search this blog

Tuesday, November 1, 2022

The story of R-V1636


Who wants to bet against this map? Keep in mind that ART038 (~3000 calBCE) remains the oldest sample with the V1636 and R1b Y-chromosome mutations in the West Asian ancient DNA record. Ergo, there's nothing to suggest that V1636 or R1b entered Eastern Europe from West Asia.

See also...

A tantalizing link

How relevant is Arslantepe to the PIE homeland debate?

213 comments:

1 – 200 of 213   Newer›   Newest»
LivoniaG said...

David - on your map, at Progress 2 circa 4300 BCE -- what language do you think those V1636 individuals were speaking?

Davidski said...

No idea.

If not Indo-European, then probably something extinct.

Romulus said...

It probably travelled through the Balkans and not across the Caucasus.

Davidski said...

I'm pretty sure R-V1636 will show up in Copper Age south Caucasus, in samples closely related to those Areni Cave people with steppe ancestry.

Matt said...

New paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.31.514526v1 - "Interactions between Trypillian farmers and North Pontic forager-pastoralists in Eneolithic central Ukraine"

adna by Reich and Patterson.

"Here we report the analysis of artefacts from the late 5th millennium Trypillian site of Kolomiytsiv Yar Tract (KYT) in central Ukraine, focusing on a bone fragment found in the Trypillian context at KYT. "

"Genetic analysis of the KYT individual indicates ancestry derived from a proto-Yamna population such as Sredny Stog."


The date of the sample is 4049-3945 so 4000 BCE basically.

Interestingly it has no EEF related admixture but is like Yamnaya with EuroHG shift.

This is similar to ukr104 from - https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr543294 - dated ukr104, c. 5,650-5,477 cal BP and from lower Dnipro Valley. Yamnaya like with a HG related shift.

Again this raises the question of whether these populations were ancestral but had an ancestry pulse from populations with extra CHG and EEF (possibly independently) to shift them away from this position, or if they were non-ancestral.

But it seems like from the KYR site to Deriivka II, we have the same HG shift Yamnaya-like people. Not very surprising since they're in close proximity.
What will the samples from Sredny-Stog from the same date range yield?

Davidski said...

@Matt

Again, clearly younger than Khvalynsk, Progress and Vonyuchka, so interesting, but not earth shattering.

It's easy to explain these sorts of results with gene flow from the east being diluted, until it became so strong that it was diluted much less and then we get Yamnaya from that.

By the way, apparently most of those new Usatovo samples from Ukraine have a lot of EEF (Trypillia?) ancestry.

Matt said...

Yeah, David Anthony talked about the late 4th millennium, where apparently some of the Usatovo samples date from, showing more signs of admixture and contact, e.g. the Steppe_Maykop founding male to Usatovo direct relationship. New mobility technology.

Matt said...

It'll be interesting to compare these two samples (although one certainly looks poor quality!); if they are close to a clade, clearly limited progressive ongoing dilution between 4000-3600BCE at least.

Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...

its a bone fragment from a disturbed top-soil . Can't really say its a C-T context.

Rob said...

@ Davidski


''It's easy to explain these sorts of results with gene flow from the east being diluted, until it became so strong that it was diluted much less and then we get Yamnaya from that.'''


which gene flow exactly ?

old europe said...


ukr 104 was modeled as been 33% Ukraine neolithic and 66% Yamnaya/ Progress like.
I guess this sample will be more Ukraine neo shifted

Davidski said...

@Rob

Progress-related gene flow from the east that mixed with Ukraine Neo-like people to eventually form Yamnaya.

Rob said...

that makes sense

Gaska said...

Ergo, genetic interactions between the steppe and farming worlds as early as the late 5th-early 4th millennium BCE which confirms previously published papers on Glavanesti, Gordinesti and Pocrovca (3,300 BC). Proto-Yamnaya ancestry in settlements of CT culture in Ukraine i.e. genetic confirmation of archaeological contacts between Sredni Stog and Trypillia through exogamy (steppe women and SS pottery in Trypillia). If you consider that there is R1a in Glavanesti and R1b-M269 in Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI (KGK), and in addition, evident western farmer ancestry & Z2103 in Yamnaya it seems that the circle is getting narrower.

Regarding V1636, it is the best argument to defend direct migrations from the steppes to Anatolia, it is a pity that this sample does not have steppe ancestry

Rob said...

I had to double check this, however this R1b-V3616 chap was a young boy sacrificed on top of the Royal Tomb, not within it.

Arslantepe seems to have been under the control of 'highland groups', originally household based but the group ruling Arslantepe in the period 3500 - 3000 BC became connected to the Uruk world. They became quite autocratic. Their ruling structure rapidly ended in a violent rebellion sometime after 3000 bc. Those which succeeded them seem to have been other highland groups with basically the same genetics, but the site never regained its prominence, then was conquered by the Hittites moving in from further west during the MLBA.

Vladimir said...

Conceptually, I agree with Davidski. However, I think the process was more complicated. If there was a process of gradual dilution with a profile similar to the Progress of a profile similar to the Neolithic of Ukraine, then we would not have such a Y-DNA boundary between them. Somewhere around 4500 BC, a population with the profile of this sample (by the way, the profile of Golubaya krinitsa samples from the Middle Don is about the same) penetrated into the North Caucasus (I think this is Novodanilovka culture because there are settlements of Novodanilovka culture in the mountains of Dagestan and Chechnya), there are mounds of Novodanilovka culture and in Kuban (Kaisug kurgan near the Manych River). It was a population of Z2103. And their relatives L51 and M417 remained in the Dnieper-Don steppes. From Kuban, the population of Z2103 returned to the steppes again, but as a Repino culture around 3800 BC. By this time, the family ties had already been lost and these were two different populations. Repino Z2103 and future CWC - L 51 and M417. Thus, the autosomal profile of this sample and the samples of the Middle Don is the basic one, and it is also the profile of the early CWC samples. And the autosomal profile of Yamnaya is composite: the autosomal profile of this sample plus some elements similar to Progress.

Raka1100 said...

Re:The G25 datasheet, there should be changes to the labels. For instance, Tunisian_Berber_Matmata is inconsistent with Berber_Tunisia_Chen. I suggest the label be changed to Berber_Tunisia_Matmata/Tamezret/Zraoua. Similarly I suggest Sarikoli_China be renamed to Tajik_Sarikoli.

Davidski said...

@Rob

The paper actually claims that ART038 was a young female.

So obviously the description of the remains is wrong.

Rob said...

@ Davidski

It was the original physical anthropology inference which was wrong (ie they thought it was a female, but must have been a slight young male. It happens not infrequently). The suppl. description itself is correct.

Rob said...

@ Vlad

The Don groups were R1a and I2a, and Caucasus / steppe Eneolithic are V3616 and J1 like Khvalnysk. Z2103 seems to appear further west.

How did you come to the conclusion that Z2013 expanded from the Don to the Caucasus then back again based on that ?

Gaska said...


For all those who have been defending for years the exclusively male transmission of steppe ancestry in mainland Europe (M417 & M269>L51) this new Trypillia mtDNA marker is a perfect example (there are dozens more) to explain the role played by women in this whole issue and the importance of exogamy in prehistoric societies. The genetic continuity that Harvard and M. Planck have failed to demonstrate via the male line is easy to demonstrate via the female line

mtDNA-U4b1/b2
Ukraine, Kopachev, Trypillia culture (3.934 BCE)-Proto-Yamnaya profile
Poland, Oblaczkowo, CWC-Poz81 (2.775 BCE)
Poland, Bosutów, CWC-Pcw430 (2.350 BCE)
Germany, Landau, BBC (2.250 BCE)
England, Wilsford Down, BBC (2.200 BCE)

Vladimir said...

@Rob

Samples R1a-M417 are a local population from the Middle Don, that is, it is a forest-steppe population. I2a is a population of Mariupol culture from the Lower Don. The R1b-L23 population is a steppe population from the Volga to the Dnieper. V1636 most likely lived in the Kuban and may have been the richest CHG. The population of L51, after separation from Z2103, also moved to the forest-steppe up the Dnieper and Don. We don't have any samples from the Lower Don at all. We also have no samples of L23 either to the west or to the east. So genetically, this is still purely a fantasy. But culturally we have a cultural movement Novodanilovka about 4500 BC and to the Caucasus and the Danube region (Suvorovo culture). Also in Kuban (Koysug) there are archaeologically visible traces of the transformation of the Novodanilovka culture into the Repino culture around 4000 BC.

CeRcVa said...

@Vladimir

But for information, I will write that R1b-Z2103 is dominant among Kakhetians(Eastern Georgians) and in general, almost all regions of Georgia have Z2013.

https://ibb.co/Kwp3dqh

epoch said...

@Matt

It would be interested if they match the early non-EEF admixted Baltic CWC samples [1]. Because if these are related we might have a place where CWC originated and a road along which it spread. As David said in the referred blog post:

"However, in my Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of ancient West Eurasia, all three samples fall just "northwest" of Yamnaya, along with one German Corded Ware outlier, and form a separate cluster that is shifted slightly closer to European hunter-gatherers and farmers. Hence, Plinkaigalis242 and Gyvakarai1 only form a clade with Yamnaya to the limit of the resolution in the analysis by Mittnik et al., but aren't exactly identical to Yamnaya."

Also would be very interesting to see if these early CWC and this Sredny Stog sample would act the same as Yamnaya in the Arc paper and a EHG/CHG/WHG/Anatolian mix would have a too low P-value for these as well.

PS: According to the excel sheet the Igren 8 sample has been investigated by Lillie et al., 2016.

[1] https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/early-baltic-corded-ware-form-genetic.html

Romulus said...

I've been writing on your blog since 2015 (and getting flamed for it) that the steppe migration originated in CT. I think I deserve a blog post dedicated to me being the greatest Eurogenes poster.

Rob said...

The tripolje people apparently often didn’t have proper burial. It is hypothesised that they Excarnated or burnt their people. So this bone fragment could be a very important clue.
I would have expected steppe admixture in late CT, however as early as 4000 BC pure steppe is a bit surprising.

This corroborates the idea of early interactions scenarios despite the apparent genetic distance, which seems to still confuse people



@ Vlad

From the data we have:

Early Steppe Caucasus is related to V3616, j1, Q1

R1b-Z2013 was brought to Caucasus by Yamnaya & Catacomb.
The earliest M269 in turn is further west with UkrN type ancestry

Rich S. said...

@Gaska

You are much mistaken if you are trying to argue that steppe DNA was spread to Europe west of the steppe by women. Studies of mtDNA and the X chromosome have already shown that steppe DNA was male mediated, which should have already been obvious just from the mere fact that R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 aren't found among Neolithic farmers west of the steppe or without steppe DNA and only appear in the ancient DNA record with the arrival of the early Indo-Europeans.

You misunderstand the real significance of exogamy. On the steppe, over time, it served to form the broad population that shared essentially the same steppe autosomal DNA, although different Y-DNA haplogroups prevailed here and there among the various tribes.

Once those tribes began to move westward out of the steppe, however, exogamy became the vehicle for the introduction of progressively more Neolithic farmer DNA into succeeding generations of them. That is sledgehammer-to-the-head obvious. Corded Ware was a steppe-derived population, yet it carried about 20-25% European farmer DNA. A little later in time and farther west, Bell Beaker, derived from Corded Ware, carried still more European farmer DNA, thanks to the continued acquisition of wives from among the native population. The farther west and southwest they went, the deeper the steppe-derived tribes waded into European farmer territory, the more exogamy served to increase their share of European farmer DNA and decrease their level of steppe DNA. Meanwhile, the dominant Y-DNA haplogroups remained unchanged. That's why, for example, the turnover in autosomal DNA in Iberia was only about 30%, while the turnover in Y-DNA was 90% or more. The exact same scenario played out as the steppe tribes moved southeast into South Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

Seriously, we're at the point now, in late 2022, at which everybody gets this, and there shouldn't be any need to repeat it.

Mike said...

Rob, The gene flow from the east ( Don-Donets) is indicated by the "Sredny stog" samples presented on that PCA shown by anthony Although we can say with certainty that they belong to the post-mariupol or the flat burials from early middle eneolithic, characterized by the presence of elongated , trapezoid and crouched burials in the same site, accompanied by bonfires, organic mat and safrifical places, also heavy use of Ochre and chalk. THose samples seems to harbour more Middle-Don type ancestry.

https://www.academia.edu/36427355/Flat_burial_Ground_on_the_Vynogradnyi_Island_current_state_of_research_in_Ukrainian_

МОГИЛЬНИКИ ІГРЕНЬ (ОГРІНЬ) 8 ТА ОЛЕКСАНДРІЯ ДОБИ ...

andrew said...

I've blogged this post. http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2022/11/y-dna-r1b-didnt-end-up-on-steppe-from.html

Vladimir said...

@Rob

In Allentoft's work we will see dozens of M269* from the context of Volosovo. Although this is not relevant, but M269 before the division into L23 and PF7562 was on the Volga, and in the steppe zone. Anthony will eventually be right about this. Volosovo is a two-part culture, but the part of it that was found in Sakhtysh is migrants from the lower Volga from the steppe zone. They left there just at the moment when the People of Mariupol culture came to the Volga, they did not accept the innovations. The other part remained on the Volga and passed into the Eneolithic. Then these people came to the lower reaches of the Don, because at some stage in the layers of the Rakushechnyi yar culture there are finds of cultures from the Volga region. While single samples have been studied, I would focus more on the cultural context and autosomal profile, rather than on Y-DNA

Romulus said...

Missing the V1636 in SGC/Denmark

Rob said...

@ Vlad

My understanding is that ‘Mariupol” refers to a cultural horizon which developed amongst the various groups between the lower Dnieper and the Volga from ca 5500- a sharing of the some burial and religious customs. In fact, in literature, I don’t think there is a universal definition for it.
But I agree we need more data to understand the details

epoch said...

According to the CT paper Matt mentioned they did some f4-stats (KYT-SSX being the CT sample from the paper):

f4 (Ancient African genomes, Serbia Mesolithic; KYT-SSX, Ukraine EBA
Yamnaya) Z=-3.85
and
f4 (Ancient African genomes, Serbia Mesolithic; KYT-SSX, Samara
Yamnaya) Z=-4.78

Can someone repeat that with Igren 8 (or perhaps Mr. Proto-Yamnaya) instead of KYT-SSX?

old europe said...

@all

In 2018 on eurogenes these models were posted. AFAIK nobody at the time had ani criticism about them. Just look at how much WHG shifted are the early corded ware baltic samples are

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11OhpAWR049ayTzZQKFnzA2OshDU8AEYBROfe0cJAfE4/edit?usp=sharing


Vladimir said...

@Rob

Now, of course, Mariupol is considered a cultural influence because we have not identified the group that brought this influence. But if you speculate hypothetically. If we look at I2a from the Ukrainian Neolithic, we see two distinct groups. The first group is represented by a sample from Vasilevka with an age of 8100 BC, this is I2a - P37\CTS595/S21825. This is a local Dnieper group that lived there from the final Paleolithic\Mesolithic, as I understand it, these are the descendants of the Svidersk culture. I suspect that a large number of I2a in Allentoft's work from the Neolithic forest zone of the European part of Russia will be from the same group. The second group is represented by samples starting from 5500 BC from Dereivka, Vovniga, Vilnyansky. They are all I2a-M436\M223\CTS10057. Apparently all of them I2a-L701\L699. Perhaps they are the Mariupol group.

Gaska said...

@Vlad

In Volosovo (and in the whole Russian and Ukrainian territory) there is ZERO M269*, we have only one confirmed sample and it is a Neolithic farmer, everything else for the moment are fairy tales. The speculations you make about the territories occupied by the different clans are only valid for the moment for Z2103 and V1636.

Rob said...

