Koptekin et al. 2022 Peltola et al. 2022 Skourtanioti et al. 2023 Varela et al. 2023 Wang et al. 2023 Yu et al. 2023I'll be running more samples later this week, and I'll need help in organizing them for the G25 datasheets. See comments below for more details.
Monday, January 2, 2023
Trying to catch up
For starters, I need population labels for many of these G25 coords:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
114 comments:
Also this...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mJ8T695q3C-A5ztbJ70kTj9nBrxRymu4/view?usp=sharing
Hey Davidski, just curious. Do you convert all new genetic samples published (that are reliable) into the G25 and list them on your Drive folder?
Or only a large enough representative sample?
Thanks!
I run all samples that have enough data for reliable coords.
Awesome work, thank you.
Hello David,
A quick question. I notice Bichon is included in the Yu dataset. However afaik Bichon was already sequenced with good coverage way before (it used te be in the Reich dataset with about 1140k). So my question: is this a new sample from Bichon cave or the one we already had? And if it's the old one, did you use the old high coverage sample to create the coordinates or are there some new developments?
I just ran what was there.
But the coords need to be checked because there might be technical issues with some of them, and if so, they need to be removed.
If I'm right, all Peltola et al samples are either Rus_VolgaOka_IA or Rus_VolgaOka_MA, fex Rus_VolgaOka_IA_BOL006. No need to say that the final G25 figures for these samples are very wellcome, many thanks in advance and happy new year, D.
Hello Davidski, thank you for sharing these coordinates that need to be organized, do you by chance also have the new Anglo-Saxon coordinates? Do they need to be labelled or organized?
Hello David, Happy new years!
Could you please run the 3 French_Normand_Iron_ Age samples from "Origin and mobility of Iron Age Gaulish groups in present-day France revealed through archaeogenomics"?
I know they are rather low voverage but still better than nothing.
Sorry D, there actually are some post medieval samples too, 3+4+1. Something like Rus_VolgaOka_PMA, then?
It's really cool that we have this easy to access online repository of all genomes (that have enough data). Hopefully more people help out. As someone who is a complete amateur, I'm sure you probably wouldn't want my help, but if anyone knows where I can be put to task let me know. I've got lots of time on my hands these days.
Also, I think I did notice at least one error? Bahun and Bahun_o in the modern population average folder are labelled incorrectly I believe. The names should be switched around. I may have noticed a few others with simple issues like this but can't remember them at this time.
Hey Davidski,
Can you provide a link to the abstracts these new G25 samples come from so we can get an idea what time period and location they are from?
Thanks.
First two...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222018243
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)01826-7
Don't know the links for the other two. They're yet to be published though.
Peltola et al. 2022
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10yMxBZXbCXNdXZamC_FemLNY9qOHrhpYWW_1-__QPa4/edit
Can't download it.
Works fine here, thanks Vladimir.
Genomes from Verteba cave suggest diversity within the Trypillians in Ukraine
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11117-8
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11zcO5eIZCENQucCtKcDMRl2R3Jzpp8cWGG8FSK3oeaM/edit
Word
Peltola et al. 2022
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NaDmdsJ4GNVVBE2DO9Mw30Dca_tzPKeB/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msword
Koptekin et al. 2022
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12j6dOJLxtdbhqpPHiUtlLE96MXJNMmDfdJVFdTaPmn4/edit
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1VSkG_LX_X77nN-gXVifmqQnyZy0EgSAG/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msword
@Davidski
The third one is also a published cell article.
Genomic History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30509-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420305092%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
OT. David I know that you stopped posting on Anthrogenica, and I know what Bob thinks about that forum.
I sometimes posted there but got banned. Look what they wrote
"Proto-Slavic is a scientific term which doesn’t describe any particular language, but all links in the development chain between, let’s say, late proto-IE and Common Slavic which is attested in the 9th century. So it would sound differently depending on where you teleport yourself.
Around 250 AD, it would have sounded very close to Lithuanian. In fact, it would be classified as a Baltic dialect if there were linguists at that time.”
I pointed out to them that they quote internet spam as an argument and it is not OK. Balto-Slavic is debated and many respected linguists think that similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages resulted from intensive language contact, i.e. that they were not genetically more closely related and that there was no common Proto-Balto-Slavic language.
And I got banned for this.
The moderator there named Coldmountains is a Pashtun nationalist who doesn't like it when somebody debunks his crazy Iranians in Europe theory. The forum is taken over by neo-Nazi German, Croatian, Albanian and Lithuanian nationalists.
@Davidski, for the files in Yu et al, I've tried to at least identify what are the duplicates:
1) These samples have 0 distance to an existing sample in G25, so they're going to be exact duplicates: https://pastebin.com/c9vEgvxE
2) These samples are closest to a sample that already exists in the G25 and has the same name, so I think they're slightly different data on an existing published sample: https://pastebin.com/FwSgJLC4
3) These samples are probably new (or previously published, but not on G25 already): https://pastebin.com/9nNv8uxB
On the Yu samples, a couple of them are closest to GoyetQ116-1, which are FRL:FRL006.A0101 and ORM:ORM001.B0101, so I'd guess that either of these may be the samples that the abstract talks about being from Gravettian material culture with the GoyetQ116-1 dna signature.
Y-callers are suggesting that one of the German TRB (OST-003) is pre-I1, close in time & geography for Nordic/Germanic I1. So both U106 and I1 are 'continental'
For Yu, all-G25 mixed models in Vahaduo for a random set of the new ones tended not to find anything too revelatory: https://imgur.com/a/fbZuHh4
TTK certainly looks like some ANE-rich population with Iran_N/Sarazm related ancestry, and some affinity to Sintashta outliers. Closest distances are still bad.
Majority of new samples look like WHGs; generally of the Italian Refugium type variety?
@Slumbery
The paper you linked to is from 2020.
My cursory look into Anatolia
https://archaeogeneticsblog.com/2023/01/05/evidence-for-mobility-from-balkans-to-anatolia
Ah, I am sorry. A search for a randomly selected sample ID lead to this article and I have not checked it properly.
@Rob “ https://archaeogeneticsblog.com/2023/01/05/evidence-for-mobility-from-balkans-to-anatolia”
Yes. Researchers have found out that Pinarbasi HG were half-way between Natufians and WHG.
@Andrzejewski Isn't half-way an exaggeration? They seem to plot close to LBK farmers, so like an early example of such a population mix.
