search this blog
Monday, February 13, 2023
Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let me tell you about Yamnaya
Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. recently claimed that the Yamnaya people of the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe carried "substantial" ancestry from what is now Armenia or surrounds.
However, this claim is essentially false.
Only one individual associated with the Yamnaya culture shows an unambiguous signal of such ancestry. This is a female usually labeled Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera_o:I1917. The "o" suffix indicates that she is an outlier from the main Yamnaya genetic cluster.
Unlike I1917, typical Yamnaya individuals carry a few per cent of ancient European farmer admixture. This ancestry is only very distantly Armenian-related via Neolithic Anatolia (see here).
It's difficult for me to understand how Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. missed this. I suspect that they relied too heavily on formal statistics and overinterpreted their results.
Formal statistics are a very useful tool in ancient DNA work. Unfortunately, they're also a relatively blunt tool that often has problems distinguishing between similar sources of gene flow.
There are arguably better methods for studying fine scale ancestry, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
Below is a somewhat special PCA featuring a wide range of ancient populations that plausibly might be relevant to the genetic origins of the Yamnaya people. Unlike most PCA with ancient samples, this PCA doesn't rely on any sort of projection, so that all of the actors are interacting with each other and directly affecting the outcome.
Here's another version of the same plot with a less complicated labeling system. Note that I designed this PCA specifically to differentiate between European populations and those from the Armenian highlands, the Iranian plateau and surrounds.
And here's a close up of the part of the plot that shows the Yamnaya cluster. This cluster is made up of samples associated with the Afanasievo, Catacomb, Poltavka and Yamnaya cultures. All of the individuals in this part of the plot are closely related, which is why they're so tightly packed together. The differentiation between them is caused by admixture from different groups mostly from outside of the PC steppe.
The Yamnaya cluster can be broadly characterized as a population that formed along the genetic continuum between the Eneolithic groups of the Progress region and Neolithic foragers from the Dnieper River valley (Progress_Eneolithic and Ukraine_N, respectively). However, this cluster also shows a slight western shift that is increasingly more pronounced in the Corded Ware samples. This shift is due to the aforementioned admixture from early European farmers.
Indeed, the plot reveals two parallel clines extending west from the Progress samples. One of the clines is made up of the Yamnaya cluster and the Corded Ware samples, and pulls towards the ancient European farmers. The other cline includes Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera_o:I1917 and pulls towards samples from the Armenian highlands and surrounds.
Being aware of these two clines and knowing how they came about is important to understanding the genetic prehistory of the PC steppe and indeed of much of Eurasia.
At some point, probably during the late Eneolithic, a Progress-related group experienced gene flow from the west and became the Yamnaya and Corded Ware populations. Sporadically, admixture from the Armenian highlands and the Iranian plateau also entered the PC steppe, giving rise to people like the Steppe Maykop outliers and Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera_o:I1917.
Unfortunately, this sort of PCA doesn't offer output suitable for mixture modeling, basically because the recent genetic drift shared by many of the samples creates significant noise.
However, to check that my inferences based on the plot are correct I can create composites with specific ancestry proportions to see how they behave. In the plot below Mix1 is 80% Progress_Eneolithic and 20% Iran_Hajji_Firuz_N, Mix2 is 80% Progress_Eneolithic and 20% Armenia_EBA_Kura_Araxes, while Mix3 is 80% Progress_Eneolithic, 15% Ukraine_N and 5% Hungary_MN_Vinca (Middle Neolithic farmers from the Carpathian Basin).
Obviously, we can't get Yamnaya by mixing Progress_Eneolithic with any ancients from the Armenian highlands or the Iranian plateau. On the other hand, Mix3 works quite well, at least in the first two dimensions. In some of the other dimensions genetic drift specific to Ukraine_N pulls it away from the Yamnaya cluster, but this is to be expected.
By the way, the plots were created with the excellent Vahaduo Custom PCA tool freely available here. It's well worth trying the interactive 3D option using my PCA data. The relevant datasheet is available here.
See also...
Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let's set the record straight
The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
892 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 892 Newer› Newest»It seems like I2a-CTS10057 arose somewhere between Latvia & Iron Gates, then moved toward the Dnieper just as the earliest Farmers were arriving in the Balkans. Although some in the Danube region admixed with Farmers, and even moved south of the Danube, most went East and remained as W/EHG. Then they mixed into the Don & Volga networks.
The cousin lineage, Z-161 is also probably from the Balkan-Baltic region. This group appears to be slightly more western oriented, and more readily mixed with post-LBK groups to emerge as GAC.
It's carbon dated to 5621-5482 calBCE. It's low coverage, but not garbage. It's very Iranian like. 1/3 Romanians and 1/10 Bulgarians so far. With another 10-15 we'll have a better idea how numerous these Iranian-like people were.
Also, Bulgarians on average, are more Iranian shifted anyway.
David,
I think that's probably the case with J2b.
@Davidski
"The Vahaduo PCA plots are very accurate while PCA in scientific studies suffer from various degrees of projection bias, so what's the problem here?"
Unrelated question, but why do the fits for CHG+EHG+EEF look at lot poorer in G25 admixture tool from Vahaduo than they do using qpAdm? It's clear the CHG is being dropped to ~10% in Northern Europeans, which I assume is why the distances are so poor. Is there a reason it does this.
@Davidski
"I reckon this mysterious Caucasus/Iranian-related people introduced J2b into the Balkans during the Neolithic via the Black Sea.
But that's just a pet theory for now."
I am not aware of any such sample from future studies. J2b-L283 is one of the Paleo-Balkan lineages with better aDNA coverage and there is more on the way from the Balkans and thus far already affiliated cultures (Cetina-Dinaric, IA Illyrians). There is nothing, neither archeologically nor genetically, drastically visable in the phylogeny of J2b-L283 both in modern and ancient distribution that would account for some "mysterious" late "Iranian" maybe Caucasus (even that seems to be debated here on the blog) population that would have settled in the Western Balkans prior to the LCA/EBA Eastern European related migrations.
J2b-L283 Western Balkan samples in future studies oscillating between 2475-2365 calBCE and 2599-2489 calBCE won't show in auDNA and phylogeny what hasn't already been observed thus far. The picture won't change.
In regards to "Caucasus/Iranian" remarks:
A ~10000 year old Mesolithic sample namely ID NEO281, from Kotias Klde, Georgia (due to be published Allentoft/Willerslev paper) will split the tertiary ancestral branch J2b-Z1825
(mtDNA H13c). He was autosomally 100% CHG. Anything related to Iran Neolithic DNA admixture in Neolithic finds from the Balkans or non-Balkan Romania has absolutely nothing to do with J2b-L283. A remark in regards to pointing out the difference between these two autosomal signatures has a well-founded right to exist. They are not the same. Here I would just be wary of the lack of Paleolithic genomes in relevant areas. In addition, the difference in uniparentals is also evident enough. There is no J2b-L283 in the pre-Bronze Age Caucasus, which is very noteworthy (south in the Iranian plateau it is non existent anyway, why would it even be there in the first place).
@Gaska
". . . Regarding R1b you are talking about a lineage linked to WHGs not a steppe lineage. L754 (Italy), P297 (Baltic), M269 (Bulgaria), L51 (Switzerland), L151 (Bohemia), U106 (Bohemia), P312 (Germany), U152 (Germany), Df27 (France), L21 (England) all the rest are Kurganist fairy tales. Regarding the origin of DF27 I think you are just speculating and have no idea what you are talking about."
1. "L754 (Italy)", aka Villabruna, has been dealt with ad nauseam, seriously ad nauseam. He is mainly irrelevant, since if he meant anything to R1b-M269 in peninsular Europe, there wouldn't be such a HUGE time gap between Villabruna and the appearance of anything on the lineage leading to M269 there. By the way, Villabruna is L761+, not covered for L389, but P297-. This addresses Villabruna nicely:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/05/villabruna-cluster-near-eastern-migrants.html
2. "P297 (Baltic)" - All of those actually belonged to subclades of R1b-M73.
3. "M269 (Bulgaria)" - Smyadovo (again), recovered in eastern Bulgaria, not far from the west coast of the Black Sea, not far from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and, as you know, he had steppe DNA.
4. "L51 (Switzerland)" - Aesch25 (again): citing him only illustrates your propensity for dishonesty, since you know and have been reminded several times that Aesch25 was loaded with steppe DNA. See this: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/04/aesch25.html
5. "L151 (Bohemia)" - Damn! You're citing Papac et al's early Corded Ware samples, loaded with steppe DNA, to claim that R1b-L151 descends from a line of WHGs native to peninsular Europe? Caramba! I trust that even you know that Corded Ware is commonly seen as the early IE people in Northern Europe par excellence.
6. "U106 (Bohemia)" - see number 5 above (and double damn!).
Regarding the rest - P312, U152, DF27, L21 - you do understand how Y-DNA phylogeny works, right, and what is being claimed about the advent of R1b-M269 in peninsular Europe (meaning whichever subclades of R1b-M269 were involved)? In short, leaving R1b-Z2103, R1a-M417 and whatever other haplogroups were involved aside for now, early Indo-European males bearing whatever subclades of R1b-L51 were around at the time moved west out of the steppe/forest-steppe into peninsular Europe. As they moved from east to west, they fathered sons, some of whom bore new SNPs downstream of R1b-L51. Not all of those new SNPs were born on the steppe. Many were born in the new world of peninsular Europe. That didn't change the source of their bearers' patrilines. Their forefathers came to peninsular Europe as IEs from the Eurasian steppe.
I was born in the USA, but that doesn't make me an Amerindian.
Regarding exogamy - On the steppe, exogamy served to produce a relatively uniform "Yamnaya" type of autosomal profile among the PIE tribes, while simultaneously preserving a certain limited amount of Y-DNA diversity: R1a here, R1b there, Q here, I2 there, etc.
As the IE tribes moved into peninsular Europe, however, exogamy mainly served to introduce native peninsular European EEF autosomal DNA into the steppe tribes, as steppe-derived males took local wives. This is not hard to understand; at least, it shouldn't be. As I have mentioned more than once before, it is self-evident. Watch the steppe tribes move from east to west as time passes and see steppe DNA become progressively more and more diluted.
Sorry if this is irrelevant. Did I see a strange post about language in Brittany or did I hallucinate it? The date was puzzling, I wondered if it was a typo.
@Gaska
Sorry I don't see a stronghold of Y-R1b (even the oldest subclades tied to Neolithic and strangers to the L23>L51>P312/U106 ones) specifically into your Franco-Cantabric REGION.
And if the moves of post-U152/DF27 stages lineages (U152>L2 for the most) were eastwards and linked to the central-northern BB's expansion, we have at the opposite a westwards bunch of moves for the set M269>L23>L51>P312. And the eastwards move of U152 seems departing from Jura-Alps regions, not Atlantic.
As said by someones here, it isn't to say Y-R1b-L51 = Yamnaya.
Now someones say there has been found 2 x L51 in Afanasievo. Do you contest this? I haven't the sure answer for now...
ATW concerning megalithers, it seems the most of them were Y-I2a1(b) and Y-I2a2, not the dominant haplo's among first Farmers. So before more clues I don't see the Franco-Cantabric region nor any other Iberian region as the cradle for post L23 R1b subclades, before Eneolitic (or Chalcolithic), the time of first Steppe auDNA intrusion in western Europe.
aside: since long enough the Franco-Cantabric region was no more kind of an isolate among other Atlantic and Mediterranean maritimes regions at Chalcolithic.
@gimby20
That's because most Europeans don't really have CHG ancestry, since the CHG-related ancestry on the steppe wasn't really CHG.
@ Chad
What’s the sample ID ?
Well there’s no J2b2 in dozens of Anatolian samples . So it’d probably more J2a related , but not impossible
@Mark
Anything related to Iran Neolithic DNA admixture in Neolithic finds from the Balkans or non-Balkan Romania has absolutely nothing to do with J2b-L283.
The Caucasus/Iranian genetic structure we're talking about is basically like North_Caucasus_MBA.
This is the type of ancestry that is surprisingly found in the eastern Balkans during the Neolithic.
Doesn't one of the North_Caucasus_MBA samples belong to J2b-L283?
@Rob
Hence the hypothesized sea connection.
@Fcv
No, the correct terms are CHG-related and Meshoko-related.
The CHG-related ancestry moved into the steppe well before 5,000 BCE, probably from different directions.
The Meshoko-related ancestry also probably arrived on the steppe well before 5,000 BCE. If so, it can't actually be Meshoko ancestry.
I won't say more than this for now, but the relevant samples should be out soon, and then you can choke from loling too much for all I care.
@ Dave
Could be
Have you seen this extra CHG in Romania or Bulgaria chads referring to ?
@Davidski
I've been deep diving (with the help of Mr. AncestralWhispers) into this area for an potential blog entry on the eneolithic north caucasus steppe people I've been working on and while the neolithic northern caucasus (mountain/foothills) is really poorly attested it is interesting to note that the more "archaic" material culture at Darkveti-Meshoko sites apparently had strong links to neolithic sites in Georgia, Nizhne-Shilovskaya on the coast near Abkhazia was mentioned in particular.
These populations seem more sub-neolithic than neolithic proper though. Given that the connection is neolithic rather than mesolithic this could imply a migration to the northern side of the Caucasus or close ties between populations on both sides. If they were present on on the ciscaucasian side of the mountain its not exactly a stretch to imagine them strolling downhill as well. It is possible that these populations wouldnt be 100% CHG/Kotias either, the Kotias and Satsurblia genomes already differ in terms of anatolian-related ancestry for instance. This could perhaps be why you are seeing a Meshoko signal in samples that predate the Darkveti-Meshoko culture by a good 800 years and also with a geographic distance of about 900 km. More details will be explained later, I'm currently still piecing together what I can find about the precise chronolgies of this eneolithic steppe "proto-pit-grave" cultural sphere, and from which drection they came. The Nal'chik site has old dates of 5000-4800 bc, from human bones if I'm correct, but given how steppe_en samples tend to have massive resevoir effects and the chronology generally being considered contemporary to Khvalynsk I'd wager its more around 4500 bc.
@Copper Axe
Good stuff.
We should eventually collaborate, along with a few other people, on a preprint for bioRxiv that corrects the info coming from those undercover Armenian patriots at you know which lab.
@Rob
I haven't looked for the admixture that Chad is apparently seeing.
At this time I'm just referring to the two outliers from Bulgaria and Romania that have North Caucasus MBA-related ancestry, way earlier than expected.
But both of these samples are C14 dated.
@ Dave
Caucasus MBA is ~ post Majkop + Yamnaya /Catacomb
@Rob
RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC001,0.106994,0.126941,-0.070522,-0.037791,-0.055703,-0.005857,0.011045,-0.007846,-0.076492,-0.032438,-0.000812,0.008992,-0.023191,0.005092,0.006107,-0.021347,0.012517,-0.005448,-0.016718,0.0183,0.016845,0.002968,0.003451,-0.018316,-0.00946
RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC002,0.105855,0.142174,-0.063733,-0.030039,-0.055395,-0.001394,0.018566,-0.006461,-0.073629,-0.032074,-0.000325,0.014387,-0.030773,-0.004129,0.007057,-0.018828,0.014212,-0.001394,-0.006285,0.012506,0.018093,-0.005317,-0.010353,-0.017231,-0.002275
@ Dave
KDC is virtually the same as Majkop; or 80% Azer-N/ Shulaveri + 20% Yamnaya
Krepost is ANF 55% + Sho-Shu 35%
None of the Rou _N in your dataset have additional Azeri_N
I6661. I've analyzed every single farmer deeply through the MN. Like I've said elsewhere, I'm writing a book on these connections and movements.
@Rob
I've no idea how you're getting 20% Yamnaya in Maykop and these two North Caucasus samples. They do have some minor Progress-like ancestry of around 5%.
But anyway, here's the point I was making about Krepost and that outlier from Romania.
Target: RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC001
Distance: 2.9001% / 0.02900075
100.0 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Target: RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC002
Distance: 3.0942% / 0.03094197
100.0 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Target: BGR_Krepost_N
Distance: 3.6199% / 0.03619928
68.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
32.0 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
@ Dave
why are you using Majkop. Not plausible for Krepost
I used Azer_N, which actually got the same proportions
And, acc. with G25, RUS_Maykop:OSS001 gets 25% Progress
I'm just demonstrating that Krepost N has North Caucasus-related ancestry, and can be linked via this ancestry to North Caucasus MBA in which there's J2b-L283.
