to Anthony, WHG and EHG males interacted with ANF and CHG females to produce Steppe ancestry. If wives were the vector in spreading early PIE speech then according to this hypothesis PIE was either an ANF sourced language (Tripolye?) or a CHG one.
I’m open to Rob’s suggestions about PIE’s evolution and formation: I wouldn’t rule out being a C-T influenced one or even its origins amongst Bug Dniester or Dniester Donetsk.”
I should have been clearer. I wasn’t talking about the spread of Indo-European language. I was talking about the spread of steppe autosomal DNA throughout that broad steppe pastoralist community that came to be known as Yamnaya. That was accomplished, IMHO, via the exchange of young women as wives. Thus a single steppe autosomal DNA continuum was created while the local, tribal diversity in Y-DNA haplogroups was maintained. That’s why R1a-M417, R1b-L51, R1b-Z2103, and whatever varieties of I2a, Q, and J, appear as early IE Y-DNA haplogroups, yet all the people involved, male and female, share the same common steppe autosomal DNA.
Once those IE steppe pastoralists crossed into Old Europe, the practice of female exogamy mostly insured that more and more EEF DNA would be introduced into the IE genome. That’s what we see with Corded Ware and its derivatives, like Bell Beaker.
Rob said...
ReplyDelete"Yes we are talking about R1b-M269, not every other R1b."
You are still missing the point. An ancient sample that is possibly derived for an SNP or two in the R1b-M269 phylogenetic block of a hundred SNPS is not closely related to the R1b-M269 MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor).
For all practical purposes, a lightly tested or low coverage ancient sample like I2181 Smyadovo doesn't show us much and may be more R1b-P297* than full R1b-M269.
Where are the R1b-M269 MRCA descendants that true R1b-M269*? We haven't found them. Anything upstream, like 50,60,70 SNPs ancestral aren't very helpful. |
Could be a dead-end. One does not a trend make, anyway.
If pre-M269 really appears in volosovo then there is great chance that it is also present in the upper don. As I said, this population rich in R1b-M269 was very close to the middle don.
ReplyDeleteI have been hoping for many years for some ancient samples from about 3800-4000 BC with decent coverage that are derived for R-L23 so we know where R-L23 existed at the time and what kind of autosomal DNA the samples have.
ReplyDeleteIf there are also samples a little older that are positive for a large number of SNPs in the R-M269 block but negative for R-L23 that would be great too but I really would like to know where R-L23 was within a few centuries of when the mutation first occurred.
Just a heads up on presuming the origin of a genetic marker based on a few isolated ancient cases.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the Villabruna man has EHG/ANE admixture (like most “WHGs”; see “Genomic and dietary discontinuities during the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Sicily“), and he’s negative for P297, V1636, and PF6323 (V2219). He has no calls for L389, so he’s likely R1b-L754*, aka a dead end lineage (not relevant). Villabruna dates to 12268-11851 calBCE, while P297 formed from 15600-11800 BCE (median: 13600 BCE), and its TMRCA is 12900-9800 BCE (median: 11300 BCE); L389 formed around 16900-13300 BCE (median: 15100 BCE) and its TMRCA is 15600-11800 BCE (median: 13600 BCE). So if he is relevant, he should have at least carried some SNPs derived for P297 (which existed prior to and during the time period he is dated to), but he didn’t, he didn’t even have the derived SNPs for L389. R1b-L754 formed around 21300-15500 BCE (median: 18400 BCE), and its TMRCA is 16900-13300 BCE (median: 15100 BCE), so Villabruna lived at least 1032-3232 years after the first R1b-L754 bearer with all the derived SNPs, plenty of time for admixture to arrive from the east. Formation dates and TMRCAs are important; they can inform us on the probability of a particular lineage arising somewhere.
Secondly, none of the Baltic HGs were just P297, they were derived for Y13200/M73 and they lived 2300 + years after P297’s TMRCA (at the least); I4630 is also one of the most EHG admixed/shifted Baltic HGs:
Latvia_HG I4630, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 7471-7073 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2c, Y-DNA: R1b-P297(xM269, xY13202), MathiesonNature2018
Latvia_HG I4432, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 6072-5920 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2c*, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y240021, MathiesonNature2018
Latvia_HG I4626, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 5838-5631 calBCE, mtDNA: U2e1, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y240021, MathiesonNature2018 (New data; individual first published in JonesCurrBiol2017)
Latvia_HG I4439, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 5769-5628 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b1d1*, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y240021, MathiesonNature2018
Samara_HG I0124, Samara Oblast, Russia, 5660-5535 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1d, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y13202, MathiesonNature2015
Latvia_HG I4434, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 5611-5382 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2d3, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>FTA35755*, MathiesonNature2018
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteAlthough my better judgment tells me to ignore you, I guess I will address you a bit yet again, despite the fact that, by your own admission, you refuse to do any of the reading that an intelligent discussion of this topic requires.
When I said that I don’t know where R1b-M269 first arose, I didn’t mean I have no idea at all, or that it could have arisen just anywhere. As I explained in that same post, there is good reason to believe R1b-M269 arose on the steppe.
As for the steppe DNA in that Smyadovo sample, which it certainly has, everyone knows “steppe DNA” is synonymous with Yamnaya DNA. Of course, that means Smyadovo had Yamnaya-like DNA before Yamnaya existed as a cultural horizon, but that doesn’t change what it was: a steppe pastoralist phenomenon, something that differentiates the people of the steppe from the Neolithic farmers of Old Europe.
One would think you would quit yammering on about Smyadovo, since it so obviously is a complete embarrassment to your point of view. But, really, all of the ancient DNA evidence is an embarrassment to your point of view, so you might as well go with Smyadovo as anything else. I guess it’s a little less embarrassing than so many other things, like Afanasievo, Corded Ware, and Bell Beaker.
@ MikeW
ReplyDelete''You are still missing the point.''
I see things 10 years before normal people, so i doubt Im missing a trivial point on genealogy.
'' An ancient sample that is possibly derived for an SNP or two in the R1b-M269 phylogenetic block of a hundred SNPS is not closely related to the R1b-M269 MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor).'''
I understand that. First off, do we know for sure that it is negative for all derived lineages given the paucity of coverage in those positions ? No
Secondly, even if it is negative for the entire block, who cares ? It's still the earliest smoking gun for M269 we have. Even if it is only P297, as you would wish, given its particular mix of EEF/steppe, it is unlikely to be a non relevant clade. E.g. the V88 in the Balkans clearly had a distinctive genomic make-up. More so, that Davidski has just pointed out that yet another M269 will show up close up, also earlier than the main Yamnaya clade.
Thirdly, you're projecting SNP mutation sequences as if a real life population.
I have repeatedly stated that it might not be ''ancestral to the main bulk of M269 which expanded a few hundred years later'', but a singleton beyond his home. Reardless, to me it is a highly significant trend, although Im not 100% sure what that means
So please read carefully and understand what im writing and do not project your own past debates about M269 origins into my comments.
@Simon Stevin
ReplyDelete“. . . Secondly, none of the Baltic HGs were just P297, they were derived for Y13200/M73 and they lived 2300 + years after P297’s TMRCA (at the least); I4630 is also one of the most EHG admixed/shifted Baltic HGs . . .”
Thanks for that (and thanks for the whole post I excerpted that from). I thought I remembered that those so-called P297 Baltic foragers were really derived for M73, but it’s been a long time since I even thought about it, so I wasn’t sure I remembered aright, and I was too lazy to try to dig the information back up.
@Rich S-
ReplyDeleteYou should have listened to your better judgment and then you wouldn't have written the nonsense you have written.
“Smyadovo had Yamnaya-like DNA before Yamnaya existed as a cultural horizon”
At the time of Smyadovo the only “Yamnaya like DNA” in existence is Khvalynsk so try to model I2181 with that culture to see what percentages and distances you get.
Or maybe, you have solved the mystery of Yamnaya culture ethnogenesis and now it turns out that we have Proto-Yamnaya in Bulgaria (4.500 BC), that would mean that the early european neolithic farmers spoke PIE. Congratulations, you are truly a genius.
And Mr Afanasievo again trying to convince us that WHGs are EHGs, no matter how many times you have been shown otherwise. It is worthless to answer.
@maike
ReplyDeleteIf pre-M269 really appears in volosovo then there is great chance that it is also present in the upper don. As I said, this population rich in R1b-M269 was very close to the middle don.
This is possible, but not necessary. Simplistically, it looks like this. Since about 7000 BC, there have been two populations on the Volga. The first population is the Middle Volga. It was this population that advanced to the Baltic and it was she who populated the center of Russia, including the upper Don. There was also a population of the Lower Volga that lived on the shore of the northern shore of the Caspian Sea. Later this population was absorbed by the Middle Volga population. Thus, the most likely scenario is that the Middle Volga population is R1b-P297, and the lower Volga population is R1b-V1636. Volosovo hails from the Volga, too.
I agree with Rich S . The EHG- CHG represents the overall social fabric of these societies, with different clans marrying into it. As the (other) Mike said, R1b-M269 could be from the middle Don. Ie northwest of the CHG rich zone on the lower Volga. This explains its early appearance west and absence jn the Volga region until the Yamnaya sweep coming from the west.
ReplyDelete(PS sorry Vlad :) )
"Furthermore, one haplotype in West Heslerton may belong to R1a1a1b1a2b-CTS1211, which shows highest frequencies in northeastern and eastern Europe (reaching 33% in Russia and 26% in Poland."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2
IMO, EHG formed in the lower Don region. Further toward Volga-Urals would have been pretty much pure ANE in early days, until some western back-trickle occurred
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteI won't argue with that because it's also a possible option. The argument about the absence of samples from the Volga is not convincing. At the moment, there are only 4 samples from the Volga older than 3500, of which 2 are Q, one R1b-Y13200/M73, one R1b-Y1636. It is negligible to draw any conclusions. The Neolithic of the Middle Don is a mysterious culture whose origins can never be established. Basically, it is considered an intermediate and at the same time related to the culture of the Dnieper-Donets from Ukraine. The Neolithic population of the Middle Don was not hegemonic, it fell under the influence of the Lower Don culture without clashes. The samples that Allentoft showed are just the first migrants of the Lower Don to the Middle Don. Other samples from the Don, which are in Allentoft's article, are samples from the Upper Don. There are no samples of the Middle Don Neolithic proper. Archaeological there is no information about the movement of the population from the middle Don to the south. But there is a large amount of information about the movement of the population from the Middle Don, already assimilated by Sredniy Stog, in the period 3500-3000 BC towards Belarus. In addition, in the Golubaya Krenitsa samples, in addition to I2a, there is also R1a. Of course, it can be assumed that this group is the first migrants from the lower Don not mixed with the population of the middle Don. But we can also assume the option that migrants from the lower Don are I2a, and R1a is the local population of the middle Don assimilated by migrants from the lower Don.