Sorry to be a little off topic, but I would like to know opinion (from you David, or any of the blog readers), about who were been the people who built Gobekli Tepe? I mean, were they the ancestors of the Anatolian farmers? Were they the ancestors of Neolithic Iranians? I doubt they were the Natufians who lived in the southern Levant. Just curious about your opinion. I will be grateful for the answer.
@All
I've started going through the Harvard v54.1_1240K_public dataset.
This might take me a while, but it'll be quicker if I get some help. Mainly I'll need help to:
- find the new samples
- find the updated/higher coverage versions of samples
- find the samples that are currently represented by preliminary/non-official versions in the G25.
I'll post the details here soon as I go along.
@ Andrze
''Yes. Researchers have found out that Pinarbasi HG were half-way between Natufians and WHG.''
That's correct, but doesn't entirely tell us how they came about.
@ Dessally
Gob Tepe is just one site, which gets a lot of pop. science coverage. Obviously, Anatolian farmers can't come from just one site.
Gob Tepe falls within the PrePottery Neolithic sphere of the Fertile Crescent, which in turn have even older ancestors.
On the other hand, Anatolian Farmers also have ancestry which links them to European hunter-gatherers, in some way. It could be shared ancestry, or direct movements (as I suggested). We need more old samples from Near East etc
Willing to help if someone can post the Harvard dataset.
Not an exciting one, but in the interests of getting it out there:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB54894 - "Genome-wide data for 3 neolithic individuals from Mentesh-Tepe, Azerbaidjan" - "Genome-wide analysis of a collective grave from Mentesh Tepe, one of the early Shomu-Shulaveri site in South Caucasus."
"The South Caucasus is at the outskirt of the Fertile Crescent, one the main centers of Neolithization. Despite this localization, Neolithic developed here only at the beginning of the 6 th millennium, and its origins remains unclear. Here we present genomic data for three new individuals from Mentesh Tepe in Azerbaijan dating back to the beginning of the Shomu-Shulaveri culture. Mentesh Tepe Neolithic population is the product of a recent gene-flow between Anatolian farmer-related population, and Caucasus/Iranian population, demonstrating that population admixture was at the core of the development of agriculture in the South-Caucasus. During the Bronze Age, new gene flows between Pontic Steppe populations and Mentesh Tepe related groups contributed to the make-up of Kura-Araxes and modern Caucasian populations. Genetic analyzes of the Mentesh Tepe Shomu-Shulaveri inhabitants also provide evidence that the two juveniles buried embracing each other were brothers."
@Davidski
Dave do you think TTK001-like people contributed to the formation of EHGs and PIEs/WSHs? Chad seems to endorse that view over on AG, though I could be mistaken.
@Rob “ That's correct, but doesn't entirely tell us how they came about.”
I’m fascinated by the variety of mtDNA uniparental markers of Barcin type farmers.
It may point to an amalgamation Or integration of many groups, probably of wives from far away lands assimilating into society, not unlike the exogamous nature of PIE marriages.
@Simon
Possibly, but if so, then this would have been very deep in time and somewhere around the Caspian Sea.
It'll be very interesting to see what this sample represents exactly.
Btw, has anyone looked at the Y-haplogroup?
@gimby20
Anno file here...
https://reichdata.hms.harvard.edu/pub/datasets/amh_repo/curated_releases/V54/V54.1/SHARE/public.dir/v54.1_1240K_public.tar
@Davidski
Sorry for the late replay, just finished a bad day at work lol. This comes by way of Pribislav over at AG:
“TTK001 is L472+, L56+, Z5902+ and Y6802+.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-Y6802/
He has one derived SNP at downstream clade Y6798, along with three ancestral, so he could even be some kind of pre-Y6798.”
So TTK001 belongs to the same paternal line as these guys (Q1b-Y6802):
Russia_Afanasievo I3950, Karasuk III, Altai Mountains, Russia, 2879-2632 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2a1a-a*, Y-DNA: Q1b-FT380500, NarasimhanPattersonScience2019
Bohemia_CordedWare_Early DRO001, Droužkovice_20B-2, Bohemia, Czech Republic, 2872-2633 calBCE, mtDNA: H2b, Y-DNA: Q1b-FT380500, PapacSciAdv2021
Russia_Afanasievo I3949, Karasuk III, Altai Mountains, Russia, 2844-2496 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1d2b*, Y-DNA: Q1b-FT380500, NarasimhanPattersonScience2019
Russia_Afanasievo I6714, Karasuk III, Altai Mountains, Russia, 2618-2468 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1d2b*, Y-DNA: Q1b-FT380500, NarasimhanPattersonScience2019
Thanks, but there's not much to discuss until we know the archeological context and the C14 date.
I agree there's not much to discuss until we get his C14 date and specific locality.
But based on his G25 coordinates, he does seem to be a Paleolithic southern Asian hunter gatherer from near Iran.
His mtDNA is U7.
For me, someone who studies mtDNA, this is a big deal.
U7 is an "Iranian" lineage.
I have always suspected it originally came from central Asia, from Ancient North Eurasians.
The presence of U7 in TTK supports this idea. It also supports the idea he was from a Paleolithic Southcentral Asian population who contributed to Iran.
@Andrz,
Yeah, it is interesting that Anatolian farmers have a wider variety mtDNA than did European hunter gatherers.
This didn't just apply to them. It applied to all ancient SW Asians.
I don't why it is. My guess, is it is more ancient and not due to marrying women from lots of places.
My guess, is that it is because SW Asians descended from multiple different paleolithic ancestors.
You know they were part Basal Eurasian. We don't really know what that is. It could be multiple things.
If we look at Pinarbasi, and very early Anatolian farmers (e.g. Boncuklu), we observe HG-like mtDNA - U8/K1, U3, and trickle of N1a (probably arriving with y-hg G2). So Anatolian HGs were just as resticted as ErHg, probably even more
Then with full blown farming, the mtDNA array expands greatly, because of the large population ppol coming from the Fertile Crescent
The low mtDNA diversity in early Anatolian samples is due to low sample size.
My take on TTK was that he represented the first shepherds of Central Asia likely. He was 8-10kya and we know 8kya we have domestic sheep there no later than 6000BCE. I think that Kelteminar will be similar, but probably even more Hotu like due to their location and lithics being less Siberian like than TTKs ancestors.
This is a position I've held for years. I posted about a people like this existing out here. Ganj Dareh is just another pop on the same cline.