@ Vlad

The data you have pointed out is true, however I will suggest:
- the I2a-P37 is Mesolithic, not Neolithic, It co-exists with R1a and Q1a, due to 'Swiderian' link on a predominantly EHG population.
- the I2a-L699 comes in 'Neolithic', where economy was still predominantly F-H-G. The same hg also appears in 2nd phase Farmer contexts in north Balkans and Carpathian basin, having acquired ~ 90% EEF ancestry. These proto-Mariupol clans introduce Famrer influences in & around the Dniepe region, with a few moving onto the Lower Don. R1b-V88 is also linked with this group, however seems to disappear during 4000s BC, whilst I2a-L699 remains throughout the western steppe, Balkans, Greece & Anatolia, and occassionally in Asia too.
- however, the regions west of the lower Dnieper do not belong to the Mariupol group of cultures, whose centre of mass lies in areas east of the Dnieper, and represent the predecessors of Sredni Stog. TInstead, the HG clans further west were more fully integrated in Neolithic society, but impart a distinctly 'native/ 'mesolithic'' character compared to groups like Starcevo or LBK which are barnyard G2a-farmers.






Davidski said...

@epoch

CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP SRB_Iron_Gates_HG MsProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_UKR -0.001570 -1.921
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP SRB_Iron_Gates_HG MsProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_RUS_Samara -0.000005 -0.007
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN MsProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_UKR -0.000557 -0.556
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN MsProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.000890 1.075
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP HUN_Vinca_MN MsProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_UKR 0.000069 0.071
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP HUN_Vinca_MN MsProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.000810 1.089

CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP SRB_Iron_Gates_HG MrProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_UKR 0.000747 1.407
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP SRB_Iron_Gates_HG MrProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.001365 3.355
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN MrProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_UKR 0.000221 0.350
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN MrProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.000311 0.635
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP HUN_Vinca_MN MrProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_UKR -0.000017 -0.031
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP HUN_Vinca_MN MrProto-Yamnaya Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.000170 0.390

Matt said...

@epoch, I don't have the special samples that Davidski has, but for some context, here's what some stats like this look like within the Steppe_EMBA and Steppe_Eneolithic populations against Yamnaya_Samara: https://imgur.com/a/uJZP8cH

Would say to be aware that Z significance scores are sensitive to the number of SNPs that are available, and the significance score will be lower comparing a low quality sample, sometimes even if the actual admixture was larger.

Mike said...

I've been asking myself if progress and Middle-don type ancestry moved separately or came already mixed to form proto-yamnaya in the Dnieper. It will be very interesting to see how those components intermingled and if there was any substructure among them.

it seems that the middle Eneolithic is a crucial period in North Pontic Steppe, marked by innovation in burials, way of life and new ideais. Unfortunately overlooked by the labs.

Rich S. said...

@Gaska

"@Vlad

In Volosovo (and in the whole Russian and Ukrainian territory) there is ZERO M269*, we have only one confirmed sample and it is a Neolithic farmer, everything else for the moent are fairy tales. The speculations you make about the territories occupied by the different clans are only valid for the moment for Z2103 and V1636."

Are you still referring to the sample from Smyadovo in eastern Bulgaria as a "Neolithic farmer", despite the fact that you have been told numerous times he had significant steppe DNA? That's not very honest. Do you also need to be reminded of where Smyadovo is and its proximity to the Pontic-Caspian steppe?

Besides, Vladimir was referring to an upcoming paper from Allentoft that he evidently has some advance knowledge of.


Okay

epoch said...

@David & Matt

Thanks!

Intersting to see that Yamnaya has consistently more WHG-ish affinity than Piedmont.

Matt said...

Cross-posted with Razib's place:

Greeks:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB56216

"Ancient DNA reveals admixture history and endogamy in the prehistoric Aegean"

"The Neolithic and Bronze Age were highly transformative periods for the genetic history of Europe, but for the Aegean -a region fundamental to Europe’s prehistory- the biological dimensions of cultural transitions have been elucidated only to a limited extent so far. We have analyzed newly generated genome-wide data from 102 ancient individuals from Crete, the Greek mainland and the Aegean Islands, spanning from the Neolithic to the Iron Age.

We found that the early farmers from Crete shared the same ancestry as other contemporaneous Neolithic Aegeans. In contrast, the end of the Neolithic period and the following Early Bronze Age were marked by ‘eastern’ gene-flow, which was predominantly of Anatolian origin in Crete. Confirming previous findings for additional Central/Eastern European ancestry in the Greek mainland by the Middle Bronze Age, we additionally show that such genetic signatures appeared in Crete gradually from the 17th to 12th centuries BC, a period when the influence of the mainland over the island intensified.

Biological and cultural connectedness within the Aegean is also supported by the novel finding of consanguineous endogamy practiced at high frequencies, unprecedented in the global ancient DNA record. Our results highlight the potential of archaeogenomic approaches in the Aegean for unraveling the interplay of genetic admixture, marital and other cultural practices."


Same as https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2021/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2323 from EAA.

Poles:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB53670 -

Patrilocality and hunter-gatherer-related ancestry in Middle Bronze Age East-Central Europe

The post-Neolithic demographic history of East-Central Europe, despite this region being on the confluence of various ecological zones and cultural entities is poorly explored. Here, the descendantsof societies associated with steppe pastoralists form Early Bronze Age (EBA 2400-1800 BC) were followed by Middle Bronze Age (MBA 1800-1200 BC) populations displaying unique characteristics. Particularly, the predominance of collective burials, the scale of which, was previously seen only inthe Neolithic.

To study kinship of those MBA societies and to test whether the re-emergence of those old traditions was a result of genetic shift or social changes, we generated and analyzed 91 genomes from individuals associated with EBA and MBA from modern day Poland and Ukraine.

Our results indicate that while EBA people in East-Central Europe were most likely direct descendants of the preceding populations, the MBA populations were formed by an additional admixture event involving a population with relatively high proportions of genetic component associated with European hunter-gatherers.

Additionally, our data shows that MBA collective burials contained numerous individuals related to each other, and the prevalence of close kinship among adult male descendants over adult female suggests that patrilocality was dominating form of marriage arrangements in these societies."
(ADAM MICKIEWICZ UNIVERSITY, POZNAN, POLAND )

The latter of these looks like of prime interest to arza and ambron. HG rich people are known from Poland and Ukraine too after 1800BCE, not very surprising considering that this is the case in Hungary and Lithuania (for varying blends).

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt @Davidski What kind of hunter gatherer ancestry are they referring to? WHG?

We do know that during the Middle to Late Neolithic there was a significant resurgence of a male-based WHG interbreeding among Neolithic populations, that rendered GAC up to 30% WHG and Funnelbeaker even 40%-50% ratio.

However, here they are talking about Middle BRONZE AGE…

Could it be that they regard CWC/Yamnaya pastoralists as “hunter gatherers”? After all, the most important major ancestry component grafted onto existing European pops is the Steppe one.

Quote: “ Here, the descendantsof societies associated with steppe pastoralists form Early Bronze Age (EBA 2400-1800 BC) were followed by Middle Bronze Age (MBA 1800-1200 BC) populations displaying unique characteristics. Particularly, the predominance of collective burials, the scale of which, was previously seen only inthe Neolithic.”

Do you mean that there was a renewed resurgence of an EEF ancestry after the initial Steppe invasions?

And does it have anything to do with what @Samuel Andrews hints about a 50% WHG rich “Hungary BA” ancestry component, allegedly prominent among both sides of Tollensee valley warriors?

Davidski said...

@All

Can anyone explain the fascination that Lazaridis has with Balkan hunter-gatherers?

Balkan hunter-gatherers aren't relevant to Yamnaya, although Balkan farmers without any Balkan hunter-gatherer ancestry might be.

So what's the point of trying to model Yamnaya ancestry with Balkan hunter-gatherers?

Matt said...

@Andrzejewski, it's (broadly speaking) "WHG". There are samples with a resurgance of this component found in the Baltic and the Danubian region and even down to Croatia with a resurgence of this component.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski “ Balkan hunter-gatherers?”

As in Iron Gates?

Yea thought they went extinct or assimilated into Tripolye farmers.

Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Davidski said...

Tripolye farmers don't have any Iron Gates/Balkan hunter-gatherer ancestry.

Very few populations have this type of ancestry, even in the Balkans.

Andrzejewski said...

@Vladimir “ In Allentoft's work we will see dozens of M269* from the context of Volosovo. Although this is not relevant, but M269 before the division into L23 and PF7562 was on the Volga, and in the steppe zone. Anthony will eventually be right about this. Volosovo is a two-part culture, but the part of it that was found in Sakhtysh is migrants from the lower Volga from the steppe zone. They left there just at the moment when the People of Mariupol culture came to the Volga, they did not accept the innovations.”

Are you referencing the same culture that was either exterminated or dispersed when the CWC derived Fatnayovo migrated into their traditional territories? Aren’t they related to the Combed Ware Ceramic?

They must be some EHG foragers of the forest zone, maybe speaking some language related to the Proto-Laplandic, non-Uralic non-IE substrate found in Sami and in some hypothetical Eastern Baltic hydronyms and typonyms.

Bit don’t you think that Volosovo may be too late for that period?

Andrzejewski said...

I would love to know what language Tripolye spoke and it’s linguistic affiliation- is it related to Etruscan, LBK or whatever it was that Ötzi spoke.

One issue I’m taking with the centrality that @Rob places on CTC’s role in Yamnaya’s origins, because they folded like cards the moment that CWC made its first foray from its forest Steppe origins westbound and encountered the Tripolye. Its almost equivalent to the Inca empire’s collapse in the mere decades following Spaniard conquest.

Richard Rocca said...

@Vladimir, are you sure that Allentoft's Volosovo samples are M269? The pre-print's supplementary document says "Haplogroup R1b1a1a (R1b-M73) was frequent among Russian Neolithic individuals". The only mention they make of M269 is as follows: "Individuals placed within the R1b-M269 clade on the other hand were from Scandinavian Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age contexts."

Romulus said...

@Andrzejewski

You should try reading an actual book on these subjects. I recommend the Baltic Pontic texts. Regurgitating Eupedia nonsense is tiresome and not worth responding to. Suffice it you say everything you write is wrong.

Vladimir said...

“Middle Bronze Age (MBA 1800-1200 BC) populations displaying unique characteristics. Particularly, the predominance of collective burials, the scale of which, was previously seen only inthe Neolithic.
To study kinship of those MBA societies and to test whether the re-emergence of those old traditions was a result of genetic shift or social changes, we generated and analyzed 91 genomes from individuals associated with EBA and MBA from modern day Poland and Ukraine. Our results indicate that while EBA people in East-Central Europe were most likely direct descendants of the preceding populations, the MBA populations were formed by an additional admixture event involving a population with relatively high proportions of genetic component associated with European hunter-gatherers.”

Taking into account the fact that this period and the territory almost perfectly coincides with the Tshinetsko-Komarovskaya culture of 1900-1100 BC, then apparently we are talking about what we call the Baltic-Slavic drift.

Vladimir said...

@ Andrzejewski

In the forest strip, there were also replacements and mixing of the population. In Allentoft's article, you will see this on the example of the Sakhtysh settlement. There are people I2a, Q, R1a, R1b. Moreover, R1b will be there from two waves of migrations P297* and M269*. I also think there will be at least two groups with different subclades of group Q. These are separate groups. The R1a-YP1306 population of the PES001 type of the Final Paleolithic/Mesolithic was probably the first. In the Mesolithic there was a stream from the west of the Svidersk culture I2a. In the Moscow region, they encountered a Q stream seeking from the east. Then in the early Neolithic from the Volga there was then R1b-P297*. We have already found this population in the Baltic. Then there was another stream from the east of Group Q. In the period 4500-4000 BC there was another stream from the Volga R1b-M269*.

Rob said...

@ Andrze

I didn’t say CT is central to Yamnaya, even in light of current sample, you might have something mixed up

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,

You've been suggesting IE comes from eastern European Neolithic farmers for years. This is your pet theory. I think this is what Andre is getting at.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Romulus,

"You should try reading an actual book on these subjects. "

You need to learn how to make sense.

You attribute Steppe migrations to CCT which is a Neolithic farmer that is not even located on the Steppe. How do STEPPE migrations begin in a place outside of the Steppe? That doesn't make sense.

Nor does anything else you say.

Rob said...

@ Sam

''You've been suggesting IE comes from eastern European Neolithic farmers for years. This is your pet theory. I think this is what Andre is getting at.''


Nope, I've been stating that PIE somehow emerged from hunter-gatherers in close contact with eastern Farmers. There is a special type of 'neolithic' around the nortwest Black sea/ north east Balkans.
it is even spelled out again on this thread, I dont know how you keep getting it wrong - after all these years.

And it's not a pet theory, it's the Light.

Rob said...

i.e. PIE probably emerged from a central-eastern European 'Neolithic', but they weren't 'Farmers', although some were.

Rob said...

refer to

The contacts of the Eastern European steppe people with the Balkan populationduring the transition period from Neolithic to Eneolithic
Nadja S. Kotova


'This article is devoted to cultural contacts of steppe population and Balkan people about 5300–4800 BC. Numerous imports (adornments from copper, cornelian, marine shells, pots, plates from the bone and nacre, pendants from the teeth of red deer), radical changes in the cultural traditions (new type ornamental compositions, flexed inhumations,stone in graves and above them, pits with alcove) and imitation of pottery have been fixed for the Late Neolithic inthe Eastern European steppe. Acquaintance with first metal and strong western impact caused the formation of the new Sredniy Stog culture''


This is basic stuff by now, but too many people have been confused by the issue of 'CHG admixture' and alleged lack of EEF admixture.

Ric Hern said...

So the Farmers farmed, usually near rivers and the Pastoralists grazed their Cattle where farmers didn't farm. A symbiotic relationship ?

Matt said...

@vladimir,

I believe the time and dates overlap with the Trzciniec (Circle) Culture, per another presentation from the same group 4 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TslLkXDVm9k

Although this presentation only covers some sites from Poland (Eastern and Centre) I think, not the Ukraine ones.

They suggest this TCC / TC is originating from Iwno Culture in North Poland, so that Baltic link.

Although there are good arguments for suggesting that the rich EuroHG ancestry was present in the Danubian area wetlands.

For'ex, the Serbia IronGates MBA sample with HG rich ancestry and I2a1b1a1b1b1~ found at the Iron Gates gorge and covered in the 'Southern Arc' papers is comparable in date to their turnover period - 1900 BCE, calibrated.

There's also the argument that an Iron Gates-like HG component is a better fit than HG in the area of the Baltic like Narva with extra EHG.
anthrogenica user Waldemar (h/t) provided this further abstract (translated from Polish)

"Archeogenetics of Central European populations from the Bronze Age to the first centuries of our era"

"The genetic structure of the Central and East-Central European population has undoubtedly been shaped by significant demographic processes related to the flow of genes from neighboring areas. The largest of these processes, i.e. the spread of early Neolithic agricultural populations from the Near East in the fifth millennium BC and migration from the steppe from the Black Sea regions towards Western Europe at the end of the fourth millennium BC. are quite well recognized, incl. thanks to the analysis of fossil DNA. In this presentation, we present the results of population studies based on the analysis of ~ 100 nuclear genomes from the areas of today's Poland and Ukraine, representing mainly populations from the Bronze Age but also from the Iron Age. The results of these analyzes provide evidence for another demographic process that significantly changed the gene pool of the Bronze Age populations living in Central and Eastern Europe. This process was visible primarily in the increased number of genetic components associated with hunter-gatherer populations and a dramatic change in the frequency of Y-DNA haplogroups. This change had a long-lasting effect, but with time, as shown by preliminary population studies from the Iron Age, it was blurred. In addition, preliminary results of studies on skeletons belonging to people living in the Iron Age indicate a gap to date in the understanding of the processes shaping the genetic structure of European populations."


What is the y-dna turnover here...?

Rob said...

@ Ric

In some cases, such as Hamangia, Bolgrad-Aldeni, Varna, the relationship was amicable.
At least initially, some clans are found across the entire spectrum of "Farmers", 'HGs' and early pastoralists. They provided the 'common denominator'

C-T might have instead been antagonistic. C-T's own demise consisted of internal fragmentation. With GAC, Yamnaya appears to have had an understanding, whilst CWC groups seems to have fought for supremacy over the north European lowlands.

There's a lot more detail than often spelled out in IE literature & Genetics papers.

ambron said...

Matt, thanks!

These samples with a high proportion of HG are grouped together with the Baltic BA, as is the Bk-II population from the work of Daniel Gerber. In fact, we've been discussing it for over a month now here:

https://slawomirambroziak.pl/forum/index.php?topic=5627.0

Matt said...