The Southern Arc paper has some lovely data but their conclusion is utter rubbish
ReplyDeleteDamn, those Anglo-Saxons had a sh*t-ton of I1 and R-U106.
ReplyDelete@Ambron Was CTS1211 found?
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteWhat's the latest thinking on Basal Eurasians and Ancient North Africans? Particularly do models show the latter lying on the same root tree as Eurasians to the exclusion of SSA and are they closer to Eurasians than SSA? Heard you have some new treemix models for them.
Also I have seen conflicting estimates for the % of ANE in EHG. Is EHG 50% ANE/50% WHG or closer to 75% ANE/25%WHG?
If that Heslerton individual is a legit CTS1211 I really wonder how he got there. What does he look like on the autosomes?
ReplyDelete@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete"According to Anthony, WHG and EHG males interacted with ANF and CHG females to produce Steppe ancestry. If wives were the vector in spreading early PIE speech then according to this hypothesis PIE was either an ANF sourced language (Tripolye?) or a CHG one."
Doesn't PIE show some strange similarities to Georgian and related languages?
@Tigran “ Doesn't PIE show some strange similarities to Georgian and related languages?”
ReplyDeleteStrange to me. Georgian isn’t even related to NWC or to NEC. If there *is* some similarity then it must stem from the fact that Kartvelians are 25% WSH-shifted, owing a lot of their genetic profiles to Catacomb and Srubnaya migrants.
Kadyrov look like a poster boy for a Yamnaya reconstruction model.
And all these 3 language isolate macro-language families spoken in the Caucasus are mostly CHG, with varying degrees of ANF, Zagros/Iran farmers and Yamnaya related proportions added in.
https://www.science.org/do/10.1126/fefab2ec-92b1-4cd3-901e-e772c9dea5bd/full/
ReplyDeletePaul Heggarty going for the jugular after the Southern Arc paper.
The paper was crap and Heggarty's a fool. So that's that.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking yet again of that Smyadovo sample, who was evidently maybe something close to R1b-M269, let’s try to remember our geography the proximity of Smyadovo to the west coast of the Black Sea, and of EASTERN BULGARIA to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. The “Pontic” part of “Pontic-Caspian” is the adjectival form of the Greek word for Black Sea. So, in other words, that Smyadovo guy, or his Y-DNA ancestor, hadn’t strayed very far from the steppe. Aside from geographical proximity, two other things link him to the steppe: steppe autosomal DNA and membership in a Y-DNA haplogroup that thus far has proven to be of steppe origin, thanks mostly to its obvious close association with steppe pastoralist people.
ReplyDeleteSo, Mr. Smyadovo offers no support to the idea - the product of fevered desperation really - that M269 was anything other than a steppe Y-DNA haplogroup or that it should be associated with the Neolithic farmers of Old Europe.
Heggarty should correct the errors in the past data from his Bayesian phylogenetic inference trees of IE, and finish his CoBL/IE-CoR project* rather than speak on such matters.
ReplyDelete* reference here - https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/suppl/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030507/suppl_file/LI07_Heggarty_SupplementalText.pdf -
"As the next section will now reveal, bad data turn out to have been far more of an issue than has been realized, and part of what has prevented these direct model comparisons from bringing us any real step forward in working out the sources of conflicting results. Indeed, if changing just one assumption could cause such a change in dating results, from Bouckaert et al. (2013) to Chang et al. (2015), one interpretation is that the data set could be oversensitive to particular assumptions. To conclude this review, and in a much more optimistic vein, I aspire to make a start by proposing a radical fix to the data set issue. This seems long overdue as the next phase that the field now needs to move into."
"Nonetheless, a major new attempt has been made to implement all of this new methodology for cognacy databases in practice, to create a new cognacy database of Indo-European: IE-CoR, by Anderson et al. (https://iecor.clld.org/, publications in preparation). The experience of creating this database over the last few years seems reassuring that even if the task is arduous, it can be achieved. In preliminary results from its entirely new data set, many of the artifacts of previous studies have vanished, not least the excess branch lengths after Latin in Figure 3 and before Ancient Greek in Figure 4, and without any need for ancestry constraints."
Now, now Davidski. You shouldn't be so salty against people who have been against the sheep mentality but right all this time. Show some grace.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete“The paper was crap and Heggarty's a fool. So that's that.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but before the advent of the Olalde et al Beaker paper, wasn’t Heggarty an immobilist who argued that Beaker in Britain was almost entirely a local phenomenon, the product of the adoption by natives of a Beaker cultural package?
Of course, if that’s what he thought, he wasn’t the only one.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of Heggarty ever being right about anything in this context.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete"If there *is* some similarity then it must stem from the fact that Kartvelians are 25% WSH-shifted, owing a lot of their genetic profiles to Catacomb and Srubnaya migrants"
Kartvelians are not WSH-shifted at all. West Georgians have near-zero Yamnaya ancestry, whereas East Georgians have 5%-10% Yamnaya ancestry originating from the initial Catacomb migration into the South Caucasus.
https://i.imgur.com/MLe1dre.png
The only Kartvelians who have substantial IE ancestry are the Khevsurs and Tush from North-Eastern Georgia, who are technically recent 50-50 mixes between East Georgians and Nakhs.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThanks! That is really great! I would call Y-DNA of Eom047 undecided. A lot of calls for different exclusive haplogroups. But autosomically it's non-steppe.
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteYou have a very peculiar way to interprete the data. The people you cite as « typical Neolithic » concerning their DNA (and culture) show all of them a ‘steppes’ auDNA input, even if weak. They are all in areas on the communication routes between southern Steppes and Western Europe, that is between southwestern Ukraina and Lower Danube, in places we know that Steppic Nomads passed through them, among them Yamna people. They were coming from East, so why the curious Y-haplos-subclades we find around 4500 BCA in Bulgaria (Chalco) would not be early introgressions (confirmed in LN by metrics and typology) from East rather than from West or from local places of S-E Europe ? The current data speeks rather for an eastern origin of Y-R1b-P297, and M269 (as it could have been the case for Villabruna long before). The downstream ones like L23 at least seem of the same geographic origin mabey a bit more around Central Europe between eastern Baltic, Black-Sea/Ukraina. Uneasy just now to say exactly where L51 and Z2103 were born, but nothing push us to search in Western or Westcentral Europe. Western Europe IS THE sink for diverse « waves » of Y-R1b, not the opposite. To date we have no Y-R1b-M269 or post M269 in Southern Europe before the 4600 BC, if I remember well.
The fact that ‘steppic’-like first pioneers of Lower Danube preceded in time the well formed Yamna culture does not prove they had nothing in common with true Yamna people’s ancestors, does not prove either they were not speaking kind of (pre-)PIE, and does not prove that, as recent introgressors they were the lone Smyadovo makers and had managed to impose their supposed PIE language to their Eneolithic numerous predecessors. The Smyadovo tombs or pits datations are subject to debate and seem showing some heterogeneity when speaking of burials.
Here we are just in the lands or bets, and your own ones are not better than others.
ReplyDelete@Tigran
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1966812/v1_covered.pdf?c=1662993174
this new paper provide an insight to the ratio WHG/ANE for the Sidelkino sample that is the quintessential EHG:
A model-based two-source analysis 206 separated the admixture model (WHG-AfontovaGora3) from the single source models in 15 cases. The estimated admixture proportions of WHG-related ancestry ranged from 50.9 %
(40.9 % - 60.9 %, 95 % Jackknife CI) for Sidelkino to 83.7 % (73.9 % - 93.5 %) for ZVEJ25.
So on average Sidelkino is 50 WHG and 50 Afontova Gora
Just wondering. Did Villabrunas Y-DNA ancestors migrate from the East via the Danube to Italy or did they come from Poland via a route between Czechia and Slovakia to Italy ?
ReplyDeleteThat I know of, the only published sample that folks refer to as "Volosovo" thus far is sample BER001. It is a WHG sample that lacks steppe ancestry and belongs to haplogroup Q1-L54. However, in the publishing paper (Saag et al 2021), it is labeled as "Volosovo/Lyalovo", even though its radiocarbon dating is 4447–4259 cal BC, which is at least 200-300 years too old to be Volosovo (see Piezonka 2013 for ranges of both cultures). Even in at the bottom of Saag's Figure 1, they placed the sample in the middle of the Lyalovo Culture, and roughly 800 years before the start of Volosovo!
ReplyDelete@David, you have BER001 as Volosovo_N in G25. At minimum, you should change it to Lyalovo-Volosovo or something like that.
Sources:
Saag (2021) Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain
Piezonka (2013) Flesh or fish? First results of archaeometric research of prehistoric burials from Sakhtysh IIa, Upper Volga region, Russia
@ epoch
ReplyDeleteOk . Let us know if somebody calls something more definitive
We now have another R1b-L51>P310* bearing Afanasievo sample (ID: C3341) from a different study, so that makes two including I6222.
ReplyDeleteWHG is an ancestral component and cluster not a uniform body. Samples that are a part of that cluster exist on a cline between ANE/proto-EHG, Grotta dell’Uzzo/Grotta d’Oriente-like pops, and Magdalenian/GoyetQ2 admixed groups. Practically all WHGs (with the exception of Grotta dell’Uzzo, Grotta d’Oriente, and few others) have EHG/ANE thanks to the Villabruna related cluster of individuals
From the supplementary files (table 6) of the paper “Genomic and dietary discontinuities during the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Sicily“ (2022): https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2589004222005144-mmc3.xlsx
England_MN, Wales_LM, Ireland_LM, France_LM, LaBrana1, Canes, Ranchott, Bichon, Loschbour, Koros, Continenza, Germany_Meso_BDB001, Croatia Mesolithic HG, Iron Gates, Motala, and Sicily_LM all display ANE/EHG ancestry (Burkhardtshöhle is low coverage, but likely displays this as well).