@ Sam
Nope. The low uniparental diversity in preNeolithic Anatolia is because it was virtually uninhabited between 35-and 20,000 calBP
This has been discussed before
@Rob,
What samples?
We have ONE mtDNA sample from pre-Neo Anatolia. That is why the diversity is low. ;)
@ Sam
It is known that there are very few epipaleolithic sites in Anatolia
Quoting prof Ozdogan - “ Late Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic sites in the region are so scarce that it is difficult to justify their absence by what we have noted above on the difficulties of recovering early sites. The evidence of Late Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic occupation that is scanty in the coastal areas, disappears almost completely further inland..”
There are of course exceptions- Pinarbasi, Antalya, Marmara
But these might have come from Balkans or Dzudzuana during / after LGM
so, of course, more samples will be great, but the issue is a genuine dearth of people.
That's because most Paleo hunters were living well to the north beofe the LGM, moving up into Sunghir, Siberia, etc, chasing the big game
The Dolmen culture sample has an 8% coverage in v54, is it possible to upload the sample on G25?
@Rob,
I'll take your word on there Epipleolithic Anatolia being barely populated. You have done the research.
But, when it comes to mtDNA. I know about this and am sure the mtDNA diversity in Neolithic Anatolia is simply a continuation of what existed all over Epipaleolithic SW Asia.
The few Epipaleolithic hunter gatherers in Anatolia probably had diverse set of mtDNA haplogroups.
H, HV(s), T2, T1, J1, J2, X2, N1, N2/W
Forgot to mention U3, U8 (K)
mtDNA is my domain. ;)
Ancient Slovenes: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB58709
"Kinship practices in Early Iron Age southeast Europe: genetic and isotopic analysis of burials from the Dolge njive barrow cemetery, Dolenjska, Slovenia
Project: PRJEB58709
DNA analysis demonstrates that all seven individuals buried in an Early Iron Age barrow at Dolge njive, southeast Slovenia, are close biological relatives. Although group composition does not suggest strict adherence to a patrilineal or matrilineal kinship system, the funerary tradition appears highly gendered, with family links through both the male and female line being important in structuring communities. We explore the implications for our understandings of kinship and funerary practices in Early Iron Age southeast Europe."
Harvard, so probably not worth converting as they're so good about making the genotypes available.
...
I'm not sure about population sizes in the Near East being smaller than the north; it's possible that unusual dynamics happened, but the northern HG have more long RoH - indicating recent population size restriction - and lower heterozygosity indicating higher long term drift. I wouldn't exclude it, but I'm not sure how it could happen.
@Samuel Andrews “ The few Epipaleolithic hunter gatherers in Anatolia probably had diverse set of mtDNA haplogroups.
H, HV(s), T2, T1, J1, J2, X2, N1, N2/W”
Which is also shared with Steppe mtdna.
I believe that Yamnaya/Sredny/Corded were much more related to WHG than to ANE.
Some follow-up comments
@ Chad
I doubt there are any central Asian TTK pastoralists in 6000 BC . The latter are Iran N related farmers representing an eastern dispersal of Middle eastern farmers (although some claim local origins of farming in Iran and “deep genetic divergence”.
The population like TTK brought pastoralism into their homeland much later ~after 3500 bc
@ Sam/ Matt/ Andrze
There are no Aegean- Anatolian epipaleolithic HGs with lineages X, H, J . These lineages are associated with incoming farmers from the Syro-Mesopotamian-Zagros Arc (SE Turkey falls within this domain). So Let’s stick to facts - Pinarbasi is Y hg C1a and mtDna U8/K1. Both fall phylogenetically under European Clades, consistent with a small founder population . Maybe U3 is Caucasian related .?
Matt- I did not suggest that the entire west Asian/ Near eastern Late Paleo population comes from the north . I’m referring to central -western Anatolia
Feldman et al didn’t perform ROH on Pinarbasi, so what data are you referring to ? It would be interesting to be done, it in any case , Pinarbasi has already undergone some Admixture with Natufians or the like, thus we would not expect high ROH.
So let’s move on
——-
Just a minor comment- I would not call Iron Age Slovenia “ancient Slovenes”
- Dolmen LBA comes out almost 100% meshoko like, but it’s low coverage
'There are no Aegean- Anatolian epipaleolithic HGs with lineages X, H, J''
However, we might find genetic evidence early contacts across the East Med - Aegean (before the classic Farmer phase), as suggested by archaeological finds (obsidian trade, early Aegean seafaring, etc)
Genome-wide data for 3 neolithic individuals from Mentesh-Tepe, Azerbaidjan
Genome-wide data for 3 neolithic individuals from Mentesh-Tepe, Azerbaidjan
The South Caucasus is at the outskirt of the Fertile Crescent, one the main centers of Neolithization. Despite this localization, Neolithic developed here only at the beginning of the 6 th millennium, and its origins remains unclear. Here we present genomic data for three new individuals from Mentesh Tepe in Azerbaijan dating back to the beginning of the Shomu-Shulaveri culture. Mentesh Tepe Neolithic population is the product of a recent gene-flow between Anatolian farmer-related population, and Caucasus/Iranian population, demonstrating that population admixture was at the core of the development of agriculture in the South-Caucasus. During the Bronze Age, new gene flows between Pontic Steppe populations and Mentesh Tepe related groups contributed to the make-up of Kura-Araxes and modern Caucasian populations. Genetic analyzes of the Mentesh Tepe Shomu-Shulaveri inhabitants also provide evidence that the two juveniles buried embracing each other were brothers.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB54894
Y Haplogroup: J2b2b2 :: J-CTS10357
Autosomal Files(23andme Format)
https://www.mediafire.com/file/buu90ug81uje0np/Mentesh.rar
5800-5600 BC
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618215001457?via%3Dihub
@Matt https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/19104
Rob,
6000BCE around TTK time.
https://www.shh.mpg.de/1977786/taylor-sheep
That's where Central Steppe EBA and Xinjiang come from. Probably related to Steppe maykop and Chemurchek too. Connection from Baikal to Pakistan and Central Steppe.
@Rob, DUDE we only have one mtdna sample from preneolitjic anatolia! That is why k2 is the only mhg which has been found there.
Mhg H, all those other mhgs, certainly existed in preneolitjic Anatolia. There's no evidence they did not.