@Ric Hern, generally the theory of Anthony has been that on the open steppe pastoralism outside rivers wasn't really possible until the wagons, and in fact it would be hard to HG to survive off the rivers too (although this is based on the lack of evidence for camps, which are more abundant on rivers until Yamnaya arrives). So you couldn't have a complementary system like that until the wagon and wheel and then quickly you get Yamnaya.

But this may apply less to forest-steppe or some transitional biome?

Matt said...

@ambron, cheers, thanks for that one. Looking (via Google translate, for I lack your multi-lingual skills to read directly), it sounds like an I2a wave with the Trzciniec (in very broad strokes). Although not complete replacement or complete lack of other haplogroups like R1a.

Matt said...

Although @Ric Hern, possibly a division of land around rivers between richer fishing grounds / more pastoral suited lands and those more suited for farming might work.

For example early farmers supposedly rarely used fish/river resources as part of their diet, so a longstanding division of land doesn't seem totally implausible, e.g. related to above discussion on HG resurgence in Eastern-Central Europe, the hunter-fishers of Iron Gates might have left a bigger legacy that isn't apparent in the mainline Balkan/Danubian farmer populations but might show up in some samples around particular river/wetland habitats.

Rich S. said...

@Rob

Not only that, but thus far the oldest CW remains are R1b-L151. It seems that the first CW wave west was mainly R1b-L151. The old CWC X Horizon burials (3000-2900 BC) are found in Malopolska in SE Poland. It will be interesting to see ancient DNA results from them.

Judging from Linderholm et al, evidently CW in that region was still largely R1b-L151 several centuries later. Interesting how the CW burials in Malopolska as reported in Linderholm were Catacombnaya style.

Davidski said...

@Rich S.

Don't forget that the Baltic CWC, which represents an early wave, was purely R1a.

Also, the oldest Polish CWC sample is R1a, and it's also one of the oldest CWC samples anywhere.

Davidski said...

@Rob

Polish CWC is rich in R1a.

Keep in mind that the Y-calling in the Linderholm paper was very poor. They didn't find any R1a because they didn't look for it.

Rich S. said...

@Davidski

". . . Also, the oldest Polish CWC sample is R1a, and it's also one of the oldest CWC samples anywhere."

How old is that one?

Desailly said...

Who has any thoughts on this?

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo3609#.Y2VYXzoOlFM.twitter

Davidski said...

@Rich S.

poz81 2880–2630 calBCE

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2019.1528

Richard Rocca said...

There were 3 R1a samples in the Linderholm study:

pcw250: R1a-Z645
pcw420: R1a-M417 (xZ645)
pcw430: R1a-M417 (xL664, FGC9988)

Rich S. said...

Are there any CW samples thus far known that are older than the oldest R1b-L151 CW samples from Papac et al? I realize they're Bohemian CW and not Polish CW.

Rich S. said...

I meant male CW remains with Y-DNA results.

Rob said...

@ RichS

I agree it seems the L51 path was somewhere steppe / forest steppe -> north carpathian arc -> Bohemia -> rhine

Rich S. said...

@Rob

The Dniester valley leads right up to Malopolska, with that river's source in the Podkarpacie, the northern foothills of the Carpathians. Seems a natural route into what became perhaps the cradle of CWC X.

Rich S. said...

@Rob

"I agree it seems the L51 path was somewhere steppe / forest steppe -> north carpathian arc -> Bohemia -> rhine"

That makes sense to me, with P312 born somewhere between Bohemia and the Rhine. What's weird though is that U106 has already been found in Bohemian CW. Maybe P312 was there, too, but just didn't show up in the test results
.

pnuadha said...

@Rich S

Studies of mtDNA and the X chromosome have already shown that steppe DNA was male mediated

No. Try using correct language because it affects peoples thinking. (more male mediated does not mean only male mediated) It was male and female mediated. This was absolutely necessary for population replacement to occur, which did many times.

The yamnaya were genetically identical over a huge horizon. That can only happen when the men and women migrate hand and hand. If the women stayed in local regions, then the autosomal dna of hungarian, ukrainian, and russian yamnaya would be different. Lets add in the afanasievo who are thousands of miles from ukraine and show no local admixture. CW is nearly identical from baltic to czechia to germany. Dutch BB are nearly identical to British BB, and the later replaced the local population.

Gaska said...

Only male mediated? No way-This is the history of mtDNA-R1a1a, over a period of a thousand years we see this marker in Russia, central europe, the Balkans and western Europe. As Pnuadha says, only a joint migration and the habitual practice of exogamy could have caused the widespread incorporation of steppe ancestry throughout Europe. Ergo exogamy became the main vehicle for the introduction of progressively more steppe DNA.

R1a1a- Russia, Rasshevatskiy 1 kurgan-RK1003.C0101 (2.800 BCE)
R1a1a- Rusaia, Marinskaya 5 kurgan MK5009.A0101 (2.786 BCE)
R1a1a- Kazakhstan, Yamnaya, Karagash, EBA-RISE786
R1a1a- Czechia, Praha 5-Malá Ohrada-OHR002 (2.525 BCE)
R1a1a- Czechia, BBC-I7250 (2.350 BCE)
R1a1a- England, Over Narrows, BBC-I2454 (2.090 BCE)
R1a1a- Serbia, Ostojicevo-I16813 (2.036 BCE)
R1a1a- Moldavia, Crihana Veche-I10439 (2.000 BCE)
R1a1a- Germany, Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg, Lech Valley-UNTA58-153 (1.873 BCE)
R1a1a- France, Morbihan, Quiberon-I16792 (1.800 BCE)

What about this one? Only a blind man could be unaware of the situation.

H15a1- Ukraine, Verteba, Trypillia culture -VERT029 (3.682 BCE)
H15a1- Russia, Nikultsino, Fatyanovo culture-CWC-NIK003 (2.410 BCE)
H15a1- Poland, CWC, Ksiaznice (2.350 BCE)
H15a1- Germany, Haunstetten, Lech Valley-UNTA85-1334 (2.302 BCE)
H15a1- Scotland, Leith, Merrilees Close-I5470 (1.534 BCE)

Evidently the reverse situation also occurred, i.e. mtDNA from farmers incorporated into CWC clans increased their EEF ancestry.

StP said...

@Davidski, @Rich S.

It is worth asking in Budapest (Mr. Szecsenyi-Nagy?): What is the fate of research of a large group of ancient R1a CWC and the Unietic culture in the Nitra culture in the northwestern Carpathian Basin in Slovakia, which in the middle of the third millennium BC were of ... Lesser Poland (culture Chłopice-Vesele)?

Rich S. said...

@pnuada

I should have said "largely male mediated", which the steppe migration was. But you are right to the extent that it did not consist solely of males. Still, as I said, the steppe tribes acquired steadily more Neolithic farmer DNA the farther west and southwest they traveled, and that happened mainly through female exogamy. That fact explains the disparity in genetic turnover, i.e., the turnover in Y-DNA in most places where the Indo-Europeans settled outpaced the turnover in autosomal DNA. The migration of the steppe tribes to the southeast, into South Asia and the Indian subcontinent, followed the same playbook: i.e., it was largely male mediated, which resulted in a much greater degree of Y-DNA turnover than autosomal turnover.

I already mentioned how female exogamy served to form the autosomal makeup of the steppe population prior to its migration west. That's the only reasonable explanation, given the evident contrast between the diversity of Y-DNA haplogroups among the steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans and their autosomal homogeneity.

StP said...

@Davidski, @ Rich,

I don't know why the eldest forget about it:
I11954 Glav-14 (Glavanesti Vechi) Romania, R-Z93 * 3500-3000- BCE
(Sirak et al. 2019, saw this post). Sent to ANE. Carlos also quoted.

Davidski said...

@StP

Wrong dating. No C14.

StP said...

@Davidski,

Which samples are said to have no C14: the Slovak ones or the Glavanesti?

Andrzejewski said...

@Rich S “ That fact explains the disparity in genetic turnover, i.e., the turnover in Y-DNA in most places where the Indo-Europeans settled outpaced the turnover in autosomal DNA. The migration of the steppe tribes to the southeast, into South Asia and the Indian subcontinent, followed the same playbook: i.e., it was largely male mediated, which resulted in a much greater degree of Y-DNA turnover than autosomal turnover.

I already mentioned how female exogamy served to form the autosomal makeup of the steppe population prior to its migration west. That's the only reasonable explanation, given the evident contrast between the diversity of Y-DNA haplogroups among the steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans and their…”

Does that explain the diversity of mtdna among Neolithic Anatolian farmers and HG?

Davidski said...

@StP

calBCE means C14. Just BCE means no C14.

Rich S. said...

@Andrzejewski

"Does that explain the diversity of mtdna among Neolithic Anatolian farmers and HG?"

You know, I can't really comment on that, since mtDNA diversity among Neolithic Anatolian farmers and hunter-gatherers isn't my thing.

I think what I wrote about the formation of that vast autosomal pool we call steppe DNA is self evident. That the steppe migrations west and east were mostly male mediated is also self evident. I already said why that's true.

Gaska said...

The experts first say “only male mediated”, then they say “largely male mediated”. You can take a look at the alleged early CW in Bohemia-It does not seem that the steppe tribes acquired much neolithic farmer DNA, it seems rather the opposite, because first women traveled alone and then they traveled with their men directly from the steppes.

J1b1a1-Turkmenistán, Geoksyur, Central Asia-I12486 (3.150 BC)
J1b1a1-Turkmenistán, Geoksyur-I8534 (2.945 BC)
J1b1a1-Bohemia, Vlineves, CWC early-VLI090 (2.831 BC)
J1b1a1-Germany, Tiefbrunn, CWC-RISE435 (2.680 BC)
J1b1a1-Germany, Ausburg, BBC-I5521/I5522 (2.250 BC)
J1b1a1-Netherlands, Molenaarsgraaf, BBC-I13026-KMS60 (2.012 BC)
J1b1a1-Serbia, Mokrin, Maros culture-M225 (1.950 BC)
J1b1a1-France-Mitra3, Garons, Occitaine-MIT1031 (1.700 BC)

I1a-Iran, Shahtepe, SHA004 (3.171 BC)
I1a-Ukraine, Kirovograd Sugokleya, Yamnaya culture-SUG2 (3.000 BC)
I1a-Bohemia, Stadice, CWC-STD002 (2.777 BC)

Romulus said...

The major misconception a lot of the smoother brains here can't move past is the theory, now proven false by the data, that the Yamnaya replaced or somehow destroyed the Trypillians. The Yamnaya were the Trypillians, just as the Corded Ware people were originally Trypillians. The Sredny Stog people were entirely assimilated into the Trypillian settlements before Yamnaya existed, and long before the Corded Ware migration. Aridification on the Steppe resulted in Trypillians adapting to these new conditions, hence the beginning of Yamnaya, and why we just found this so far best example of a proto-Yamnayan in a Trypillian site. In ~2900 BCE the original CT settlements were abandoned entirely and the rest of these people (a migration of men and women) formed the source of the Corded Ware populations. I have no comment on what implications this has for PIE or the spread of Indo-European languages, I'm agnostic about that. Looking into the actual material of these cultures makes it even more obvious this is true as all of the Corded Ware material (Stone Axes, Corded Pottery) has it's origin in the Trypillians.

The lie that the Trypillian culture is some kind of egalitarian society is purely soviet communist propaganda and the losers that repeat it are braindead.

Davidski said...

@Romulus

Sredny Stog =/= Trypillians

Romulus said...

Sredny Stog disappeared by 3500 BCE because these people were assimilated into the Trypillian settlements. Saying Sredny Stog was ancestral to Yamnaya or Corded Ware is like saying your Grandfather is your Father, you're missing an important step in the process.

Rob said...

@ Davidski

There is structure to be had within the realm of “Cucuteni Tripollje”

The west, Cucuteni group are obviously Balkan Farmers, but so far there’ve been no skeletal data from the eastern Tripolje part because they appear to have practiced excarnatuon or exposure, so it’s thought
There is always the possibility that people lived in forest steppe settlements, but a chosen few were buried in mounds jn the steppe
The fragment of bone is therefor a gem
In late Tripolje, proper burials appear so that’ll shed more light

Andrzejewski said...

@Romulus How can the Yamnaya be Triplyans where the former are 55% EHG, 35% CHG and 20% EEF whereas Triplyans were 80% ANF (Balkanic route), 10% EHG and 10% WHG?

Romulus said...

@Andrzejewski

You're ignoring a large number of samples. There was heterogeneity in the Trypillian settlements over time, because of the assimilation process, but we can see by 4500 BCE R1b-M269 had already made it to Bulgaria along with substantial Steppe ancestry. The phenomenon of declining Anatolian Farmer ancestry between 4000-3000 BCE was not exclusive to Northern Europe but obviously was also occurring in Eastern Europe in favor of Steppe ancestry in a much more rapid rate. R1b-L151 related Corded Ware groups seem to have more Anatolian Farmer ancestry than R1a-M417 Corded Ware groups, who in turn have more than Yamnayan R1b-Z2103, probably representing a West to East cline in their geographic origins. You can see the samples from Immel are a good proxy for R1b-L151 groups and this new sample is a good proxy for Yamnaya. Usatovo will most likely be the source of R1a-M417 groups.

Rob said...

Yamnaya are not the benchmark here. They’re a late grouping who acquired a lot of EHG/ CHG from Volga wives

Rich S. said...

@Gaska

"The experts first say “only male mediated”, then they say “largely male mediated”. "

Please pay attention. I never said "only male mediated". I said "male mediated". The two things don't mean the same thing. If they did, the language would be less precise, because there would no longer any use for qualifiers like "only" and "solely".

I had to clear things up by adding "largely male mediated" to make it precisely clear that I did NOT intend to say "only male mediated". I should have anticipated the inevitable pedantic nitpicking and said "largely male mediated" instead of just "male mediated" to begin with.

So deal with that instead of attributing to me things I never said.

Besides, it's clear that the spread of steppe DNA and early Indo-European beyond the steppe was largely, perhaps even overwhelmingly, male mediated.

Davidski said...

@Romulus

There's no chronological gap between Sredny Stog and Yamnaya that needs to be filled with Trypilla.

There are post Sredny Stog groups that are obviously not Trypilla, such as Repin, and they are basically like Yamnaya.

And your theory about there being a difference between L51 and M417 CWC groups in terms of farmer ancestry is also totally wrong.

All early CWC males have very little farmer ancestry, and the older they are the less farmer ancestry they have irrespective of whether they carry L51 or M417.

Rich S. said...

Someone correct me, but aren't there Tripolye samples, and none of the males is R1b-M269 or R1a-M417, and none of them has any steppe DNA?

Where did this idea that Sredni Stog was absorbed by Tripolye come from?

Romulus said...

Within Baltic Corded Ware are individuals "identical" to Yamnaya in terms of farmer ancestry, don't know how you could forget, and they're all R1a-M417. No samples like that exist among the L151 groups. If you look at the SGC samples, they overlap with Unetice in autosomal composition rather than CW.

But if you want to generalize them all to have the same level of farmer ancestry that is fine. It doesn't matter or change the basic truth which is that all the CWC samples originated in a Trypillian context.

And yes there is a chronological gap between Sredny Stog and Yamnaya, and certainly between Sredny Stog and CWC. There is 600 years between Sredny Stog and CWC, it's impossible.

Rich S. said...

@Romulus

What L151 SGC samples are you talking about? Did I miss that paper?

The oldest CW samples thus far known are R1b-L151, as reported in Papac et al, and they cluster very closely to Yamnaya Samara/Kalmykia. They have very little Neolithic farmer DNA, just as Davidski said.

Rich S. said...

Interesting passage from Papac et al that I had almost forgotten, from page 6 of 18:

"We provide the first genomic data from CW individuals without steppe ancestry, thereby elucidating the social processes of interaction between CW and pre-CW people. Observing only females (four of four) among early CW individuals without steppe ancestry (Figs. 2B and 3C) suggests that the process of assimilating pre-CW people into early CW society was female biased."

The other side of that coin is that the introduction of steppe ancestry and CW culture was male biased. You might say it was largely male mediated.

Rob said...

Sredni Stog and Tripolje are obviously different social realities. But they had close interactions. If this sample is representative of a broader group, then it means Dnieper Tripolje groups came from the steppe, and then passed the Farmer influences back to their relatives further south
Maybe the steppe groups at one point decided to do away with the Farmer elites further west, but the record suggests that this could very well have come from other farmer groups further west

Rob said...