Credit to CopperAxe and Ajeje Brazorf for these models of I2181 without Yamnaya, the steppe competent is still necessary and present:
Target: BGR_ChL_outlier:I2181
Distance: 6.2264% / 0.06226415
59.6 AUT_LBK_N
21.0 RUS_Progress_En
19.4 UKR_N
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
Target: BGR_ChL_outlier:I2181
Distance: 6.1625% / 0.06162533
73.8 BGR_MP_N
21.0 RUS_Progress_En
5.2 UKR_N
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
Target: BGR_C_o_Smyadovo:I2181___BC_4508___Coverage_6.12%
Distance: 0.0443% / 0.04426436
41.9 HUN_Tisza_LN:I2358___BC_4750___Coverage_31.46%
41.4 ROU_Trestiana_BA:I6184___R-M417___BC_5650___Coverage_19.68%
10.9 BGR_MP_N:I1297___BC_5600___Coverage_10.30%
5.7 FRA_Hauts_De_France_MN:Es97-1___BC_4550___Coverage_26.84%
0.1 ROU_N:I17835___G-PF3177___BC_5750___Coverage_14.50%
Target: BGR_C_o_Smyadovo:I2181___BC_4508___Coverage_6.12%
Distance: 0.0481% / 0.04811636
35.4 HUN_Tisza_LN:I2358___BC_4750___Coverage_31.46%
31.3 BGR_MP_N:I1297___BC_5600___Coverage_10.30%
13.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0122___BC_4838___Coverage_48.69%
8.0 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001___BC_4900___Coverage_76.47%
6.6 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0434___BC_4975___Coverage_5.31%
5.5 FRA_Hauts_De_France_MN:Es97-1___BC_4550___Coverage_26.84%
Additionally, I2181 and the Varna outlier are both on the Khvalynsk cline, unlike the other Balkans Chalcolithic samples: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gpo-jpYFsY0/WST-FhAWHMI/AAAAAAAAFpU/VISsvervHfQ34fSBLM7c1KOIkLMAxxhTwCLcB/s1600/Steppe_clines.png
@Richard
ReplyDeleteI can't see BER001 in the current G25 datasheets. Seems like I removed this individual due to poor coverage/excess damage.
Its odd VB doesn;t really show increased affinities qith Afontoca compared to Tagliente
ReplyDeleteresult: Mbuti.DG AfontovaGora3 Villabruna_HG Tagliente_LPaleolithic 0.016 0.016316 0.978 1620 1569 40397
Doesn't really score much with qpAdm either
@David, no worries, I had him as "RUS_Volosovo_N:BER001" but OK if you removed it.
ReplyDelete@Rob, all,
ReplyDeleteThose are good reasons to suggest R1b M269 came from the forest zone to the Steppe recently.
But it certainly doesn't prove it. We know so little about eastern European hunter gatherers that I keep an open mind.
R1b P297, M269 are old enough to have exist in both forest and Steppe zone.
Btw, R1b P297>M73 is in Samara HG and in Botai. This is Steppe territory. It wouldn't be a stretch for CHG rich hunter gatherers further south to also carry R1b P297.
Did any of the Volosovo sample contribute anything of value to future generations? According to Wikipedia, Volosovo did contribute genetic admixture and were subsequently absorbed into Abashevo, although it stated that they did not mix extensively with Fatnayovo. I see contradictions here. Volosovo’s cranial samples are described as “Lapponic” or “Turanic” but we know that Lapps/Sami are not majority EHG such as the Combed Ceramic or the Volosovo.
ReplyDeleteOT While reading the Wikipedia entry about Volosovo and its interactions with mixed Steppe/EEF admixtured offsprings of the CWC in the forest Steppe zone, their skin color was described as “intermediate skin tone”. Does that imply that the original skin tone of CWC + C-T/GAC/MN Europe was initially neither light skin nor dark skinned but that selective breeding over the following centuries and millennia are the root cause of post-IA Europeans having the pigmentation we have today?
ReplyDelete@ Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteVolosovo survived Fatyanovo and was eventually absorbed into the culture of textile ceramics, so now if anyone has it, it is the Finns and other Uralic groups, as well as those Russians who are in fact descendants of the Uralians assimilated by the Slavs.
Progress eneolithic should not be used because it is anachronistic and Smyadovo can be modeled only with ROU_Trestiana, Tizsa, Hauts de France, Bulgaria and neolithic Romania. It is not necessary to use Khvalynsk or the EHGs.
ReplyDeleteNeolithic Bulgaria is not only G2 in the same site of Smyadovo there is a R1b-V88. Does it also originate from the steppes?
This is the only site where M269 and V88 are found together (burial 28 and burial 29).
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete"OT While reading the Wikipedia entry about Volosovo and its interactions with mixed Steppe/EEF admixtured offsprings of the CWC in the forest Steppe zone, their skin color was described as “intermediate skin tone”. Does that imply that the original skin tone of CWC + C-T/GAC/MN Europe was initially neither light skin nor dark skinned..."
“Intermediate skin tone” means a moderately white skin. For instance, Italians who score with HIrisPlex “intermediate" are pretty much white when not sun-tanned, just not lily white or pale. Here's a pic of an Italian man to illustrate an untanned intermediate complexion. Google it.
https://www.pinterest.de/pin/849350810949029341/
Volosovo seems quite late to have been the people that brought M269, considering the smyadovo sample.
ReplyDeleteThe real population could be further south in the forest steppe. I think we're talking about a late neolithic group here.
And I'm also guessing the R1b subclades of that two samples in the Allentoft paper from the don.
@Gaska,
ReplyDeleteHave you other Y-R1b subclades on top of V88 and M269, these last ones who seem separated since very long time and with very dissimilar dispersion as a whole? Bulgaria as the "womb" of R1b? Their co-occurrence of both in a same place seems to me more a coincidence than a geographic co-evolution.
Will you be doing a post on the recently published Anglo Saxon paper?
ReplyDelete@Gaska
ReplyDeleteIt absolutely is necessary because the statistical fit improves significantly, and those two samples are on a cline towards Khvalynsk, unlike the other Bulgaria Chalcolithic specimens: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gpo-jpYFsY0/WST-FhAWHMI/AAAAAAAAFpU/VISsvervHfQ34fSBLM7c1KOIkLMAxxhTwCLcB/s1600/Steppe_clines.png
I2181 also has significant EHG autosomal DNA (see the D-stat models in the following link). From MathiesonNature2018: “In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe-related ancestry (Figure 1B,D)…Varna_outlier has Steppe ancestry. Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier [I2181] may have steppe ancestry but has no evidence of CHG component (however number of SNPs is low).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091220/bin/NIHMS937437-supplement-Sup_Tables_1-6.xlsx
Additionally, Progress predates Smyadovo, and the latter (Smyadovo) hasn’t been corrected for FRE as far as I know:
Steppe_Eneolithic PG2001, Progress 2, Russia, 4994-4802 calBCE, mtDNA: I3a, Y-DNA: R1b-V1636*, WangNatCommun2019
Bulgaria_C I2181, Smyadovo, Bulgaria, 4606-4447 calBCE, mtDNA: HV15, Y-DNA: R1b (M269?), MathiesonNature2018 (no call without Iosif Lazaridis)
Bulgaria_C I2430, Smyadovo, Bulgaria, 4602-4403 calBCE, mtDNA: K1a26, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, MathiesonNature2018
Varna_Eneolithic ANI153, Varna, Bulgaria, 4550-4368 calBCE, mtDNA: U4, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, MathiesonNature2018
ReplyDelete@Moesan
Of course, the co-occurrence of V88 and M269 in the same site may be a coincidence, but taking into account that the former had already been in the Balkans for 4,000 years (8.500 BC), why wouldn't it be possible that the same could happen with M269...? They could also appear together in Ukraine because in the Ukrainian Mesolithic there are many V88 or in the Lyalovo culture which is closely related to the Baltic-
The important thing is that both V88 and M269 spoke the same language (4,500 BC) because they are buried together and belonged to the same culture. And that language apparently could not be PIE because it did not exist yet. So I don't have any peculiar way of analyzing the data, I simply quote verbatim the archaeologist who excavated those tombs, and he never refers to any steppe culture.
Regarding the “steppe ancestry” or “Yamnaya related ancestry” I have already said that IMO only models that are not anachronistic can be considered valid. Strictly speaking, not even many samples from Khvalynsk are earlier than Smyadovo (according to the last published work, Anthony 2.022) but as they are almost contemporary I understand that they could be used. Regarding neolithic Progress there is only one sample prior to Smyadovo so it could also be used (I think it is PG2001), but you have to take into account that Khvalynsk and Progress were V1636 and M269 has never appeared there so it will be impossible to demonstrate genetic continuity between those Russian cultures and Smyadovo by paternal line. Besides, Khvalynsk is very far from the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture in Bulgaria and between them was the territory of Sredni Stog and Cucuteni Trypillia, so in my opinion the possibility of M269 originating from that region of Russia is currently zero.
I think in the case of Smyadovo a proximal model is to use EHG, WHG, CHG and ANF to know what the autosomal composition is. Many people will get a surprise when someone does it. The current data speeks for a Baltic or Balkan origin of Y-R1b-P297 and M269
@Moesan
ReplyDelete"@Gaska
Have you other Y-R1b subclades on top of V88 and M269, these last ones who seem separated since very long time and with very dissimilar dispersion as a whole? Bulgaria as the "womb" of R1b? Their co-occurrence of both in a same place seems to me more a coincidence than a geographic co-evolution."
The MRCA of V88 and M269 is L754, so the two are on lines separated, as you pointed out, a very long time. As far as I remember, the oldest V88 thus far known was found at the Iron Gates in Serbia and dated to about 6400 BC. There are a couple from Dereivka in Ukraine roughly a thousand years later, so even V88, judging by its oldest specimens, may be Eastern European in origin.
That Smyadovo R1b-M269 (I2181 from Mathieson 2018) had steppe DNA, as reported in the paper in which it appeared. Smyadovo is in eastern Bulgaria, not far from the west coast of the Black Sea and, consequently, not far from the steppe. As has been pointed out elsewhere, Gimbutas wrote about early steppe incursions at least that far west (not far west at all) that date to about the same time as the age of sample I2181. Btw, even that R1b-V88, sample ANI153, had some steppe DNA, too: much less than I2181, but he still had some.
@ Gaska
ReplyDeleteDuring the ice age , Bulgaria & central balkans was an important region. However by 8000 bc, hardly anyone lived there. So farmers were colonising virgin landscapes , until they got to the Danube
All hunter gatherer ancestry, whether R1b or I2 related, later seen in balkans (proper) must have come from Regions to north (either northwest or northeast)
Have the genotypes from the Anglo-Saxon paper been released?