Pinsarbi is already very basal Eurasian, very Sw asian. This idea Anatolia was European then transformed by near eastern grneflow during the neolithic is not rrue
@Rob “ There are no Aegean- Anatolian epipaleolithic HGs with lineages X, H, J . These lineages are associated with incoming farmers from the Syro-Mesopotamian-Zagros Arc”
But these markers are absent from Natufian and Iran_N farmers. Where did they originally come from, then?
Besides, weren’t there previously published peer reviewed papers indicating an overwhelming continuity between Dzudzuana to Pinarbasi HG and on to Barcin?
@Samuel Andrews
How do we even define the racial components? There is a general genetic distinction between modern-day Europeans and modern-day Middle Eastern populations, but the way ancient populations are being defined as being European or Middle Eastern is kind of silly.
Aren't Neolithic Anatolians slightly closer to Southern Europeans than they are any Middle Eastern population? So Neolithic Anatolians can more-so be said to be a component that is ancestral to and equally related to both (though actually slightly more to Southern Euros then to Levantines).
Pinarbasi is even closer to Europeans distinctly, right? So I'd say that's a solid Southern Euro-like population. Again, if we are using modern-day populations as the reference point, then I don't understand how we can say they are Middle Eastern other than geographically..
Meanwhile you've got WHG and EHG which are closest to Northern Euros and Finns so distinctly Euro-like, CHGs closest to Georgians so distinctly Middle Eastern-like, Neolithic Iranians are closest to Makrani/Balochi/Brahui then Iranian-like so closest to Middle Eastern pops.
Yamnaya looks slightly closer to modern North Caucus pops which are something like 80-20 ME-Euro so the closest modern-day population is a Middle Eastern one (though only moderately, so kind of like Anatolian Farmers being slightly more European due to a few Southern Euro pops).
So I'd say that CHG, Zagrossian Farmers, and Natufians and PPN are solid Middle Eastern-like populations. EHG and WHG and ANE are solid European-like populations.
Anatolian Farmers are in the middle but with slight bias to Southern Euros overall, Pinarbasi even more-so strongly biased to Southern Euros.. WSH/Yamnaya are interesting, they are actually closer to North Caucus pops which average 80% Middle Eastern admixture or so... but that's sort of an outlier group like Sardinians are to Anatolian Farmers.
The problem with classification is that modern-day Euros seem to derive something like 60-70% of their ancestry from Middle Eastern pops going back only a few thousand years if we are counting CHG/Iran and Anatolia/Natufian as Middle Eastern. Since I don't think calling Anatolian Farmer distinctly Middle Eastern makes sense that number will be a lot less but the affinities of both to that population are still roughly equal.. so the problem is that Middle Eastern and Euro pops share so much of the same ancestry (and very recently for 60-70% of it) that most of these populations are really just the common heritage of both.
*This is not using formal stats like f3, just the Vahaduo G25 admixture calculator
@ Sam
You keep repeating the same thing. We have heaps of Paleo-Meso samples from Europe, and none (acc to modern techniques) are mtDna H . Central -western Anatolia was colonised during the LGM * from Europe* (+/- Caucasus too)
Hence even if we get 10 more AHGs, they’ll all likely to be Yhg C1a, I2c , mtDna U8 & U3.
As I said, southeast Turkey is a different issue, and so is the Aegean/ eastern Greece. Extra layer of complexity in the Aegean because of early contacts with levant
@ Chad
You should cite the proper scientific article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01083-y
There, the big red arrow in that article goes from Iran to the Hissar culture !
So they might have some TTK/ WSHG admixture, but the main vectors were Iran N people . There was no independent sheep domestication in the IAMC
@ Andrze
''But these markers are absent from Natufian and Iran_N farmers. Where did they originally come from, then?''
The fertile crescent is a big area, not just Israel & iran
Iraq Nemrik PPN mtdna J1
Jordan PPN 'Ain Ghazal mtDNA T
Israel Natufian Raqefet Cave mtDNA N1b, J2
Kotias Mesolithic Georgia H13
Ganj Dareh Iran : H2, J1, R2,
Wait until / if Syria gets sampled, more quality Jordaniaan samples, more Iraq.
Not ancient, but Spanish readers might be interested in this modern day study: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2022.1100440/full
"The power of geohistorical boundaries for modeling the genetic background of human populations: The case of the rural catalan Pyrenees"
"The genetic variation of the European population at a macro-geographic scale follows genetic gradients which reflect main migration events. However, less is known about factors affecting mating patterns at a micro-geographic scale. In this study we have analyzed 726,718 autosomal single nucleotide variants in 435 individuals from the catalan Pyrenees covering around 200 km of a vast and abrupt region in the north of the Iberian Peninsula, for which we have information about the geographic origin of all grand-parents and parents. At a macro-geographic scale, our analyses recapitulate the genetic gradient observed in Spain. However, we also identified the presence of micro-population substructure among the sampled individuals. Such micro-population substructure does not correlate with geographic barriers such as the expected by the orography of the considered region, but by the bishoprics present in the covered geographic area. These results support that, on top of main human migrations, long ongoing socio-cultural factors have also shaped the genetic diversity observed at rural populations."
Some very fine substructure in PCA that accords with a religious boundary. Samples in large scale PCA span between Basque-IBS. Not sure if this is the same as https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w - maybe because they sampled more rural people.
Genotypes for G25 (assuming overlap): https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Genotype_files/21404643
@gimby
I don’t understand your point. These are populations (like “western hunter gatherer”) that were labelled according to where they are thought to have preponderated. Or at least where the samples were located. You seem to be asking for them to be named anachronistically instead after modern populations that some of them contributed to — which may predominant in somewhat (or very) different areas.
@Rob, There's no DNA evidence that Anatolia was recolonised from Europe. Archeaology proves nothing.
@Rob, The single Epipaleolithic Anatolian DNA sample we have is very SW Asian. There's no convincing evidence he has any recent European ancestry. He could but there's no good evidence so Don't act like it's a fact.
@Andrzejewski Yeah the Dzudzuana paper. 100% continuity between Anatolia_N and Dzudzuana, pValue of 0.685. Goes up to 0.845 if 2% Baikal_EN is added. Taforalt, Natufian and CHG/Iran are also mostly Dzudzuana but with varying degrees of other ancestries (Mbuti/deep, Onge, ANE etc). This was more or less known for Anatolia and CHG since Jones et al 2015 where EEF/Anatolia and CHG have a common ancestor 24kya (11.4k-43k) and that common ancestor (Dzudzuana) has a common ancestor with WHG between 25k and 75.8kya
From Gunther et al 2018 it is suggested that the ancestors of WHGs migrated from the Near East into Europe. Considering the divergence timeline of Dzudzuana and proto-WHG I find it possible.