@ RichS

I would not be shocked to find R1b, R1a , I2a in eastern Tripolje or Late Tripolje groups
The data we have are from classic Farmer Cucuteni people

Gaska said...

Male mediated…. only, largely, overwhelmingly male mediated.... bla bla bla, a couple more examples for everyone to understand how steppe-related migratory movements occurred. So deal with that because EEFs quickly acquired steppe ancestry thanks to steppe women.The old myth of R1b-M269>L151 steppe riders conquering mainland europe, killing neolithic farmers and kidnapping their women is a fairy tale. The reality is very different

I1a1-Russia, Voronkovo, Fatyanovo-CWC-VOR001 (2.519 BC)
I1a1-Germany, Haunstetten (2.112 BC), Kleinaitingen-AITI77A (1.790 BC)
I1a1-Ireland, Ploopluck-PP6 (1.911 BC)
I1a1-Iberia, Puntal Carniceros-PUC002 (1.679 BC)
I1a1-Croatia, Veliki Vanik-I4331 (1.576 BC)

I2-Lituania, Plinkaigalis, CWC (2.635 BC)
I2-Poland, Swiete, CWC-Pcw070 (2.406 BC), Mirocin (2.405 BC)
I2-Czechia, Brandysek, BBC-I7249 (2.350 BC)
I2-Bulgaria, Bereketska-Bm24 (2.181 BC)
I2-France, La Terrasse-VTQ14 (1.833 BC)
I2-England, Boscombe Down, Amesbury-I2464 (1.680 BC)

ambron said...

"From 3300, Yamnaya pastoralists crossed the Dnieper in increased numbers and started settling the westernmost steppes. At the same time, Late Cucuteni-Trypillian farmers were expanding into the steppe directly west of the Middle Dnieper, where settlements persisted until 2600 BCE, resulting in a short-lived but likely crucial phase of coexistence in this area [2:237; 222]."

"In-so-far as linguistic evidence can be employed to elucidate human genomic prehistory, the reconstructed vocabulary of core Indo-European culture suggests that the source populations for the steppe ancestry in the earliest Bell Beaker and Corded Ware groups should be sought in the Pontic rather than the Caspian steppe and forest-steppe zones."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275744#sec001

Matt said...

@Rich S, I don't think the migration itself can have been mainly male mediated, because the curves sof steppe ancestry indicate the CWC Bohemia population remained close to 90-100% Steppe_EMBA for many generations. Which is impossible if the migration itself was mainly male mediated (they would have quickly all had to take local females as wives or else no more community). Men and women travelled together.

But the process of mixture *into* the CWC culture was male-mediated over a number of generations.

(Although it's possible that there were some survivals of male LN farmer->steppe female admixture).

Mike said...

Davidski "There are post Sredny Stog groups that are obviously not Trypilla, such as Repin, and they are basically like Yamnaya."

I thought Repin individuals would be like Don Yamnaya, with excess of middle don type ancestry. If they fall in the main Yamnaya cluster it means that their ultimate origin lays in the West.

H₂ŕ̥ḱtos said...

@Romulus

'Within Baltic Corded Ware are individuals "identical" to Yamnaya in terms of farmer ancestry, don't know how you could forget, and they're all R1a-M417. No samples like that exist among the L151 groups.'

PNL001? OBR003? You're missing the point of what's being said here. We have this very Yamnaya-like cluster of very early CWC samples from Bohemia, Poland, and the East Baltic:

Baltic:
I4629 - female
Plinkaigalis242 - female
Gyvakarai1 - R1a-M417

Polish:
POZ81 - R1a-M417

Bohemian:
PNL001 - R1b-U106
VLI076 - female
ORB003 - R1b-L151

There aren't any other CWC samples which cluster close to Yamnaya-like like these samples, they all pick up excess EEF from here. The roughly contemporary (still in the "early CWC" era) Bohemian CWC samples with more EEF are pretty evenly split in belonging to either R1b-L51 or R1a-M417, with an I2 guy an a Q1b2a guy as well.

There's no correlation in early CWC between having either R1a-M417 or R1b-L51 and % of WSH ancestry. The correlation comes only later where there's a clear west-east cline of EEF ancestry in CWC and "post-CWC" (i.e., Bell Beaker) samples across Northern Europe, after a clear pair of founder effects. SGC and BBC samples in the west are not as steppe-rich as contemporary R1a-M417-carrying samples in the east, no, but that's irrelevant, because the contemporary R1a-M417-carrying samples in the east are themselves not as steppe-rich as those early Bohemian R1b-L51-carriers like PNL001 and OBR003. Your claim seems to imply that later CWC period Baltic samples belong to this "almost-Yamnaya-like cluster", which is false. Only the earlier samples do, but again, they have R1b-L51-bearing contemporaries in Bohemia who cluster in the same space.

As for CTC being the ancestor of Yamnaya and/or CWC, you kind of need to point to some 100% PNL001-like CTC samples for that to be tenable. There need to be CTC samples which have more WSH ancestry than any Yamnaya or CWC samples for this to make sense.

H₂ŕ̥ḱtos said...

@Gaska

'Male mediated…. only, largely, overwhelmingly male mediated.... bla bla bla, a couple more examples for everyone to understand how steppe-related migratory movements occurred. So deal with that because EEFs quickly acquired steppe ancestry thanks to steppe women.The old myth of R1b-M269>L151 steppe riders conquering mainland europe, killing neolithic farmers and kidnapping their women is a fairy tale. The reality is very different

I1a1-Russia, Voronkovo, Fatyanovo-CWC-VOR001 (2.519 BC)
I1a1-Germany, Haunstetten (2.112 BC), Kleinaitingen-AITI77A (1.790 BC)
I1a1-Ireland, Ploopluck-PP6 (1.911 BC)
I1a1-Iberia, Puntal Carniceros-PUC002 (1.679 BC)
I1a1-Croatia, Veliki Vanik-I4331 (1.576 BC)

I2-Lituania, Plinkaigalis, CWC (2.635 BC)
I2-Poland, Swiete, CWC-Pcw070 (2.406 BC), Mirocin (2.405 BC)
I2-Czechia, Brandysek, BBC-I7249 (2.350 BC)
I2-Bulgaria, Bereketska-Bm24 (2.181 BC)
I2-France, La Terrasse-VTQ14 (1.833 BC)
I2-England, Boscombe Down, Amesbury-I2464 (1.680 BC)'


...Okay?

We can sort male LN-EBA samples in Europe, or different regions of Europe, who carry steppe ancestry and are approximately "typical" of the culture/region they belong to, into two categories:

1. Those with steppe-derived Y-DNA.

2. Those with local, pre-steppe expansion Y-DNA.

As you evidence perfectly well, there are clearly males belonging to category 2. But how do the numbers compare? What you're presenting does not do anything to damage the claim that steppe ancestry into non-steppe Europe was predominantly male-mediated. The vast majority of LN-EBA male samples with steppe ancestry, have steppe-derived Y-DNA.

Also, a lot of those I1 individuals you mention seem incredibly suspect to me, I have to say.

...Wait, I've just realised, you're talking about mt-DNA? What point are you even making?

John Smith said...

@Davidski

I apologize for the off-topic comment, but could you please merge the samples under these two labels ("Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige" and "Italian_Trentino_Alto_Adige" into one average?

Rich S. said...

@Gaska

"Male mediated…. only, largely, overwhelmingly male mediated.... bla bla bla, a couple more examples for everyone to understand how steppe-related migratory movements occurred. So deal with that because EEFs quickly acquired steppe ancestry thanks to steppe women.The old myth of R1b-M269>L151 steppe riders conquering mainland europe, killing neolithic farmers and kidnapping their women is a fairy tale. The reality is very different . . ."

Who said anything even remotely like that? "[S]teppe riders conquering mainland Europe, killing Neolithic women and kidnapping their women"? No doubt some of that actually did occur, as archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen chronicled in his lecture in Vienna back in 2019:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi1C1XMYU2Q

However, I don't think anyone imagines some sort of Mongol-like plague of stone axe-wielding, Indo-European human locusts out of the East, with the rising sun at their backs. I do think the early Indo-Europeans rode horses, but that's a matter of controversy, and might be fun to discuss if Davidski decides to blog about the subject sometime.

Pretty obviously you are grossly mistaken, as the contrast between autosomal turnover and Y-DNA turnover in Europe west of the steppe, and in South Asia and the Indian subcontinent, clearly shows.

@Gaska

"I1a1-Russia, Voronkovo, Fatyanovo-CWC-VOR001 (2.519 BC)
I1a1-Germany, Haunstetten (2.112 BC), Kleinaitingen-AITI77A (1.790 BC)
I1a1-Ireland, Ploopluck-PP6 (1.911 BC)
I1a1-Iberia, Puntal Carniceros-PUC002 (1.679 BC)
I1a1-Croatia, Veliki Vanik-I4331 (1.576 BC)

I2-Lituania, Plinkaigalis, CWC (2.635 BC)
I2-Poland, Swiete, CWC-Pcw070 (2.406 BC), Mirocin (2.405 BC)
I2-Czechia, Brandysek, BBC-I7249 (2.350 BC)
I2-Bulgaria, Bereketska-Bm24 (2.181 BC)
I2-France, La Terrasse-VTQ14 (1.833 BC)
I2-England, Boscombe Down, Amesbury-I2464 (1.680 BC)"

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to do there. Are you trying to show that there were women with steppe ancestry? Or what?

Rich S. said...

@Matt

. . . "But the process of mixture *into* the CWC culture was male-mediated over a number of generations."

That's what I meant by the steppe migration: the long process of steppe input into Europe west of the steppe and also into South Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

Pretty obviously it was mostly male mediated, as the contrast between overall Y-DNA turnover and autosomal DNA indicates. There were apparently successive fresh waves of young, unattached steppe males behind the initial migrants, which doesn't mean there were no steppe females involved, only that the overall long term process of steppe migration - which wasn't a single, short term event - was largely male mediated.

Gaska said...

@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos said 2-Those with local, pre-steppe expansion Y-DNA. As you evidence perfectly well, there are clearly males belonging to category 2. But how do the numbers compare?

At the moment the vast majority because the only R1b-M269 we have is not in the steppes but in Bulgaria (4.500 BC)

Rich S. said...

@Gaska

"At the moment the vast majority because the only R1b-M269 we have is not in the steppes but in Bulgaria (4.500 BC)"

Yes, with significant steppe DNA and in eastern Bulgaria not far from the Black Sea coast and the steppe.

Mr. Smyadovo demonstrates the utter poverty of your argument if he's not only the best you can do, but all you can do - over and over and over.

WSH said...

@Andrzejewski

I'm not sure about CT, but I suspect that Globular Amphorae and maybe Wartberg, Megalithic, late Funnelbeaker, spoke a WHG language. They arose during some sort of resurgence of WHG DNA and Haplogroups.

@pnuadha: The yamnaya were genetically identical over a huge horizon. That can only happen when the men and women migrate hand and hand. If the women stayed in local regions, then the autosomal dna of hungarian, ukrainian, and russian yamnaya would be different. Lets add in the afanasievo who are thousands of miles from ukraine and show no local admixture. CW is nearly identical from baltic to czechia to germany. Dutch BB are nearly identical to British BB, and the later replaced the local population.

Yep, I think that people tend to downplay the role of folk migration when it comes to Indo-Europeans (and for that matter, many similar such migrations) due to the very large timespans we're dealing with. Afanasievo and Andronovo samples we have span over periods longer than the United States has existed, and stay mostly homogenous. Obviously they weren't just taking local brides wherever they went.

Rich S. said...

@WSH

But we're talking about the steppe migration to Europe outside of the steppe and to South Asia and the Indian subcontinent. If it was anywhere near an equally male and female migration, the autosomal DNA turnover would be about the same as the Y-DNA turnover, but that's not the case. Instead, the Y-DNA turnover far outstrips the autosomal DNA turnover, as in the example I cited from Iberia, where the Y-DNA turnover was in excess of 90%, but the autosomal DNA turnover was only about 30%.

When I refer to the steppe migration, I don't mean a single, short term event. I mean the whole process by which steppe DNA, including Y-DNA, and Indo-European languages penetrated and permeated Europe west of the steppe, South Asia, and the Indian subcontinent.

Rich S. said...

I guess everyone here has seen Kristian Kristiansen's 2019 lecture in Vienna, at the Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts conference, but here's the web address to it anyway, just in case. I think Kristiansen is right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi1C1XMYU2Q

Copper Axe said...

@Rich S.

You dont need a male biased migration to explain large turnover rates in Y-DNA. Patrilineal and patrilocal customs combined with an expanding population will do the trick. Take a look at the Czech early CWC samples, plenty of them were females in fact.

Rob said...

The talk attempts to tie several unrelated events into one metanarrative, but it is inconsistent with chronology & data.

- the Tripolje mega-sites are restricted phenomenon within the overall time-span of CT itself, ~ 3700 -3300 BC. It cannot be linked to the collapse of 'Old Europe', itself an outdated Gimubatean notion. i.e. Varna got flooded, then Tizapolgar flourished, then C-T flourished, etc. There was no conquest by Khvalynsk horsemen.
From the above sample, we know that steppe people were in eastern Tripolje before the megasites even emerged. The decline of Tripolje mega-sites was probably due to the inefficient form of agriculture they adopted.

- the agricultural decline in N-C Europe during the 5th mill, had nothign to do with steppe incursions, but relates to the rise of Michelsberg & TRB

- the abandonement of south Iberian mega-villages occurred thousands of years later. Migrants with steppe -acnestry must have played a role, but most of these scholars think that BB originated in the Tagus, hence their backdrop is somewhat upside down to begin with.

Gaska said...

@Copper Axe said-“You dont need a male biased migration to explain large turnover rates in Y-DNA. Patrilineal and patrilocal customs combined with an expanding population will do the trick”

And.... massive founder effects of certain male lineages such as P312 and U152 in central Europe, L21 in Britain, Df27 in Iberia…. There was no renewal of steppe males with successive waves of young R1b or R1a males, but reproductive success in sparsely populated regions. If you add to this a good number of female steppe lineages, everyone could understand the extent of the genetic change produced at the continental level. The process was the same as with the EEFs where G2a, G2b, H2, T1a, E1b, J2a etc... traveled with their females. mtDNA T1a1 is another example of a traveling lineage-Eastern & Central Europe, Central Asia, South Caucasus, Levant, Balkans, Scandinavia, Western Europe, etc... Can anyone doubt the key role of these women? Or can anyone think that these women conquered and exterminated the EEFs?

T1a1-Romania, Glăvăneşti-I11955-Glav14 (3.250 BC)
T1a1-Russia, Elo River, Afanasievo-I5270 (3.130 BC)
T1a1-Ukraine, Vinogradnoe, Shevkenko, Yamnaya culture-I2105 (3.000 BC)
T1a1-Mongolia, Yagshiin Huduu, Chemurchek-KUR001 (2.552 BC)
T1a1-Bohemia, Vlineves, CWC-VLI067 (2.775 BC)
T1a1-Bohemia, Kněževes, Unetice-KNE007 (2.039 BC)
T1a1-Germany, Karsdorf, CWC-I0550 (2.520 BC)
T1a1-Poland, Lubcze, CWC-Pcw350 (2.405 BC)
T1a1-Poland, Mistrzejowice, CWC-Pcw250 (2.350 BC)
T1a1-France, Morbihan, Quiberon-I15033 (1.817 BC)
T1a1-Croatia, Cetina valley-I11843 (1.800 BC)
T1a1-Hungary, Vatya SG-Erd-RISE484 (1.750 BC)
T1a1-Armenia, Noratus-I19329 (1.258 BC)
T1a1-Sweden, Abekås-RISE175(1.263 BC)
T1a1-Israel, Askhelon-Ash68 (1.205 BC)
T1a1-England, Biddenham Loop, Bedfordshire-I7628 (1.110 BC)
T1a1-Sicily, Himera-I17881 (800 BC)


Moesan said...