ReplyDeleteLooks like the Volosovo samples are R1b heavy and practically identical to Russian Mesolithic samples in the updated pre-print:
ReplyDeletePOPULATION GENOMICS OF STONE AGE EURASIA
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.04.490594v3
Quite a few R1b, R1a and I2a in Russian Neolithic samples as well.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteHave you compared the main Steppe_EMBA cluster and Progress with the Yamnaya Ozera outlier in terms of clines to Europe and the Caucasus/Near East?
I've started looking at this with PCA and formal stats, and Ozera is the only one showing a relationship with the Caucasus/Near East.
Hitherto genetically undescribed huntergatherers from the Middle Don region contributed significant ancestry to the later Yamnaya steppe pastoralists. I guess we now know why co-author Kristian Kristiansen jokingly said "We are all Russians" in a YouTube video :D
ReplyDeleteFrom approximately 5,000 BP, an ancestry component appears on the eastern European plains in Early Bronze Age Steppe pastoralists associated with the Yamnaya culture and it rapidly spreads across Europe through the expansion of the Corded Ware complex (CWC) and related cultures. 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) (Extended Data Fig. 4). Thus, Middle Don hunter-gatherers, who already carried ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Fig. 2), serve as a hitherto unknown proximal source for the majority ancestry contribution into Yamnaya genomes. The individuals in question derive from the burial ground Golubaya Krinitsa (Supplementary Note 3). Material culture and burial practices at this site are similar to the Mariupol-type graves, which are widely found in neighbouring regions of Ukraine, for instance along the Dnepr River.
Yeah, but these hunter-gatherers are from the Middle Don, which is north of the steppe.
ReplyDeleteSo there's no reason to speculate that Yamnaya has any ancestry from this population.
It makes more sense to assume that Yamnaya is ultimately (via Sredny Stog) overwhelmingly derived from other, more southerly hunter-gatherers with even more of the so called Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry.
They should put that in their paper. But they won't, because they still don't understand this logic.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete“ It makes more sense to assume that Yamnaya is ultimately (via Sredny Stog) overwhelmingly derived from other, more southerly hunter-gatherers with even more of the so called Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry.”
But if middle Don might have the right lineages whilst CHG rich southerners don’t , then the forest steppe is the homeland
If those HGs come from a burial ground in or near Golubaya Krinitsa, it looks like they were squarely in the steppe, not north of it.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThe Anglo-Saxon genomes have been out for awhile, even before the paper was published; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2#data-availability
The site at the link below says Golubaya Krinitsa (literally “Blue Well”) is on the border of the steppe and forest steppe. It gives a good description of the burials there. It’s worth translating into English.
ReplyDeletehttps://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/golubaya-krinitsa-gruntovyy-mogilnik-mariupolskogo-tipa-na-srednem-donu
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteWhat’s your opinion on this new Anglo-Saxon paper? I still think there are some gaps, especially around the Roman and LIA periods in southern Britain. Not sure what to make of this significant France_IA component, which can make up close to half of Southern Englanders ancestry—in some cases. Additionally, in your experience, do low coverage samples with less than 30k SNPs produce very odd ancestral signals? One Dover sample I11570, has 20% West SSA and no North African and Middle Eastern (3% coverage and around 25-30k SNPs can’t remember, it’s very low quality). This sample has also not been directly dated; I11570 is contextually dated to 500-700 CE. I highly doubt their postulation that he’s some mixed individual, living around Dover in Anglo-Saxon times.
Ok - forest-steppe/ steppe border makes sense
ReplyDelete@Rochard Rocca said „…author Kristian Kristiansen jokingly said "We are all Russians" in a YouTube video :D”
ReplyDeletePlease, do not repeat these words, because if Moscow reads them, it will immediately appropriate us together with this blog, forcefully - as its property :D
Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier [I2181] MAY have steppe ancestry but has NO evidence of CHG component (however number of SNPs is low)
ReplyDeleteKhvalynsk and eneolthic Progress have CHG, also Golubaya Krinitsa (I2a1b & R1a) in the Middle Don (CHG-25%), so if no CHG in Smyadovo.............. Ruling out these Russian cultures, and Sredni Stog we can only look for M269 in the HGs.
Siberian HGs are all Q1b, Q1a2, C2, K2b, Q1b2, so it is clear that despite the existence of Malta, R1b disappeared from Siberia and went to Italy (20.000-13.000 BC)
Ukrainian HGs-Igren, Mamaj Gora, Volniensky, Vovnigi1, Vovnigi2, Dereivka, Yasinovatka, Nikols'kie, Vasilivka....Tons of V88, I2a2a, I2a1b, 1 Q1b (Yasinovatka78, burial35) and 1 Q1a (Igren).
Only Lyalovo remains and those Russian HGs are identical to the Baltic ones (same clades).
So IF Rob is right and the R1b Balkan HGs come from the north, then everything points to Baltic/Northern Russia (Vologda) as the place of origin of M269.
@Davidski, I don't think there's any extant clines that I could see clearly in any of the main Steppe_EMBA (excepting samples like Caucasus Yamnaya and Kubano-Tersk that are too late to matter).
ReplyDeleteThere was no sign of a link to the genotypes in the Anglo-saxon paper itself, just directing us back to ENA. May have to email the authors? Its a shame as I would like to check out whether some of the odder things about the samples in G25 like unequal distance to Africa and possible high noise, would be sorted by genotypes. They're good enough to get a sense of for the moment as these are subtle, but the genotypes could make it more apples-to-apples between them and the other samples from the Britain transect.
I have to say about the paper, after looking at it, I do find it quite convincing that they've got the degree of initial replacement about right and that their ADMIXTURE estimate of whether a sample is CNE or WBI looks validated by G25 when I look at averages of the samples as they've classified them. Although noise or something means its hard to predict their CNE classification from G25.
On thing that's interesting to me is that looking at their data, across the entire Iron Age British to Early Middle Ages British sample, there's no really no major correlation between Steppe ancestry and CNE vs WBI: https://imgur.com/a/4pDTwqe
The shift in deep ancestry proportions seems more slight compared to the MBA -> IA transition, but the distance increase to present day England in G25 is comparable to the decrease at the MBA->IA shift. The deep ancestry change seems more driven by WHG vs ANF (that's still quite small).
@Simon
ReplyDeleteCan't say much about the Anglo-Saxon paper until I get the genotypes from the paper.
Simon, you didn't ask me of course, but my take if you're interested. Like Davidski, I'd like to see the G25 coordinates based on genotypes, but I think broadly everything in the paper largely makes sense. The signals within the EMA samples trading off CNE and WBI ancestry don't seem to me to indicate that the WBI populations (variations in steppe:WHG:ENF) that were admixing with the CNE populations were largely any more EEF rich, or EEF rich enough, to explain England today. So needs to have some population migration from France.
ReplyDeleteThe Worth Matravers site also provides some evidence as well that the EEF proportion didn't increase substantially within Britain - at least within those who stayed in Britain, as the Romano-British who lived in the towns and citites and might have more cosmopolitan ancestry may have left for France (separately from the migration of Brittonic speaking Britons to Brittany).
The pattern of greatest turnover of both WBI->CNE and then CNE->French-like in the East of England may seem strange, but I think its worth remembering that this area of Britain in the east has highly arable land exposed to sea borne invaders (not so easy to defend and relatively desirable), and the Viking attacks may have depopulated the area significantly followed by resettlement when things became more politically stable (from Northern France, and also perhaps from the more protected and more Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the Southwest, who probably had slightly more Iron Age derived ancestry than the initial EMA of East of England).
(Though isolation-by-distance generally holds, there are some patterns we see from late medieval period caused by other movements around - e.g. North African related ancestry is most enriched in west Iberia as a whole, not south Iberia as a whole.)
Things are not exact science with their ADMIXTURE and qpAdm based methods, so the proportion of turnover for WBI->CNE in their initial, largely eastern English, Early Medieval sample could be more like 2/3 than 3/4 or 4/5. And then the present day people of England may then only be around 35-45% Anglo-Saxon+Scandinavian. Also the nature of the EEF rich incoming population is unknown so could vary as well and be lesser than they estimate. But generally I think the conclusions seem fairly sound.
As to when the turnover of CNE rich Anglo-Saxon ancestry to more French-like ancestry happened, I don't think they have the samples to sort it out. Of high quality/coverage samples that Davidski could get onto G25 (with preliminary coordinates), their dataset ends at around 750-800 CE, and then picks up again with only two individuals from post 1000 CE. The average of those two individuals already have more EEF ancestry than the early Middle Ages set (and in fact one of them is an outlier rich in EEF), but they're just two samples. They also have the Viking Age samples from Margaryen, but those guys have enriched Scandinavian ancestry (covered in the paper) and don't represent a good proxy. So it could have happened to some degree before/after Norman Conquest. Both the east and western Anglo-Saxon kingdoms would've been getting more contacts with France during that time.
Btw, re; Anglo-Saxon paper, I used the model with CNE, CWE, WBI proportions and Steppe ancestry to generate 6x simulated components on G25 (using the proportions and the English samples on a regression). Each component exists in a low/high steppe variant to allow populations to freely vary the steppe ancestry, since in the paper that seems to be almost uncorrelated with CNE vs WBI (some correlation with CWE though).
ReplyDeleteThe proportions that I get in Vahaduo models using these 6 components: https://imgur.com/a/qirF9OP
The results seem pretty sensible enough to me (Belgium from mostly CWE component and some WBI, Britanny most WBI with some CWE, Ireland mostly WBI with a little CNE and no CWE, England as having all three) and they roughly recapitulate the same as the paper's model in the GBR_England_EMA set (though slightly more WBI and less CWE).
Pastebin for the coordinates for these: https://pastebin.com/cPgMqEmS
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get the idea that sample I2181 from Smyadovo has no CHG? Certainly not from Mathieson et al 2018. Figure 1D shows clearly that he had a sizable Yamnaya_Samara component, which includes CHG.
Also, what gives you the idea that R1b as a whole went to Italy? You’ve been told time and time again that Villabruna was L754* at a time (~14k ybp) when both L389 and P297 were already in existence, yet he was derived for neither of them. So, obviously Villabruna is of little to no significance for a modern man in the R1b-M269 line. And if R1b went to Italy, where are all the R1bs there and elsewhere in Central and Western Europe in subsequent eras, except for a handful of V88s? It doesn’t seem likely that Villabruna was of any importance even for them, because V2219/PF6323 and V88 were already at least a couple of millennia old by the time Villabruna died. No, it looks like Villabruna was a dead end: a wandering Eurasian forager who left no legacy in NE Italy except his bones.