What was more interesring was the similarity (Fst) between Gravettians and especially Aurignacians. They're far closer to Dzudzuana than WHG is.
@gimby20 What he's doing is a cope. In his mind he goes "Well they were European geographically, I am European geographically, so they were European just like me... so just like me in nature/dna too, we wuz WHG/EHG/ANE/Yamnaya and shieeeet". Common occurrence among LARPers approaching a middle age crisis.
On a sidenote, you need to differentiate between overall similarity and highest component %. Anatolia_N is indeed very similar to Sardinians, Greeks, Italians and Turks (and others) as seen in Schmid & Schiffels 2021 using Stuttgart EEF (has 1,7% WHG in Ariano et al 2022, 0,8% WHG in Chintalapati et al 2022), and is Sardinian-like based on overall autosomal %, but WHGs are obviously not Baltic-like because they might have among the highest % of WHG (some Spaniards do too), but it's not enough to lead to similarity, "likeness". Thus we call this simply "extinct".
Btw the overall composition of modern West Eurasians is overwhelmingly Dzudzuana so we're technically all Dzudzuana-like. Thus these kinds of deductions are pointless (as demonstrated) and useful only to appease the ego of various LARPers who wish to feel significantly more important than they are in reality by self-inserting as some extinct population who lost the evolutionary and territorial competition and vanished alongside their culture-lifestyle (hunting, gathering).
In Spain we have documented mtDNA-H in the Mirón cave (same site as the red lady-ElMiron cluster) since 8 years ago. It is evident that neither the international scientific community nor the amateurs who give their opinion about everything know about it, in spite of the fact that we have already sent them the link on several occasions. For us it is therefore a typical marker of the Magdalenian culture (WHG) and we do not have to discuss whether its origin is in Anatolia, Africa, Iran or the Natufian culture.Specifically, the human teeth included in the present study were recovered in the 1996 campaign in level 104, corresponding to the Middle Magdalenian-Direct radiocarbon dating (AMS) of the piece subjected to mtDNA analysis, collected in table V7, subtable A, section 4, with inventory number V7-20.2, yields a date of 14,120±35 BP (UGAMS-15261).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290945492_El_ADN_mitocondrial_de_los_cazadores-recolectores_de_la_region_cantabrica_Nueva_evidencia_de_la_cueva_de_El_Miron_Ramales_de_la_Victoria_Cantabria_Espana/link/57125a6e08ae4ef74526146b/download
Here is another example
Cueva de la Pasiega (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria)-The cave has archaeological remains from the Cantabrian Solutrean and early Magdalenian periods. There is a base level with ambiguous pieces which, due to its characteristics, has been related to a possible Mousterian period. On top of it, there was a relatively rich Solutrean level with very characteristic materials such as laurel leaves and notch points of very fine carving made by pressure, as well as azagayas. The most recent stratum was also relatively rich, with several burins, awls, bone objects and perforated teeth that could belong to the Magdalenian Archaic period -Important cave paintings-Dating-16,200-15,740 BC.
*Pas1 (15,970 BC)-Cueva de la Pasiega-mtDNA-H
I never said they domesticated them on their own. They adopted part of their cultural package with little to no genetic input, just as HGs at Boncuklu or Blatterhohle even to a degree.
TTK001-Paleolithic Central Asian?-Connection to Iran_Neolithic.
There are some very interesting samples, we are going to have a lot to talk about.
@Rob “ Wait until / if Syria gets sampled, more quality Jordaniaan samples, more Iraq.”
It would be interesting to finally find out who the Sumerians, Ubadians, Hassunians and all these other ancient ME pops prior to the Iberomaurasian linked Semitic encroachment on the area.
I would’ve love it if we could feature physical anthropology here interspersed with genetic data. I’m genuinely puzzled how come the European diversity of phenotypes starts diverging as soon as one leave’s geographical Europe and ventures into Tbilisi, Istanbul, Nuuk (Greenland) or Siberia.
Everything very interesting: good news from the new Scandinavian paper about R-U106, R1a, I1 and I2... I'm wondering if in the near future there will be something interesting about R1a-Y96282 in Southern Italy and about possible links between ancient or medieval populations and R-Z36>FGC71023 and subclades of FCG71023 (possibly some subclades of FGC71023 came in Italy with Longobards?)
Off topic:
Middle Holocene Siberian genomes reveal highly connected gene pools throughout North Asia.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)01892-9
"Highlights
•A distinctive Middle Holocene Siberian ancestry is found in Altai hunter-gatherers
•It results from a mixture of paleo-Siberian and ancient North Eurasian ancestries
•A contemporaneous Altai individual carries ancient Northeast Asian ancestry
•Northeastern Siberians experienced a prolonged Native American-related geneflow "
Also see: https://www.livescience.com/previously-unknown-hunter-gatherers-siberia
@Vladimir
I can't extract anything from that rar file you linked to.
@ Gaska
We know about that alleged mtDna H. It’s old RFLP methodology, not C14 dated and non-reproduced
You’re always hanging on nonexistent evidence
@ Sam
Archaeology, autosomal and uniparental evidence all point to the same thing, but you can’t grasp reality. Sounds like you’ve got a problem
@ Orpheus
Gunther et al didn’t make the claims you suggest
Moreover, the reality is quite the opposite
From the abstract Matt linked
“ Conversely, we reveal a genetic turnover in southern Europe suggesting a local replacement of human groups during the LGM, alongside a north-to-south expansion of Epigravettian-associated populations. From at least 14 ka, a lineage related to this culture expands from the south [of europe] across the rest of Europe largely replacing the Magdalenian-associated gene pool.“
This north -south expansion reached Anatolia as well. That’s why Pinarbasi’s clades fall within European ones, but Sam our self-proclaimed mtDna expert doesn’t understand that
Lastly, there’s no direct continuity between Dzudzuana and ANF. You’re misinterpreting a misinterpretation
@George “ •It results from a mixture of paleo-Siberian and ancient North Eurasian ancestries
•A contemporaneous Altai individual carries ancient Northeast Asian ancestry
•Northeastern Siberians experienced a prolonged Native American-related geneflow "
Ok…
* Arent Paleo-Siberians = ANE?
* Are Altaic speakers(traneurasians) - Turkic, Mongolians and Tungus - ancestors of these 2 distinct groups mixing?