It isn't enough put only the mt-haplo's one needs for his demonstration (> > Gaska).
What I retain from my readings is that the CWC and BB people had with them 'steppic' mt-DNA (= EHG + already mt lineages picked from Central Europe "EEF"females).
But the ratio Y-haplos on autosome DNA and X-DNA show that the Steppes people took again more "EEF" females in West.
The apparent relative continuity in the process could be in part the temporar result of very young males looking for their own females when getting a bit older, similar maybe to the "ver sacrum" of the Romans, and not by force the result of heavy new waves from Steppes into Central and Western Europe? But this explanation cannot be used a long time...
Can somebody show numbers about the evolution of the desequilibrium between X and allover genomes autosomes in pops among Chalco, BA and IA periods? Before everybody kills everybody LOL...

Rich S. said...

@Copper Axe

"You dont need a male biased migration to explain large turnover rates in Y-DNA. Patrilineal and patrilocal customs combined with an expanding population will do the trick. Take a look at the Czech early CWC samples, plenty of them were females in fact."

You're leaving a big piece of the puzzle out by focusing only on the Y-DNA turnover. What we have is not only massive Y-DNA turnover with the coming of the steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans. We have that Y-DNA success BUT, in contrast, far less autosomal DNA turnover. It's the combination of those two things that tells the story.

If the steppe migration was equally male and female, or even close to equally male and female, there would have been much more autosomal DNA turnover. Instead, what we see are very successful male lineages whose steppe autosomal DNA contribution is to a great extent swamped by Neolithic farmer DNA as their descendants marry more and more into the local population. The steppe autosomal signal does not totally disappear, obviously, but its success is not nearly as striking as that of the steppe Y-DNA lineages.

Look at Latin America as a much more recent example of a similar phenomenon.

pnuadha said...

@rich s

it's clear that the spread of steppe DNA and early Indo-European beyond the steppe was largely, perhaps even overwhelmingly, male mediated.

You are still wrong. So very wrong.

re read my last post. Yamnaya is exactly the same as afanasievo. Equally male and female mediated.

Dutch beakers extremely similar British beakers. Almost equally male mediated and female mediated.

CW in Bohemia, Germany, Poland, and Baltic are nearly identical. Almost equally male and female mediated. If it werent nearly equally female mediated the CW people would be different in each region and have much much more farmer.

Every time you see population replacement or massive autosomal changes it was not "mostly male".

outside the steppe"

why even say this as if its a generality? Maybe you should say above the 48th latitude in summer months when haily comet is going by.

Skywalker said...

@Gaska Or perhaps it was you Gaska who mentioned VOR001 first. It gets a bit confusing with all these comments back and forth... Whoever wrote that I1a1 in VOR001 is Y-DNA is wrong. I1a1 is referring to mtDNA, not Y-DNA.

Matt said...

@Rich S, it's like Copper Axe says; while you could possibly have male biased migrations following up or preceding general migrations...

You could also get the sex bias through e.g. Corded Ware women die in childbirth (as often the case in history) and widowers taking second wives either directly from EEF LN / HG groups or from CWC leading to a gender imbalance remedied by young men going outside the group.

The curve for the early CWC in Czech looks to me like 1/30 or 1/25 offspring per generation with unmixed EEF for 500-600 years. So it could be some gradual thing like that.

Rob said...

we should gather up these diverse C-T data when avaiable, Ill analyse them in detail

Rich S. said...

@pnuadha

"You are still wrong. So very wrong."

Nope. I'm right, so very right; at least I still think so, even after reading your less-than-withering rebukes and your failure to address the elephant in the room: the fact that in Europe west of the steppe, and in South Asia and the Indian subcontinent, the Y-DNA turnover from pre-steppe haplogroups to steppe haplogroups far outstrips the turnover from pre-steppe autosomal DNA to steppe autosomal DNA.

If the steppe migration was equally male and female, then the autosomal DNA turnover would be as great or nearly as great as the Y-DNA turnover. That seems really painfully obvious to me.

I did not say there were no steppe females involved, just that the migration was largely male mediated. The supposedly contrary examples you cite are either too far east, too early, or too late, and they all fail to address the imbalance in Y-DNA turnover versus autosomal DNA turnover. Beaker, for example, was already 50% and less in steppe autosomal DNA but nearly 100% in steppe Y-DNA when its people entered Britain. That's at least a two to one imbalance. The imbalance in Iberia, as I have pointed out a couple of times, was three to one.

You haven't convinced me, and opening your posts by telling me how "very wrong" I am only makes me less inclined to respect what you have to say. At this point I'm no longer even inclined to read it.

Rich S. said...

@Matt

"@Rich S, it's like Copper Axe says; while you could possibly have male biased migrations following up or preceding general migrations...

You could also get the sex bias through e.g. Corded Ware women die in childbirth (as often the case in history) and widowers taking second wives either directly from EEF LN / HG groups or from CWC leading to a gender imbalance remedied by young men going outside the group.

The curve for the early CWC in Czech looks to me like 1/30 or 1/25 offspring per generation with unmixed EEF for 500-600 years. So it could be some gradual thing like that."

Maybe, but to me that sounds like very tenuous special pleading to explain something that is much more simply explained by the idea that steppe males involved in the migration outnumbered steppe females involved in the migration by two or three to one.

I hope calling your argument tenuous special pleading isn't offensive to you. I certainly don't mean it to be.

Remember that steppe men back then also died young. They must have outnumbered steppe women in the migration to a significant degree to have produced the imbalance in Y-DNA turnover versus autosomal DNA turnover as the steppe tribes moved farther west into Europe and farther southeast into South Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

Romulus said...

@Rich

Remember that steppe men back then also died young. They must have outnumbered steppe women in the migration to a significant degree to have produced the imbalance in Y-DNA turnover versus autosomal DNA turnover as the steppe tribes moved farther west into Europe and farther southeast into South Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

Any long distance journey across the prehistoric wilderness would have had a higher mortality rate for women, children, and the elderly. This is reality. You live in a fantasy world.

LivoniaG said...

Matt wrote: "You could also get the sex bias through e.g. Corded Ware women die in childbirth and widowers taking second wives either directly from EEF LN / HG groups or from CWC leading to a gender imbalance remedied by young men going outside the group."

It's worth also mentioning consanguinity and possible inbreeding problems that may not show up in adult burials. The taboo on marrying a close relative is very old in Europe. Deleterious inbreeding might have showed up in isolated EEF and CW groups and that would have eventually encouraged the mixing that would go on.

On the other side, primogeniture seems also to an old European idea. The eldest born son gets the herd and pasture. The younger sons are sent off to find their own herds and pastures and brides. This was the kind of thing that could set off a big migration of young men with nothing to lose looking for their fortunes every few generations. And they would need wives.

Rge thing that bothers me is that when Daddy is always on a cattle drive, the language the children will learn will be the mother's language. Daddy isn't home.

Rich S. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rich S. said...

@LivoniaG

"Rge thing that bothers me is that when Daddy is always on a cattle drive, the language the children will learn will be the mother's language. Daddy isn't home."

The steppe tribes lived out of wagons mostly, which is why it is hard to find Corded Ware settlements, Beaker settlements, etc. So, regardless of whether mom was an EEF local or a steppe migrant, she and the kids were along for the ride.

epoch said...

@Matt & @CopperAxe

Imagine a steppe man getting in the position of this man:

https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-prince-and-his-twenty-wives-garcia.html

The spread of his Y-DNA would be massive, yet the disruption of the system minimal.

Rob said...

The single grave founder graves are almost always males. Then females and children were added
The scout groups might have consisted of ~ 25 males

Matt said...

@Rich S: "Maybe, but to me that sounds like very tenuous special pleading to explain something that is much more simply explained by the idea that steppe males involved in the migration outnumbered steppe females involved in the migration by two or three to one. "

No I wouldn't say so. Although I would say that special pleading - pleading to an audience that special considerations for evidence be considered - seems more like when people go

"So rather than social structure and power and mortality... Do you have isotopic evidence that there were more early male migrants? Do you have dna evidence that this is so either?"

and people in response go

"Well, no. None of that exists... But Kristiansen said this about the koryos!" which is just the weakest evidence that has little to bear on about migration (myths are pretty unreliable, and if you believe not, some people will tell you all about how Indo-European migrations are false because of their local particular myths that say they've always been there).

It's possible there was a slow drip of extra male migration in, and over time this lead to outcomes. But I have to say there's no evidence of it in the form of proportionately fewer local males, of males tending to have more steppe ancestry than females, with the earliest Corded Ware. I don't see any reason to regard this as the simpler hypothesis.

Regardless, given that the change over hundreds of years was not very rapid, it's certainly not like, some migration of +50% more males came in at once. Any excess of males driving the gradual change would be small in any particular generation.

If makes outnumbered females two-to-one at any given time, and that represents the reproductive population, it seems like we simply wouldn't see the rates of change and type of dna among the early people that we do, the people who'd moved in or who were one-or-two generations after that happened.

pnuadha said...

@Rich S

the fact that in Europe west of the steppe... the Y-DNA turnover from pre-steppe haplogroups to steppe haplogroups far outstrips the turnover from pre-steppe autosomal DNA to steppe autosomal DNA.

Its not an elephant in the room. Its your dumb supposition and failure to see you have already been proven wrong.

Separation of Ydna and autosomal dna can happen in many ways! Identical people migrating from one area to another can only happen in one way. It only happens when the men mate within their tribe.

From the East CW to West CW women migrated equally. From the Dutch BB to British BB, women migrated nearly equal.

Even if we purely look at WSH, there was only a 50% lowering of WSH from Ukraine to Ireland over a period 18 generations. That necessarily means most men were mating with women of similar steppe levels. This is really all that matters. I wont bother explaining away the most ridiculous scenario in which men mostly mate with women of equal WSH levels but the women stay put. Its too nuanced and too ridiculous to explain why thats not what happened.

By and large, the steppe admixed men were not taking non steppe wives.

Nobody was talking about india but you.

Gaska said...

Steppe tribes practiced exogamy by exchanging women like any other prehistoric culture or society. We have started this discussion because a Proto-Yamnaya woman in a Trypillia site. There are also EEF, South Caucasian & Central Asian mtDNA in Yamnaya-Afanasievo-CWC-In fact steppe women in early CW Bohemia are earlier in time than men (see VLI076-2.959 BC, it is the +steppic sample of all and she is a woman) which proves that thanks to exogamy, they were the pioneers, not men. I don't think it is necessary for me to keep sending examples of mtDNA that spread all over Europe and south of the Caucasus. No one with a bit of brain can deny that women actively participated in these migrations.

Largely male mediated?-No way-These are only fantasies of fanatical Kurganists who dream with the conquest of old Europe by a race of supermen on horseback. The process was long and complex (+1,000 years), first, there was the genetic transformation of Central Europe by the mixing of steppe men and women with Central European farmers and then the extension of these autosomal components to Western Europe. Evidently, as the colonization progressed, steppe ancestry was lost along the way because the neolithic populations were able to absorb a large part of this migration. In fact the first R1b-P312 males in England have the least steppe ancestry and then with the massive arrival of the Dutch this autosomal component grew exponentially to match the one existing in Holland or Germany. In England there are dozens of mtDNA with steppe origin so even in the islands women played a fundamental role.

The difference in the turnover between Y-DNA on the one hand and autosomal DNA on the other is easy to explain-Massive founder effect of certain male lineages (not successive waves of men from the steppes) and successive generations of men and women of steppe origin mixing with EEFs and losing their Yamnaya ancestry while retaining their original uniparental markers. We are talking about a process that lasted hundreds of years in which many male lineages were involved (including G2 or I2 neolithic farmers) who mixed with Yamnaya-Afanasievo-CWC women and collaborated in the process-It is not so difficult to understand unless you only have steppe on the brain, in that case, the best thing is a therapy to try to recover common sense.

Matt said...

@Rich S: Example, using the G25 data, Vahaduo and plotting time against ancestry in early Corded Ware: https://imgur.com/a/1VjrTzJ

It really does look to me like its taking something like 10-15 generations to build up 30-40% change in ancestry, and a gradual change across the culture. If you had like this migration with an excess of males come in at the start, and then they reproduced with the local females, then you'd see something more like lots of 50% steppe-50% EEF ancestry people at the start and then they'd coalesce to the late Corded Ware level. So it looks to me more like there is a continuous, slow draft of 1/30 or something like this reproductions into the community, and they're not very archaeologically visible in the adna samples.

I have a version of this in Davidski's blogpost on Papac here - https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/08/r1a-vs-r1b-in-third-millennium-bce.html - which has some fewer samples but the females, males, and haplogroups are labelled (also used Yamnaya rather than Progress), and you can see that the male samples aren't really having excess steppe compared to the females *except* for the clear female outliers without steppe ancestry that are coming in. The highest steppe samples in every time point include females so it's not like there are these extra steppe rich males coming in.

Davidski said...

I would say that there probably was a somewhat higher ratio of young men in the early Corded Ware population waves into Central and Northern Europe.

It makes sense, because it's not always easy to travel far into largely unknown and potentially hostile territory with a family.

In my mind, the Corded Ware migrations were probably similar to the early European colonization of the Americas.

And I think that's why we're seeing these females in the Corded Ware graves with no steppe ancestry. They're probably mostly brides of these young males.

Matt said...

Could have been higher in a statistically significant sense, but either not by very much or these guys didn't reproduce, because there isn't very rapid change in steppe ancestry proportion. I don't think it was very much like Spanish into Mexico.

Gaska said...


Papac’s paper-Samples assigned to the CWC

In a first stage (3,000-2,800 BC) and, with no distinction in burials independent of autosomal ancestry, there are 2 females with no Yamnaya signal (Stadice & Vlineves) and 3 females with the highest percentages of this signal in Vlineves (among them the oldest sample). In addition two males (U106 and L151) have mtDNA previously documented in Ukraine (Dereivka & Volniensky) and Russia (Marinskaya). That is 5 Vs 2 in favor of females of steppe origin.

In a second stage (2,800-2,600 BC) there are 24 male and female samples (4 samples with low coverage and only two females in Vlineves have no steppe ancestry)-Many other mtDNA have been previously documented in the steppes, forest steppe or central Asia-H2b (Buzuluk, Yamnaya Samara), I1a (Kirovograd Sugokleya, Yamnaya), W3a1 (Turkmenistan), T1a1 (Elo River, Afanasievo), J1c2/m (Klembivka Babyno), R1b1 (Itkul, Russia) W6a (Ksizovo)-That is to say, strong migration (or exogamy) in a first stage, and then, the mixing with women from local neolithic cultures increases.

Very few Spanish women participated in the conquest and colonization of America

Xdzyn said...

I love population estimates, how many people must have inhabited the Russian steppes between 5000 BCE - 3000 BCE, a few hundred? a few million ? I don't think we'll ever know how many men from the steppes came to Europe in the bronze age...

Janko Raven Johnson said...

What about RH factor that was mentioned here not too long ago? Was it debunked? Steppe men and women overwhelmingly RH Negative, non-Steppe men opposite, less viable offspring with Steppe women? No such problem for Steppe men, non-Steppe women?

AWood said...

I don't quite follow Gaska's point. He suggests language is female mediated, which I could agree with, but then his point of reference is his own peninsula which I might remind him is overwhelmingly descended from Iberian Neolithic women. UK and Ireland still have heavy number of "steppe" descended women which he has summed up nicely, and in no way can compare to Iberia.

The collapse of the north European Neolithic (EEF) populations may have limited their sphere of influence, but not their genetic contribution. Locals may have been practically giving away their daughters when the plagues and droughts were destroying their settlements. No doubt incoming pastoralists would not be at a disadvantage here, living in smaller groups and not staying for great lengths of time. It's possible a power dynamic was at play here that wasn't the case by the time of entrance to Iberia ~2200 BC or so. The Balkan case is also different since there is a far more equal distribution of male lineages. Was the larger distance from core civilization a detriment to the north European EEF groups, where as the Balkan ones could just rebuild once agrarian hardships began?

Rob said...

somewhat related to CWC & BB, the latest Anthrogenica theory is a cack-up: Cetina & Illyrians are related to Bell Beaker. That's dumb even by Anthrogenica standards

BB has no relevance for the Balkans. I dont know why people take Riverman/ zardos seriously when he's got a prediction rate of zero %

Davidski said...

@Xdzyn

They came from the Ukrainian steppes.

Rob said...