What real evidence is there that M269 first arose in the Baltic? A few R1b-M73 foragers who died after M269 had already been born, probably on the steppe? And even they were probably the descendants of foragers who made their way to the Baltic region by way of the valleys of rivers that flow from the Eurasian interior.
Btw, how do any of your notions about the possible birthplace of M269 contradict the Kurgan/steppe hypothesis? Obviously, M269 was present among the early Indo-Europeans in a very big way and was spread west into Europe mainly by Corded Ware and its offshoots, like Bell Beaker.
I am disappointed the Anglo-Saxon migrations paper lumped the R1b-P312 subclades together in some of their narrative.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that R1b-P312>Z290>L21 appears to have reciprocal distribution with R1b-U106 but R1b-P312>Z46516>ZZ11>U152 and R1b-P312>Z46516>ZZ11>DF27 have different distributions.
R1b-P312>L238 and R1b-P312>DF19 may even be cultural brothers to R1b-U106.
R1b-P312>FGC84729>DF99 and R1b-P312>FGC84729>ZZ337 are harder to figure out but DF99 in particular is different yet.
@Matt May I quote you on your work with CNE, SBI, CWE, etc.?
ReplyDeleteI'll cite you however you want. Please email me for any instructions.
mwwdna@gmail.com
On page 80 of the supplement from Anglo-Saxon paper there is an PCA with outliers with three Anglo-Saxon samples located in the Northeastern European cluster.
ReplyDeleteIf we look at modern English as it developed, a near complete lack of Romano-Celtic borrowings, the fact that Anglo-Saxon conguation and syntax was subsequently destroyed by Scandinavian speakers, followed by 30% of our lexicon coming directly from French; it's almost like the answer was under our nose the whole time.
ReplyDeleteI know the percentage of French immigration in the conquest is still up in the air, but I always it thought it was more than almost every estimate.
So large-scale AS confirmed. I wonder what some historians in Britain would say about that ? Some had even said the AS story was a complete myth.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that status was strongly correlated with female migrant (CNE) status, whilst in men weapon burial did not have strong correlation between CNE or WBI ancestry
The France_IA signal seems to be a post-Saxon phenomenon, so probably to do with Normans ?
btw- somehwat related it seems that the old Frisii were predominantly Celtic
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteThere is a CHG signal, but it is little due to low coverage (0.103528 coverage of 113471 SNPs):
Target: BGR_C_o:I2181
Distance: 0.0709% / 0.07092847
40.2 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004
30.4 UKR_Meso:I1763
16.5 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAJ_BON034
8.7 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014
4.2 GEO_CHG:KK1
Target: BGR_C_o:I2181
Distance: 0.0745% / 0.07449062
64.2 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
29.5 RUS_Samara_HG
5.5 ITA_Villabruna
0.8 GEO_CHG
Regardless he still has large amounts of steppe and EHG related ancestry, hence he’s on a cline towards the older/contemporaneous Progress and Khvalynsk samples, unlike all the other Bulgarian Chalcolithic samples, which display no such affinity:
jpYFsY0/WST-FhAWHMI/AAAAAAAAFpU/VISsvervHfQ34fSBLM7c1KOIkLMAxxhTwCLcB/s1600/Steppe_clines.png
And again, M269 didn’t originate in Bulgaria because I2181 lacks the other 106 phylogenetic equivalents for M269 (he isn’t even positive for a downstream subclade), and on top of that, he’s way too young (4606-4447 calBCE). Around 12900<->9800 BCE, the first SNP mutation in the M269 phylogenetic block occurred. All M269 positive modern males have these 106 SNPs, and they share a common male ancestor who had all 106; this man lived around 5100<->3700 BCE (TMRCA). So from 12900<->3700 BCE, all 106 SNP mutations at the M269 phylogenetic block formed, however, only one left surviving descendants, and he had all 106 equivalents. This means that I2181 could be a dead end (P297* or pre-M269), because the M269 phylogenetic block started at least 5200 years before he was born, and that’s assuming I2181 has been corrected for FRE. Furthermore, there’s at least 4700 years between M269’s formation and TMRCA, meaning it shouldn’t be surprising if we find dead end lines without all the phylogenetic equivalents.
Secondly, R1b-L754 got to Northern Italy from the east, because in order to get to Italy from North Asia/Siberia (Afontova Gora, Mal’ta, Yana RHS, etc.), you have to pass through Central Asia and Eastern Europe. So inductively speaking, the first R1 and Q1 clades in Europe will be in Eastern European HGs (proto-EHGs) with significant ANE. Another recap/reiteration: Villabruna dates to 12268-11851 calBCE and has EHG/ANE admixture; P297 formed from 15600-11800 BCE (median: 13600 BCE), and its TMRCA is 12900-9800 BCE (median: 11300 BCE); L389 formed around 16900-13300 BCE (median: 15100 BCE) and its TMRCA is 15600-11800 BCE (median: 13600 BCE). If Villabruna man was relevant to R1b phylogeny and origins, he should have at least carried SNPs derived for the L389 and P297 phylogenetic blocks respectively, SNPs which existed prior to and during the time period he is dated to, but he didn’t have either. R1b-L754 formed around 21300-15500 BCE (median: 18400 BCE), and its TMRCA is 16900-13300 BCE (median: 15100 BCE), so Villabruna lived at least 1032-3232 years after the first R1b-L754 bearer with all 16 derived SNPs/phylogenetic equivalents; he lived at least 3232-9032 years after the first SNP mutation defining L754. That’s at least a millennium +; that’s plenty of time for admixture to arrive from the steppes, forrest steppes, and flat lands of Eastern and Central Europe.
@All
ReplyDeleteThis is incredible and hilarious.
If it turns out that there's no Near Eastern/Armenian-related ancestry in Yamnaya, except in that one female from Ozera, I'm going to die from laughing too much.
Dave - I wouldn’t exclude a few more Maykop or Steppe Majkop admixed outliers on lower Don during Eneolithic & Yamnaya period
ReplyDeleteAre we expecting more genomes from Golubaya Krinitsa or somewhere else on the Don? I’m just wondering why the topic came up a few posts back. Any rumors about them?
ReplyDelete@ Gaska
ReplyDelete“So IF Rob is right and the R1b Balkan HGs come from the north, then everything points to Baltic/Northern Russia (Vologda) as the place of origin of M269..”
No capitals required, this is basic reading from archaeology
However the L754-> V88 line had been present in iron gates probably since 15000 bp
Hunter gatherers were mobile along river networks
. So young mobile elements were likely to move between the upper & lower Don at least a couple of times per their lifetime
ReplyDelete@RS
You need to read the genetics papers before you ask me where I got that idea from. I have only quoted verbatim what they say about that sample-“Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier [I2181] MAY have steppe ancestry but has NO evidence of CHG component (however number of SNPs is low)”-
Do you understand now where I got the idea from?
So that sample does not have CHG and without that component it cannot be related to Khvalynsk or Progress which are also R1b-V1636. Do you understand?
Villabruna is super important for M269 because it is the oldest L754 we have and everybody should know that M269 is under L754. I know that for a professional kurganist like you any R1b that appears somewhere in the world other than the steppes is a dead line, or it is a case with bad coverage, it is badly dated etc, etc, just pathetic arguments.
@SS
Why are you still using Yamnaya_Samara if it is 1200 years after Smyadovo? You should stop wasting your time and accept the harsh reality. Smyadovo has NO CHG. There is nothing more to discuss.
By the way everyone who knows anything about genetics knows perfectly well that M269 has more than one hundred SNPs and bla bla bla bla. It is very simple to understand. Smyadovo is M269 and as long as an earlier case is not found anywhere else its origin is in Bulgaria, not in China or Mars. Villabruna is L754 and as long as an earlier case is not found anywhere else its origin is in Italy, not in Ukraine or Mongolia. Everything else is wisful thinking
@ Rob said...The France_IA signal seems to be a post-Saxon phenomenon, so probably to do with Normans?
ReplyDeleteBut the paper says "This second ancestry component is already evident in our early medieval samples."
We keep looking for conquerors not immigrants. And that creates the same problems.
The study finds "a second major source." From well before the Norman Conquest.
Again this "French IA" is from an area that might also be "Gaulish" -- weren't they continental equivalents of Britons and Irish Celts? It's on the record that very early English Kings married Frankish princesses, long before the Conquest. But what about all those Roman Gaulish soldiers who settled in Britain? Were they French or were they genetically Welsh? But wait we thought Normans were just Scandinavian from the south. So how come they don't stay that way? And of course a hefty amount of William's force at Hastings were Breton.
Can we even tell the difference between Welsh and Gauls and French IA and Irish?
"we have also identified a second major source of continental ancestry in modern Britain from sources more to the European south and west. This
second ancestry component is already evident in our early medieval
samples."
@ Livonia G
ReplyDeletegood point, then it must at least in part be due to contacts with Gaul +/- unsamples local structure
This new Anglo-Saxon paper also features CTS1211-Y35-Y2613 from Bronze Age Romania.
ReplyDelete@Gaska
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about? That’s not Yamnaya Samara, that’s RUS_Samara_HG (ID: I0124, 5660-5535 calBCE) which is older than Smyadovo I2181 (4606-4447 calBCE); Ukraine_M I1763 is older than Smyadovo too (I1763: 8282-7960 calBCE), and like I said, that’s assuming I2181 hasn’t been corrected for FRE (fresh water reservoir effect). He’s also low coverage still (0.103528 coverage of 113471 SNPs), which effects the levels of ancestral admixture detected. And he does have CHG, which you haven’t empirical rebuffed or disproven in slightest. You have no counter argument or statistical model as usual. I2181 and the Varna outlier, to the exclusion of all other Bulgaria Chalcolithic specimens, drift strongly towards the older/contemporaneous Khvalynsk and Progress individuals: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gpo-jpYFsY0/WST-FhAWHMI/AAAAAAAAFpU/VISsvervHfQ34fSBLM7c1KOIkLMAxxhTwCLcB/s1600/Steppe_clines.png
Target: BGR_C_o:I2181
Distance: 0.0709% / 0.07092847
40.2 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004
30.4 UKR_Meso:I1763
16.5 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAJ_BON034
8.7 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014
4.2 GEO_CHG:KK1
Target: BGR_C_o:I2181
Distance: 0.0745% / 0.07449062
64.2 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
29.5 RUS_Samara_HG
5.5 ITA_Villabruna
0.8 GEO_CHG
Matt said...