But you're right, KDC only have 5-10% steppe-Eneolithic
There's structure in the individuals subsumed within ''Majkop''
Couple of the late Majkop MK5001 & 5004 also have almost 20% Steppe En
The other differentiator is 'highland'/ Darkveti vs 'lowland'/ Azeri admixture
Another thing - Krepost plots close to Buyukkaya, a similarly aged central Anatolian. Unfortunatley, also a single sample
I-6661 F ROU_N_outlier2 SNPs- 18,004 ! 5500-4300 BCE (NB not calBCE)
@Rob
"Well there’s no J2b2 in dozens of Anatolian samples . So it’d probably more J2a related , but not impossible"
"Another thing - Krepost plots close to Buyukkaya, a similarly aged central Anatolian. Unfortunatley, also a single sample"
There is some archeological links vis-à-vis Sopot, Lengyel, outer peripheries in the eastern Balkans.
Would well allign with haplogroups such as J2a1a2-Y13128 a haplogroup under J2a-L26 which has experienced a successful LN-Chalcolithic spread throughout the Balkan peninsula. Not suprising if were to be found in future Chalcolithic Balkan samples more to the East. A route via Anatolia is what looks rather natural. There is also other lineages that have such an expansion visable in their phylogeny and aDNA coverage.
@Rob
From the latest anno file.
I6661 I6661 CIRC_794; F794, Early Neolithic, S XVII square7 C2 tooth (molar) 2022 LazaridisAlpaslanRoodenbergScience2022 Direct: IntCal20 7506 41 5621-5482 calBCE (6620±35 BP, PSUAMS-10328) adult ? Romania_EN_oIran Carcea Romania 44.26 23.9 Repulldown on 3.2M snpset 1240K 1 0.015478 17886 9550 F n/a (no relatives detected) n/a (female) n/a (female) 1.72 n/a (<2x) n/a (<2x) 0.094 0.014 ds.half S6661.E1.L1 PASS PCA very surprising; looks Iranian-related
OK, have they updated the Arc dataset with new coverage ? I'd need to check that
But going with that, there are 2 ~ 5500 BC samples in northeeast Balkans with elevated CHG (both F. at this stage). Could be linked with J2b2 I guess. Maybe some of the Y-hg T as well ?
Then a more massive CHG wave post-4000 BC a/w J2a1h.
@Fcv
The Meshoko-related ancestry arrived before 5,000 BCE.
Khvalynsk doesn't have it because it's in the wrong part of the steppe.
You don't know, because you don't know much.
Off Topic:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25200-7.pdf
Y‐chromosome target enrichment reveals rapid expansion of haplogroup R1b‐DF27 in Iberia during the Bronze Age transition,
Rafael de Carla García‐Fernández1, Esther Lizano1,2, Marco Telford1, Íñigo Olalde3,4, Rafael de Cid5,
Maarten H. D. Larmuseau6,7,8, Marian M. de Pancorbo3 & Francesc Calafell1*
A quotes:
“Revisiting the origin of R1b‐DF27. Taking into account both the frequency of R1b-DF27, which is found in>40% of Iberian males but declines abruptly to<10% in western Europe north of the Pyrenees, and is rare elsewhere18–20 , and that STR variation linked to R1b-DF27 was greater within Iberia17, it was postulated that NE Iberia is the most likely place of origin of DF2717. The present results show indeed that nucleotide diversity is marginally higher in NE Iberia than elsewhere, and that whole branches of the R1b-DF27 phylogeny, par- ticularly R1b-Z272, are restricted to Iberia. However, ancient DNA, and the fact that nucleotide diversity is not significantly lower in NW Europe compared to Iberia, do not rule out the possibility that R1b-DF27 originated elsewhere in Western Europe, but expanded and radiated in the north of the Iberian Peninsula, where it replaced the local paternal lineages to a great extent. Both ancient and extant DNA point to the Bronze Age expansions as the cause for the spread of R1b-DF27 throughout Western Europe and particularly into Iberia.”
What boggled my mind was how Y-DNA Haplogroups
I and K spread over very large territories as early as the Paleolithic yet Haplogroup J was apparently confined to a very small area in and around the Caucasus until very late... This does not make sense.
@Davidski
If you are interested, in this file you can find all the ancient samples with date and coverage assigned to each of them.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j072mnl0sd42nch/G25 Ancients.txt
Distance to: RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
0.01643725 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC001__BC_1888__Cov_63.85%
0.01643725 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC002__BC_1800__Cov_59.14%
0.02642339 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056__BC_4516__Cov_64.23%
0.02761033 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya:I6266__BC_3435__Cov_46.66%
0.02944928 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya:I6268__BC_3600__Cov_31.82%
0.02989237 TUR_BlackSea_Samsun_Anc_B:I4473__BC_177__Cov_68.87%
Distance to: BGR_Krepost_N
0.00000000 BGR_Krepost_N:I0679_d__BC_5667__Cov_35.07%
0.03492593 GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA:Kou03__BC_2300__Cov_93.30%
0.03535835 GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3920__BC_3784__Cov_81.47%
0.03778829 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi:I0071__BC_2050__Cov_82.82%
0.03792868 TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc:I20257__BC_615__Cov_70.33%
0.03866064 ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_1:I7221__BC_570__Cov_74.47%
Just to be clear. - the "Yamnaya paper" y'all mentioning here, which even Anthony, the former super-duper-mega Know-it-all about the steppe is saying has related Iranian...bla bla.
What is being said (not) is that the paper will be stating that Shulaveri-Shomu is part of the ethnogenesis of the Yamnaya!.
@davidski- I told, "what you gonna do when the Shulaveri come for you, Bad boy, bad boy whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when Shulaveri come for you?"
And for anyone who hasn`t got it yet, it also solves the mystery of the PIE language and its relation to Anatolian. - It was the Shulaveri all along.
I told you all, 8 years ago.
@Davidski - "That's because most Europeans don't really have CHG ancestry, since the CHG-related ancestry on the steppe wasn't really CHG."
Well then why does qpAdm work so much better and models them with >2 the CHG:
left pops:
Belarusian
Georgia_Kotias.SG
Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG
Italy_Mesolithic.SG
Turkey_N.SG
best coefficients: 0.219 0.281 0.126 0.374
Jackknife mean: 0.218765289 0.281136691 0.126373141 0.373724880
std. errors: 0.031 0.021 0.012 0.031
G25:
Target: Belarusian
Distance: 7.7836% / 0.07783594
42.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
40.2 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
9.0 ITA_Villabruna
8.0 GEO_CHG
@Davidski
"We should eventually collaborate, along with a few other people, on a preprint for bioRxiv that corrects the info coming from those undercover Armenian patriots at you know which lab."
Absolutely, would love to help. Shoot me an email when you are ready to work on it!
@The Rudism I find Lazaridis' estimate more accurate than Koptekin et al 2023 or Clemente et al 2021 showing 20-25% tbh, although Clemente's ADMIX shows 17-20%.
I specifically mentioned that there are multiple studies on this showing more or less the same. Lab worship would be to trust a lab's results when someone can falsify their models using the same outgroups and tools in general and thus prove misuse. Haven't seen that so far, but I've seen plenty of kvetching about results. If you can change that by running some rotating models including the published ones then that's good
@Rich S. Chintalapati notes absence of sinificant exogamy after the initial CWC migrations, and this agrees with their profile remaining the same for centuries. The initial 50% EEF male offspring married 100% steppe wives and likely spread the common R1a lineage putting a stop ot the high haplo diversity in early CWC (Papac thesis 2023). Would explain why they chose a farmer lifestyle that allows for bigger population and resources and thus more wives if the initial 50% EEF 50% steppe population adopted it first.
Could be a CHG-related tendency since the CHG-related ancestry in Yamnaya/CWC is higher in the y chromosome.
@Fcv
You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
@Olympus Mons
There's no evidence that Shulaveri-Shomu gave rise to Yamnaya, or even that Yamnaya has ~20% admixture from anything that can be described as Armenian.
This is impossible.
Olympus Mons... can you recap again your theory about how Shulaveri-Shomu migrated from Anatolia > Egypt > Morocco > Spain and how from there R-P312 spread from Spain to the rest of Europe? Don't think for a minute we've forgotten the embarrassing drivel that you were insisting was correct and yelling down anyone who told you otherwise. Clown.
Which was suspiciously similar to that of Anatoly Klyosov
I have jut checked GVBPK (located close to Narbonne Southern France), which is currently the oldest DF27.
The sample is also in Ana Arzelier and al's study " Neolithic genomic data from southern France showcase intensified interactions with hunter-gatherer communities" recently published. Table S8 row 634
GBVPK is very good coverage: 737295 SNP.
Is there someone interested/kind enough to run the file in order to get the G25 coordinates?
ENA PRJEB50995
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB50995
@gimby20, my take on it would be like follows. My understanding would be Davidski has made every effort to reduce projection bias and G25 is much improved compared to the general best academic standard reference (though how he does this is proprietary). But unfortunately the need to use PCA projection and the effects of distance between real and may still influence the projection and may cause some problems for deep models (where projection is doing more work to position a sample).
If you look at "Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia" (preprint), which has used imputed genomes and no PCA projection using smartpca, there are some variations in relative positions in how their West Eurasia PCA looks compared to what we would calculate with G25 - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2022/05/06/2022.05.04.490594/F1.large.jpg.
For example. E.g. the distance from WHG-modern North-Central Europeans is about 54% of the CHG-WHG distance in the Vahaduo West Eurasia PCA (derived from G25) while it is 63% in the "Stone Age Eurasia" imputed PCA (i.e. modern North-Central Europeans closer to CHG in the imputed ancient genomes PCA).
There seems like a similar degree of compression of EHG towards present day, relative to distance to Neolithic Anatolia. Although we can't test their PCA with Vahaduo to compare it directly. This is more likely for the Euro HG cline to me, which is more distant from present day people, but would in relative terms affect any models they're included in.
Although this is subtle, the changes in overall distance and angles in different dimensions may be enough to shift model proportions a bit, and end up with some distal models that are inconsistent with what we'd expect (e.g. the proximate steppe related ancestor of Belarusians not being only 15% CHGish, rather than more like 43%, which is more in line with what sampled plausible steppe ancestors are actually like.)
Using the formal statistics can have some other problems that it varies depending on choice of ancient samples, not any sense of variation that emerges "neutrally" from a set of samples considered (although PCA+projection is not really neutral to the choice of samples the PCA is based on, it is kind of more so), and is reliant on high quality samples existing who are informative to the population divergences. Projecting on G25 is useful to understand these and to challenge assumptions about what populations are ancestral (e.g. confirmation bias in thinking that "Tocharian" samples would necessarily have Afanasievo ancestry, etc).
Underline that G25 still seems better/more accurate tool by far than academic PCA from published papers (even if G25 doesn't get to zero PCA compression, much, much less compressed) and one of the most useful tools we have. All IMO; only Davidski knows about his PCA methodology for sure and authoritatively.
@Matt
Thanks this is a fair point, but a completely different answer from what Davidski gives, which is claiming the inaccuracy is really due to the fact that the CHG in WSHs is so differentiated from the CHG samples we have that this is *what is causing them to be fitted with less than half the CHG*.
No surprise I didn't get a response back when I proved qpAdm is more accurate.
The question is, is this impossible to fix, or Davidski simply doesn't want to fix it...
@Matt
Following on to the comment I just posted, it's also interesting that the fits for WSHs are the worst of any ancient samples relative to qpAdm.
Do you know of any that are in fact just as poor (again relative to the difference with qpAdm)
@Orpheus
"@Rich S. Chintalapati notes absence of sinificant exogamy after the initial CWC migrations, and this agrees with their profile remaining the same for centuries. The initial 50% EEF male offspring married 100% steppe wives and likely spread the common R1a lineage putting a stop ot the high haplo diversity in early CWC (Papac thesis 2023). Would explain why they chose a farmer lifestyle that allows for bigger population and resources and thus more wives if the initial 50% EEF 50% steppe population adopted it first."
If one looks at the big picture, he sees a progressive dilution of steppe DNA from Yamnaya/Early Corded Ware (and Early Corded Ware was evidently more R1b-L151 than anything else) to Middle and Late Corded Ware to Bell Beaker, Unetice, and onward. That is clearly the product of female exogamy, as Y-DNA replacement in Central and Western Europe outpaced overall replacement. In Iberia, for example, Y-DNA replacement was in excess of 90%, while overall replacement was only about 30%.
Undoubtedly some steppe women accompanied the migration westward into peninsular Europe, but another factor that kept steppe DNA higher than it might otherwise have been was the continued in-migration of steppe males. Fresh male arrivals from the steppe married the mixed steppe/EEF daughters of earlier steppe migrants and kept the levels of steppe DNA higher than they might otherwise have been. Certainly there was more than one pulse or wave of advance of male steppe migrants. It's not as if there was just one shot of steppe migrants, followed by their progressive, unabated absorption into the aboriginal peninsular European population of Neolithic farmers.
I did not mean to say that the only thing going on with the steppe migration into peninsular Europe was female exogamy from the native EEF population into the steppe population, although I think it's pretty obvious that was a big factor.
@Rob
"Which was suspiciously similar to that of Anatoly Klyosov"
As I recall, Klyosov claimed that R1b originated among Tengri-worshipping Turks of Central Asia. There's a web site dedicated to it:
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov/Klyosov2011R1bDNAHistoryEn.htm
I don't know if he has changed his mind. Maybe he has.
@ Rich S
I forget the details, and they're unimportant, but Klyosov also had a north Africa to Iberia and up through Europe leg.
Anyhow, as Rocca said, poor Monsy was completely wrong then, and he remains wrong now.
@gimby20
You're not worth talking to, that's why I don't talk to you. But I did give you the correct reply.
The G25 relies on very specific recent drift to pick out admixture sources and get the correct admixture percentages.
CHG is just not the right source for WSH.
qpAdm also shows that CHG is not the right source for WSH if you use relevant, high quality outgroups.
This has been shown countless times on this blog and even in scientific literature.
Did you read Wang et al? The CHG-related ancestry in Progress, and thus in Yamnaya is different from CHG.
Dumbass.
Davidski,
"You're not worth talking to, that's why I don't talk to you"
that's a convenient excuse, but you've spent years of your life autistically rebutting Indians who spam you with the same hilariously low-effort arguments (regarding OIT or 'debunking' AIT). In fact so much so that other bloggers and scientists have been baffled by your silly compulsive desire to respond to every dumb remark... so no I'm not the dumbass here.
Matt's response made a whole lot more sense than yours. And he did so in a normal polite manner befitting a socially well adjusted person. Everyone can always expect such poor impulse control filth from you. You've been without human companionship for so long you think it's ok to speak to people like this.
And of course, this is why everyone on Anthrogenica has to use qpAdm to model their ancestry if they are Northern European, why is that? The fits are much better than, Matts explanation is far more reasonable than your biased slav-obsessed one.
Also, it makes no sense that the CHG would be eaten up by EHG if like you say its a "CHG-LIKE SOURCE". Why on earth would your G25 have EHG eat up the CHG then?
You are so full of shit it stinks lmao. Your arguments are like those of the Indians. Yea, the CHG in Kotias is not a perfect substitute for the CHG in WSH, but that is not why your PCA suffers its own bias as it concerns EHG affinities to modern Euros (especially Northern Euros). You of course designed it this way, probably 'just to make sure to account for what will probably be the truth in the end' or some other bullshit justification for your PCA to suffer Northern Euro specific biases.
@gimby20
Nothing here will make sense to you because you're intellectually limited.
The advantage of the G25 over qpAdm is that it can pick up very specific links.
But this comes at a cost.
Some ancestry proportions will get eaten up if the reference samples aren't precise enough.
qpAdm will give you more stable ancestry proportions because it relies on formal stats, which don't pick up recent drift very well, but it'll often miss important details.
The important detail here is that CHG is not actually directly relevant to Europeans by and large.
Dumbass.
Hey gimby head, have you asked yourself what is the difference between CHG and the CHG-related ancestry in Progress/Yamnaya?
Yep, it's more basal and more eastern. Now do you understand?
I guess not.
So you're saying your PCA does not suffer projection bias which shifts Northern Euros to EHG?
Matt was wrong? The real reason is in fact not this, but because the CHG-like ancestry is not very CHG, and is in fact more like EHG? Then why not call it EHG-LIKE ancestry and not CHG-like?
"Some ancestry proportions will get eaten up if the reference samples aren't precise enough."
Why is it getting eaten up by EHG then. Why is this CHG-like source pop so close to EHG? And if it is then why not call it EHG-like or at least 'something between EHG-like and CHG-like'.