* Are Nivkh, Kachadalians and Chukchi part (or whole) Native Americans?
* Who were the Ainu?
@Wee e
Where did I say anything about renaming samples? Did you even bother reading the context of my response?
@Orpheus
"WHGs are obviously not Baltic-like because they might have among the highest % of WHG (some Spaniards do too), but it's not enough to lead to similarity, "likeness". Thus we call this simply "extinct"
I understand, but if we are playing this 'my team vs your team' type of game (it seems most similar to football hooliganism) then which modern-day population is closest to WHG or EHG? Modern-day Northern Europeans right. Despite the fact that yes they are still very far away, they are still much closer to them than anyone else.
@Rob
Not C14 dated? Please don't make me laugh.
Here are two other examples-“Ancient DNA in the Cantabrian fringe populations: A mtDNA study from Prehistory to Late Antiquity”- C de la Rúa, N.Izaguirre (2.015)-“The HGs from the Northern of the Iberian Peninsula also showed a high frequency value for haplogroup U but they differentiated from the other European groups by a relatively high frequency for haplogroup H”-“La Néolithisation du bassin méditerranéen-Apports de l’ADN ancien-TD Marie Lacan (2.011)-“Les echantillons provenant des sites de Linatzeta (LTZ-T7) et Franchthi (Fr-63), ont ainsi permis de determiner l’haplogroupe mitochondrial des individus-LTZ-T7 (6.000 BC)-mtDNA-H”
I hope you understand that we have more confidence in the papers published by Spanish and French researchers than in your opinion. Your eagerness to always be right always forces you to contradict yourself and to not understand what you are saying. Even if you are defending a migration from Europe to Anatolia the mtDNA-H could be an argument in favor of this theory because the oldest H found in Western Asia are much later than those of the Franco-Cantabrian refuge. First mtDNA-H in Asia is an outlier with blood from European HGs.
H- Irak, Shanidar, outlier-EHG-I3883_outlier-8.100 BC-Lazaridis, 2.022
H- Siria, Tell Halula-H68-7.650 AC-Fernández, 2.014
H- Anatolia, Ulucak Hoyuk-ULU008-6.700 BC-Koptekin, 2.022
We still have a long way to go to learn about WHGs, 35,000 years of history in Iberia cannot be learned from a dozen genomes. That's why you always jump to hasty and wrong conclusions.
By the way I have read some funny comments about WHGS, their uniparental markers are absolutely European (I2, I1, R1b) nothing to do with Anatolia or Levant.
@ Gaska
yes I know & respect those researchers, but that doesnt change the methdology. You on the other hand, don't appear to know much, despite referring to yourself in the plural.
Robbo: I did not suggest that the entire west Asian/ Near eastern Late Paleo population comes from the north . I’m referring to central -western Anatolia
Feldman et al didn’t perform ROH on Pinarbasi, so what data are you referring to ? It would be interesting to be done, it in any case , Pinarbasi has already undergone some Admixture with Natufians or the like, thus we would not expect high ROH.
Was thinking about the Anatolian farmers who have clearly lower RoH; even after comparable/less admixture between late Upper Paleolithic Near Eastern pools to what we could detect in e.g. SHG between Northern HG pools, RoH are still shorter/fewer. E.g. in G25, Pinarbasi seems about 90% of Turkey_N with only small amounts of admixture from Iran_N and Natufian, although arguably G25 is not ideal for this model : https://imgur.com/a/qfS55ay. It doesn't seem like large admixture would explain shorter / fewer RoH in early farmers from Anatolia, rather larger population size without extensive admixture.
Though Ringbauer actually did test Pinarbasi's using his method of imputation - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25289-w, and that said Pinarbasi is comparable to Iron Gates in the supplementary spreadsheet.
(Meant to post this yesterday but something went wrong with the comment system for me).
Regarding the European HGs the first thing to understand is the difference between EHGs and WHGs, if we are able to identify different components in both groups then we will be close to knowing their true percentages in contemporary European populations. Using qpAdm, the percentages can be discriminated, as Lazaridis did in 2008, so the results are not so surprising. Baltic countries and Spanish (including Basques) have the highest WHG (Villabruna & Latvia_HG) percentages in Europe. However EHG, related to AFG3 & Samara_HG, has much higher percentages in Russia, Baltic countries, Ukraine, Poland etc than in Southern Europe.
Lithuanian- WHG (0.189) + EHG (0.291)>0.480
Belarussian-WHG (0.140) + EHG (0.271)>0.440
Ukrainian-WHG (0,163) + EHG (0.266)>0.429
Irish- WHG (0.146) + EHG (0.249)>0.395
Spanish North-WHG (0.204)+ EHG (0,185)>0.389
English-WHG (0.151)+ EHG (0.233)>0.384
Hungarian-WHG (0,128) + EHG (0.216)>0.344
Basque-WHG (0.160) + EHG (0,184)>0.344
Croatian-WHG (0.102) +EHG (0.209)>0.311
Greek- WHG (0,066)+ EHG (0.158)>0.224
Italian South-WHG (0,072)+ EHG (0,143)>0.215
Cypriot-WHG (0,035)+ EHG (0,135)>0.170
Belarus-WHG (12,40) + EHG (30,00)>42,40
England-WHG (11.00) + EHG (26.00)>37,00
Spaniards-WHG (10.30) + EHG (17,60)>27,90
Norway-WHG (10.10) + EHG (28,40)>38,50
Croatia-WHG (8,39) + EHG (22,40)>30.79
Bulgaria- WHG (6.00) + EHG (19,60)>25,60
Greece-WHG (3,89) + EHG (13,80)>17,69
Rob is hilarious. Never seen anyone live through stone age farmers and hunter gatherers as much as him.
His cursory look into Anatolia is as expected a mess with no citations. "Hittites from western Anatolia" lol.
@ Gaska
No need to cite papers from 2008 when we have papers from last year saying NE Euros have the highest WHG ancestry
@Davidski
I can't extract anything from that rar file you linked to.
One more attempt -
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_5kZ1kxzaC7flJXNmxSODNhNl90OGd6Mm1zY2VrNzlSUGhSNTFVNHVTWTVSanVLeXA0dVE?resourcekey=0-qQ2xwiGYregOH38C1fKNmA
@ Andrzejewski
Hi,
This part of Asia is not an area of interest of mine so hopefully these comments address your questions.