ReplyDelete"Btw, re; Anglo-Saxon paper, I used the model with CNE, CWE, WBI proportions and Steppe ancestry to generate 6x simulated components on G25 (using the proportions and the English samples on a regression). "
Thanks for sharing your work.
@Gaska
ReplyDelete“By the way everyone who knows anything about genetics knows perfectly well that M269 has more than one hundred SNPs and bla bla bla bla. It is very simple to understand. Smyadovo is M269 and as long as an earlier case is not found anywhere else its origin is in Bulgaria“
You clearly don’t understand. It’s been perfectly explained to you over and over that he hasn’t been confirmed as M269 via direct analysis—not by FTDNA or YFull. He most certainly doesn’t have all 106 phylogenetic equivalents for M269. So he’s tenuously pre-M269 at best. He also has significant steppe ancestry, which the Varna outlier has as well. He’s on a cline with Khvalynsk, while all the other Bulgaria Chalcolithic samples are not. That means his line came from steppe related groups, and not from Balkan farmers, who display no such affinity or M269. Anywhere there is M269 there is a steppe ancestral component. You have yet to prove otherwise. So hypothetically, say I2181 has all 106 M269 SNP equivalents, that still doesn’t mean he’s 100% the fore father of all M269s; for one the odds of finding said individual would be ridiculously fortuitous. Remember, he’s low coverage, which effects deep clade analysis, so he could really belong to some downstream clade, but due to low coverage, we can’t investigate further. Either way, he hasn’t been confirmed via direct analysis to have M269 or all 106 equivalents. That means as of now, he’s not the forefather of all M269s; said clade began its phylogenetic birth at least 5200 years prior (formation date) to the upper range of I2181’s dating. The higher end of M269’s TMRCA also predates him by 500 years. So it’s very possible he’s a dead end P297* or pre-M269, or he may carry a dead end subclade of M269. He could have some of the 106 equivalents, but that doesn’t tell us much, for we don’t know the exact order in which these 106 equivalents came about (their age and chronology), which means he could be a dead end pre-M269 bearer. Regardless, even if we assume he’s 100% M269, he has steppe ancestry, so his paternal forbearers still came from somewhere around the East European forest and Pontic Caspian steppes—not one M269 sample lacks steppe admixture.
@Gaska
ReplyDelete“Villabruna is L754 and as long as an earlier case is not found anywhere else its origin is in Italy, not in Ukraine or Mongolia. Everything else is wisful thinking“
This is flawed technically, as I’ve already pointed out ad nauseam—you’re completely ignoring selection/sampling bias, sample sizes, TMRCAs, formation dates, and mutational rates. The amount of ancient DNA (pre-Copper Age) we have now, makes up an incredibly minute fraction of the total human population alive during those times in those regions; certain geographical areas are lacking ancient DNA data too (sampling bias). Secondly, your statement assumes that Villabruna man is un-ironically the fore bearer of all present day R1b-L754 descended males, which is insanely ridiculous. Considering our limited sample sizes and blind spots (thanks in part to geographical/environmental limitations), it would be highly unlikely that by chance, we find the very first Stone Age bearer of L754 who successfully produced offspring, some of whom survived and did the same (successfully reproduced) all the way to the present day. Villabruna was alive when the phylogenetic SNP blocks for L389 and P297 existed, yet he has no derived calls for either clade. If he’s the possible father of all present day L754 descendants, he should have those phylogenetic equivalents at a minimum, but he doesn’t. Furthermore, the TMRCA of L754 predates Villabruna by 1032-3232 years, and he lived at least 3232-9032 years after the first SNP mutation defining L754 (where that initial formation happened is really the place of origin). So he’s not relevant to L754’s formation and TMRCA either. And lastly, according to your asinine “logic,” R1a-YP4132 originated in the Andronovo related sample I4773 (Kazakhstan, 1613-1508 calBCE), because he’s the oldest guy we have with YP4132, even though YP4132’s TMRCA is 5600<->3100 BCE (formation: 11900<->9600 BCE). TMRCAs and formation dates freaking matter.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteHe very well could be, but I’ll hold my reservations until I see a detailed analysis done on his Y-DNA. I2181 still has crap coverage, and he could be some sort of pre-M269 or a M269 subclade. Furthermore, he has a significant steppe autosomal component relatively speaking, which is what the other Balkan Chalcolithic samples completely lack (with the exception of a few outliers). Don’t see how this negates the Pontic Caspian steppe/East European forest steppe as a place of origin for M269. Earliest sample =/= place of origin.
ReplyDelete@SS
If with these models you pretend to prove that Smyadovo has anything to do with khvalynsk, Progress or Yamnaya you will only continue to make a fool of yourself. It just doesn't officially have CHG, and since you won't be able to prove otherwise, the Smyadovo nightmare will haunt you all your life until you find an older sample. So relax, be patient, and go and give lessons in AG, probably there everybody will agree with you and your fairy tale. I will continue to think that the Balkans and the Baltic are better options and you will not convince me otherwise until some geneticist publishes a sample of M269* in Ukraine, Russia or Mongolia.
It is funny that no L754, P297 or M269 has ever appeared in the steppes and there are still people determined to prove otherwise, trying to discredit for years the tons of R1b that have appeared in mainland Europe from the Balkans to the Baltic, Scandinavia, Italy, France and Spain. You have no solution and you will never accept the truth. W.Haak analyzed 67 ancient genomes in Europe (2.015) and came to the conclusion that R1a-R1b and the massive Yamnaya migrations were responsible for bringing some IE branches to Europe-At that time, there was only one case of V88 in Spain and they thought that R1b had an eastern-steppe origin. 7 years later we have dozens of samples of that lineage linked to WHGs and neolithic farmers and of course technically unlinked to IE. Today he would never have written what he wrote.
@ Simon
ReplyDelete''Don’t see how this negates the Pontic Caspian steppe/East European forest steppe as a place of origin for M269. Earliest sample =/= place of origin.''
Firstly, I did not say that R1b-M269 from the Balkans, nor would I make such a basic deduction that 'earliest attestation is place of origin'
Second is the problem of out-dated notions of 'Old Europe', as if it was a monolithic block. That obscures vision because HG clans could straddle all 3 realms at once - the Farmer, the fisher-hunter-gatherer and the emergent pastoralist.
I also doubt this guy is simply P197, why would such a lineage appear at that time with steppe related ancestry? So he must be at least within the relevant phylgenetic block but analysis limited due to coverage.
So the conclusion is somethign like
- probably M269 but I2181 himself is not ancestral to the main M269 block
- earliest attested in Smyadovo but not originally from Bulgaria
@Gaska
ReplyDelete“It just doesn't officially have CHG, and since you won't be able to prove otherwise, the Smyadovo nightmare will haunt you all your life until you find an older sample.”
What do you mean it doesn’t “officially” have CHG? So does a model need to come from Reich and official labs for you to believe it? That’s blind faith and an appeal to authority, which is logically fallacious and hilarious considering you disputed these “official” findings for years, but now you appeal to them. The illogical thinking, irony, and contradictions are everywhere with you. I produced a model that demonstrates CHG in I2181, and you have no counter arguments or riposte, so you lost that one. Zero counter evidence from you once again. Furthermore, I2181 is low coverage, which can affect Y-DNA and autosomal resolutions and yet he still has CHG. The fact you think this is some autochthonous Basque nationalist win is truly bizarre. The supposed oldest M269 male we have has steppe admixture and is from Bulgaria, what a win for you lol, Southeastern Europe instead of Eastern Europe proper (hypothetically speaking).
“I will continue to think that the Balkans and the Baltic are better options and you will not convince me otherwise”
I’ve known you not being convinced (having a good faith discussion) was the name of the game from the beginning since you are a zealot, and nothing would change your mind, despite the fact that all of your “arguments” have been destroyed time and time again. You consistently argue in bad faith and lie. You keep saying the Baltic HGs have basal P297, when that’s not true (they’re all Y13200/M73 and they lived at least 2300+ years after P297’s TMRCA), and you’ve been told that’s not true over and over yet you continue to say it over and over:
Latvia_HG I4630, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 7471-7073 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2c, Y-DNA: R1b-P297(xM269, xY13202), MathiesonNature2018
Latvia_HG I4432, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 6072-5920 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2c*, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y240021, MathiesonNature2018
Latvia_HG I4626, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 5838-5631 calBCE, mtDNA: U2e1, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y240021, MathiesonNature2018 (New data; individual first published in JonesCurrBiol2017)
Latvia_HG I4439, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 5769-5628 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b1d1*, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y240021, MathiesonNature2018
Samara_HG I0124, Samara Oblast, Russia, 5660-5535 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1d, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y13202, MathiesonNature2015
Latvia_HG I4434, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 5611-5382 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2d3, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>FTA35755*, MathiesonNature2018
@Gaska
ReplyDelete“trying to discredit for years the tons of R1b that have appeared in mainland Europe from the Balkans to the Baltic, Scandinavia, Italy, France and Spain”
You say this like it’s some personal or ethnic attack. The fact is there isn’t tons, R1b is small time in pre-BA Western Europe, and all those samples don’t belong to M269, and wherever M269 is found there is steppe admixture. Show me one, just one WHG that isn’t L754* or V88? I’ve complied all of them so you’d get burned pretty badly on that front I’m afraid.
“7 years later we have dozens of samples of that lineage linked to WHGs and neolithic farmers and of course technically unlinked to IE. Today he would never have written what he wrote.”