@gimby20
There are issues with all tests. No test is perfect.
There are issues with qpAdm too. See that's why Lazaridis and Reich were once claiming that Yamnaya was 50% CHG or even Iran_ChL.
Think about how wrong that sounds now.
But the point I'm making is that using more relevant references in the G25 improves the results, and this is actually very useful. More useful than showing a large chunk of CHG in Northern Euros that doesn't really exist strictly speaking.
Dumbass.
qpAdm models Northern Euros with 20-25% CHG, you model them with under 10%. Everyone seems to agree that this is incorrect, apparently you understand that this is a real issue and I'm not just being an idiot for noticing it:
"There are issues with all tests. No test is perfect." What a hilariously conniving and sly way of admitting there is nothing wrong with what I asked, while still pretending there is an argument to be had.
You're the dumbass.
PS: Yamnaya being 50% CHG will always be closer than your moronic models putting them at 8% CHG bahahah. There are probably closer to 40% CHG.
@gimby20
The "EHG + CHG + EEF" model fail even in qpAdm for modern Europeans and Yamnaya/Progress if you use relevant outgroups. If the outgroups are lenient, models pass. According to even Lazaridis et al. 2022, CHG itself isn't a good source for Yamnaya. Now imagine if the CHG isn't a good source even for Yamnaya, how can it be a good source on qpAdm for modern Europeans? qpAdm passes a lot of bad models. If you want qpAdm to be accurate and single out the source closest to the true source, you need to run rotating models.
This deficit changed with the publication of the two Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG) samples from Georgia(7) which showed that a population with similar ancestry (but not identical) to present-day populations of the Caucasus existed there in pre-Neolithic times, adding to the plausibility of the proposed admixture. Thus, while the CHG proved that a “Caucasus”-related ancestry existed in the region long before both the Yamnaya and the present-day people of the Caucasus, it was also not a good source for the Yamnaya (as it was simpler than the admixing population).
@Gimby, seeems like it's got a little heated here, but anyway, as a sort of limited way of providing a limited evidence further for why I think that's the explanation (some slight level of compression of ancients and particularly the Euro_HG cline, still evident in Global_25 at a significant enough level to influence models), here was what I did:
i) First, do a Global_25 model for all modern Europeans samples I had in the datasheet using the set of averages Set A (GEO_CHG_~7700_BCE, RUS_Karelia_HG_~6000_BCE, SRB_Iron_Gates_HG_~6900_BCE, TUR_Barcin_N_~6200_BCE, ISR_Levant_PPNB_~7300_BCE, MAR_Taforalt_~12500_BCE, MNG_North_N_~5500_BCE, ZAF_400BP_~1600_CE).
ii) Run same model for RUS_Afanasievo_Altai_~2800_BCE, to estimate a proportion of "CHG" in Steppe (model output: CHG 38, EHG 56, Barcin 6).
iii) Then run a Global_25 model for modern Europeans with Set B, which is set A plus RUS_Afanasievo_Altai_~2800_BCE and POL_Globular_Amphora_~2800_BCE.
From B) and C), identify an Imputed_Total_CHG under Model 2 (38% Afanasievo + CHG) and compare to the CHG from Model 1.
Results of crossplotting are like this: https://imgur.com/a/ZzOCj4D
The Total_Imputed for "CHG" (Y), via Afanasievoa and direct, is above the direct only (X), which to me implies that probably there is some compression of EHG/WHG closer to the present Europeans so they take more from these populations in the direct model.
That "Total_Imputed" value is still undershooting what a formal model would give, so if you assume that Afanasievo is slightly undershot with CHG in that model due to the same compression, and it's more like 45% "CHG" in them (whether a close side branch or more or less ancestral), then the Total_Imputed values would be more like 18-20% for Northern Europeans, which is a lot closer to the qpAdm models.
The Global_25 seems to me the least compressed published PCA by far and has a lot of really useful unique features that both formal methods and compressed academic seem unable IMO to replicate for detecting close populations in time and space, identifying outliers, etc. But I think maybe it is still not completely slaying the core problem that we get with populations like the Euro_HG, who are not very overlapped to any / highly differentiated to any present-day population (more so than a population like CHG I think). They are still hard for it to project without some compression. Even if there is only 85% of the real distance (net of specific founder effects for samples that may not be relevant to us) present in the PCA rather than 30% or something, it could still be posing some issue for these kinds of ways of modelling.
The following samples are from Poznik et al 2016 (1000 Genomes project)
J2-M241 is just upstream of J-L283. Its found in Bangladeshis, Gujarati, Telugu, Punjabi, Sri Lankan Tamil. I doubt it has a Balkan origin lol.
HG03006 BEB J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
HG03908 BEB J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
NA20885 GIH J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
NA20905 GIH J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
HG03785 ITU J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
HG03969 ITU J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
HG03976 ITU J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
HG04239 ITU J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
HG02690 PJL J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
HG03696 STU J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
HG03998 STU J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
HG04210 STU J2-M241 J2 | J2b2
@Rob
"I forget the details, and they're unimportant, but Klyosov also had a north Africa to Iberia and up through Europe leg.
Anyhow, as Rocca said, poor Monsy was completely wrong then, and he remains wrong now."
You're right. Sorry if it sounded like I was disagreeing with you. I wasn't. I too recall Klyosov bringing some R1b around from the Middle East via the south side of the Mediterranean, where they became Beaker folk and crossed over into Iberia, later to expand eastwards across the Pyrenees. The whole thing was a kind of Rube Goldberg contraption, like the old "Mousetrap" game, but based on modern STRs and an apparent desire to retain an Iberian origin for Beaker.
The Romanian outlier looks more like someone from Iraq in the Early Neolithic than anything else. The coverage is very minimal, but the PPN Iraqis and Shanidar Neolithic look the most like her when other sources are present. I pruned it down by cycling my pleft pops over the right when they were eliminated. Essentially, she should cluster in the Iraqi cluster and could be a clue as to her origins.
full rank
f4info:
f4rank: 2 dof: 0 chisq: 0.000 tail: 1 dofdiff: 22 chisqdiff: 15.207 taildiff: 0.853200021
B:
scale 1.000 1.000
South_Africa_1900-2200BP.SG -0.119 0.018
Cameroon_SMA.SG -0.183 1.551
Mota.SG 0.020 1.601
Kostenki14 -0.093 0.965
MA1.SG -0.440 -0.134
Ust_Ishim.DG 0.255 1.246
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP 1.170 -1.924
West_Siberia_N 1.335 -1.491
EHG 0.438 0.728
Tianyuan -0.003 -0.862
Germany_Mesolithic 0.236 1.047
Natufian 3.687 -0.088
Turkey_Epipaleolithic 0.140 0.779
Iberomaurusian 0.143 -0.395
Levant_PPNB 0.453 0.213
Jomon_HG 0.175 0.199
Boncuklu_PPN -0.588 0.134
China_Amur_LUP 0.987 -1.218
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic 1.090 1.315
HajjiFiruz_N 0.721 -0.635
Mesopotamia_PPN -0.891 1.222
GanjDareh_N 1.130 0.680
CHG.SG 0.558 -0.887
A:
scale 56434.133 122626.776
Iraq_PPN 1.072 1.064
Iraq_Shanidar -0.923 0.931
best coefficients: 0.808 0.192
Jackknife mean: 0.748216235 0.251783765
std. errors: 0.243 0.243
error covariance (* 1000000)
59291 -59291
-59291 59291
summ: Romania_EN_oIran 2 0.853200 0.748 0.252 59291 -59291 59291
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00 0 22 15.207 0.8532 0.808 0.192
01 1 23 15.882 0.860283 1.000 -0.000
10 1 23 39.677 0.0167025 0.000 1.000
best pat: 00 0.8532 - -
best pat: 01 0.860283 chi(nested): 0.675 p-value for nested model: 0.411412
coeffs: 0.808 0.192
@David - "Seems like everyone is misinterpreting those Middle Don forest steppe samples. They don't represent the first stage of the formation of Yamnaya. They're actually a mixture between local hunter-gatherers and a Yamnaya-like population from the steppe just to the south. So it looks like a Yamnaya-like population already existed around 5,300 BCE in the Lower Don."
Don't disagree with any of that. Which Don samples are you referring to though? I was referring to the Volga samples but I do agree that the Lower Don is a pretty likely location for "basal" Indo-European.
@Rob - Sorry for the slow reply, but you mentioned your agreement that there were at least two CHG-rich waves into the Middle Dnieper post Dnieper-Donets culture. Why do these both have to be female-mediated? Doesn't this require a third input then to bring in M269? Simpler to me is a male-mediated or gender-balanced CHG-rich input from the east (ie the Lower Don potentially).
That Lower Don population seems like a candidate for the split of Anatolian from other IE languages too, rather than having to pass through the Balkans without picking up Balkans-like ancestry.
f4info:
f4rank: 1 dof: 20 chisq: 19.109 tail: 0.514748817 dofdiff: 22 chisqdiff: -19.109 taildiff: 1
B:
scale 1.000
South_Africa_1900-2200BP.SG 0.869
Cameroon_SMA.SG 1.145
Mota.SG 1.200
Kostenki14 1.555
MA1.SG 0.008
Ust_Ishim.DG 1.001
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP 0.449
West_Siberia_N 1.054
EHG -0.493
Tianyuan 1.414
Germany_Mesolithic -0.053
Natufian 0.956
Turkey_Epipaleolithic -0.761
Iberomaurusian 0.556
Levant_PPNB -1.234
Jomon_HG 0.815
Boncuklu_PPN -0.847
China_Amur_LUP 2.031
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic -0.348
HajjiFiruz_N -1.075
CHG.SG 0.639
A:
scale 24590.527
Mesopotamia_PPN -0.206
GanjDareh_N 1.399
full rank
f4info:
f4rank: 2 dof: 0 chisq: 0.000 tail: 1 dofdiff: 20 chisqdiff: 19.109 taildiff: 0.514748817
B:
scale 1.000 1.000
South_Africa_1900-2200BP.SG 0.786 0.485
Cameroon_SMA.SG 0.946 0.596
Mota.SG 1.281 0.022
Kostenki14 1.898 -0.354
MA1.SG -0.973 1.530
Ust_Ishim.DG 0.841 0.420
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP -0.366 1.465
West_Siberia_N 0.175 1.812
EHG -0.543 -0.459
Tianyuan 0.878 1.472
Germany_Mesolithic -0.556 0.687
Natufian 1.099 -0.115
Turkey_Epipaleolithic -1.566 0.888
Iberomaurusian -0.167 0.964
Levant_PPNB -1.477 -0.344
Jomon_HG 0.374 0.992
Boncuklu_PPN -1.219 0.086
China_Amur_LUP 1.187 2.222
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic -0.306 -1.009
HajjiFiruz_N -1.420 0.075
CHG.SG 0.194 0.827
A:
scale 25285.669 36001.862
Mesopotamia_PPN 0.148 -1.414
GanjDareh_N 1.406 0.016
best coefficients: 0.872 0.128
Jackknife mean: 0.867642225 0.132357775
std. errors: 0.251 0.251
error covariance (* 1000000)
62884 -62884
-62884 62884
summ: Romania_EN_oIran 2 0.514749 0.868 0.132 62884 -62884 62884
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00 0 20 19.109 0.514749 0.872 0.128
01 1 21 19.411 0.558811 1.000 0.000
10 1 21 38.866 0.0101831 0.000 1.000
@Gaska
Of course I have heard people talking about Yammaya ancestry in western Europe, but my point is that nobody in this comment thread is doing this. You seem to be arguing against points that aren't being made by anyone here.
You're still missing the point with regards to R1b-L51. Its ultimate origin might be from a WHG-related population, since the WSH genotype includes WHG-related ancestry. After all, we see I2-L699 in WSH individuals, too. So evidently, WHG-derived Y-DNA appearing in WSHs is possible. But then again, it might be a lineage from an EHG-related population. This is completely beside the point at hand. The point at hand, which you seem to be refusing to actually address, is that R1b-L51 was introduced to western Europe by individuals from central Europe with WSH ancestry. It's also present in purely-WSH individuals as far east as the Afanasievo culture, and it isn't found in a single sample without clear WSH ancestry.
Yes, R1b-L21, for example, is found mostly in Britain. But the individuals who took it there came from the Netherlands. Their paternal ancestors came from central Europe. Their paternal ancestors were western steppe herders. It's just so blindingly obvious from the clear trail of samples with relevant Y-DNA and their au-DNA profiles and archaeological contexts. The same is true for U152, U106, DF27, etc. They literally all appear in the archaeogenetic record in western Europe alongside WSH ancestry, at times when WSH-derived groups (CWC; BBC from the lower Rhine) are known from archaeological finds to have been expanding into the regions in which they're found.
Just noticed another Neo/Eneolithic Y-hg J from Hulemnitsa culture
buk004 ~ 4000 BC, from Mattila preprint
@Anveṣaṇam
I never said otherwise, but why is the CHG being soaked up by EHG on G25? Can you explain this? Is the "CHG-like" ancestry actually EHG-like? If not then what is going on in G25/Vahaduo?
There is a bias shifting modern Northern Europeans to EHG (at the expense of CHG) on G25. This is causing the CHG to be eaten up by EHG in the Vahaduo G25 admix. Yes or no? It's even happening with EHGs distance to present day Northern Euros at the expense of Anatolian Neolithic....
One must wonder why it ended up being biased in this direction. I think we all know lol.
Are there even any such significant biases across G25 of any ethnic or racial groups that are as significant as this one? If not then why not? And why isn't this being fixed?
@gimby20
Well duh, if the CHG-related ancestry in Europeans is more eastern than CHG then it'll look more like EHG.
@Rich S
Villabruna irrelevant? you are getting funnier and funnier, don't you realize that R1b belongs to a cluster that dominated all of Europe at least since the epigravettian?
You are wrong again, there are P297 samples in the Baltic HGs, you should check the BAM files.
Smyadovo and Aesch are proof of what we have been saying for years, that R1b-M269 would appear in neolithic cultures of old Europe. Have you forgotten when you and your friends used to say that all the men of this lineage would appear buried in kurgans? Ha Ha Ha Ha, it is more and more amusing to listen to your reasoning.
Regarding exogamy, you need to study well the mitochondrial markers, women played a fundamental role in the transmission of steppe ancestry.
@Moesan
I think you do not understand or do not want to understand, I have already told you several times that the only branch of P312 that appears linked to the Franco-Cantabrian region is DF27, we need many more samples from France, Spain and Germany to understand the origin of the other branches of this lineage.
Regarding Afanasievo L51 and P310 in Mongolia, we have already talked several times in this blog, it is the new Kurganist mantra, they desperately try to link M269 with the steppes. Before they used to say "we have L23* and Z2103 in Yamnaya, it is a matter of time before L51 appears in that culture", now they say "we have L51 in Afanasievo and P310 in Mongolia, it is a matter of time before L51 appears in the steppes"- Look, everyone is free to waste his time as he wants, but the longer it takes them to recognize that they are wrong, the harder the fall will be.
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
After having agreed with me that R1b-L754 is a lineage linked to the WHG, now you have to admit that M269 is a lineage linked to the neolithic cultures of old Europe.
Smyadovo-M269 in the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture means a revolution in the history of this marker because it is not only 1,200 prior to the Yamnaya culture, it is also prior to the very existence of PIE and demonstrates that this lineage was not originally linked to the steppes. Until you find M269 in the WSH, that means that the paternal ancestors of P312, L21, U152, DF27 are not WSH but neolithic farmers.
WSH ancestry? what the hell is that?
The important thing about L151 in Bohemia is that those samples have a Narva signal (WHG) incompatible with the steppes, you get it?.
Regarding how that lineage arrived in Western Europe I think your knowledge is very limited, for example, you should read the thesis of Fichera, the dating of R1b-M269 in Belgium is much earlier than the CWC.
By the way it seems that you do not know very well the BB culture in England, the first P312 samples in the islands have little steppe ancestry and certainly do not come from Holland. Later it is true that the Dutch decided to colonize England.but that's another story. There is no L21 in continental Europe so it is very likely that its origin is in the islands and not in Holland, Germany or France. You will never find Df27, U152 and L21 in the same sites neither in the Chalcolithic nor in the Bronze Age (except Df27 & L21 in BA Britania), different domains, different origins, same culture, it is not difficult to understand.