@ AWOOD

“ The collapse of the north European Neolithic (EEF) populations may have limited their sphere of influence, but not their genetic contribution. Locals may have been practically giving away their daughters when the plagues and droughts were destroying their settlements. No doubt incoming pastoralists would not be at a disadvantage here, living in smaller groups and not staying for great lengths of time. It's possible a power dynamic was at play here that wasn't the case by the time of entrance to Iberia ~2200 BC or so. The Balkan case is also different since there is a far more equal distribution of male lineages. Was the larger distance from core civilization a detriment to the north European EEF groups, where as the Balkan ones could just rebuild once agrarian hardships began?”



There weren’t any “north European EEFs”. EEF - in the sense LBK, Starcevo- never left Central Europe
The “farmers” of Northern & Atlantic Europe were completely different. They were local Mesolithic groups which adapted farming after 4200 BC, and always had a low population density. There’s no compelling evidence for plagues and famines.
Then corded ware came in with higher population propensities and became socially & demographically dominant


Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ The “farmers” of Northern & Atlantic Europe were completely different. They were local Mesolithic groups which adapted farming after 4200 BC, and always had a low population density. There’s no compelling evidence for plagues and famines.”

I beg to differ- Atlantic and Northern famers are descendants of the maritime route, termed “Cardial Pottery”. They have the same genetics as the LBK and Balkanic ANF/EEF, except for some minor genetic drift and a much bigher admixture into WHG groups. GAC and TRB/FBC Cardial (Michelsberg) migrants basically almost totally replaced LBK in Germany and Central Europe, only to absorb more WHG at a later stage.

Romulus said...

XdzynNovember 9, 2022 at 7:59 AM
I love population estimates, how many people must have inhabited the Russian steppes between 5000 BCE - 3000 BCE, a few hundred? a few million ? I don't think we'll ever know how many men from the steppes came to Europe in the bronze age...


Eastern Europe, specifically the area of the Steppe up to the Dnieper was the most densely populated area on Earth when the Trypillian settlements were at their peak. Larger than the populations of Mesopotamia or Egypt, at a period 1000 years before the Pyramids were built. A big driver of that was the large amounts of people indigenous to the Steppe who came to live in those settlements during the Mid to Late Trypillian phase. The bountiful natural life of the Danube Delta also served to accelerate population growth and the emergence of civilization (Varna man for example) in this general area, similar to the relationship between the Nile and ancient Egypt.

Western and Northern European populations on the other hand had declined all the way down to hunter gatherer levels by 3300 BCE, centuries before the arrival of any humans with Steppe ancestry, and opening the door for the exodus of migrants from the large Trypillian settlements. The most prominent explanations for this population decline have been the spread of plague and a permanent cold shift in the climate of this area. In the biological climate record this time period can be seen as when broad leafed trees were replaced by coniferous trees in Northern Europe. Climate was most likely the driver of the migration of the GAC people into Eastern and Southeastern Europe in 2950 BCE. The cold shift meaning a Neolithic Farming subsistence strategy, their plants and animals, were no longer able to live in the climate. The only remaining populations in Northern Europe reverted to a Hunter Gatherer subsistence strategy. What is interesting is that populations in Northern Europe did not get back to levels equivalent with the Neolithic peak until well into the Bronze Age.



Not understanding these population size relationships is a hallmark stupidity of many here.

Rob said...

@ Andrze

''I beg to differ- Atlantic and Northern famers are descendants of the maritime route, termed “Cardial Pottery”. They have the same genetics as the LBK and Balkanic ANF/EEF, except for some minor genetic drift and a much bigher admixture into WHG groups. GAC and TRB/FBC Cardial (Michelsberg) migrants basically almost totally replaced LBK in Germany and Central Europe, only to absorb more WHG at a later stage.''



1. the "Farmer' component of northern Farmers does not come from the Medietrranean route, certainly not exclusively. This is an error made by Geneticists because they did not have French aDNA.
Quite the contrary, they also have a large amount of LBK ancestry from the Paris basin and Brittany. In fact, Impressa Farmers did not move beyond southeastern France and eastern Iberia, before they were 'taken over' by local French hunter-gatherers who adopted agriculture and a new, 'Cardial style'

2. There is no such thing as ''TRB Cardial''; and GAC, TRB and Michelsberg are all different groups. One did not begat the other

3. northern TRB , GAC, etc had high WHG from the get go, and have ~ 100% forager lineages. They have different material culture to Impressa or Balkan/LBK farmers, and hence are a completely different groups which likely spoke different languages

So there are 5 or so different 'Farmer groups'

1. Balkan- LBK groups, incl early Cucuteni on the one side, and Brittany-Parisian farmers on the other
2. the Italian-Adriatic-south French Impressa
these first 2 are more or less Anatolian Farmers

3. the nuveau Cardial groups created by Franco-Iberian hunter-gatherrs, rich in I2a and up to 50% HG ancestry

4. Then as you move into northern Europe, you get a series of creolised cultures formed by hunter-gatherers adopting aspects of Farming with almost 100% I2a and various streams of EEF/ middle EF admixture, but resulting in completely different 'people'. Even here, there were various different TRB groups, GAC is different still, etc

5. in Danubian central Europe, and northwesterm Balkans, the classic Farmer -derived cultures continued well into Yamnaya / CWC period.

Rob said...

and that’s without getting into southern Eastern Europe where we see a chain of complex fisher-hunter-gatherers with some early domesticates- iron gates, Bug-Dniester, southern parts of DD2, and lower Don

Rob said...

wow check this


left pops:
HRV_Cetina_BA
UKR_Yamnaya
TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_ChL
HUN_Baden_LCA

right pops:
CMR_SMA_published
MAR_Taforalt_EpiP
CZE_Vestonice15
RUS_Kostenki14
RUS_MA1_HG
CHN_Tianyuan
RUS_DevilsCave_N
LUX_Loschbour.DG
TUR_Pınarbaşı_EpiP
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
RUS_Tyumen_HG
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
TUR_C_Çatalhöyük_N
ISR_Natufian_EpiP
RUS_Samara_HG
UKR_N
GEO_Kotias
AZE_N
FRA_MN
RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA


best coefficients: 0.360 0.132 0.508
Jackknife mean: 0.359686924 0.132572431 0.507740645
std. errors: 0.016 0.038 0.033

tail prob 0.20385

Matt said...

IBD reconstruction shows that MN Anatolian Farmer descended groups in Northern and Western Europe clearly had far larger population sizes than hunter-gatherers - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25289-w / https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007059

And per these results higher than early steppe pastoralists.

But whether there was some fairly short snap down of population size between 3500-2500 BCE is beyond the resolution of that method.

Aram said...

My two cents in this discussion.

Initially I was believing that R1b-PF7562 ( a parallel branch to L23 ) was related to early migrations from Steppe /Sredni Stog. And can be linked to Hittites.

But it's absence in early samples and it's presence in Mycenaean Greeks, in North Caucasus BA (LYG001 ) and possibly one sample from ancient Armenia makes me believe that we are dealing with a minor Yamna lineage rather than a Sredni Stog one. It's age also favour that idea.

If this is true then this reduce seriously the chance that PF7562 is related to Hittites. Which mean that we should look for a true Hittite haplotype elsewhere.

Matt said...

Moesan: Can somebody show numbers about the evolution of the disequilibrium between X and allover genomes autosomes in pops among Chalco, BA and IA periods? Before everybody kills everybody LOL...

Comment to this though the thread moved on a bit:

The X:Autosomal signal is pretty variable and there are ways it can in theory become unlinked from y-dna.

For example: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7038 - in the Iberian Bronze Age - "To assess a potential sex bias in the steppe-related ancestry contribution as postulated previously (7), we applied distal and proximal qpAdm models (text S8) to the X chromosome and autosomes (Fig. 6B and table S2.22). ... On the basis of this rationale, we do not observe significant male bias in steppe-related ancestry using either distal or proximal sources (Fig. 6B and table S2.22). The fact that the male bias is not detectable could be indicative of an already balanced ancestral component in both sexes, as is reflected in the work of Mittnik et al. (77), where the male bias in the steppe component is only detected in Corded Ware, but no longer in Bell Beaker or BA populations."

Now Iberia at this point has essentially 100% R1b-M269, and they've got a large sample size here of something like 100 genome-wide samples from Iberia (to say nothing of other samples they add to this from previously published data), so this is pretty solid compared to other samples that rely on a few samples.

(The Mittnik study they reference is this one - https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/Mittnik_Science_2019.pdf - where again they have about ~100 individuals again and find a X:A bias in their CWC samples that does not remain in Bell Beaker and later individuals).

This would be kind of a conundrum because the conventional idea would be: Male bias to admixture in Central Europe in 3000-2500 BCE followed by male bias to admixture in Iberia in 2400-2000 BCE, so by the time you get to this point, the bias should be pretty stacked on X:autosome in favour of more steppe on autosome.

But there are ways I can imagine that the y-dna, autosome, x-chromosome, mtdna picture can all become unlinked.

Say you had an admixture between CWC and EEF which was initially male biased in favour of CWC, *but*, then you had a further admixture where these guys then male biased admixed with a purer Steppe population. Well, you'd get the Steppe y-chromosome, but the X:Autosome might not show any signal. Although in this case, you'd have steppe mtdna.

Or alternatively, you could have a scenario of CWC enters Europe, and forms two populations, one with a male bias admixture (A) and another with a female biased admixture (B). If the male biased admixture population, A, then admixed with the female biased admixture population, B, although a male biased way, then you would get something that was totally Steppe in y-dna but was more even across the X:Autosome compared to population A.

There's also the fact that, although the ratio becomes more stacked as you go further along the process of admixture, it becomes a much smaller absolute difference between X and autosome. That means if I'm thinking correctly it becomes vulnerable to being turned over by even small amounts of the reverse sex biased admixture, because its small in an absolute sense. So if you have a community where the sex bias has rolled on and on and almost 100% of males are descended from some steppe person, the absolute size of his ancestry on the autosome and X might be small enough that it can be reversed by a small level of the reverse admixture, depending on the proportions.

Rob said...

@ Matt

These studies don’t show what you think they do

archaeologists knew 150 years ago that farmers (even in Northern Europe) had greater population size than mesolithics
Secondly, there is no such thing as “MN Anatolian descended population in Northern Europe”. These populations did not descend from Anatolians, but have Anatolian ancestry. Just like Yamnaya has CHG ancestry , but isn’t from the Caucasus
An important distinction for accurate history

ROH and IBD show the large genetic population size of MN groups , which were diverse and outbred (barring some individuals). But it doesn’t change the fact that they were sparsely spread across the north European landscape.
And the steppe was even larger than Northern Europe, with a more well adapted mixed productive economy in comparison to the de-Neolithicized groups in Britain, Scandinavia and northern Germany . Again , these ROH inferences are meaningless with regard to this

Matt said...

Rob's model for France seems sensibe enough (not that it needs much comment from me).

In that France in general seems to be I2 across most samples, but with exceptions for the big megalithic necropolises in Normandy and the Paris Basin which were sampled by Rivollat.

E.g. HG level vs y-dna haplogroup: https://i.imgur.com/DGALIHG.png

Those big necropolises that were sampled are exclusively G2a and H2, which seemed in the paper to be part of them (or at least Gurgy-les-Noisats in Paris Basin) being an elite phenomenon dominated by a G2a patrilineage. They have about 15% WHG, so similar to some other sites with I2 from the same time period) (higher than some, lower than most).

So that supports some patrilineal difference.

I would note though that while Rob's model is sensible, Ariano 2022's study of IBD sharing between EN->MN farmers found that there was a nice tight cluster of sharing between the Southeast France samples (with I2) and the necropolis samples from Paris Basin (with G2a and H2), and there's no evidence there for enriched IBD with Central Europe or much decreased IBD with Spain_EN Cardial. So I wouldn't say that supports the idea that they were from totally separate origins.

See Figure 3 on Ariano - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007059 .

The Northern France bunch with G2a and H2 form a cluster with the Southern France I2 lot. (However, some enriched IBD between the Mediterranean France group with the samples from the Basque country, who in turn have enriched IBD with Spain_MN samples, tends to pull the Southern France bunch a little south on Ariano's Fig 4).

alex said...

"GAC and TRB/FBC Cardial (Michelsberg) migrants basically almost totally replaced LBK in Germany and Central Europe, only to absorb more WHG at a later stage."

This is one of the theories that keeps getting repeated in the hobbyist anthro-sphere even though we keep getting evidence that goes against it. Even with a rudimentary G25 model it's obvious that central Europeans have decent amounts of LBK/Balkan farmer ancestry, while central-eastern and southeastern Europeans (including south Slavs) derive almost all their farmer ancestry from such groups. I don't care about the petty intra-Slavic fighting but as an outsider to me it's obvious that western Europeans and eastern Europeans don't have the same type of farmer ancestry.

Matt said...

@Rob, I'm not massively interested in trying to sort out the argument of cultural / biological descent, which seems to be what you're talking about here. I suspect its unanswerable (and will lapse into the usual arguments of "Who has a 'good eye' and whose assertions must therefore be taken as fact and who doesn't"). Biologically, these populations were in the majority of Anatolian descent.

I don't doubt that the MN farmer groups were relatively sparsely distributed by the standards of succeeding ages, and may have been particularly so at the time of the range expansion of steppe ancestry (in fact it makes more sense if that was so). But some of the comparisons upthread which seem like they could lead to people thinking of them as almost like hunter-gatherer groups who had simply adopted aspects of farming and retained a low population size, or that during the late 4th millennium they had reverted to hunting and gathering, rather than increased pastoralism, seemed strange and to benefit from context on what sampled ancient dna suggests around population size.

If you're looking back at the evidence from pots, you've still got people in Britain e.g. 3600-3300 BCE having evidence of milk and cereal preparation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32286-0 - "Neolithic culinary traditions revealed by cereal, milk and meat lipids in pottery from Scottish crannogs" (and evidence of high dairy importance https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15907-4#MOESM6), and also at 3100 BCE - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58174481.

Rich S. said...

@Gaska

"Papac’s paper-Samples assigned to the CWC . . ."

In Papac's "Bohemia_CW_Early" group there are 18 males and 7 females (25 samples total). That's about a 2.6-to-1 male-to-female ratio.

Of those Bohemia_CW_Early females, as you pointed out, two (samples STD003 and VLI008) had no steppe DNA at all.

Probably the main takeaway from Papac et al relative to the possible sex bias in the steppe migration, besides the facts that the Bohemia_CW_Early samples cluster near Yamnaya_Samara/Kalmykia, and that its most ancient males belong to Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-L151 (including one who is U106), is the following from page 6 of 18:

"We provide the first genomic data from CW individuals without steppe ancestry, thereby elucidating the social processes of interaction between CW and pre-CW people. Observing only females (four of four) without steppe ancestry (Figs. 2B and 2C) suggests that the process of assimilating pre-CW people into early CW society was female biased."

If that process was female biased, then the process of penetrating Europe west of the steppe and of introducing steppe DNA there had to be male biased. Otherwise, the assimilation of pre-CW people into early CW society would not have been female biased, because pre-CW males would have had more of a hand in it by reproducing with steppe females.

That does not mean there were no steppe females involved, or that none of them ever mated with pre-CW males. It simply means that the steppe migration and the introduction of steppe DNA was mainly male biased or male mediated (whichever term suits your taste).

This should be obvious from the fact, as I have said over and over, that the turnover in Y-DNA as a result of the invasion/migration of steppe peoples far outstripped the turnover in autosomal DNA, even in Eastern Europe west of the steppe, but certainly in far western and southwestern Europe.

@Gaska

"Very few Spanish women participated in the conquest and colonization of America"

And the result was what? Answer: a massive turnover in Y-DNA that far outstripped the turnover in autosomal DNA.

Hmmm . . .

Note: I don't want to make it sound like Papac's Bohemia_CW_Early is exclusively R1b-L151, although 10 of 18 are, with an additional R1b-M269 who was probably L151. There are four (possibly five) samples that are R1a-M417, one Q1b2a, and one I2a1, as well.

Ryan said...

Any thoughts on the new paper with DNA from Upper Mesopotamia?

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo3609#.Y2VYXzoOlFM.twitter

Rob said...