The paper mentioned in this thread appears to be a follow-up to
Genomic Insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33618348/
which states …. “ First, hunter-gatherers of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin have ancestry shared by Mongolic and Tungusic language speakers but do not carry West Liao River farmer ancestry contradicting theories that their expansion spread these proto-languages. “
The paper “Middle Holocene Siberian genomes …” describes the terms as: “ANE”- populations in the northwest of the Altai, “ANA” - populations in the northeast of the Altai (Devil’s
Gate Cave), named (in the paper as) ‘‘paleo-Siberian’’ ancestry, was identified in the 14,000-year-old Ust-Kyakhta-3 genome (UKY) close to Lake Baikal7 and the 9,000-year-old Kolyma genome from northeastern Siberia (Kolyma_M).
“Other present-day populations from the Kamchatka and Chukotka peninsulas, such as Itelmen and Chukchi,23 also carry non-negligible amounts of Native American-related ancestry, ranging from 5% to 20% when using Kamchatka_500uncalBP as an ancestry baseline.”
“Finally, we estimated the admixture time of the Native American-related ancestry in ancient and present-day groups from northeastern Siberia. This backflow is dated to between 5,500 and 4,400 BP for the ancient populations, while the estimation is only 1,500 BP for the present-day Koryak population (Figure 4; Data S2F). Considering the additional amount of Native American ancestry in the latter population, compared to Kamchatka_500uncalBP, this suggests continuous or repeated gene flow events from North America or Beringia into the Kamchatka Peninsula during the last few centuries.”
Unique characteristics of the Ainu population in Northern Japan (2015)
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg201579
Ainu are considered descendants of the Jomon people.
Enjoy the Day
@ psikh
It's my mistake, Lazaridis' paper (2018)-According to Lazaridis, the European country with the most WHG is Spanish North, not the Baltic countries or the Russians (EHG predominates there).If you use qpAdm differentiating EHG and WHG you will get the same results. That is the reason why Spain is genetically further north than the rest of the Mediterranean countries,and it is also a component that has been maintained in very high proportions since the Chalcolithic despite the Anatolian and steppe migrations.
@Rob Supplementary materials, page 6/28 in the pdf I got. "(...) before the ancestors of the WHG migrated from Near East into West and Central Europe [1]."
Considering the timeline I find it unlikely that the common ancestor of WHG and Dzudzuana left West Asia without leaving a mark behind and moved into Europe and then Dzudzuana split and ended up in the South Caucasus instead of simply WHGs splitting and moving into Europe. This pattern of West Asia > Eueope is seen time after time: Aurignacians, Anatolian farmers, the CHG-Levant-Anatolia population in Lazaridis et al 2022 etc. Even in Minoans, deriving ancestry from Chalcolithic Anatolia and Mycenaeans from a Levant-harboring source (seen in Lazaridis et al 2022 and Clemente et al 2021 supplementals). Europe is constantly refiing Watern geneflow and this is seen even with the Yamnaya and CWC mass migrating from East to West. And before them EHGs (ANE before they mixed with WHG).
No need to get all upset about it my West Asian(Dzudzuana)-rich friend.
@gimby20 Football clubs is actually an excellent way to put it.
@Gaska In case you haven't noticed Rob is mentally ill and has a tendency to forget to take his meds. I wouldn't waste any more time on him if I were you.
@Orpheus
There's nothing wrong with a LARP player attitude, as long as
-you don't take it too seriously, it's only a game after all, and,
-it doesn't impair the rationality of your judgment.
And having certain tribes among one's ancestry means: you're really partly a descendant of these tribes, even if they don't exist anymore and have zero practical significance today.
@ Matt
''Was thinking about the Anatolian farmers who have clearly lower RoH; even after comparable/less admixture between late Upper Paleolithic Near Eastern pools to what we could detect in e.g. SHG between Northern HG pools, RoH are still shorter/fewer. E.g. in G25, Pinarbasi seems about 90% of Turkey_N with only small amounts of admixture from Iran_N and Natufian, although arguably G25 is not ideal for this model : https://imgur.com/a/qfS55ay. It doesn't seem like large admixture would explain shorter / fewer RoH in early farmers from Anatolia, rather larger population size without extensive admixture.
Though Ringbauer actually did test Pinarbasi's using his method of imputation - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25289-w, and that said Pinarbasi is comparable to Iron Gates in the supplementary spreadsheet.''
Pinarbasi similar to I.G> makes sense.
And, I have no doubt that Anatolian Farmers have low ROH. I was considering Pinarbasi, and 'AHG' like him in central-western who lived thousands of year earlier, before the large migration of Sryo-Mesopotamian farmers into Anatolia, then eventually Europe.
For ex; a good model I got for Barcin
TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N
TUR_Pınarbaşı_EpiP
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
ISR_Natufian_EpiP
best coefficients: 0.674 0.091 0.235
std. errors: 0.046 0.022 0.052
TP 0.23
CMR_SMA_published
MAR_Taforalt_EpiP
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
CHN_Tianyuan
RUS_MA1_HG
RUS_DevilsCave_N
ITA_Villabruna
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_Tyumen_HG
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
CHG
And this is (pre-)historically 'sane'.
Models based on Dzudzuana, on the other hand, are not a historically relevant.
In fact, now that we have several Anatolia farmers, from south to north, east & western Turkey, a catch-all term (ANF) probably no longer suffices
@ Vara
Yeah, even my cursory look is the best yet :)
You, on the other hand, cant even run automated on-line G25 to prove whatever your ramblings claim, so keep your head in the window.
O wait, some 1983 book you cited once said Indo-Aryans existed in Western Asia in 4000 BC.
Cool
@George “ The paper “Middle Holocene Siberian genomes …” describes the terms as: “ANE”- populations in the northwest of the Altai, “ANA” - populations in the northeast of the Altai (Devil’s
Gate Cave), named (in the paper as) ‘‘paleo-Siberian’’ ancestry, was identified in the 14,000-year-old Ust-Kyakhta-3 genome (UKY) close to Lake Baikal7 and the 9,000-year-old Kolyma genome from northeastern Siberia (Kolyma_M). ”
Paleo-Siberian ancestry as related and linked to the Ulchi-like component of East Eurasian within the Native American genome?