@Gaska
None of the mesolithic and neolithic individuals from Belgium had WSH ancestry and all the mesolithic and neolithic men in Fichera's thesis had y-hg I2. When R-M269 appears they have WSH ancestry. How is that evidence of a local origin for R-M269? Why didn't the R-M269 have only local ancestry like the I2 individuals?
Difference between Yamnaya_RUS_Samara and Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o:I1917
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 0.0314% / 0.03140012 | R7P
59.7 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900__Cov_76.47%
14.5 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0122__BC_4838__Cov_48.69%
8.2 UKR_Meso:I5876__BC_6882__Cov_40.59%
7.4 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0433__BC_4611__Cov_36.94%
5.2 RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001__BC_4280__Cov_71.84%
4.3 HRV_N_Lasinja:I10055__BC_5777__Cov_58.26%
0.7 HUN_Lengyel_LN:I1899__BC_4600__Cov_27.53%
Target: Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o:I1917
Distance: 0.0215% / 0.02153951 | R7P
46.2 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900__Cov_76.47%
28.8 ARM_Aknashen_N:I3931__BC_5908__Cov_22.04%
10.9 HUN_Lengyel_LN:I1899__BC_4600__Cov_27.53%
9.8 UKR_Meso:I5876__BC_6882__Cov_40.59%
3.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0433__BC_4611__Cov_36.94%
1.1 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1945__BC_7850__Cov_20.90%
@The Rudism Considering the evidence from your theory are "two more weeks, trust me bro" and a 2-d pca on a blog while unable to falsify anything from the published papers I guess I'm sticking with the actual studies. You can keep rambling about your fringe theories though
Also why would modern Greeks have 20% or more CHG/Iran? At most you'll find 15-16% as per Allentoft et al 2022, and steppe ancestry would further skew their position compared to people who have virtually none.
@Rich S. Over thousands of years, is my point. The initial haplo dominance in CWC occurs early on.
I wouldn't really use Iberia as an example at the moment due to the obvious lack of continuity between R1b/R1a and early Beakers so far being modeled as CWC rather than Yamnaya. Also Villalba-Mouco et al 2021 (supp) finds steppe in a couple of BA Iberian sites being mediated by females (disproportionate steppe on the X chromosome). The same study also found no mating bias in Beakers confirming Mittnik et al, and Lazaridis & Reich also found in a short paper a couple of years back.
We aren't really disagreeing about CWC, you just make it look like something that took thousands of years happened within a few generations. A couple of threads ago other posters demonstrated how any significant female exogamy on CWC's part would bring steppe down to 25% within a few generations, and how both males and females migrated from the steppe (not to mention some neolithic haplos in steppe-rich males). CWC shifting to a farmer lifetyle would demonstrate this, initial exogamy and adoption of EEF lifestyle leading to dominance and haplo spread among the other pastoralists. After that exogamy isn't required which would show the steppe dna % going back to ~75% (which we see) and most haplogroups goif extinct (haplo diversity going down, which we also see). Later expansion looks even more like typical farmer migration style movement.
@gimby20 From what I've seen G25 consistently overrestimates steppe ancestry in pretty much everyone by at least 5-10% contrary to virtually every study ever. Haven't looked if it messes anything else up
@The Rudism Can't access the image ("not found"), nonetheless that's similar to Clemente et al 2021 who also found no CHG in the best fitting models for Mycenaeans. Better run rotating models (as Anvesanam mentions) with more proximal sources though.
But not sure why you brought up Mycenaeans
@Anvesanam They are arguing that this "Caucasus-related" ancestry is still CHG, just not CHG similar to the CHG found in modern Caucasus which carries additional Anatolian+Levantine. Davidski's argument from what I understand is that the "CHG-related" he's talking about is not even this early pre-Neolithic CHG (still south of the caucasus) but something else.
@Rich S. Isn't Beaker culture found in Iberia at the earliest? An Iberian origin for those who created that culture sounds pretty reasonable, since it's not found anywhere else before Iberia. If they were foreign then it would be reasonable to expect the Beaker culture to originate from elsewhere since significant genetic influence almost always impacts culture.
Correction, Lazaridis places this early CHG ancestry at the north caucasus
"Examining individuals from the steppe (Fig. 3), we observe that in the post–5000 BCE period, Caucasus-related ancestry is added to the previous Eastern hunter-gatherer population, forming the Eneolithic populations at Khvalynsk (9) and Progress-2 (17); this ancestry persisted in the Steppe Maykop population of the 4th millennium BCE (17). However, all of these populations before ~3000 BCE lack any detectible Anatolian/Levantine–related ancestry, contrasting with all contemporaneous ones from the Southern Arc, which have at least some such ancestry at least since the Neolithic (11). In all later periods in the Southern Arc, Caucasus hunter-gatherer–related ancestry is never found by itself but rather is always admixed, to various degrees, with Anatolian/Levantine ancestry. This implies that the proximal source of the Caucasus-related ancestry in the Eneolithic steppe should be sought in an unsampled group that did not experience Anatolian/Levantine–related gene flow until the Eneolithic. Plausibly, this population existed in the North Caucasus, from which Caucasus hunter-gatherer–related, but not Anatolian/Levantine–related, ancestry could have entered the Eneolithic steppe."
@psikh
The M269 samples were found in the chimney (layer4) and are perfectly dated. As you will see they predate the CWC and belong to the SOM culture ergo culturally they are European neolithic farmers.
“Rappelons que c'est au cours des fouilles réalisées entre 1875 et 1877 par Ivan Braconier aidé de Julien Fraipont et Max Lohest que l'on découvrit dans une cheminée de cette grotte les restes d'une sépulture collective-II s'agissait d'un dépôt dans une cheminée verticale de restes d'au moins 9 individus, la plupart adultes, avec une nette prédominance des sujets masculins. II était accompagné d'une vingtaine de fragments de céramiques bien décrits par Fraipont et vraisemblablement attribuables au S.O.M.”
The interesting thing is that we have M269 in a Belgian collective burial (again the association of M269 with this type of burials, like the samples from Switzerland), 300 years before the CWC existed, so if this lineage really has its origin in the steppes, there must have been population movements even before the Yamnaya culture existed. If you are really interested in the origin of its autosomal composition, you can start by checking their mitochondrial markers. And of course someone would have to rethink the linguistic conclusions reached for this marker, since they always appear in collective graves (dolmens, caves), it is hard to believe that if there were no invasions or mass migrations, a few explorers who quickly acculturated were able to impose their native language on the neolithic societies of the western megalithic culture.
AF025 (3.245 BC )-Trou Al’Wesse, neolithic, Belgium-HapY-R-Low coverage
AF023 (3.245 BC)-Trou Al’Wesse, neolithic, Belgium-HapY-R1b1a/1a2-M269
@The Rudism
I'd say they are not, since the fit is 0.02/3
@Orpheus “ Plausibly, this population existed in the North Caucasus, from which Caucasus hunter-gatherer–related, but not Anatolian/Levantine–related, ancestry could have entered the Eneolithic steppe."
According to Lazaridis, Yamnaya came from Maykop.
@vAsiSTha
You're funny, they belong to branches under J2b-Z2449 which in turn is a tertiary descendant of Z2432 there is no basal living M241. No one claims Z2449 to be of Balkan origin, learn some uniparental analysis before talking about stuff you know nothing about. They are not upstream of J2b-L283.
The tertiary ancestral branch meaning J2b-Z1825 which would account as an ancestor for every haplogroup under it will be split by a ~10000 year old Mesolithic sample from Kotias Klde (Allentoft/Willerslev) as mentioned by me and Sam before.
The oldest J2b-L283 samples to date are from the Western Balkans and there is more on the way. J2b-L283 has a European distribution. Now the location in Europe before the Western Balkans meaning ECA/MCA will be seen in the future too.
@Rob
"@ GamerzJ
Why are you even including Yamnaya for a 5500 bc individual ?"
Makes as much sense as using the Nalchik North Caucasian samples from the Middle Bronze Age in order to model female Neolithic "outliers" from Western Bulgaria and Romania.
@Gaska
You have been shot down in flames numerous times over every single item you cite as evidence for your point of view, such as it is, but then you lay low, wait a few days, or maybe a week or two, and pull out the same things once again, maybe hoping some newbies have come along who might fall for your schtick.
It's tiring to answer you again and again, especially since most of what you say is tainted by your essential dishonesty and apparently by no insignificant mental malady.
So, I guess that's it. Talk to yourself. You know you're wrong, and so does everyone else.
@Orpheus
"Isn't Beaker culture found in Iberia at the earliest? An Iberian origin for those who created that culture sounds pretty reasonable, since it's not found anywhere else before Iberia. If they were foreign then it would be reasonable to expect the Beaker culture to originate from elsewhere since significant genetic influence almost always impacts culture."
That's a matter of controversy. Have you read Christian Jeunesse's paper, "The dogma of the Iberian origin of the Bell Beaker: attempting its deconstruction"? Here's a link:
https://www.academia.edu/11325848/The_dogma_of_the_Iberian_origin_of_the_Bell_Beaker_attempting_its_deconstruction
The earliest "Beaker" in Iberia is not fully fledged Beaker. The burials are collective, and the bodies in them are of the Mediterranean, Neolithic farmer type, with small, gracile skeletons. It isn't until after ~2500 BC or 2400 BC that true Beaker single burials appear in Iberia, along with men with robust skeletons, steppe autosomal DNA and Y-DNA R1b-P312.
19th and early 20th century researchers found Beaker in Iberia. Not really understanding what it was or where it really came from, they worked backwards in Iberia, looking for - and conveniently finding - local sources, however tenuous, and however much those sources conflicted with Beaker finds of the mid to late 3rd millennium BC both in Iberia and elsewhere. How they missed the resemblance of true Beaker to Corded Ware is baffling.
Meanwhile, Dutch researchers in the mid-20th century developed a much more sensible model, the so-called "Dutch Model", that derived Beaker from Single Grave Corded Ware in the Netherlands and NW Germany. To begin with, it was based on the pretty obvious similarity between the bell beaker and the All-Over-Ornamented (AOO) and All-Over-Corded (AOC) beakers of Single Grave Corded Ware. One can easily see how the AOO and AOC beakers developed into the maritime beaker of the Bell Beaker people. Unlike the Iberian Model, the Dutch Model also recognized the pretty strong resemblance of Beaker burial rites to those of Single Grave Corded Ware.
The Dutch Model always made more sense than the Iberian Model, and now it is strongly supported by the ancient DNA evidence.
CHG ancestry in Europeans looks like CHG+Hotu, probably the type of pop that originally made it to the Steppe from somewhere in modern-day Azerbaijan perhaps.
There are two ways one can go about this apparently, one is an earlier split from CHG, so less drifted and closer to Hotu or alternatively, recent admixture from the east, this is behind the argument for Central Asian ANE-rich foragers moving in to eventually form Khvalanysk.
@ Orphues
“Isn't Beaker culture found in Iberia at the earliest? An Iberian origin for those who created that culture sounds pretty reasonable, since it's not found anywhere else before Iberia. ”
No it’s not. It developed north of the Pyrenees
Both genetics papers and most, but not all, archaeologists got it wrong
In fact the genetics clearly shows a population intrusion into Iberia c. 2500 BC
@psikh
You're right about the Fichera Thesis, which found two distinct clusters in its Neolithic Belgian remains, which were labeled Neolithic-A and Neolithic-B. The Neolithic-B group included all of the R1b-M269 individuals. To quote the paper's abstract, testing of Neolithic-B "revealed admixture from a Pontic-Caspian Steppe related population, further indicated by the presence of Y-chromosome R1b-M269."
Neolithic-A, as you mentioned, had no R1b-M269 and no steppe DNA.
As for radiocarbon dating, as far as I can tell, the individual skeletons were not subjected to radiocarbon dating. Instead, as Table 3 on page 54 shows, stratigraphic dating of the various burial levels was conducted, with radiocarbon date ranges assigned to the levels, the "Chimney Burial" being the most recent.
@The Rudism
"Multiple people explained the reason to you"
Did you conveniently miss Matt's very reasonable explanation for why this is the case:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/02/dear-david-nick-iosiflet-me-tell-you.html?showComment=1677068417551#c1494667812697651125
@gimby20
When used properly, the G25 and qpAdm show very similar results in models that are highly realistic.
This is especially true when one also checks the standard errors in qpAdm.
Abstract, unrealistic models are a different matter.
Such models try to divide complex modern ancestry into a few broad, distal categories, like CHG and so on, and are never truly correct. So I'm not overly bothered if the G25 is way off from qpAdm in these cases.
You dumbass.
@Orpheus
Of course, the BBC originated in Iberia, the dating of the Tagus Estuary, Extremadura and the Castilian plateau are much older than the Dutch ones. It is another desperate attempt to exclude Iberia from the debate, Rich and Rob would be able to say that the BBC originated on Mars before admitting the truth. It usually happens when instead of thinking freely, you try to prove a dogma of faith.
Regarding Fichera thesis, radiocarbon dates obtained from the chimney burials were younger (~5,200 cal BP) than the dates obtained from the terrace (spanning between 10,500 and 5,600 cal BP) possibly reflecting a change in the function of the site, with the terrace used for herding activity and the burial at the back of the cave for funerary purpose
Section of the site-Chimney-5th metatarsal-Lab number 319270 (5260-4.980 cal BP>3.310-3.030 cal BC) and Lab number 319269 (5.310-5.080 cal BP>3.360-3.130 cal BC)
i.e. M269 in Belgium 300 years before the CWC existed, no wonder, there is also M269 in Bulgaria (4.500 BC) and Spain (3.450 BC). Seine Oise Marne culture (SOM) is contemporary of Vlaardingen and TRB-
@ Gaska
BB ceramics derive from Corded ware ceramics, and they appear 200 years after CWC appears in the rhine region
To top it all off, the male buried with the allegedly “Iberian” Palmella point had Central European origins lol
You & Cardoso need to find a way to deal with reality
@ Rudism
As long as he doesn’t ask me to email them
Yeah, there are also people who believe that pigs fly, that Putin is a saint and that the IE homeland is in the Balkans. The damage is already done because the bullshitter does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly.
Off topic - No DNA mentioned
Prehistoric Monument Builders’ Homes Found in France
https://www.archaeology.org/news/11251-230223-france-prehistoric-megaliths
Ard, V., Onfray, M., Aoustin, D., Bouchet, É, Bruniaux, G., Dandurand, G., . . . Vitté, H. (2023). The emergence of monumental architecture in Atlantic Europe: A fortified fifth-millennium BC enclosure in western France. Antiquity, 97(391), 50-69. doi:10.15184/aqy.2022.169
Abstract
“ The earliest monumentality in Western Europe is associated with megalithic structures, but where did the builders of these monuments live? Here, the authors focus on west-central France, one of the earliest centres of megalithic building in Atlantic Europe, commencing in the mid fifth millennium BC. They report on an enclosure at Le Peu (Charente), dated to the Middle Neolithic (c. 4400 BC), and defined by a ditch with two ‘crab claw’ entrances and a double timber palisade flanked by two timber structures—possibly defensive bastions. Inside, timber buildings—currently the earliest known in the region—were possibly home to the builders of the nearby Tusson long mounds.”
@ Gaska
I’m an objective genius .
You on the other hand are a dopey peasant who does not wish to see basic facts in front of his eyes and therefore constructed an entire platform of make-believe for himself
Do you really think a moron like you understands the greater complexities of life ? So spare us your opportunistic virtue-signalling
Ha ha Ha, you're worse than Archie, I'm beginning to think that participating in these debates affects mental health.
If you're going to feel better, we'll accept that pigs fly and palmela spearheads were invented in the Balkans or Bohemia.
@Gaska “ Yeah, there are also people who believe that pigs fly, that Putin is a saint and that the IE homeland is in the Balkans. The damage is already done because the bullshitter does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly.”
You, Lazaridis and Vasistha should conduct a conference call - and try to convince each other: Lazaridis thinks that the IE homeland is in Armenia, Vasistha think India and you think it’s located in the glorious Basque region. It would be interesting
When one thinks about it more deeply, we realize that all genetic components involved in the ethnogenesis of modern European-American aDNA were from a circumference of the Black Sea shores: WHG are from the Balkan (Villabruna cluster), ANF-Barcin are from Northwestern Anatolia, south of the Black Sea, in proximity to today’s Istanbul, and our WSH ancestors, whose contributions to both our genetic makeup and particularly to our culture, language and lifestyle heritage is the largest - were created north of the Pontus Lake (Black Sea).
It’s amazing that I wasn’t paying much attention to it until now.