@ Matt

Yes, the 'Hunter-gatherer rich' parts were mostly southern France,
whilst Paris basin was an LBK hotspot, with G2a-rich individuals, and remained relatively so even after a partial collapse of LBK-related groups in the Rhine region

LBK in France

Richard Rocca said...

@Rob...

Yes, a few folks on AG are getting confused between what is "culturally influenced" and "genetically derived". Clearly Cetina was culturally influenced but not genetically derived from Bell Beaker. Either way, the jabs at AG aren’t really warranted as we see all kinds of nut-job theories here quite regularly as well. Fortunately, David was able to reign most of it in with moderation.

Moesan said...

Thanks @Matt
My « generalistic » points about some affirmations and contradictions.
- People from Steppes came evidently with « their » females at first, it’s seen in mt-DNA %’s.
- During their advance the males (more their young ones?) mated with local females of the regions of new settlements. Exogamy.
- That is seen in the paper about Czechia CWC where males and females for the most had the same ‘steppic’ autosome making, with some exceptions : very different females of surely local origin, whose weight can increase during some first generation after arrival.
- With more time we see the levelling of the females autosomes, closer to the males ones, with evidently a global mean less ‘steppic’.
- The absorbtion of very more new non-’steppic’ females could give way to a big decrease in ‘steppic’ ancestry but it requires new expansion, because otherwise some final levelling occurs in region, with less and less pure non-’steppic’ females disponible. But this averaging is not immediatly obtained, as shows the Desideri study of Bohemia CWC & BB (non-metric dental): they were different at the males level, but they females, spite different, were less different and in a in-between situation proving they had among them a common local element;a bit later, in the same place Unetice, males and females were very similar. It isn’t an auDNA survey, but it says something.
- At the level of Y-haplos and mt-haplos this exogamy gives way to a more or less big gap between their respective %’s, but always a smaller gap between males and females auDNA. At the same time X auDNA shows less ‘steppic’ than all genome auDNA. In a stable settlement over time the discrepancy between males and females auDNA heritages decreases, spite less quickly for X DNA, because the local (female) X’s are better represented among the interethnic matings descendants than the ‘steppic’ (males) X’s, and a consequent exchange of genes by crossing over between X’s takes more time than the redistribution of multi-parental chromosomes.
- Shortly said after some time of stable settlement a levelling occurs in auDNA in both sexes whatever the respective part of both origins in the new mix. But if colonisations of new lands occurs, the first process of unbalanced mating takes place again, with same accentuation of ‘steppic’ allover decrease already found in the first mix, spite Y-haplos stays the same ones, completely disconnected off the auDNA.
- How this has taken place, by partial polygamy and discarding of the local males, is another question…
Sorry for this tedious and « pupilish » thought.

Romulus said...

During their advance the males (more their young ones?) mated with local females of the regions of new settlements. Exogamy.

What local females? There were no farmer groups left in the area of the SGC or the Scandinavian Battle Axe culture, just the PWC people who had very little EEF ancestry. There were never any farmer groups in the Baltic where the Baltic CWC samples are from and they have plentiful EEF ancestry. Most importantly there were never any local females in the area inhabited by the Fatyanovo culture and they carried 25-35% farmer ancestry. The Fatyanovo paper was able to model their farmer ancestry as coming from either GAC or Tripolye, but failed at this because they used Trypillian samples who were much older relative to the GAC samples so the GAC samples falsely came out as a preferred source. If the Immel samples along with this new one are used in a model they will definitely come out as the preferred source. We don't even need to look at autosomal DNA to understand this though as the answer comes from samples like Glav_14 from a Trypillian context who carries the same R1a-Z93 Y haplogroup as the Fatyanovo people. It's obvious from the consistent ~25-30% level of farmer ancestry that all CWC samples have that this ratio became fixed in their source population before they migrated anywhere.

With respect to the Bohemian samples from Papac, that Bohemian CWC had no local farmer ancestry (inclusive of the females without steppe ancestry) is actually the conclusion of the paper itself:

We provide the first genomic data from CW individuals without steppe ancestry, thereby elucidating the social processes of interaction between CW and pre-CW people. Observing only females (four of four) among early CW individuals without steppe ancestry (Figs. 2B and 3C) suggests that the process of assimilating pre-CW people into early CW society was female-biased. Two of these females (STD003 and VLI008) plot in close PCA space to GAC individuals from Bohemia and Poland (Fig. 3C). When grouped together, we find that STD003+VLI008 share more genetic affinity with Bohemian GAC than with Bohemian Řivnáč [f4(Mbuti.DG, STD003+VLI008; Bohemia-GAC, Bohemia-Řivnáč) < 0; z score, −2.32]. These two females are not genetically closer to Bohemian compared to Polish GAC individuals [f4(Mbuti.DG, STD003+VLI008; Bohemia-GAC, Poland-GAC) ~ 0; z = 0.5], meaning that a nonlocal, (north)eastern origin (e.g., Poland) cannot be ruled out. In addition, VLI009 and VLI079 fall outside of the sampled Bohemian Middle Eneolithic (Baden, Řivnáč, and GAC) genetic variation in PCA, carrying significantly more HG ancestry (Fig. 3C and table S22), suggesting that a large proportion (50%, or higher when including STD003/VLI008) of the genetically pre-CW females of the early CW society originated from outside Bohemia.

We find that Bohemia_CW_Late carries significantly more pre-CW–Eneolithic–like ancestry compared to Bohemia_CW_Early (table S23); however, this signal is lost when early CW females without steppe ancestry are included (table S24). This additional pre-CW–Eneolithic–like ancestry in Bohemia_CW_Late (relative to Bohemia_CW_Early) is poorly modeled as coming from local sources (table S25), suggesting nonlocal genetic influences on the Bohemian CW gene pool through time. This is consistent with the genetically pre-CW females originating from outside of Bohemia and is supported by the finding that Bohemia_CW_Early (including females without steppe ancestry) and Bohemia_CW_Late are not cladal in qpWave analysis (table S26), despite having similar amounts of pre-CW–Eneolithic–like ancestry.

Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...

@ Romulus

To that might be added the situation in England, where Stevens & Fuller see ''regenerated woodland, lack of settlement evidence and the general paucity of charred cereal remains'', a sort of de-Neolithicization & perhaps population decline, or shifts to the smaller islands such as Orkney where there is continued agriculture evidence. This of course matches recent aDNA data from there
The oxymoron is how did such massive structures like stonehenge get constructed after 3000 ? Perhaps most of the island converged there to build it during equinoxes, etc
In netherlands, there is still a sib-Mesolithic grups - Swifterband. As you say, Pitted Ware in eastern/ southern Scandinavia

Hence southern Iberia stands somewhat apart (viz. Atlantic regions) where there were thriving agricultural populations when 'northern BB' arrived

Rob said...

@ Rich

That's true. Curiously, the "Beaker accompanying pottery', pedestal bowls, etc seem to be a Carpathian basin phenomenon. Wristguards also look like a central European thing, part of the growing warriorhood idea seen even in pre-Beaker groups such as Remedello, Vucedol.
Curiously in the Csepel set in Olalde, the most decked out burial is a guy with Remedello line I2a1, which obviously different to elsewhere in the BB domain because its always P312 males which are the 'elite'. In 'Beaker influenced' Maros, it is also a I2a1 male.
The Vucedol samples, often mentioned, also need more cautious looking. The actual Vucedol male, a decked out burial has Farmer ancestry with G2a. The R1b-Z2103 guy was a body disposed in a ditch, so his 'Vucedol' attribution is questionable, might have even been from an antagonist Yamnaya clan.

Angantyr said...

@Romulus

"There were no farmer groups left in the area of the SGC or the Scandinavian Battle Axe culture, just the PWC people who had very little EEF ancestry."

Most definitely false. For instance Allentoft et al. 2022 preprint: "...the most recent Danish individual showing Anatolian ancestry without any Steppe-related ancestry is NEO943 from Stenderup Hage, dated to 4,818-4,415 cal. BP (95%)."

Matt said...

On the question of being discussed here about whether CWC remained the same in terms of steppe ancestry over time, or changed over time and place: https://imgur.com/a/0VvrLX8

These are some Vahaduo plots of Steppe (Progress) ancestry in the CWC samples, along with Single Grave, Battle-Axe and some LN samples with Steppe ancestry. This is plotted against time, because we can become very loose if we just take these samples from across different points in 3000-2000 BCE (broadly they're from the same time, but details matter).

Looking at the full set of these, it's clear that between Spiginas2 as Lithuanian Late CWC after 2000 BCE, and the earliest CWC in Lithuania and Czechia, there is a big fall across all the set in terms of steppe ancestry.

The most obvious deviation seems to be that the late German Corded Ware (oddly enough the first sampled!) who are the outlier in the general trend to reducing steppe ancestry.

However there's also potentially some plateauing in the middle, so it's very possible that after the admicture phase of 3000-2600 BCE, CWC admixture slowed down a bit for a while. This is also the time point after which CZE_Corded_Ware stops showing female outliers with no steppe ancestry (and to my knowledge when the samples of LN EEF living in Central Europe become scarce to non-existent), so it makes sense that this is when admixture would slow down.

The picture is a bit more blurry and noisy if you take a very strict definition here and exclude the LN, Battle-Axe and SGC samples. In which case there's more plateauing evident... with the exception of Poland Proto-Unetice CWC and Spiginas2 who have much less. (Some might argue that Spiginas2 shouldn't really be called late Corded Ware and just Late Neolithic, but I don't know the details of this).

Certainly it looks like the Scandinavian samples who are labelled LN or Battle-Axe tend to have more EEF ancestry over time. That seems most easily explained by local farmers contribuing but its entirely possible its not?

And there has to be some explanation for the I1a takeover of Scandinavia that happened around the late 3rd Millennium BCE, where R1b (and a little R1a that was present) was largely replaced by I1a.

Matt said...

Re; Stonehenge, as a note on that, where there's an absence of farmed cereals there, and there's evidence for large scale animal slaughter, sacrifice, consumption, as I understand it there's also evidence for dairy lipids on Grooved Ware Pottery (which as a form of pottery is not the kind of thing that would be explained by or associated with precocious early Bell Beaker movements):

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/feeding-stonehenge-cuisine-and-consumption-at-the-late-neolithic-site-of-durrington-walls/E60784FB3D83BFF8ED22A2E9393B5B3E - Dairy lipids on Grooved Ware Pottery at Stonehenge

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2015/oct/feeding-stonehenge-what-was-menu-stonehenges-builders-2500-bc - "Milk was also drunk or eaten - as curds-and-whey or cottage cheese - and its residues have been detected in pots from across the settlement. Pots with dairy residue also turned up more frequently than other foods in the ceremonial monuments, demonstrating that it was special, perhaps as a marker of social status or as a symbol of purity and ritual significance during public ceremonies."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/abs/building-stonehenge-an-alternative-interpretation-of-lipid-residues-in-neolithic-grooved-ware-from-durrington-walls/4145F96BF88912CD05AD653BF8340DD4 (this one specifically about animal fat from pigs actually, although talking about the idea of using grease to transport the stones; seems a bit far-fetched to me, but certainly indicates domestic animals).

(Just to be clear I do think the evidence for population size reduction in British Isles and Northern Europe and retreat from cereal cultivation among these biologically Anatolian descended groups seems quite plausible from what I understand, and I've mentioned it quite a bit over the years... It just looks more like and feels more plausible to imagine that pastoralism and raising pigs in forests becomes more important rather than reversion to foraging lifestyle).

Moesan said...

@Romulus

I wrote "generalistic" concerning my post; it was to give my point about the diverse results on auDNA markers (and first of all the often stated diminution in 'steppic' auDNA spite almost constant Y-haplos) by time, according to moves or (sometimes not definitive) settlements stabilisations. Not always a constant decrease, rather a stages decrease.
You drowns me under a lot of details which were not my focus then; I spoke of Steppes people in general on their way to West. When I said "local", I think non-steppic elements found on their way(S) and NOT BY FORCE EEF elements.
Concerning CWC I think and surely I'm not the only one to do, that they had already incorporated EEF elements (wives) long ago, from a periphery which could include CTC and GAC regions.
I have nothing to add.

Matt said...

Btw OT but may interest some of you, lecture by Ian Armit on the findings of the British LBA-IA paper from earlier in the year (slash late last year): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AlYZ-oDGhRY

He mentions some ongoing work too after about 45 mins.

Rich S. said...

Here are a couple of questions. I'm hoping someone knows the right answers.

Has anyone found any ancient samples belonging to Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-PF7562 or any of its subclades?

If so, what are they, where were they found, how old, in what ancient culture(s), and in what scientific paper(s) do they appear?

Thanks in advance.

pnuadha said...

@rich s

In Papac's "Bohemia_CW_Early" group there are 18 males and 7 females (25 samples total). That's about a 2.6-to-1 male-to-female ratio.

Hey guys, using advanced mathematical techniques Rich was able to determine that the male to female ratio of the Corded Ware culture was 2.6 to 1. Now, what happened to the females? Were the women killed in a sacrificial manner. Did the women take on all the risky work. Was CW sperm just dense in XY type. I hope someone can find the answers.

While super fascinating, it still says nothing about the genetic composition of the CW women when they contributed half the dna to the next generation, due to sexual reproduction and all. It seems that gaska has already answered this for the samples in question That is 5 Vs 2 in favor of females of steppe origin. .

Well that certainly seems to be in line with the large autosomal transfer of steppe dna, and the fact that this can only occur when men largely mate with women of similar steppe levels. If men largely mated with non steppe women for a few generations then their steppe levels would be around 25%.

@rich steppe was largely, perhaps even overwhelmingly, male mediated...

the introduction of steppe DNA was mainly male biased or male mediated (whichever term suits your taste).


Mainly male biased doesnt even make grammatical sense. Of course you struggle when your are using such poor reasoning. At least you toned down the emphasis but you are still using weasel words.

50% of 60% is a lot and not something to ignore or omit. Women played a large role in transmitting steppe from one region to the next.

Rob said...

British & west European Farmers come from Atlantic Europe, not Anatolia



TUR_Catalhoyuk_N_Ceramic versus Wales_Meso


England_N: 78.4, 21.6
England_N: 74.8, 25.2
England_N: 75.4, 24.6
England_N: 73.4, 26.6


ANF: 90% G2a
Britain N: 99 % I2a


Completely different people.
A lot people in the blogshpere & in 'Academia' remain lost with their distal modelling

Rob said...

@ Romulus / Angantyr

PWC did expand right across eastern / southern Sweden as far as Denmark
But of course, EEF rich post TRB groups are still found in Northern Europe post 3000 BC
Post TRB groups were fragmented and there appears to have been a GAC hegemony in Northern Europe before CwC came along
Also TRB groups moved south - Boleraz and some late Tripolje groups appear TRB deceived. So some climactic forces might have been at play

Rob said...

@ Matt

“I'm not massively interested in trying to sort out the argument of cultural / biological descent, which seems to be what you're talking about here. I suspect its unanswerable (and will lapse into the usual arguments of "Who has a 'good eye' and whose assertions must therefore be taken as fact and who doesn't"). Biologically, these populations were in the majority of Anatolian descent.””

It might seem obsessive , but IMO it’s better to look at fine details
The issue isn’t even about “biological descent”, or eye of the beholder kind of stuff (“my analysis is so woke”)
The bottom line is that British and northern farmers were a very different social fabric , genetic data above (not implying the HG was residentially local, but certainly Atlantic)

I would call Italian Impresso, Balkan EF, LBK “Anatolian descendants” without issue, but it’s twisting facts to do so for others
Northern and Atlantic farmers formed in Western/ northern Europe and got their EEF from LBK& Cardial
There is no simple progression ANF -> TRB
In simple terms, they are Neolithicized FisherHunterGatherers , as the archaeologists predicted

Rich S. said...

@pnuadha

Your last post was long on ad hominem but short on substance.

You still fail to deal with the elephant in the room: the contrast between Y-DNA turnover versus autosomal DNA turnover.

There is little to nothing to be gained from reading your posts or from answering your invectives, so I think I will ignore you.

Rich S. said...

I never said the ratio of males to females in Corded Ware as a whole was 2.6-to-1. I don't know what it was overall. What I wrote was the following:

"In Papac's "Bohemia_CW_Early" group there are 18 males and 7 females (25 samples total). That's about a 2.6-to-1 male-to-female ratio.