Yeah our data and harvesting methods are much better now, and our sample sizes have vastly improved. 7 years in archaeogenetics is like 15-20 years in other fields. This is another contradiction, you want CHG to be “officially” shown, and then you turn right back around and deride official labs and geneticists. So which is it, appeal to authority or not? And what R1b is linked to Neolithic farmers? Are you actually claiming R1b is linked to ANFs? Secondly, almost all WHGs have EHG/ANE, and they all belong to R1b-V88 clades (with the exception of Villabruna man who’s R1b-L754(xP297, xV2219, no calls for L389)). And funnily enough, the oldest V2219 clades are from Southeastern and Eastern Europe in the EHG admixed Iron Gates and Ukrainian HGs, imagine that:
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I5235, Padina, Serbia, 9221-8548 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2c*, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>Y127541, MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I5240, Padina Serbia, 9140-8570 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1c3*, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>Y127541, MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic Vlasa32, Vlasac, Serbia, 7791-7518 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2a, Y-DNA: R1b-L754(xL389, xV88), MarchibioRxiv2020
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I5237, Padina, Serbia, 9300-5800 BCE, mtDNA: U5a2f1, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>Y127541, MathiesonNature2018
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic I4081, Ostrovul Corbului, Romania, 7581-7191 calBCE, mtDNA: H13, Y-DNA: R1b-L754(xP297, xV1636, xV88), MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_Mesolithic I1734, Vasil'evka, Ukraine, 7451-7056 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2d, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>PF6362*, MathiesonNature2018
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic M96, Iron Gates, Schela Cladovei, Romania, 7250-6500 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1c3*, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>FTA35720, GonzalezFortesCurrBiol2017
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic M95, Schela Cladovei, Romania, 7125-6603 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2c, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>Y244169, GonzalezFortesCurrBiol2017
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic I4655, Schela Cladovei, Romania, 7059-6571 calBCE, mtDNA: K1, Y-DNA: R1(xR1a; xR1b-M269, xR1b-V88), MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I4916, Hajduka Vodenica, Serbia, 7035-6590 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2b-a3a, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>FTA35720, MathiesonNature2018
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic I5408, Ostrovul Corbului, Romania, 7022-6485 calBCE, mtDNA: K1i, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>Y244183*, GonzalezFortesCurrBiol2017
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic I5411, Schela Cladovei, Romania, 7000-6300 BCE, mtDNA: U5a1c1, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>Y244183, MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic Vlasa37, Vlasac, Serbia, 6767-6461 calBCE, mtDNA: K1f, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88*, Hofmanová2017
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I5772, Vlasac, Serbia, 7100-5900 BCE, mtDNA: U5a2a, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_N I4666, Lepenski Vir, Serbia, 6222-5912 calBCE, mtDNA: H40, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219, MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I5232, Padina, Serbia, 6061-5841 calBCE, mtDNA: K1-a4*, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>FTA35718, MathiesonNature2018
@Gaska
ReplyDelete“It is funny that no L754, P297 or M269 has ever appeared in the steppes and there are still people determined to prove otherwise,“
Do you mean subclades of those three clades or just the literal basal clades? Because Z2103 has appeared on the steppes, while L51>P310* has been found in two Afanasievo samples (C3341 and I6222), and they share a steppe origin with Yamnaya and the CWC. Those two clades are obviously descended from L754>P297>M269, so I’m not sure what the hell you’re talking about. Villabruna isn’t basal, he’s just negative for L389, P297, and V2219, so he’s probably some undiscovered dead end branch (R-L754*), and so far, it hasn’t been revealed if I2181 is M269* or not. Additionally, P297 hasn’t appeared in basal form in the Baltic either, but it’s subclade Y13200/M73 has appeared both in the Baltic and in Samara:
Samara_HG I0124, Samara Oblast, Russia, 5660-5535 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1d, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y13202, MathiesonNature2015
@MikeW, no problem, and no specific instructions needed. If any points you want to ask, come back to me here and we can try and resolve them.
ReplyDeleteThe stuff about correlation between CNE and Steppe ancestry and the dates is all from their supplement (although I've only for those used the samples where Davidski had them on G25 and I would check that they roughly fit into a Steppe:WHG:ANF model there without being extreme outliers in proportions) so should all be OK and pretty replicable without any need for major caveats.
Regarding the 6 simulations on Global25 data, I would note that G25 has extremely fine-divergence between WBI and CNE groups here, so the results are probably pretty sensitive to using them exactly together. CWE here as well is possibly also a slightly imaginary population that may composite some ancestry from different sources, as it is inferred from fewer and more scattered individuals.
For modern analyses, when I actually introduce the FRA_Sarrebourg_300CE as a competitor, along with Islamic Iberia and Imperial Rome, Sarrebourg mostly eats the CWE and in some models a lot of the WBI.
For modelling Sarrebourg itself, WBI is a large ancestor in a simple model with WBI, CNE, CWE sims and Imperial Rome and Iberia Medieval (slightly anachronistic the last), but is largely replaced as Sarrebourg's ancestor by the France_Southeast_IA when I allow that to happen; that's an essentially Basque like population from Southeast France at 300BCE).
Incidentally, I do think that the Sarrebourg population should lead us to reject their contention that the population of Northern France was largely continuous with the Iron Age, which they claim in the paper. Sarrebourg from NE France is massively south shifted towards both the Basque-like SE France population and Imperial Rome, compared to GrandEstIA.
Though they use the whole France_IA composite when calculating proportions in their final models, the France_IA all sample set will mostly be predominantyl made up of the samples from Grand_Est_IA2, which is *much* more norther than Sarrebourg. IMO I would guess that the more realistic estimate for present-day England in their qpAdm would probably be made from Sarrebourg and would be lower than all their test populations (though maybe most comparable to their estimate from France_Southeast_IA). OTOH Sarrebourg itself is tricky to use with my sims in G25 though as it seems to eat WBI ancestry in some strange patterns. More samples from North France needed in Roman->EMA needed.
Various (slightly disorganized) Vahaduo graphics to support all this: https://imgur.com/a/Jk0Oxpp
@Simon Stevin
ReplyDeleteThat's just good old Rob wanting M269 to have originated in the Balkans
@Rob
ReplyDeleteWe aren’t in disagreement, I’m just not ready to accept I2181 as M269 until someone digs into the files and produces their results. I have no problem with I2181 being M269 either, in fact, an assignment of M269 seems very possible. We don’t seem to disagree on anything; I certainly don’t have any gripes with what you just clarified. I’m not a insane “AG tard” that’s for sure.
@SS
ReplyDeleteCalm yourself down. That sample has no CHG, I know it bothers you not to prove otherwise but there is nothing more to discuss about it. You can keep making models it will be fun to check them.
And yes, we have M269 in Bulgaria, and it has proved us right because given the distribution of ancient R1b samples in Europe, this lineage could appear in some European neolithic culture as it has happened in Spain and the Balkans.
You can also keep trying to prove that Smyadovo is not M269, it will be fun to read your arguments.
You can also keep sending lists of old R1b samples, everyone knows them, so you are not bringing anything new to the debate.
Or you can try to convince the international scientific community that WHGs are only western in our imagination and are actually EHGs, they will probably never appreciate the effort you are making.
And one day you will wake up from your dream and stop participating in these debates because you will have realized that your intelligence is not enough to understand reality.
Since you are an expert on R1b and all its subclades, I'm going to ask you a very easy question-Which IE branches do you think R1b-L51>L151>P312 is related to?
@Dospaises
ReplyDeleteReally?, which are my erroneus conclusions or my false assumptions? That the oldest M269 we have at the moment is in Bulgaria? That the geneticists who analyzed that sample did not find CHG in that sample? What is the illusion I have created?.This has been said by Lazaridis and Mathieson among others, so in any case it will be their erroneus conclusions, their false assumptions and their illusions.
Another easy question, where are we going to find the oldest M269 with its 107 SNPs?
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI noticed you ignored what I recently suggested about the G25 sheet.
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR835 and ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR836 are not from Rome at all, they are from Picenum on the Adriatic side. Since there is ITA_Etruria_Imperial in the sheet I would suggest that there should also be ITA_Picenum_Imperial, i.e.:
ITA_Picenum_Imperial:RMPR835
ITA_Picenum_Imperial:RMPR836
Alternatively they could be named after the modern region of their site, which is in the Marche.
I also noticed there are now samples labelled with the suffix Mdv, I suppose that means Medieval. But why not keep the -MA, in line with all the other Medieval samples? And then there are now samples with the suffix _Anc. What's that? Ancient or Antiquity? I guess it means Antiquity. But it's an odd abbreviation, considering that Antiquity contains no "c".
Then there's the issue that most Levantine samples are under the prefix Levant_, but a few are not:
SYR_Ebla_EMBA
SYR_Tell_Qarassa_Early_Antiquity
Wouldn't you agree that these are from the Levant, too? I think either all of the Levantine samples should have the prefix Levant_ or none.
I would also call into question the continued use of the VK2020 prefix for some of the samples. Other samples don't have such an additional info. And someone looking for British Isles, Italian or Polish samples might overlook them, if he doesn't think about VK2020 too. The suffix -VA should suffice to indicate the possibility of Viking admixture.
And @Davidski, while we're at it, there's a typo in ITA_Etruscan_Volterrra, one "r" too much.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Etruscans, the sample Etruscan_Chiusi:ETR005 is dated to the Villanovan period, according to the paper where it was published. They didn't write this explicitly, but the chronology is very clear. The sample's age means it cannot be anything other than Villanovan. Now the sample's ID includes "ETR", alluding to Etruscans, but this mustn't delude us. Even if the Villanovans were in fact nothing other than Etruscans, which I consider very likely. I would group him with the other Villanovan.
@Gaska
ReplyDelete“And yes, we have M269 in Bulgaria, and it has proved us right because given the distribution of ancient R1b samples in Europe, this lineage could appear in some European neolithic culture as it has happened in Spain and the Balkans.”
For those of us who remember you when you first appeared on the DNA discussion scene, that statement is hilarious. Yes, there you are, staking all your hopes on a sample from eastern Bulgaria, not far from the Black Sea coast, a sample with steppe DNA. Having begun some years ago arguing for an Iberian origin for R1b, you’ve moved quite far to the east, or have been forced there against your will, like a very unsuccessful general, still clinging to the tiny sliver of “the West” left to him, completely bereft of troops to command, since all the other Iberian holdouts have long since deserted and slunk away.
You’ve suffered repeated stunning defeats at battles like Olalde et al versus Gaska, Papac et al versus Gaska, Reich’s book versus Gaska, and others too numerous to name. One would think that by now you would realize the war is over and your side has lost. But no, instead you’re like one of those Japanese soldiers from WWII, still holding out on some lonely Pacific atoll well into the 1970s.
At least those old Japanese soldiers accepted the evidence that the war was over and their side had lost when it was presented to them. You, on the other hand, just keep waving the same old ragged battle flag, it’s escutcheon no longer discernible, even to those who at one time might have known what it was.