@Andrzejewski
You better stick to discussing your phenotypes, that is all you are good for. India is not in contention for homeland, but it is still ahead in pecking order of probability than the steppe fishermen and hunter gatherers.
As it stands, Armenia and SC Asia/Iran are the best candidates for PIE homeland, in that order.
As I mentioned before, the skeletons in the Fichera thesis were not subjected to radiocarbon dating, so there is no evidence at all that there was "M269 in Belgium 300 years before the CWC existed". Radiocarbon dating was conducted on items in burial strata to get rough age ranges of the levels (see Table 3 on page 54).
All of the R1b-M269 individuals belonged to Fichera's Neolithic-B group and had steppe DNA. The Neolithic-A group comprised the EEF bunch, with no R1b-M269 and no steppe DNA.
It's the usual scenario. Hard to imagine anyone citing Fichera to claim that R1b-M269 is anything other than of steppe pastoralist IE origin, but desperation is the mother of a lot of oddities. When you've got nothing, you make wind pudding.
@Andrzejewski
Unlike Lazaridis and Vasistha my mother tongue is not Indo-European, so the last thing I would advocate in my life is for the Indo-European homeland to be in the Basque Country. In fact, I don't give a damn about its origin, I just enjoy criticizing the moronic stuff that the BBC & P312 spoke an IE language. The funniest thing is that if Lazaridis or Vasistha were right, the only authentically European language spoken today would be Euzkera. That would be unbearable for you, wouldn't it?
It's understandible why some people think PIE might come from some southern arc, esp with the Media attention deluging by some parties eagerly propounding their view.
I foresaw the problem with Anatolia years ago and was sympathetic to a more 'multiregional model' for PIE. But that's just too difficult to piece together
For Gaska, ancient Europe was a Basque land, and hence in his self-brainwashed ideological world, PIE came from western Asia and imposed their language, whilst the Baque region resisted, and enjoyed continuity since the Aurginacian.
But if he faces reality - that the Basque region was home to Y-hg C1a, not even I2a, yet alone R1b-M269, his entire make-believe world will crash, and that's dangerous for the delusional.
@Gaska “ The funniest thing is that if Lazaridis or Vasistha were right, the only authentically European language spoken today would be Euzkera. That would be unbearable for you, wouldn't it?”
The BBC spoke an IE language stemming from SGC. Not sure how come SGC was preeminently R1b if its cradle, CWC, was overwhelmingly R1a. Just know that Etruscans were from Proto-Villanova (Urmheit) but they must’ve absorbed non-IE speakers and their descendants became non-IE speakers as a result. The same mechanism played out in Eusketa as well, where WSH assimilated into natives. The Basques are those Spaniards who stopped admixing with other invaders *post Iron Age* era, namely with Romans, Visigoths, Moors, Jews, etc.
Most likely, Euskera is similar to the tongue spoken by GAC, both seem to be a Cardial Pottery ANF with lots of WHG substrate.
If you’re looking for a truly, genuinely original European language, look up the Proto-Laplandic substrate in Sami (WHG?!) or non-IE non-Uralic toponyms and hydronyms in the East Baltic.
The ORIGINAL
@Vasistha “As it stands, Armenia and SC Asia/Iran are the best candidates for PIE homeland, in that order.”
Have you figured out whether Nihali or Burusaski are from Iran_N or Iran_HG, where did Dravidian languages originate (Iran migrants/Elamite/BMAC v. Onge-related distal AASI forager natives), and who the heck are the Kusunda in Nepal?
5 years ago, when @Rob came up with his theory of IE origins in forest zone plus Romania due to interactions between WSH and agriculturalists, i was doubtful but recently it seems like it has sort of garnered a mainstream appeal and i tend to appreciate the considerable impact that GAC, CTC and other ANF societies in Eastern Central Europe exerted on the ethnogenesis of CWC, Yamnaya and Sredny.
@Andrzejewski
Are you still not aware of this paper showing R1b-L51 in early Corded Ware samples that look like they're straight from the steppe?
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/08/r1a-vs-r1b-in-third-millennium-bce.html
@Davidski
Here's something you wrote at that I think hits the nail right on the head (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/08/r1a-vs-r1b-in-third-millennium-bce.html):
"Right, so even though the CWC was clearly a community of closely related groups, there must have been some competition between its different clans. And since these clans were highly patriarchal and patrilineal, this competition probably led to different paternal lineages dominating different parts of the CWC horizon, with M417 becoming especially common in the east and L51 in the west."
My own speculation, which I think is currently supported by the genetic and archaeological evidence, is that the first, earliest wave of Corded Ware into peninsular Europe was mostly R1b-L51. That's what it looks like from the earliest Bohemian CW remains analyzed in Papac et al anyway.
The difficulty in understanding what happened next arose from the misfortune that befell the archaeological community when the moniker "Bell Beaker" was misapplied to what was really just a western variant of Corded Ware. As a consequence, the whole western half of Corded Ware came to be treated as something entirely different. What's worse - due to the outsized influence of some 19th and early 20th century Spanish archaeological luminaries - its origin story was mistakenly attributed to Iberia.
In other words, the early Corded Ware that moved farthest west morphed into Single Grave Corded Ware, the largest part of which, thanks to some relatively minor changes in drinking beakers, burial orientation, and an increased emphasis on archery, came to be called Bell Beaker. Under the guise of Bell Beaker, westernmost Corded Ware moved farther west into what are now Britain, Ireland, France, Italy, and Iberia.
The Dutch scholars of the mid-20th century tried to tell us this with their Dutch Model. The ancient DNA revolution has vindicated them.
@Gaska, if you are using Lazaridis to prove Bell Beaker spoke Basque, then you are once again embarrassing yourself. Let's see exactly what Lazaridis himself says:
Iosif Lazaridis @iosif_lazaridis - Aug 25
And 99% of Indo-European speakers stem from Corded Ware ancestors. It
is only three small groups: Greeks, Armenians, Albanians who go up to the
Yamnaya not via Coreded Ware intermediaries. Many others were wiped out
linguisitically, e.g. Tocharians and most Paleo-Balkan speakers.
https://i.postimg.cc/FRy5Vw73/2022-11-16-19-50-15.jpg
@Rob
"The problem is that the Dutch model isn’t entirely correct either, because it focussed on pottery typology
The trifurcation of P312 clans probably occurred nearer to SW Germany & Switzerland, where we see the first retialistic reuse of Dolmens, and adaptation of Artenac-inspired arrow symbology"
Time will tell.
Nobody in the 1950s was entirely right, but those Dutchmen came close. Their beaker typology is pretty convincing, and the similarity between Corded Ware and Beaker burial rites make it hard to see how to tell the two apart, since much of what we know of them comes from their burials.
There were already parts of CW that emphasized archery before Beaker ever appeared.
@andrze
"Have you figured out whether Nihali or Burusaski are from Iran_N or Iran_HG, where did Dravidian languages originate (Iran migrants/Elamite/BMAC v. Onge-related distal AASI forager natives), and who the heck are the Kusunda in Nepal?"
Correlating languages to some specific distal component does not work, especially for remnants of paleo languages in isolated mountain folk or forest dwellers. Half of the languages of the Americas are language isolates, even though all native Americans descend from ultimately the same source.
Dravidian languages quite clearly originated in the Deccan plateau of South India, as is clear from the specific geographical, climate, flora etc of the proto-Dravidian language.
"Southworth [8, p. 245] connects Proto-Dravidian with the
Southern Neolithic complex, which first appeared in the present Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary districts of Karnataka, and Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh around 4500 years ago" (from Kolipakam et al 2018).
FYI, Eric P Hamp (2012) put Burushaski as a sister clade of Indo-Anatolian, not saying that I agree with it since 10 linguists propose 10 different theories.
"Noteworthy is Hamp’s addition of Burushaski as an assured sibling of Indo-Hittite (the evidence for shared laryngeals between Burushaski and I-H being particularly significant),though he provides no hyperonym for the siblings."
The question that you should answer is why 20% steppe in Burusho did not change their language while it ended up obliterating the languages of everyone else in India according to you.
@Rocca
I don't think quoting Lazaridis is currently a good idea except to reassure your sheep in anthrogenica. The Kurganist camp is more and more divided, while Max Planck has debunked Yamnaya because the Bohemia-CWC’s Narva signal, some Harvardians with Lazaridis and Reich at the forefront have placed the origin of IE in the southern arc and try to keep Yamnaya alive by linking it to the rest of the IE branches. On the other hand, it seems that some people have opted for the forest-steppe Sredni Stog solution trying to prove that Yamnaya existed as such 1,000 years earlier than previously thought. You Kurganists are magic, as the years go by, you improvise solutions with increasingly inconsistent evidence, the problem is that you believe this nonsense.
We keep saying the same as years ago, remember why you banned me in anthrogenica?-There is no L51 in Yamnaya, Yamnaya migrations did not reach western Europe, M269 will appear in European neolithic sites, P312 is western, Df27 is Franco-Cantabrian, the BB culture originated in Iberia, there were migrations originating in the Iberian BB culture that reached other regions of Europe. Unlike you, we have not needed magic to prove that we were right. In addition, the genetic continuity between the BB culture and the Iron Age Iberian, Etruscan and Sicilian cultures has also been demonstrated. All the descendants of P312 in those regions spoke NON-Indo-European languages (You have Df27 both in Iberia-100%, in Etruria and Sicily) and yet the Mycenaeans and Anatolians are J2a, J2b, G2a, J1, T L, etc, any unbiased observer would link P312 with Non-IE languages and IE languages with other male lineages
And you want us to take this comment from Lazaridis into consideration? Linking the Mycenaeans to the Yamnaya culture and yet unlinking Anatolia from the steppes is one of the funniest scientific arguments I've ever heard. Poor Iosif, he is a good man and I do not doubt his good intentions, but the longer he takes to admit that he was wrong, the harder the fall will be.
@Rich S
Deal with it. There are M269 in Bulgaria, Belgium and Spain before the Yamnaya or the CWC culture existed and you still haven't found this marker in the steppes. Don't you think it's funny?
Hei Rob how are you doing in treatment? Be careful you may end up like Archie
@Andrei
Don't worry, if you're going to be happier we'll accept that pigs fly and that the BBC spoke an IE language. After all, we've already accepted worse things to reassure Rob.
@ RichS
Agree mate. Looking forward to discussing more. Dont want to digress too much on the Yamnaya thread
@ gaska - at least try to invent your own jokes.
@Rich S. Will check it out, although I was talking about the general culture. Lifestyle, religion, economy etc.
@Rob I'm talking about culture only, got any papers to recommend? E.g. wrt pottery
Population movements have been known for a while afaik and aren't contested
@Gaska Likewise, are there any papers analyzing the bulk of the culture?
@The Rudism Embarassing. My position isn't about the origin of the elevated CHG/Iran-like (and PPN-like in MBA/LBA) ancestry in BA Greece but the timeline it entered, coinciding with cultural, religious, linguistic etc changes (and some haplos). I don't give the slightet fuck if it came straight outta Neolithic Iran unadmixed (it didn't) or from Paleolithic Madagascar or Bronze Age Guatemala or anywhere else. Your IQ is so low that you can't even understand what I'm saying and you think I'm talking about some kind of authority bias from Harvard's lab and about the CHG they bring up (for Yamnaya). You mixed up your own arguments in your head you fucking moron, you're arguing against an argument which doesn't even exist.
Just to put into perspective how much energy you're wasted over literally nothing, consider this: I'm in agreement with what you say and what you quotes from Lazaridis' paper, which is also not in disagreement with any other studies. Do you now realize that this is not what I'm talking about?
@andrze said: "Have you figured out whether Nihali or Burusaski are from Iran_N or Iran_HG, where did Dravidian languages originate (Iran migrants/Elamite/BMAC v. Onge-related distal AASI forager natives), and who the heck are the Kusunda in Nepal?"
@Vasistha said: "Dravidian languages quite clearly originated in the Deccan plateau of South India, as is clear from the specific geographical, climate, flora etc of the proto-Dravidian language. "Southworth [8, p. 245] connects Proto-Dravidian with the Southern Neolithic complex, which first appeared in the present Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary districts of Karnataka, and Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh around 4500 years ago" (from Kolipakam et al 2018)."
..
Dravidians (Telugu and Tamil) are of South Asian and Eastern European origin
M.Silva 2017, A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals”
https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0936-9, Fig.3
1)In autosomal DNA, Dravidians are approximately 34 percent descended from European parents and 66 percent from South Asian parents.
2)In maternal mtDNA, they are mainly, about 82 percent, descendants of local South Asian mothers; 17 per cent from Europe and at most one per cent from East Asia.
3)In the paternal Y-DNA, 70% of fathers come from Europe and 30% from South Asia.
It should be known that, as in the practices of the Indo-Europeans, the Dravidians were definitely dominated by patriarchy, patrilocality and patrilinearity. This proves their Indo-European steppe origin, but in a separate formation and language. They were probably people of the pastoral Steppe_EMBA culture, which is slightly earlier than the Indo-European Steppe_MLBA (see AK Pathak 2018, The genetic ancestry of modern Indus Valley populations from Northwest India). And this is how the Dravidians are perceived by many authors.
@Andrzejewski WSH were extinct by then, I'm assuming you mean some 50%-ish WSH foreigners admixing with locals in Iberia.
@Richard Rocca Theoretically BB could've spoken non-IE if they originated in Iberia culturally. Pretty sure that's where Gaska is coming from hence him pointing out BB-descending populations who didn't speak IE.
@Gaska Theoretically Sredny could've spoken basal IE even if they weren't Yamnaya genetically. Language could've been transferred.
@Gaska
"Deal with it. There are M269 in Bulgaria, Belgium and Spain before the Yamnaya or the CWC culture existed and you still haven't found this marker in the steppes. Don't you think it's funny?"
1. "M269 in Bulgaria" - Smyadovo again, in eastern Bulgaria, not far from the west coast of the Black Sea, and not far from the Pontic steppe. As you well know, he had steppe DNA and was dated to the period in which Gimbutas (more often right than wrong) said Kurgan Wave 1 occurred.
2. "Belgium" - Nope. Wrong. All the R1b-M269 remains were in Fichera's Neolithic-B cluster and had steppe DNA. None of them were directly radiocarbon dated. Only some material from the various strata were dated so that the strata could be assigned rough dates. There is no way Fichera's Neolithic-B cluster predates the 3rd millennium BC.
3. Spain - That's just false. There was no R1b-M269 in Iberia before about 2500 BC. It arrived there with Beaker in the form of R1b-P312, mostly R1b-DF27. Iberia has been subjected to a lot of ancient DNA testing - perhaps more than anyplace else in peninsular Europe - and still no R1b-M269 has been found there from before about 2500 BC. If anyplace can claim the title of terra cognita, Iberia is it.
4. "[S]till haven't found this marker [M269] in the steppes" - Of course, that's ridiculous, but I realize you meant R1b-L51, not M269. R1b-L51 has been found in at least two samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture at the eastern end of the Eurasian steppe and, in terms of autosomal DNA, virtually identical to Yamnaya (see Wang et al 2020 and Kumar et al 2022). I am certain more R1b-L51 will be found (has been found) in ancient remains from the steppe/forest steppe. Just wait and see. Anyone other than you would realize what those two R1b-L51 Afanasievo samples mean, but for some odd reason you don't - or refuse to.
5. "Don't you think it's funny?" - I think it's funny, in a sad, pathetic sort of way, that every example you claim for your point of view has steppe DNA. Even after the accumulation of thousands of ancient samples from peninsular Europe from the Neolithic and before, you still cannot find anything that even comes close to making your case. In the meantime, you ignore the ponderous and growing weight of ancient evidence that shows that R1b-L51 originated among steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans.
@ Orpheus
Most of the literature about BB origins is a mess and needs a massive re-work.
There are two major problems curently -
firstly, Maritime beaker never originated in Iberia, it has no precursors there at all and clearly derives from Corded / AOC styles which were present in entral / northwestern Europe 200 years before any early site in Iberia. Before the BB era, SW Europe was a heterogenous checker-board of competing social groups, and no vector existed for a unifying ceramic style other than CWC in the north.
Secondly is the under-stated genetic impact in Iberia, which is not the soft 40% stated in papers, but more like 60% at a population level, and complete at a structural/ cultural one.
Hence we have a situation where non-IE iron AGe Iberias do in a large way descend from steppe-derived Beaker folk, but the question becomes increasingly sociolinguistic rather than genetic.
@Rob
"Most of the literature about BB origins is a mess and needs a massive re-work.