@ Orpheus
. And you drew critique because you are making false claims with dead-pan authority
WHGs dont come from West Asia, that's just a scientific fact, not my own presonal bias. It is in fact you who is projecting their own biases here
These are the facts:
- Upper Paleolithic connections of Europe and West Asia split ~ 36,000 bp, and then after the LGM there was some secondary population convergence between WHGs and Epipaleolithic West Asia as the Epigravettian expanded into the the Aegean and Anatolia
- WHGs are culturally associated with epigravettian, which derives from the preceding European Gravettian *in some way*, perhaps some groups who refuged in southeastern/eastern Europe. On the other hand, there is no evidence for mass-migration from West Asia to Europe after the LGM, despite some misguided claims by statisticians who arent familiar with basic evidence.
Obviously, during the Neolithic, there was large scale migration from West Asia to Europe.
- had you performed a quick-check of the data for yourself, you;d have noticed the WHGs have uniparaental lineages of preceding European UP + some new ones form Siberia. So your scenario doesn't pass a basic sanity check.
The rest of your claims are simply absurdist. If Dzudzuana is not directly relevant for Anatolian Farmers, then there's no point bringing it about regarding Minoans. It's desparate & uninformative
Davidski, is there any possibility of including G25 coordinates for:
Red Deer Cave people (Zhang 2022)
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00928-9
Zana of Abkhazia (Margaryan 2021)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggn2.10051
@ EastPole
"And I got banned for this."
Huh. They're insane.
A new forum dedicated to archaeogenomics is much needed.
@gimby Renaming SAMPLES? No, you misread my comment. I said it seems as if you want to redo the POPULATION names.
@Wee e
No, I have no interest in re-doing the population names.... what are you on about lmao
https://docs.google.com/file/d/14DHskLHj7wU4GnpNkabvKtW8ywg5gawA/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msword
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZxexX2Bg2c6RWrfU33xbQV2nbSbn8dY8dDpV3Kvvygg/edit
Wang et al. 2023 - says access denied when I try to access it
@gimby. I started my comment by telling you that I didn’t understand your comment, because of what it SEEMED to say. You then misread my comment. I clarified. Instead of trying any clarification yourself, you said you laughed your ass off.
Are you a grown up or still a child? I’m not being flippant here.
and too Wang et al. 2023
Isotopic and DNA analyses reveal multiscale PPNB mobility and migration across Southeastern Anatolia and the Southern Levant
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2210611120
BAJ022,0.060326,0.156392,-0.031301,-0.122095,0.02462,-0.070838,-0.028906,0.002538,0.079764,0.029522,0.012991,-0.019033,0.051288,-0.003441,-0.007057,0.001326,0.005215,-0.008235,-0.005279,0.018009,0.00549,0.004081,0.001356,0.001807,-0.004071
NEV009,0.081953,0.161469,-0.042238,-0.116927,0.007078,-0.042949,-0.002585,-0.008307,0.016975,0.041914,0.014453,0.006594,-0.004311,0.003303,-0.03013,-0.002254,0.012256,-0.003167,0.004525,0.001876,-0.003743,0.004328,-0.008011,-0.006025,-0.001676
NEV020,0.081953,0.139128,-0.058831,-0.074613,-0.012925,-0.02008,-0.0047,-0.005538,0.002454,0.006378,0.002111,0.001948,0.006244,-0.003303,-0.008958,0.003845,-0.000782,0,-0.001885,0.003001,0.001747,-0.003586,-0.004683,0.00494,0.007784
NEV021,0.079676,0.142174,-0.055437,-0.072675,-0.026466,-0.011156,-0.00329,-0.005077,-0.001841,0.004556,0.006983,-0.003147,0.002973,0.002752,-0.011536,-0.005834,-0.016298,-0.00228,-0.001383,-0.007003,0.006114,0.003957,-0.003081,0.003133,0.003952
NEV030,0.088782,0.147252,-0.04714,-0.079781,-0.025235,-0.010319,-0.00188,-0.003461,-0.016975,0.006743,0.000812,0.00015,0.004311,0.004129,-0.002579,-0.007425,-0.011213,-0.00152,0.005154,-0.000125,-0.002246,0,0.00419,-0.002048,0.000359
(Wang 2023)
Nevali Çori is a site close to Gobekle tepe
NEV030 is Iron Age
NEV020 and NEV021 are Roman Empire
NEV009 is Neolithic PPNB 3 layer
BAJ022 is from South Levant Neolithic
Davidski
There was also another paper from Neolithic sites in SE Turkey.
The Çayonu. PPN period.
All samples are in the same cluster except the cay008 which is an outlier
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo3609
It would be nice to have both Nevali Çori and Çayonu samples in Your spreadsheets.
@Davidski, having a quick look at the Wang 2023 (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)01892-9) samples from North Asia.
Vahaduo: https://imgur.com/a/0nm0BBi
Seems to confirm the finding of the paper that Altai-Northern Kazakhstan was a meeting point of WSHG types and Northern East Eurasian groups. Much different than Sosnivoy and Tyumen samples and Botai. But similar to KAZ_Kazakh_Steppe_EMBA, Okunevo, Berezkha.
The sample from LetuchayaMysh from 7000 BP seems either heavily contaminated with West Eurasian ancestry, or is related to Medieval Central Asian nomads, though.
"We studied 32 ancient individuals from six archaeological
sites located in the Suzdal region in the Volga-Oka interfluve,
using DNA sequencing and radiocarbon dating (Figures 1A,
1B, and S1A–S1C; Data S1A; STAR Methods): Bolshoye Davy-
dovskoye 2 (BOL), representing an Iron Age culture (3 rd –4 th cc.;
n = 9) 14 ; Shekshovo 9 (SHE), a burial site of a large medieval set-
tlement (10 th –12 th cc.; n = 9) 15 ; Shekshovo 2 (SHK), a later burial
ground of the same settlement (late 12 th –13 th cc.; n = 2); and
post-medieval burials from Kibol 3 (KBL) (18 th c.; n = 3), Kidek-
sha (KED) (15 th –18 th cc.; n = 4), and Krasnoe 3 (KRS) (14 th c.;
n = 1). Additionally, we included one kurgan burial (GOR) (12 th
c.) and three medieval flat burials (GOS) (12 th –13 th cc.) from
the town of Gorokhovets in the eastern part of the Vladimir
region. We also measured stable isotope ratios of carbon and
nitrogen from Bolshoye Davydovskoye 2 and Shekshovo 2
and 9 to reconstruct changes in diet and lifestyle (Figure S1D;
STAR Methods)."
LoL Davidski one more time was right, "Krasnoyarsk_Krai_BA" was the source from Uralic Genomes, absent in Fatyanovo BA.
Post a Comment