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteThere are too many data points that have been pointed out to you that you ignore to list them all again. They then lead to a number of false assumptions that cause your erroneous conclusions. Suffice to say you have no smoking gun yet you claim to have found one. None of the actual data points, or lack of data points, prove your assumptions or your conclusions.
Your question about where are we going to find the oldest M269 with its 107 SNPs is evidence of either ignoring what you state you understand, DNA basics, or actually not truly understanding DNA basics. There will never be an ancient sample that has reads for all 107 SNPs that are in the M269 block because it is not possible to get reads on that many regions of the DNA from an ancient sample due to degradation. The 1240K panel, which is used in most of these studies, only has about 75 of the 107 SNPs in the M269 block to begin with.
A single sample doesn't prove anything other than the fact that the single sample made it's way to the specific location. It only takes about 5 generations for autosomal signal to be completely lost in a descendant if a male is fathered by someone outside of his autosomal group. So regardless of where the oldest M269 specimen with a large number of derived reads, and no or very few ancestral reads, from the block that makes up M269 is found it won't prove where his direct paternal ancestors are originally from. However, if it is found with Steppe autosomal DNA it will show that it did exist in an area that it's descendants show to have originated. Not because of a single sample, but because of the large number of samples that all show to have Steppe autosomal DNA along with a subclade of M269. If multiple samples with a large number of derived reads, and very few ancestral reads, from the block that makes up M269 are found in an area proven or suspected to be where a Steppe autosomal DNA population lived that are older than 4500 BC and they all have Steppe autosomal DNA then you won't have the option to ignore it.
I don't try and predict anything. I go with the data. Once the data is out then we see what can be determined from it. My interest is finding out what that data is and not seeing arguments that ignore data, or falsely assume a lack of data proves a conclusion, or conclusions that can't be backed by the data.
@ Tom
ReplyDelete''That's just good old Rob wanting M269 to have originated in the Balkans''
100%, especially the Pennsylvanian branch
@ Simon Steven - no you always make sense. But there certainly were, at least in the past, steppe equivalents of Basque or OIT fanatics.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete"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.
Let me ask a few questions.
How did mtDna W3a1 from Tepe Anau and Shahr-Sokhta reach Yamnaya and Corded ware (sister clade W3a2 is present at Namazga)?
How did J1b1a1 mtdna from Geoksyur_en reach Corded ware, Germany_lech, Latvia_BA and Sintashta?
Target: RUS_Progress_En
Distance: 2.8598% / 0.02859770
64.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
18.8 TJK_Sarazm_En
17.0 GEO_CHG
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN
0.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
0.0 UKR_Meso
Target: RUS_Progress_En
Distance: 4.2752% / 0.04275249
38.8 RUS_Samara_HG
26.4 GEO_CHG
23.2 TJK_Sarazm_En
11.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.6 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN
0.0 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
0.0 TKM_Geoksyur_En
0.0 TKM_Geoksyur_N
0.0 TKM_Namazga_Tepe_En
0.0 TKM_Namazga_Tepe_En_o
0.0 TKM_Tepe_Anau_En
0.0 UKR_Meso
All averages used.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteYou're way too fucking stupid to understand.
@Gaska
ReplyDelete“Calm yourself down. That sample has no CHG, I know it bothers you not to prove otherwise but there is nothing more to discuss about it. You can keep making models it will be fun to check them.”
Burden of proof is on you, I’ve shown that there is CHG in the resequenced I2181 (despite his low coverage still: 0.103528 of 113471 SNPs), so that’s another non-argument/non-rebuttal from you. Either prove that this is not the case or don’t. So far, you haven’t mustered any sort of rebuttal.
“And yes, we have M269 in Bulgaria, and it has proved us right because given the distribution of ancient R1b samples in Europe, this lineage could appear in some European neolithic culture as it has happened in Spain and the Balkans.”
By “we” and “us” you mean yourself right? Unless you’re some sort of representative, speaking for some rag tag cabal of Basque terrorists or something. The rest of that makes no sense. Let’s hypothetically say for sure I2181 is M269, well for one he’s from the Chalcolithic not the Neolithic. He also has tons of EHG and steppe ancestry, and he’s on a cline towards Khvalysnk/Progress/Vonyuchka, just like the Varna outlier (who also has CHG and much better coverage according to Mathieson et al., 2018). All the other Bulgaria Chalcolithic samples lack this steppe component, large amounts of EHG, and M269. And what M269 sample has appeared in the Neolithic Balkans and Spain? Without steppe ancestry? Zero. That’s the answer, zero. So you’re just writing baseless, sweet nothings and nonsensical fiction, as usual. Earliest sample found with a certain Y-DNA lineage =/= place of origin
“Or you can try to convince the international scientific community that WHGs are only western in our imagination and are actually EHGs, they will probably never appreciate the effort you are making.”
What are you babbling about? The international scientific community? What’s that? Harvard? Copenhagen? Max Planck? Chinese and Russian labs? All these groups have different orientations and opinions; they are far from being some authoritative, uniform body of opinion. Furthermore, we should analyze their data, and bring up things we disagree with; it would be fallacious to just blindly accept what they say. This sounds like more appeals to authority there Gasket, which again, you’ve spent the better half of ten years deriding and criticizing Harvard, Reich, and established labs, so when did you change your mind and decide to take these authority figures’ words at face value? Did you have too much Txakoli and cheese before typing that nonsensical dog shit up Gas? All WHG is, is a cluster of individuals, individuals that exist on a cline between GoyetQ2/Magdalenians, EHGs/ANEs, and AHGs. It’s not a uniform body of ancestry. Villabruna—for which WHG was initially based around—has ANE/EHG, which has been established since the Dzudzuana pre-print in 2018:
(page 42 of https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/09/20/423079.DC1/423079-1.pdf).
And I’ve linked this one before but to reiterate, almost all WHGs (with the exception of Grotta dell’Uzzo, Grotta d’Oriente, and a few others) have EHG/ANE thanks to the Epigravettian, Villabruna related cluster of individuals
From the supplementary files (table 6) of the paper “Genomic and dietary discontinuities during the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Sicily“ (2022): https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2589004222005144-mmc3.xlsx
England_MN, Wales_LM, Ireland_LM, France_LM, LaBrana1, Canes, Ranchott, Bichon, Loschbour, Koros, Continenza, Germany_Meso_BDB001, Croatia Mesolithic HG, Iron Gates, Motala, and Sicily_LM all display ANE/EHG ancestry (Burkhardtshöhle is low coverage, but he pretty much displays this EHG/ANE affinity too).
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteAnd P312? P312 clades can be associated with proto-Italo-Celtic (DF27, L21, U152, BY20464, BY25512, A5303, Z30597, and Y18211) and proto-Germanic (P312*, L238, PH2278, DF99, and DF19). Additionally, it’s very likely that some of the aforementioned P312 clades appeared in both groups, such as DF27, or maybe some subclades of DF19 and L238. We also have a R1b-P312* bearing sample from the Netherlands (sample ID: I4073, 2197-1897 calBCE). At various times in history, non-Indo-European speakers absorbed Indo-European speakers, while retaining PIE autosomal DNA and Y-DNA, such as the Vascones/Aquitani, Basques, Tartessians/Iberians, Etruscans, Finns, Hungarians, Estonians, Turks, Kurds, Iranians/Persians, Assyrians, and so on. Even if P312 spawned in Central Europe, it ultimately comes form Pontic Caspian/East European forest steppe derived populations who bore M269. And M269 may have originated somewhere in Eastern Europe other than the Pontic-Caspian steppe, perhaps the Volga region or the East European forest steppe (both overlap). Regardless, that’s still Eastern Europe, and it was still spread to the rest of Europe/Eurasia in the LNEBA by steppe related populations (Yamnaya and CW).
@davidski
ReplyDelete"You're way too fucking stupid to understand."
You want people to believe, without proof, that CHG was living in Ukraine. Have some shame. You have completely lost it now that you are taking Ls after Ls.
@Simon Stevin
ReplyDeleteWasn'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.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteIt's not CHG you crackpot.
It's a different line of hunter-gatherers.
The same ones that are mixing with EHG in the Middle Don at ~5,300 BCE, just east of Ukraine.
@ Vasistha
ReplyDeleteRead up on the “Imeretian culture”. It’s the late paleolithic horizon associated with “ CHG’. It formed ~18000 bp, with several notable sites in the Kuban region. By 15000 bp there is clear evidence of interaction with lower Don groups. So this might be the start of the interaction, but it accelerated greatly after that , until ~ 5500 bc.
Iran N is broadly similar to CHG. So mtDna from Iran would be similar to that in Caucasus. You’d need to calculate TMRCA after full mitogenomic sequencing to evaluate detailed splits. But I’ve never had any issues with south caspian contacts, it’s just that they were drawn to the north rather than having “developed” it.
^ lower Don sites like Kamenkaya Balka. People here know about them already
ReplyDelete@Simon Stevin
ReplyDeleteThe CTS9018/PF6484 and PF6452/YSC0000167 derived results are definitely in the raw file for SAMEA110396701 run ERR769626 for I2181 4606-4447 calBCE from Smyadovo, Bulgaria. What isn't 100% certain is if it's due to deamination or not. There are no ancestral reads for any of the SNPs in either of the corresponding blocks and it is ancestral for Y20769, BY15593, CTS1078/Z2103 and GG480/PF7563/V2347. The few derived reads for subclades other than R are ancestral for upstream SNPs so they are definitely false positives. After re-reviewing the results one of those non-R SNPs is a C>T SNP so it is possibly due to deamination but the upstream ancestral SNPs already proved it is a false positive. Otherwise the results show no signs of deamination causing false positives. So the CTS9018/PF6484 and PF6452/YSC0000167 derived results are likely real.
There are only about 910 Y-DNA SNP reads so the file is extremely low resolution which is why there are no other reads for equivalents of P297 or M269. So YFull will definitely never publish the results and FTDNA has already refused to do so. The low resolution also hampers the ability to definitively say the CTS9018/PF6484 and PF6452/YSC0000167 derived results are 100% certain.
None of the above supports anything Gaska has concluded.
By the way, we have known that C3341 is derived for P310 and P311 since May. Is this something you only recently found out?
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDelete"Why haven't we seen it in any of the samples so far? Where was it hiding?"
Which mesolithic and neolithic samples on the Don-Caspian steppes have been published? These type of arguments might work with your little cult following that hang on your lips but here they only serve to make it look like you haven't read up on archaeology of the area and are not up to date with the ancient genetics either.