There are two major problems curently -
firstly, Maritime beaker never originated in Iberia, it has no precursors there at all and clearly derives from Corded / AOC styles which were present in entral / northwestern Europe 200 years before any early site in Iberia. Before the BB era, SW Europe was a heterogenous checker-board of competing social groups, and no vector existed for a unifying ceramic style other than CWC in the north.
Secondly is the under-stated genetic impact in Iberia, which is not the soft 40% stated in papers, but more like 60% at a population level, and complete at a structural/ cultural one.
Hence we have a situation where non-IE iron AGe Iberias do in a large way descend from steppe-derived Beaker folk, but the question becomes increasingly sociolinguistic rather than genetic."
Man, that was well said! Wish I had said it, but I definitely agree.
@Rob Went through the Arc paper's xl files, the oldest dated Beakers there (Spain, France, Portugal) all of them have 0% (0,000%) steppe. Are there any other old samples elsewhere or perhaps some different analysis on them?
To an outsider in the topic it looks like Beaker culture was developed in two or more stages, an initial Iberian one and then added elements from western CWC who would be 50% steppe at that point, so ~50% admixture to get a 25% and Beaker elements who would also be more likely to exist in more northern areas aside from Iberia. Is there any literature on something like that?
@Orpheus
Olalde et al showed that Beaker had little or no Iberian Neolithic admixture, so it wasn't the product of some sort of Iberian original mixing with western Corded Ware.
@ Orpheus
Many -but not all - of those ''non-steppe Iberian Beakers'' had no associated Beaker artefacts So they were simply regular Iberian Chalcolithic individuals
@Orpheus
Don't pay too much attention to Rob and Rich, they are sick with kurganitis and it affects their understanding. The first deposit of the BB culture was discovered in Madrid (Spain) in 1894. Since then Spanish and Portuguese archaeologists have discovered thousands of sites and written thousands of papers on the subject. For us there is no doubt about the Iberian origin of this culture and so do the great majority of European archaeologists. The only style common to all Europe is the maritime-international style and no one doubts its origin in Iberia (except Rob, who is an objective genious and Rich who simply does not know that this style exists). This is not the time and place to discuss about this culture if you want I can send you many interesting papers.
Don't listen to Rob, he has some interesting ideas but has gone into a self-destructive behavior, it is not a problem of genetic replacement in Iberia, most of western Europe and the Mediterranean is in the same situation. Regarding the BB culture language, the only way we have to try to find out the language spoken by prehistoric cultures is to genetically analyze cultures of which we are sure that they spoke a certain language. Well, the NON-IE Iberians were overwhelmingly Df27 (100% M269) & the NON-IE Etruscans are 70% R1b-M269 (5.55% DF27)-There is also DF27 in the Sicans of Sicily and in the Iberians north of the Pyrenees (Occitania) who did not speak IE at the arrival of the Romans. Ergo P312=NON-Indoeuropean languages.
You have Iberia, Etruria, Occitania, Aquitaine and Sicily overwhelmingly R1b-P312 and speaking non-Indo-European languages. You will hear all kinds of Kurganist explanations "P312 men changed their native IE language to that of their Iberian women", or "simply adopted the language of the G2a Etruscan men who survived the conquest", but the explanation is much simpler, there is genetic continuity demonstrated by male lineage since the chalcolithic ergo neither P312 nor the BB Culture spoke IE
@Rich S
Denying the evidence will never cure you, there is M269 in Bulgaria, Belgium and Spain before Yamnaya and the CWC existed, no matter how many times you deny it. Your knowledge of European prehistory is very limited, perhaps you should devote yourself to studying the Indians of the prairies.
@Gaska
"there is M269 in (..) Belgium (..) before Yamnaya and the CWC existed"
Which Belgium sample is that?
@epoch
He is talking about the Neolithic-B group in the Fichera thesis, "Archaeogenetics of Western Europe: the transition from the Mesolithic
to the Neolithic". Five of the six males in Neolithic-B were R1b-M269. With the sixth one, AF025, the coverage was low, so they could only call him for Y-DNA haplogroup R. All of the individuals in the Neolithic-B group had steppe DNA.
I made an error earlier when I said only material in the various strata had been subjected to radiocarbon dating. Actually two of the sets of Neolithic-B remains, AF007 and AF017, were radiocarbon dated to 4,828-4,626 cal BP and 1,929-1,827 cal BP respectively.
Even so, that places the older of the two, AF007, at 2828-2626 BC, so NOT older than either CWC or Yamnaya.
Of course, Gaska keeps referring to the sample from Smyadovo, Bulgaria, but he had steppe DNA and was found in eastern Bulgaria not far from the Pontic steppe.
I'm not sure which sample from Spain he is claiming was R1b-M269 and older than Yamnaya or CWC. I'm guessing he is talking about that hoary old chestnut, ATP3, which was a really bad sample and was certainly not R1b-M269. If ATP3 really were R1b-M269 (he wasn't), then some more M269 should have turned up in Spain by now predating the arrival of Beaker ~2500 BC, but it hasn't. ATP3 was hashed and rehashed years ago. As I recall, it was Genetiker who claimed ATP3 was R1b-M269. Quite a few other guys looked at it back then and said that wasn't a good call and that ATP3 was just a really degraded sample. The authors of the paper ATP3 appeared in did not call his Y-DNA haplogroup. As I recall, all the other male samples found with ATP3 belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup I2a.
Some focus too much on what cups ancient people did or didn't use. Cups don't speak languages nor do they spread genes. Those people didn't call themselves "Corded Ware" or "Bell Beaker". We made up those names in retrospect. These artefacts are just there to supplement our understanding, not become a holy grail (literally).
These populations we call "Corded Ware" or "Bell Beaker" are not one cohesive, homogenous group of people. They are a mixture of steppe people and EEFs. These are broad archeological horizons where local EEFs mixed with R1a, R1b, etc... carriers. That's what Central Europe was back then: a crossroads of steppe people and EEFs. You see this even in cultures like Vucedol, where you have both pure EEFs and almost fully steppe people.
Most of the Central European CW/BB are just migrants from the steppe, but again not 1 tight-knit group. The Earliest CW were the ancestors of Italo-Celts carrying largely R1b-L51 and linguistic proof shows this, since they are the most archaic branch. These people later moved into the Central European "Bell Beaker" horizon.
Then afterwards the largely Germanic R1b/R1a and Balto-Slavic R1a migrated into the CW horizon bringing a different flavour of IE. Linguistically, Germanic/Balto-Slavic shared some similarities with Italo-Celtic, but are closer to Albanian, Armenian and Greek. I wonder if IBD also corroborates this.
@Davidski
Have you heard about this yet? https://books.google.ca/books?id=VSysEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
Will be interesting to see if Kristansen goes against or along with Harvard's ideas.
Gaska, as usual, your mental state only allows you to believe what you want to believe. I am not now, nor have ever been an admin of any website. But then again, you keep throwing out ATP3 and that the Belgian sample is older than Corded Ware (when there are others already in Bohemian Corded Ware that are older. Good luck with your delusions.
@ Romulus
Kloekhurst’s chapter discusses Anatolian IE
I’m not sure if he touches on genetics, but he favours a Balkan route
@Rich
I know that your illness prevents you from accepting reality but you have M269 in Belgium in a SOM culture site.
Stratigraphic information was available only for the samples from Trou Al’Wesse: two individuals, AF023 and AF025, were found in the deepest layer of the chimney burial (4), AF020 was found in layer 3 and AF017 in layer 2 (Figure 15 and Table 4). Radiocarbon dates obtained from the chimney burials were younger (~5,200 cal BP) than the dates obtained from the terrace (spanning between 10,500 and 5,600 cal BP) possibly reflecting a change in the function of the site, with the terrace used for herding activity and the burial at the back of the cave for funerary purpose-Section of the site-Chimney-5th metatarsal-Lab number 319270 (5260-4.980 cal BP>3.310-3.030 cal BC) and Lab number 319269 (5.310-5.080 cal BP>3.360-3.130 cal BC) i.e. M269 in Belgium 300 years before the CWC
The dating of these samples from layer 4 of the chimney are also in this paper. Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in Belgium and Luxembourg-Christopher Meiklejohn
AF025 (3.245 BC)-Trou Al’Wesse, neolithic, Belgium-HapY-R-Low coverage
AF023 (3.245 BC)-Trou Al’Wesse, neolithic, Belgium-HapY-R1b1a/1a2-M269
@Rocca
Ha Ha Ha Ha, you don't need to be admin to ban a person, we all know how you kurganists work.
We do not need Belgium or Spain to prove that M269 was present in the neolithic cultures of old Europe because for that we already have Smyadovo-Bulgaria (4,500 BC, R1b-M269) i.e. 1,500 years before the CWC and 1,200 years before Yamnaya.
Game over, Rocca, dedicating yourself to work as a guardian of the Kurganist orthodoxy in anthrogenica prevents you from seeing reality clearly. Or maybe you understand the reality and don't want to acknowledge it.
@DragonHermit
Sounds like bullshit.
The Corded Ware people were an ethnic group. Bell Beakers were also an ethnic group.
Corded Ware groups kept in touch with each other across thousands of miles. They didn't share such close knit relationships with nearby non-Corded Ware groups.
This is basic archeology.
@Gaska
According to figure 24 of the paper AF025 and AF023 clearly have steppe ancestry.
@Rich S.
Highly interesting, though, that steppe ancestry ends up in a Belgian site at that time. Closest CWC site is near the Meuse as well, in Swalmen. Roughly 120 km upstream.
Considering that Grand-Pressingy flints end up in Dutch Single Grave barrows this site might be somehow related. A CWC type battle axe was found in the area around Grand-Pressigny so it looks like a two way exchange.
@Davidski “ Corded Ware groups kept in touch with each other across thousands of miles. They didn't share such close knit relationships with nearby non-Corded Ware groups.”
Although the took females from neighboring EEF groups.
@Epoch
The deposit belongs to the SOM culture, nothing to do with the CWC. Steppe ancestry?? Yeah, and it also has WHG and EEF ancestry, look at the mtDNA.
@Gaska, so you think that the two M269 samples that have steppe ancestry and were not directly radiocarbon tested should be lumped in with non-M269 and non-steppe Neolithics? Let me ask you this: If these samples were so closely tied to Neolithics, why didn't they keep the Neolithic burial traditions? Why did they chose to continue the gendered Corded Ware-like flexed burial, with just the minor difference of flipping the bodies? It is a good think everyone and anyone with two brain cells and a non-biased nationalistic thinking can see that you are full of shit.
@Gaska “ Game over, Rocca, dedicating yourself to work as a guardian of the Kurganist orthodoxy in anthrogenica prevents you from seeing reality clearly. Or maybe you understand the reality and don't want to acknowledge it.”
Unless your ancestry is strictly from Goyet, Magdalenian foragers, you are not more “native” than the rest of us.
I’m fascinated with the Proto-Laplandic substrate because it opens a window to what our WHG ancestors may have spoken. Plus the fact that modern Scandinavians harbor a Pit Ware (SHG) ancestry although Sami don’t.
Basques aren’t that ancient- they are approximately 65%-70% ANF, however with a higher WHG ratio than most other nations, but also with something like at least 25% WSH. You’re 25% Eastern European, like it or not. The only difference is that you have much less Roman, Visigothic, Moorish or Jewish dna than most Spaniards. Basques are, after all, an IA relic, not a Paleoithic or even a Neolithic one. Please accept science and facts, unless youre merely trolling here.
I’m a so-called “Kurganist” just like Rich, Rob, Davidski, Samuel and other posters on this blog. The only difference is on the details. You and Lazaridis refuse to see the light. My idea started to be more aligned with Rob’s, according to which the core IE (“late” IE) aka Corded Ware language was created from an interaction with farmer languages to its immediate west, and hence PIE must be much recent than I was imagining. The fact that Anatolian branch lacked a common cognate with core to milk (although it did share for water, I, eat and other basic vocabulary terms) corroborates my thesis.
Updated genotype files from the study Yu, He, 2022, "Paleogenomics of Upper Paleolithic to Neolithic European hunter-gatherers", https://doi.org/10.17617/3.Y1KJMF, Edmond, V3
https://edmond.mpdl.mpg.de/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.17617/3.Y1KJMF
@Gaska
You keep talking about the dating of the various strata referred to in Fichera's thesis, but those dates are not of the actual physical remains of the samples in the study. Only two of the sets of Neolithic-B remains, AF007 and AF017, were radiocarbon dated: to 4,828-4,626 cal BP and 1,929-1,827 cal BP respectively.
That's 2828-2626 BC for the older of the two, so NOT older than Yamnaya or Corded Ware. Of course, five of the six male remains in Neolithic-B were R1b-M269. The sixth sample had low coverage and only got as far as Y-DNA haplogroup R. All seven of the Neolithic-B samples (one was a female) had steppe DNA.
Anyone who wants to can read Fichera's thesis for himself or herself and see that it doesn't support what you are alleging it does.
You keep bringing up sample I2181 from Smyadovo, Bulgaria, as if he was some sort of breakthrough for your side (your side: currently populated by you). Well, I2181 has steppe DNA, was recovered in EASTERN BULGARIA, not far from the west coast of the Black Sea and, as any grade schooler who has seen a world map knows, not far from the Pontic portion of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. And I2181 wasn't all that old. His remains were dated to the period that Gimbutas assigned to Kurgan Wave 1, i.e., a time when steppe pastoralists are known to have moved into Europe west of the steppe. In other words, I2181 was not a Neolithic farmer of Old Europe.
You ignore the two R1b-L51 (one of them R1b-P310) samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture at the eastern end of the steppe. One of them, sample I6222, was radiocarbon dated to 3316-2918 cal BC (Wang et al, 2020), and the second, sample C3341, was radiocarbon dated to 2815-2526 cal BC (Kumar et al, 2022). Autosomally, they're virtually identical to Yamnaya.
Thousands of ancient samples have been recovered from peninsular Europe from the Neolithic Period and before. If R1b-M269 was, as you claim, a native peninsular European lineage, then it should have shown up among those thousands of samples predating the 3rd millennium BC and the arrival of the Indo-Europeans from the steppe. But it does not. Instead, when it does appear, it's always in ancient samples with steppe DNA, dated to a period ascribed to the migration into peninsular Europe of the Indo-Europeans, and by far most of the time in cultures connected to the early Indo-Europeans, i.e., Yamnaya, Corded Ware, Vucedol, Early Nagyrev, Bell Beaker, etc.
@ Vladimir
Lol you quote studies as if you’re a serrious scholar , but you’re a moron
you and your friend Simon Johnson (or whatever his absurd moniker is) spread Soviet propaganda about WHGs coming from Asia and PIE from Siberia
But that study shows the opposite- WHGs moved from north to south
“ accompanied by a north-to-south dispersal of populations associated with the Epigravettian culture. From at least 14,000 years ago, an ancestry related to this culture spread from the south across the rest of Europe, largely replacing the Magdalenian-associated gene pool”
Any why are you posting here if you think it is a White Nationalist site ? Piss off you clown
@Rob “ But that study shows the opposite- WHGs moved from north to south
“ accompanied by a north-to-south dispersal of populations associated with the Epigravettian culture. From at least 14,000 years ago, an ancestry related to this culture spread from the south across the rest of Europe, largely replacing the Magdalenian-associated gene pool”
Pretty much. Villabruna is from the Balkan, like Bacho Kiro was.
@Rocca
Oh my God, so you think that a collective burial (9 people) buried in the chimney of the site with ceramic remains belonging to the SOM culture has something to do with a CWC burial? Actually I am not surprised, you also say that Aesch, Auvernier and Burgaschisee belong to the CWC and those M269 men were buried in dolmens.
Accept the reality, all early M269 in Western-Central Europe are buried in mass graves, nothing to do with CWC or Yamnaya burial practices. Do you think it makes sense to talk about massive migrations or conquests when their burials do not differ from those of other lineages belonging to neolithic cultures?
Nationalist arguments are useless when you have to discuss genetics or archeology.
@Davidski
"Corded Ware" was a broad archeological horizon, not a single group of people. I've mentioned multiple times that some CW languages are closer to Yamnaya languages, than other CW languages.
We see a change in Y-DNA frequencies with the early R1b-L51-heavy people being slowly replaced/pushed out by the latter R1a-heavy people.
This is corroborated by linguistic evidence. The R1b-L51 ancestors of the Italo-Celts were the earliest linguistic branch to split out.
https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary-alt:20220909023600-03148-mediumThumb-49979fig7_1.jpg?pub-status=live
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/indoeuropean-language-family/italoceltic/B4955FB7B7A6803DDD727795EA88C065
@Andrei
Nobody has talked about being more or less native European, all of us who live in Europe are Europeans regardless of origin, race or religion and there are also descendants of Europeans all over the world.