Of those Bohemia_CW_Early females . . . two (samples STD003 and VLI008) had no steppe DNA at all."

I was referring specifically to the Bohemia_CW_Early group in Papac et al, which does in fact have a 2.6-to-1 male-to-female ratio.

Of the 7 females in that group, two had no steppe DNA.

What matters is that, pretty obviously, as the steppe migration moved westward, farther and farther into Europe west of the steppe, and southeastward, farther and farther into South Asia and the Indian subcontinent, the more the steppe DNA of the steppe-derived tribes was diluted by the autosomal DNA of the native population. On the other hand, steppe Y-DNA was disproportionately successful. The turnover in Y-DNA was massive, in some places, like Iberia, in excess of 90%.

There is really no way to rationalize those two contrasting facts aside from the idea that ultimately there were more steppe males than steppe females involved in the migration.

Once again, that is not to say there were no steppe females involved, or that perhaps in the beginning the migration was more balanced, or that in this or that particular instance there was an exception. But, overall, the proportion of males must have been greater than the proportion of females.

The progressive dilution of steppe DNA, as time passed and distance from the steppe increased, while steppe Y-DNA simultaneously replaced much of the native Y-DNA, shows pretty clearly that the steppe migration was largely male mediated. If steppe male and female representation had been equal or roughly equal, then, for the progressive reduction in steppe autosomal DNA to have occurred, steppe females would have had to have been involved in that process, via mating with local males. Had that been the case, then there would have been no massive turnover in Y-DNA. Instead, local Neolithic farmer Y-DNA would have persisted at something like pre-migration levels.

No, it's evident that steppe-derived males were taking local Neolithic farmer women as mates at progressively greater levels, which resulted in greater Y-DNA turnover than autosomal turnover. Steppe Y-DNA increased at the expense of native Neolithic farmer Y-DNA, while at the same time steppe autosomal DNA decreased, as the proportion of native Neolithic farmer autosomal DNA increased.

Matt said...

On global 25, CZE_Corded_Ware Early samples are 13 males, 10 females, and females supplemented by 4 no steppe females.

So if you were to look at the ratio of 13:10, then that's 1.3.

If you do look at the earliest samples from 3000 BCE to 2800 BCE only (which is still about 6 generations, potentially), you have 2 noSteppe females, 2 females, 2 males. Within Corded_Ware_Early, in terms of data with enough quality to get on G25 there are actually more males available later in the sequence as it becomes more EEF admixed.

Some males didn't make it through to G25, but from Reich Lab's anno I don't think any of the earliest in sequence are missing.

However, given that these Corded Ware Early covers hundreds of years of samples that are steadily increasing in EEF ancestry, from about 3000 BCE to 2600 BCE (13 generations), I don't think they offer any window into the earliest people to migrate.

But this is kind of random really, a small sample size and luck finding and sampling burials.

Some quick graphics that label the CWC samples who made it through to G25 by sex and haplogroup : https://imgur.com/a/Zk7je66

Aram said...

Little bit off topic

The TVC sample we have from Armenia is not exactly aligned between Catacomb Russia and Kura-Araxes cultures. It is more western shifted.
To test what is the origin of this western shift I added Moldovan Catacomb and KMK samples. Also some samples from Anatolia.
Even after the addition of Arslantepe EBA the Moldovan Catacomb is still preferred over the Russian one despite the fact that Moldova is more distant from Armenia.
It seems the Catacombian group that moved to South Caucasus in MBA had an extra EEF ancestry. To check that theory samples from Daghestan are needed.

Target: ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA
Distance: 2.1071% / 0.02107084
47.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
21.4 MDA_Catacomb_MBA
17.8 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
8.8 MDA_MultiCordonedWare_MBA
3.0 RUS_Catacomb
1.6 MDA_Catacomb_Dănceni_MBA
0.0 ARM_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
0.0 ARM_Talin_KuraAraxes_EBA
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC

Tigran said...

@Rob

Regarding PIE coming from a certain set of hunter-gatherers in contact with farmers, how much impact do you think farmers made on their language? Just vocabulary or also syntax/structure?

Rich S. said...

Sorry to keep beating the sex-bias-in-the-steppe-migration thing to death, but I just recalled the following from pages 3-4 of Furtwängler et al, "Ancient genomes reveal social and genetic structure of Late Neolithic Switzerland":

"“Compared with previous studies2,9 analyzing Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals from present-day Germany and Great Britain, which do not report individuals dating to the transition period directly, in this study we analyze a gapless time-transect covering the Neolithic to Bronze Age transition. By viewing the YAM-related ancestry component estimated with qpAdm over time at an individual level, it becomes apparent that this ancestry was virtually absent before 2700 BCE, followed by a steep increase in parts of the population starting around 2700 BCE (Supplementary Note 7 and Supplementary Data 4). After this rapid increase in individual proportions of YAM-related ancestry from 0% to ~60%, a decrease down to 25–35% can be observed over the next thousand years. We also note four female individuals that can be modeled without any YAM-related ancestry even 1000 years after the appearance of that genetic component in the area. Comparing outgroup-f3 statistics between the autosomes and the X chromosome of Final Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals we find that autosomes are more closely related to YAM-related ancestry than the X chromosomes are (Supplementary Note 6), consistent with a model in which more males than females brought YAM-related ancestry into the region as already shown by previous studies20.

Of course, they are talking only about their sample set from Switzerland, South Germany, and Alsace. It wouldn't be wise to generalize from that to the whole steppe migration process, but it is consistent with the inference one can make from the contrast between Y-DNA turnover and autosomal DNA turnover.

Rob said...

@ Tigran
its hard to answer given the lack of documented EEF language, but loans is the start. If contact was significant and bilingual, then impact on structure can become discernable too

pnuadha said...

@rich S male mediated... largely, perhaps even overwhelmingly, male mediated.

more males than females

Can you spot the difference? Everyone else can which is why they stopped arguing when you shifted your stance.

Its been proven in so many ways that the transfer of steppe to the West was not "male"/ largely male/overwhelmingly male mediated. Women played a very significant role in this transfer.

By far, the strongest piece of evidence is the Autosomal dna itself. Aut dna is the full record. The only feasible way to transfer 80 to 90% of dna from one region to the next is by men and women migrating. Steppe to Eastern CW. Eastern CW to Western CW. Western CW/Dutch Beakers to British Beakers.

In a snapshot of the transition 5/7 CW women were as steppe as the males or more; ie they moved with the men. Introgression may be more female but it was small, as Matt described.

Decent indicators such as comparison between x and aut dna may or may not show male bias, but none show largely/overwelmingly male.

"it is consistent with the inference one can make from the contrast between Y-DNA turnover and autosomal DNA turnover. "

Nobody cares. A weak indicator that wont override any of the above evidence. You might as well go back to the days of speculating why yamnaya will be all r1a. Or why steppe can only be R1a or R1b.



Gaska said...

We have talked about Bohemia, but what happened in Poland, the Baltic or Switzerland?

1-Estonia-Kudrukula, Sope, Harju, between 2.850-2.688 BC-mtDNAs
T2a1 (Russia, Marinskaya5, MK5004-3.221 BC)
T2a1a (Russia, Elo1, Afanasievo-I5271-2.957 BC, Peshany V, Termta, Yamnaya-RISE547-2.760 BC)
T2a1a (Russia, Nikultsino, Fatyanovo-CWC-NIK004-2.748 BC)
R1b1 (Russia, Itkul-NEO64-4.100 BC)
U5b2c (Russia, Fatyanovo-MIL001-2.549 BC)

2-Lithuania-Plinkaigalis-2.945-2.635 BC
W6a (Russia, Ksizovo6-NEO174-3.357 BC)

3-Lithuania-Gyvakarai
K1b2a (Russia, Afanasievo-I2069-3.126 BC)

4-Poland-Poz81-Obłaczkowo 2.755 BC
U4b1/b2 (Ukraine Kopachev-KST07-Sredni Stog-I7585-3.934 AC)

5-Switzerland-Spreitenbach-The oldest woman-MX190 (2.660 BC)-Spreitenbach-mtDNA-U2e2/a1d

U2e2/a- (Rusia, Vengerovo2-NEO918-3.508 AC)
U2e2/a1- (Rusia, Khvalynsk-I6739-4.466 AC)

In other words-

1-The oldest cases in all regions are steppe-origin females and R1a-M417 males.
2-It is funny to talk about male biased in CWC-Switzerland because it is the best example of the opposite. That is to say-Non steppe males I2a-M223 incorporated into the CWC and steppe females (exogamy, not direct migrations)-In fact it is the perfect example how other male lineages besides M417 and P312 spread this ancestry all over Europe. In case someone wants to defend that in Switzerland the process was overwhelmingly male mediated he would have to refer to the I2a lineage and not to L151-P312 as the responsible one.
3-Furtwängler is talking about a period of 1,000 years and describes what we are saying, i.e. a high initial percentage (because both men and women participated in the migrations, otherwise the percentage would never be higher than 50%) and then a drastic reduction due to exogamy with EEFs.



Gaska said...

And, despite the progressive decline of the steppe signal in Western Europe (except in Germany, Holland and the British Isles), exogamy did not stop at the Steppe>CWC transition but continued in CWC>BBC, so to try to underestimate the role of women is simply to deny the evidence of a much more complex process than initially thought. Some other examples related to Britannia and Hibernia-All these CWC-examples are R1a males (and one Z2103 in Afanasievo) and all the samples from the islands are P312, so be cautious about exclusively linking the L151>P312 lineage to the steppe signal because perhaps some people are overestimating its contribution

H5c-Bohemia, Vlineves-CWC-VLI019 (2.550 BC)
H5c-England, Porton Down –BBC (2.025 BC)

H2a3-Czech R, Bílina, CWC-I6695 (2.625 BC)
H2a3-England, Barton Stacey-BBC-I2064 (2.120 BC)

T2a1a-Estonia, Ardu, Harju-CWC ( 2.688 BC)
T2a1a-England, Amesbury-BBC-I2459 (2.302 BC)

H41a-Russia, Bolshnevo 3, Fatyanovo-CWC-BOL003 (2.458 BC)
H41a-Ireland, Labbacallee, Wedge Tomb-BBC-LB212 (2.270 BC)

H15a1-Russia,, Nikultsino, Fatyanovo-CWC-NIK003 (2.410 BC)
H15a1-England-I5470 (1.534 BC)

R1a1a-Czech R Praha 5-Malá Ohrada-CWC-OHR002 (2.525 BC)
R1a1a-England, Over Narrows-BBC-I2454 (2.090 BC)

H6a1b-Russia, Ust Kuyum, Afanasievo-I2071 (3.017 BC)
H6a1b-England, River Thames-BBC (2.299 BC)

Gaska said...

Afaik the first R1b-P312>U152 we have in Europe is Osterhofen-RISE563. His mtDNA is K1c1 This is a good example of CWC-Fatyanovo ancestry transmission to the BBC through a steppe mtDNA with 3 distinct male lineages. Now think about a male lineage with strong bottlenecks (M269>L51>L151), i.e. the first P312 in central Europe with a Yamnaya mother and grandmother (75% Yamnaya signal) and then a massive founder effect and the colonization of western Europe thanks to the BBC>all male descendants of that first P312 transmitted that signal in the regions where the steppe mtDNA did not arrive (Italy) or was minority (Spain and France)-.

K1c1-Russia, Timofeyevka, Fatyanovo-HapY-R1a-Z645-TIM008 (2.651 BC)-L.Saag, 20
K1c1-Germany, Osterhofen, BBC-RISE563-HapY-R1b-U152 (2.542 BC)-Allentoft, 15
K1c1-France, la Fare Forcalquier-I2575-HapY-R1b-Z2103 (2.343 BC)-Olalde 18, Patterson, 21
K1c1-England, Grassington, 3 Barrow Sites-I16394-HapY-R1b-L754 (2.000 BC)-Patterson, 21

Matt said...

@Rich S, the X:A results tend to be quite variable; most consistent for CWC and less for others. I gave an example above about how there's no signal indicating an excess of steppe ancestry (or indeed Bell Beaker ancestry) found in the very large Iberian Bronze Age set on the autosomes relative to the X chromosome, and also no signal found in a large Bell Beaker and post-Bell Beaker set in Southern Germany.

Other examples where this isn't found are

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219304245 - "The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East" - "We also tested for sex biases by comparing outgroup f3 statistics calculated on autosomal (A) and X chromosomal (X) data. The high X-to-A ratio of European-early-farmer-related ancestry observed in Estonian CWC [13] decreases over time and disappears by the MA (Figures S2C–S2F; Data S1)."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33974848/ - "We also noted through outgroup f3 tests in form f3(Italian_CA/Italian_EBA_BA, ancient; Mbuti.DG) (Data S2K) that populations associated with Steppe-related ancestry did not leave a male-biased signature in Italy, which, if at all, can instead be seen through the contribution of pre-existing N groups (Figure S5)".

In contrast, "The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations" found that the steppe rich samples in Northern Greece did have a sex biased signal https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421003706 - "Among MBA Aegeans, although Log04 has similar amounts of Steppe-like ancestry on the X chromosome and the autosomes, Log02 is inferred to harbor no Steppe-like ancestry on the X chromosome versus 25%–52% Steppe-like ancestry on the autosomes (Figure 5B).".

However it's not certain if this would be found in, e.g. Mycenaeans.

(Interestingly enough, although the steppe admixed samples in the Swiss study Furtwangler do carry that X:A signal, they also bear I2a lineages in good number of cases and possibly a G2a. Although there are really only 7 or so samples that are independent rather than sons and brothers of the others, so is not the biggest and best sample set to estimate X:A differences).

There's no dispute that the initial layer of CWC related admixture in Northern Europe (although perhaps or perhaps not Yamnaya ancestry in SE Europe) occured via sex-biased admixture.

Where there's more dispute is:

a) whether this was caused by disproportionate migration of males or close to equal migration of males and females and then some dynamics with power and patrilocality once they arrived

b) from me, whether subsequent sex-biased patterns after the first layer tended to favour "More steppe male-> less steppe female". The fact that the CWC pattern of excess steppe ancestry on autosomes tends to collapse in many populations suggests that it probably did not, but was balanced out by some pattern of "More EEF male-> less EEF female" (even though these males may have been totally or mostly steppe derived in the Y).

Rob said...

Back to the post topic somewhat , and KuraAraxes people
It seems a lot of people have been assuming it represents some kind of a invasion or migration into Anatolia by Caucasian people.

But this is incorrect
First of all archaeologist have always understood central Anatolia played a key role in the development of many of its cultural elements (Such as the red and black ware). Secondly what differentiates KA from earlier Caucasus groups such as early Majkop or Arm_C is the large rise in east Anatolian related Farmer ancestry & large dilution of steppe related ancestry

Davidski said...

There was a migration into Anatolia by Caucasian people. We can see this in the Maykop-related genetic shift at Arslantepe.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/maykop-ancestry-in-copper-age-arslantepe.html

There was also a rise in Anatolian ancestry in the Caucasus just before Maykop formed, but Areni C was already very rich in Anatolian ancestry, and the appearance of Kura-Araxes was rather associated with a rise in CHG in Armenia.

Rob said...

I don’t think there was any actual Majkop migration to Anatolia but relates to AzeriN which is shared across eastern Anatolia and southern Caucasus.

Everyone knows about the CHG rise in KA, but imo there’s also eastern ANF baclflow into the Caucasus via KA

Davidski said...

AzeriN can't explain the shift towards Maykop, because it's actually less Maykop-shifted than some of those Arslantepe LC samples.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t0r50UaE9ZA/Xt9BgaMJDwI/AAAAAAAAI8I/XMxVTm_S8uIegBZhOc1gwaBXekJIKcP3gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Arslantepe_LC_Maykop_PCA.png

Apart from that, there are archeological links between the North Caucasus and Arslantepe, and there's also that instance of R-V1636.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3447

Rob said...

Arslantepe doesn't appear more shifted to Maykop than Aze_N ?

PACA


Majkop is a north Caucasian phenomenon.
Something similar to Majkop in the south Caucasus is probably the Leila Tepe kurgans, and there wasn;t any V3616 in Majkop yet, but it was in Kura-Araxes. Eastern Anatolia has long been similar to south Caucasus - theyre highland zones. These links precede Majkop, KA, etc

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 213   Newer› Newest»