Regarding Lazaridis he has an opinion about the origin of Indo-European that I understand perfectly because he has not found steppe ancestry in Anatolia. Some of his other ideas seem to me very wrong.
@Rich S
Bla Bla Bla Bla, You sound like a parrot repeating the same arguments over and over again. Accept the reality, all the M269* we have, are out of the steppes and buried in collective graves (Belgium, Spain, Switzerland) or in deposits of old European cultures. Their relationship with the steppe cultures is only in your imagination
@rob
[img]https://i.imgur.com/iIjGxE0.png[/img]
https://elahitechnologies.com
Nobody is saying that the steppe ancestry in western Europeans comes from Yamnaya, and nobody is saying that R1b-P312 originated in Yamnaya, and nobody is expecting to see 100% WSH individuals in either France or Iberia.
The point is:
-There is R1b-L51 (upstream of R1b-P312) in Afanasievo (I6222 and C3341 both have it) and in early Czech CWC, both of which have WSH autosomal profiles.
freesoftwareforall
@Rob
Dude I’ve been nothing but cordial and respectful towards you in our conversations here, but now because I have a single disagreement concerning WHG’s genesis, I’m now a Soviet and a fetishist/orientalist? When did I advocate for a Siberian origin of WSHs or PIE? Now you’re lying about me. I said that PIE likely originated—via WSHs—on the steppes of Eastern Europe, or in the areas close by in Eastern Europe. I never said they came from North Asia via ANE, and I never advocated for PIE being older than 5000 BCE. I’ve specified this to you numerous times, and yet you come on here and start slandering and insulting me, even though I hold minor disagreements with your theory. Ideologically I’m nowhere near a Soviet or an orientalist or a fetishist. This isn’t cool behavior, nor is it professional.
@Gaska
I have to say, I have no personal issue with you, like there seems to be some beef stemming from days of posting on AG between you and some of the other guys here and I'm obviously not party to that. And I have to say, I don't have much taste for some of the insult-flinging we see in these comment threads and really hope that we can manage to stay above that.
But I also have to say that I feel like you're still raising disingenuous points that others have already addressed. You keep raising apparent R1b-M269 samples in western/central Europe who lack steppe ancestry, but it seems funny that you're the only person with any knowledge of them. Other people are addressing the facts of the matter, such as the comment from @Rich S above in which he mentions that all of the R1b-M269-carrying samples in Iberia which you mention have steppe ancestry, or that the Smyadovo sample has steppe ancestry and is buried barely outside of the steppe, like literally one day's walk from the edge of the PC steppe eco-region, within the geographic coverage of the Suvorovo culture. And you mention R1b-P312-carrying samples in Britain who lack any steppe ancestry - where are they? I'll be absolutely shocked if these samples exist, and somehow nobody else has any knowledge of them.
And again, I think you've somewhat missed my point. Even if R1b-L51 did originate in what we're calling Old Europe, and then make its way into western steppe groups from there (for the record, I don't think this is likely), this still fits what I'm arguing. It, as a lineage, was spread by western steppe groups into peninsular Europe, because there are plainly obvious links in terms of archaeology, autosomal makeup, and Y-DNA between western and central European BB groups and Corded Ware, and as we know, early Corded Ware is 100% western steppe herder (WSH), autosomally. Its more distal origins are kind of irrelevant here.
1/2
2/2
Regarding the Narva signal in Bohemian CWC, is there really a Narva signal? I think the data from this paper has been somewhat over-interpreted. Our earliest CWC samples from Bohemia, Poland and the east Baltic, all cluster right on top of each other, and so evidently have no admixture from local groups where we find them, i.e., they are all first generation immigrants to the locations we find them, or they are the unadmixed descendants of immigrants to these locations. If they had local admixture, they would look different to each other, like some of the other samples do. The fact that we have a handful of samples who are very close to Yamnaya-like who are autosomally nigh-identical, from Bohemia, Poland and the east Baltic, tells us that this handful of samples is a very good representation of a "proto-CWC" autosomal pool, without any post-migration admixture. (Although local admixture post-arrival in these places obviously is then picked up - that's why we see Baltic CWC and Czech CWC pick up non-steppe ancestry--and different types of non-steppe ancestry!--over time.) And these "proto-CWC" samples don't just have R1b-L51; some of them have R1a-M417.
Autosomally, the difference between these guys and Yamnaya_Samara is a drop of Ukraine_N ancestry. This is the best fit, genetically speaking, as well as the most obvious and sensible source of clinality between different western steppe groups. There is a direct and relatively tight east-west cline that Afanasievo, Yamnaya, proto-CWC, and a couple of unreleased eneolithic Moldovans all sit on, and this cline is literally just varying degrees of Ukraine_N-related ancestry pulling away from the steppe_en cline. Sredny Stog also seems to sit on this cline. We're looking at genetic variation which can, and sensibly is, chalked up entirely to varying admixture proportions from different groups in the vicinity of Ukraine and southern Russia. Ukraine_N isn't a world apart from stuff like Narva, autosomally speaking, so this is almsost certainly where proto-CWC appearing to have a "Narva" pull relative to Yamnnaya may come from. It isn't local (to central or north-eastern Europe) ancestry; it's just that the ancestors of CWC had more Ukraine_N in them than the ancestors of Yamnaya had.
Maybe R1b-M269 comes from a Ukraine_N-related population? Again, while it would be interesting to know, it doesn't matter in terms of understanding where the R1b-M269 in western and central Europe comes from, because again, we simply do not find R1b-M269 without steppe ancestry, no matter how many times you keep saying that we do. And I can't be accused of some nationalist or personal bias here, because I'm neither eastern European, nor a carrier of R1b! I'm just interested in what is factual, evidence-based and sensible, here.
EAA 2023 abstracts...
From kinship to community: Reconstructing the social structure of a Merovingian population in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
In 2011 and 2015, just north of Nijmegen, in present day Lent, a Merovingian cemetery dated in the 6th century was excavated, uncovering 55 inhumation graves and 24 cremation graves. Nijmegen is one of the oldest cities of the Netherlands, founded during the first century CE by the Romans at the south bank of the river Waal, close to the present-day German border. The Late Roman period (270-470 CE) was characterized by economic, political and social instability, resulting in substantial depopulation of the Netherlands, but Nijmegen and its surrounding area show evidence of at least a minimal level of continuity of occupation into the early medieval Merovingian period. At the same time, however, this cemetery dates in the Migration period, and it can therefore not be excluded that this cemetery was used by new settlers of this area.
To gain fundamental and profound insights into the demography, social structure and origin of the community that used this cemetery, multidisciplinary bioarcheological research (osteology, isotopes and aDNA) on the inhumed individuals was conducted. This paper focusses on the kinship analysis, and how these data enhance our understanding of the inhumed community.
Fifty-one individuals provided sufficient genome wide data to reconstruct close and more distant genetic kinship by inferring kinship ratios, allelic mismatch rate patterns and IBD. Combined with information on genetic sex, age at death, and (absolute) datings pedigrees could be reconstructed.
The preliminary results suggest that the cemetery has been in use by just a few generations and at least nine families, although only half of the studied individuals are related to someone else in the cemetery. Outside the reconstructed families, no one shared mitochondrial DNA and also the Y chromosome shows much diversity, indicating a lack of strong matri- or patrilocal settlement patterns.
Kinship and social structure of Avar period descendants of Steppe communities inferred from ancient DNA based pedigrees
The Avar period in East-Central Europe saw the appearance of populations carrying culture and genomic components typical of the Eastern Eurasian and Pontic-Caspian Steppe, confirming one of the historical narratives on the origin of the Avar Khaganate. These people and their descendants settled in the Carpathian Basin for around 250-300 years coexisting with populations of different European cultural and biological backgrounds. By studying four entire Avar period cemeteries associated to these communities, with a combination of new ancient genomic data, archaeological, anthropological and historical contextualization we inferred extended multigenerational pedigrees that revealed unique features of their kinship system and patterns of local mobility that were impossible to assess before. We were able to infer clear and strict patterns of genealogical descent such as patrilineality, patrilocality and female exogamy. These patterns are shared between the four sites analyzed were we also observed a complete avoidance of consanguineous unions. We also found multiple instances of a very specific practice that we interpret as levirate marriage, involving closely related males having offspring with the same female. These characteristics can be traced in historical sources as well as in anthropological studies on present-day traditionally nomadic Steppe societies. These extended pedigrees also allowed us to assess important communities shifts involving groups with the same genomic ancestry, that would have gone undetected by standard population genomic tests for ancestry discontinuity. We could therefore test a long-term archaeological hypothesis about population shifts occurred during the Middle Avar period attested by important changes in the material culture and burial rites that could be in the future extended and tested on further sites.
Inferring social structure and biological relatedness of Early Medieval population in Moravia using ancient DNA
We investigate the period of formation of one of the first Slavic states in the region of Moravia and its impact on societies that inhabited the territory. Due to a limited amount of historical record from this region in Early Middle Ages, various characteristics of the organization of society are still debated, especially the rise of Early Mediaeval elite groups. With archaeogenetic approach, we are able to infer certain aspects of social structure, kinship and marital practices from biological relatedness and archaeologically defined social status of studied individuals.
To look into these patterns, we have archaeogenetically analyzed whole burial groups from several well-known and well-investigated sites that have been strongly associated with elites via archaeological and historical research. Thanks to good DNA preservation at the sites, we have obtained new ancient genomic data from almost all individuals selected. We observe networks of biologically related individuals that, put together with findings from related disciplines, shed light on what the population in Early Medieval Slavic state looked like, what kind of connections they had and how the society was organized. The archaeogenetic data brings the opportunity to observe not only genetic relatedness, but also social kinship and its meaning relative to belonging to the Early Medieval elite.
Biological relatedness among the early Hungarians, and its correlations with social structures
In the last few years, the bioarchaeological analysis of the Carpathian Basin’s cemeteries developed dynamically. The Migration and the Medieval Periods are the most intensively researched, since in these eras significant population movements are expected in the region. Several population genetic analyses have already been published, but up to now extensive studies focusing on the early Hungarians’ kinship are still lacking, although the interpretation of the Conquest Period cemeteries and the family structures in the society is a crucial archaeological question of the epoch.
Our currently examined main dataset comes from the Medieval phase of Páty-Malomi-dűlő site, which is located in north-central Hungary. The investigated part of the cemetery is dated to the 10th century AD. We applied a genome-wide approach (44 samples with whole genomic capture method and/or deep shotgun sequencing data) to population genetic and intra-site kinship analysis. Until now, this is the largest number of investigated samples from a single Medieval (Hungarian Conquest Period) Carpathian Basin’s cemetery at whole genomic level.
Our analysis does not indicate consanguinity or small population size in the group, so the community using the Páty-Malomi-dűlő cemetery could have been relatively extended. We identified several close and distant relatives, which indicate that the cemetery was also used by families. The paper compares the genetic relatedness with archaeological observations, aiming to come to joint conclusions.
We extend the investigation to other published data from the Carpathian Basin’s cemeteries from 10-12th century AD, detecting other inter- and intrasite kinship connections. Most sites do not show high inbreeding ratio, except some small cemeteries, whose genetic connection system is also remarkable.
The genetic links between the archaeological sites help us understand the settlement system of the Conquest Period population and provide data on the course of the occupation and the structure of society.
Archaeogenomic pilot research of Kamenice, a prehistoric Albanian tumulus (1600-500 BCE)
Situated in southeastern Albania at the interface of the Aegean and the Adriatic, the Tumulus of Kamenice was used for inhumations from 1600 to 500 BCE. In this work, we generated genome-wide SNP data for 25 individuals from Kamenice that span the full time transect, providing the unique and first possibility for insights into biological relatedness and demography of a single tumulus in Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Albania.
We identified a genetically homogeneous population throughout the respective time in contrast to all societal transformations in the wider region. Moreover, we found evidence for a patrilineal society, within which all the males’ Y chromosomes belong to two distinct sub-groups of R1b1a1b (M269). We identified the biological relatedness up to 6th degree with IBD analysis. The amount of relatedness raised after 750 BCE. We also detected a signature of a population size decrease around 750 BCE using HapROH, which coincides with the prevalence of Y chromosome lineage R1b1a1b1b3 and a new way of grave construction. Besides, a female individual was biologically related to individuals both before and after 750 BCE. Overall, all the ancient DNA evidence support a local population bottleneck event.
Investigating kinship at the Iron Age cemetery of Wetwang Slack, East Yorkshire (UK)
Ancient DNA analysis of c. 400 individuals from the Iron Age cemetery of Wetwang Slack, East Yorkshire (UK), has recently been undertaken as part of the COMMIOS Project (Communities and Connectivities: Iron Age Britons and their Continental Neighbours). The cemetery belongs to the so-called ‘Arras Culture’, characterised by individual graves under square barrows and including occasional chariot burials (which are otherwise rare in Britain). As the largest excavated cemetery in Iron Age Britain, the Wetwang Slack assemblage, dating to the 3rd/2nd centuries BC, has enormous potential to inform our understanding of the role of biological relatedness as a structuring principle within Iron Age kinship practices. While several previous aDNA and isotope studies of prehistoric communities in Britain and Continental Europe, principally dealing with Neolithic and Bronze Age populations, have suggested a prevalence of patrilineal descent and female exogamy, the picture emerging from our work at Wetwang Slack offers a contrasting picture. Initial results demonstrate a high degree of biological relatedness among females (and much less among males), suggesting that kinship practices, within this community at least, were quite differently structured. In this paper we examine the implications of this emergent patterning for our understanding of British Iron Age societies.
Gender relations, patrilocality and relatedness at the burial ground of Nitra, Slovakia
Neolithisation is generally thought of as a large-scale process taking place over an extended period of time and at a continental scale. In contrast, the increasing availability of high-coverage ancient genomes makes it possible to address micro-scale topics like family and kinship, and how these more personal networks of relatedness change over time. Combining these two scales of analysis remains challenging, as it is often expected that macro-level processes will leave a clear-cut signature in micro-level data, leading to a side-lining of diversity. We use the Linearbandkeramik culture (ca. 5500-4900 cal BC) cemetery at Nitra, Slovakia, as a case study to explore some of these interpretative tensions. The consensus in much recent literature is of patrilineal social formations with a patrilocal residence pattern, in which households consisted of a nuclear family with some dependent relations and property was inherited from father to son. We argue here that the issue is not which of the myriad of different kinship formations is the best fit to the archaeological evidence, but the underlying presumption that such models of relations are static and unchanging.
Using paleogenomic data from the cemetery of Nitra (Slovakia), alongside existing isotopic information and the grave good assemblages, we reassess the prevalence of patrilocality, discuss the role of kinship relations in the provision with grave goods and in burial ritual continuity, suggest possible alternatives to the ‘nuclear family’ as the basic unit of Neolithic society and reflect on the role of personal mobility in forming kin.
Dietary behaviour of Early Bronze Age biological kinship groups in Mikulovice (ca.2050-1750BC Czech Republic)
The Early Bronze Age cemetery in Mikulovice, eastern Bohemia, Czech Republic, is one of the largest and richest of the Únětice Culture, and therefore a model site for extensive bioarchaeological studies. This paper will present the results of isotopic reconstructions of diet in the context of biological relatedness inferred from aDNA.
Sampling of all buried individuals (N=109) for aDNA, 14C dating, radiogenic and stable isotope analyses of Sr, O, C and N enabled us to reconstruct various complexly interwoven aspects of lifeways, at the level of single individuals, biological kinship groups, as well as the entire community. Carbon and nitrogen isotopic values were measured in all individuals older than 6 years, from whom aDNA was successfully recovered (N=81). Both carbon and nitrogen isotopic values differed significantly between biological kinship groups, whereas the differences in nitrogen isotopic values between biologically related individuals were significantly lower than those between unrelated individuals. These results are further discussed with respect to the absolute chronology, grave position and the character of the associated grave goods.
Though the research is still ongoing, the current data suggest that close biological/social relationship was the leading factor driving dietary behaviour of the individuals buried at Mikulovice.
This research was supported by the Czech Academy of Sciences Award Praemium Academiae (Dr. Michal Ernée) and by the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic (DKRVO 2019-2023/7.I.e, 00023272).
OK Gaska, so all the M269 samples have steppe ancestry and besides being stray wave-front samples that were thrown into pre-existing Neolithic graves, they somehow waited for Corded Wave males for a couple of hundred years and then mimicked their burial practices when they became Bell Beaker a couple of hundred years later. Funny that none of the non-R1b samples didn't copy Corded Ware, just the R1b males. Seriously, your bias is an embarrassment.
@Suevi “ Maybe R1b-M269 comes from a Ukraine_N-related population? ”
Define a “Ukr Neolithic” please. Are you referring to Sredny Stog, Tripolye, Bug Dniester or Dnieper Donetsk?
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
The old problems in anthrogenica have nothing to do with you and do not affect our conversation, you have always behaved politely.
1-I have so far not mentioned any P312 in Britannia with or without steppe ancestry, there are controversial samples that we will comment on.
2-Of course there is a Narva signal, that is one of the reasons why Papac has debunked the Yamnaya culture. The alternative solution instead of the Baltic, seems to be the forest steppe-Ok, before they had to find L51>L151 in Yamnaya now they have to find it in Ukraine. Good luck.
3-Smyadovo-M269 has no steppe signal simply because it predates the Yamnaya culture by 1,300 years. Even if we have samples autosomally similar to Yamnaya at Sredni Stog, they would be later than Smyadovo so the only thing you can do is to try to model the sample with distal components. And then you will see that it is much more WHG than EHG (it has even less percentage of that EHG component than other samples from the neolithic cultures of Bulgaria). It is not a newcomer from the steppes nor its autosomal composition makes us think so. The proximity to Ukraine is an anecdote and cannot be used to say that its origin is in Ukraine. He is simply a farmer of the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture, I am sorry you are disappointed.
@Gaska;
"...all of us who live in Europe are Europeans regardless of origin, race or religion."
So why are you then so invested in proving that R1b isn't from Eastern Europe when, in the end, it doesn't matter? Did you convert from being a patriotic Basque to a liberal Cosmopolitan? There are millions of people who live all over Europe who are not Europeans. Just saying.
"Closest CWC site is near the Meuse as well, in Swalmen. Roughly 120 km upstream."
That should be: roughly 120 km to the north, downstream the Meuse.
The paper on "A 23,000-year-old southern Iberian individual links human groups that lived in Western Europe before and after the Last Glacial Maximum" was also published https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-01987-0 alongside "Palaeogenomics of Upper Palaeolithic to Neolithic European hunter-gatherers" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05726-0.
I don't have much to say about them (a distinct ancestry cluster in Western Europe 'Fournel' associated with later Gravettian, around 30kya, which contributes ~10% to Holocene WHG 'Oberkassel Cluster' and then higher, varying proportions to Iberian HG).
The paper on "23kya southern Iberian..." includes a sample ADS007 from Cueva de Ardales who has Steppe related ancestry and I2a1a1a according to the paper, and 964420 SNPs, but undated. Perhaps the exception that proves the rule - https://imgur.com/a/DIA5MWK . Should be better coverage than the G2a with steppe ancestry (from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6364581/), COV20126, another vanishingly rare exception that proves the rule.
@Rich S. Which paper? I want to check if these are the same samples. It would be very interesting if true.
Wrt Smyadovo you have to look at the age of the steppe source used, if a proximal source is used. It could very well be from a steppe-related population that had no R1b.
@Rob I don't have an opinion on that, I just went by the label for all those samples. Doubt they randomly assigned them as Beakers if there weren't any evidence around.
@Gaska I do admit that the descent-and-language argument looks pretty convincing and is similar to the Yamnaya tracing of "DNA and haplos = language spread with them (most of the time)".
Do you have any insight on Beaker architecture, if there's such a thing? I swear archaeologists are always skipping the basic aspects of a culture (arhictecture, symbols, economy etc) and will focus on some kind of gold-plated single earring to make an origin hypothesis.
Genetic analysis of Early Bronze Age child burials in Lower Austria
The burial features of the neighboring Early Bronze Age Únětice and Unterwölbling groups in Lower Austria provide great opportunities to study prehistoric kinship structures. The numerous burials at the Únětice sites of Drasenhofen, Schleinbach, Unterhautztal, and the Unterwölbling site of Pottenbrunn contain female and male individuals of all age classes, including a high number of children.
It is therefore no surprise that we find many 1st and 2nd-degree relations between the individuals in the dataset of genomic data generated by genome-wide targeted enrichment and were able to reconstruct biological family trees spanning three generations. Of special interest are burials in which young children are buried with one or more adult individuals. Despite the placement of the bodies suggesting close familiarity, the children are not biologically related to the adults from the same grave in the majority of these cases. This fact can be used for considerations about the value of children to society at that time in this region.
At the sites of Schleinbach and Unterhautzenthal, some individuals, including children, were placed in pits instead of regular graves. Comparing the patterns of family connections expressed in the way people were buried together with genetic data, as well as biological connections of the remains from the pits to the ones from regular graves provides the opportunity to investigate social stratification and its implications for the children in these groups.
Overall, the examples of the Early Bronze Age graves from Lower Austria add to our understanding of social practices and the role of biology for social belonging in prehistory.
Uncovering the Lives of the Nonadult Population at the Late Avar Burial Site in Nuštar, Croatia: An Interdisciplinary Approach
Excavations at the archaeological site of Nuštar, Eastern Croatia, have revealed 196 skeletal graves from the Late Avar period (710-810 AD), offering valuable insights into the lives of the buried population. This paper focuses on the study of the nonadults, combining a wide range of methods, including paleogenetic and palaeodietary analyses, in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of their lives. Next Generation DNA sequencing allows us to accurately determine the biological sex of the individuals, explore ancestry and different degrees of kinship, while carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratio analyses provide information on their diets and weaning ages. By combining these data with osteological and paleopathological findings, we can study the relationships between diet, disease, preferential sex-related treatment, and mortality rates and gain a deeper understanding of the lives of these individuals.
We analysed twenty female and sixteen male nonadults and adults through Next Generation Sequencing data with established ancient DNA pipelines and protocols, and fifty-five nonadults and adults using stable isotope ratios (bone collagen δ¹³C and δ¹⁵N, including animal bones for the baseline reference) to examine questions of kinship, ancestry, and molecular sex, and dietary patterns, providing a comprehensive picture of the upbringing and overall health of the buried population. This interdisciplinary approach provides a unique and unparalleled glimpse into the past, shedding light on the lives of the nonadult and subsequently adult population at Nuštar.
@Rob Couldn't find Kloekhorst talking about the Balkans in Olander 2022. Does he have some other paper out on that?
@Davidski The issue of ethnic groups ("ethnies") has some requirements for a population to consider some other population as the same as himself. A major one is language, so without looking at other factors (religion, culture, economy, etc etc), any genetically CWC group that spoke a different language than the other ones would not be considered the same as them, and it would not consider itself the same as them, i.e. not part of the same ethnic group. You can read A. Smith's work on ethnic consciousness, which addresses this.
This does not remove close contacts with some groups over others. The same example exists in the Mediterranean where the ethnic groups there would have close contacts with each other but not others (usually to their north), despite not being part of the same ethnic group, sometimes not even genetically. This could also be some kind of tradition that lasted over the centuries with newer groups being seen as more untrustworthy. A simpler explanation is more similarities with group A (CWC) than with group B (non-CWC) leading to a closer relationship, also seen between Greeks and Romans (and before them Etruscans) for example. Many explanations exist for that, which do not require a shared ethnic consciousness.
At the same time there are Latins/Italics and Etruscans who were more or less the same, but not at all the same ethnic group.
Don't mistake ethnic consciousness with actual genetic group. Pretty sure DragonHermit was talking about the former rather than the latter.
@Andrzejewski I get that you want to pester Gaska for the lols but with the same logic you're around 50% West Asian and 50% Eastern European instead of 100% Eastern European.
@ Simon Stevin
Well, you might be able to articulate yourself better if you followed evidence instead of the mantra of weaselish noobs
@ Orpheus
“ I just went by the label for all those samples. Doubt they randomly assigned them as Beakers if there weren't any evidence around.”
Well That’s what they did . What’s the point of not checking for yourself then doubting those who have counter-checked ?
“ Couldn't find Kloekhorst talking about the Balkans in Olander 2022. Does he have some other paper out on that?”
I did see it in the link, but it’s not readily available on Google preview. But I haven’t read the book, tbh don’t think there’ll be anything novel. AKs works are on his academia page
@Orpheus
If you're asking about the paper ATP3 appeared in, it was Gunther et al (2015):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586848/#!po=19.0000
Beaker settlements are scarce, which is one of the reasons that Beaker, like its parent, Corded Ware, is regarded as a semi-nomadic, pastoralist culture. There's really no Beaker architecture.
Here's what Mathieson et al say about sample I2181 from Smyadovo, Bulgaria, on page 8 of their paper, "The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe" (2018):
"In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe-related ancestry (Figure 1B,D). These findings push back the first evidence of steppe-related ancestry this far West in Europe by almost 2,000 years, but it was sporadic as other Copper Age (~5000-4000 BCE) individuals
from the Balkans have no evidence of it."
The idea advanced by Gaska that I2181 cannot be said to have steppe DNA because he predates Yamnaya is ludicrous. Pretty obviously, Mathieson et al don't agree. If such ancestry actually originated west of the steppe, in the Balkans, why do Mathieson et al say it was only found in two individuals there, ANI163 and I2181, and that "other Copper Age (~5000-4000 BCE) individuals from the Balkans have no evidence of it."
And again, sample I2181 from Smyadovo dates to a period in which steppe pastoralists were moving west into SE peninsular Europe. They would not have formed the majority there, which is why steppe DNA is rare in the Balkans so early. Maybe I missed something, but I don't see anyplace in the Mathieson et al paper where I2181 is classed as a Neolithic farmer and assigned to the Gumelnita-Karanova culture. In the body of the paper, as I quoted above, I2181 is said to have "steppe-related" ancestry". Whose idea is it that he belonged to the Gumelnita-Karanova culture?
Here's another thing: what's the big deal about so-called "Narva" ancestry in the Corded Ware samples in Papac et al? For one thing, it's not like Papac et al said, "That's it! It's Narva ancestry!" They just found that models with Latvia_MN OR Ukraine_Neolithic OR PittedWare used as a possible source of the European Neolithic ancestry in Bohemian Corded Ware produced better fits than Bohemian or non-local pre-CW sources or Anatolia_Neolithic plus a range of HG sources. Latvia_MN produced only slightly better fits than Ukraine_Neolithic (57 of 95 versus 53 of 95 supported models).
For Papac et al, this suggested that Corded Ware may have originated in the forest steppe farther to the northeast than Yamnaya did. Be that as it may, Papac's early Bohemian Corded Ware was loaded with steppe DNA.
As far as I can tell, Papac et al never say that early Bohemian Corded Ware had "Narva" ancestry. Instead, it is "Latvia_MN" that produced the best fit as the source of European Neolithic ancestry in Bohemian Corded Ware. On pages 5-6 of the Papac Supplementary Material, Latvia_MN is associated not with Narva but with the Middle Neolithic Comb Ware Complex, which is said to have more EHG than either Narva or Kunda:
"We find (Supplementary Data Table 3) that Mesolithic and Early
Neolithic individuals (Latvia_HG) associated with the Kunda and Narva cultures have ancestry intermediate between WHG (~70%) and EHG (~30%), consistent with previous reports. We also detect a shift in ancestry between the Early Neolithic and individuals associated with the Middle Neolithic Comb Ware Complex (Latvia_MN), who have more EHG-related ancestry (we estimate 65% EHG, but two of four individuals appear almost
100% EHG in PCA)."
So, it isn't Narva at all that is meant by Latvia_MN, but Middle Neolithic Comb Ware Complex. Note its high level of EHG (65-100%!) versus the ~30% EHG in Narva and Kunda. It's probably that high level of EHG that has Papac et al thinking that CW had European Neolithic input from farther northeast than the European Neolithic input in Yamnaya.
@Orpheus-
For once, I almost agree with Rich (except “beaker like its parent, CWC”), there is no Beaker architecture per se, although there is BB culture pottery in all the major chalcolithic cities-Vilanova de San Pedro, Zambujal, Leceia, Los Millares, Valencina de la Concepción etc. In the Bronze Age you can already find forts made by the DF27 descendants of the Beakers-La Almoloya (2.200-1.500 BC), La Bastida etc. In the rest of Iberia they were semi-nomadic but had numerous forts and little villages throughout the territory, If you are curious you can see the Motilla del Azuer, is a kind of castle with a water well
@Wise Dragon
The search for the origin of R1b has to do with the search for my ancestors, not with nationalistic issues, I just want to know the truth, and I have never liked to be told what to think or believe. I am intelligent enough to draw my own conclusions. Regarding non-Europeans living in Europe I don't want to get into political issues, but it is clear that we have a problem.
@Rocca
The archaeological connection of the first M269s in continental Europe with the steppes or the CWC is ZERO. Don't you find it strange that the conquerors gave up their customs so soon? You should read some paper about burial practices in Iberia during the neolithic, and not read so much propaganda.
The CELTUDALPS project: a multifaceted perspective on Late Iron Age territorial mobility and genetic variation in Northern Italy and Switzerland
The steady increase of biogeochemical and biomolecular data is refining traditional anthropological and archaeological hypotheses about the genetic history and territorial mobility patterns of European human groups during the Late Iron Age. Compared with other geographic areas, however, only few data are yet available for those “Celtic” groups occupying the Northern Italian and Swiss territories during this period. Even fewer are collaborative research projects trying to compare these different types of information for these geographic areas. The resulting knowledge gap is especially relevant given the archaeologically and historically documented networks (cultural, commercial, and migratory) between the two sides of the Alps in this period.
With CELTUDALPS we aim to address these issues by means of a multidisciplinary analysis of a large (ca. 300) individuals representing La Tène cultural groups inhabiting modern Switzerland and Northern Italy between the 4th -1st centuries BCE. By applying a range of methods including the analysis of ancient DNA and isotopic (δ15N, δ13C, δ34S, δ18O, 87Sr/86Sr) data, and the quantitative analysis of funerary patterns, CELTUDALPS aims to: (a) estimate the differences and similarities in territorial mobility between these groups; (b) reconstruct their genetic history and variation; (c) explore the possible links between mobility, kinship patterns, and social organization in each area. Here, we present the theoretical background and research design of the project, illustrate the state of the art of the project with examples selected from our most recent results, and discuss the planned next steps of our research.
Genetic history of Late Iron Age (4th – 1st century BCE) human groups from both sides of the Alps
During the Late Iron Age (La Tène, 4th-1st centuries BCE), various human groups sharing cultural elements, commonly referred to as "Celts", were involved in migration processes and settled in the Italian Peninsula after crossing the Alps. The current knowledge of these people is largely drawn from osteological, isotopic, archaeological, and historical evidence. However, the genetic history of these groups from both north and south of the Alps remains unexplored.
This paleogenomic study aims to analyze if the cultural similarity of these people is reflected in their genomic makeup. Moreover, it intends to study the genetic relationships between different La Tène groups from north and south of the Alps, and other ancient and present-day populations from Europe.
We performed molecular analyses (shotgun and nuclear capture data – approx. 1.3 mio SNPs) on 194 individuals from 13 Swiss and North Italian Late Iron Age archaeological contexts. Ancient DNA data allows to determine the genetic sex in 119 individuals, comprising 76 XX and 43 XY, including 52 subadults. With the additional support of mitochondrial DNA data, we detected genetic relatedness among three individual pairs within two different Swiss archeological sites, and one case in the North-Italian site of Seminario Vescovile.
Comparative analyses show a genetic similarity between the ancient Swiss and Italian individuals. Additionally, their genomic diversity overlaps with that of especially western and south-western European present-day populations. However, the results suggest a genetic discontinuity between Late Iron Age individuals from Northern Italy and present-day populations from the same geographic area. On the other hand, the comparison with published data infers a stronger genetic affinity among European Iron Age groups.
@Rob I mean, "trust me I have checked it" isn't the most convincing argument. If you could pass a link or paper analyzing how these samples are not Beakers it would be helpful
In Olander 2022 you can ctrl+f "balkan". It doesn't come up in Kloekhorst's chapter on Anatolian.
@Rich S. No, I was referring to the samples included in the Southern Arc paper
Samples are I0826 (Spain)
I0455 (Spain)
I1392 (France)
I1970 (Portugal)
I ctrl+f "Beaker", these are the oldest samples in their file. All carry 0% EHG.
Related, Chintalapati et al 2022 infers the earliest steppe admixture in Iberia in EBA Mallorca ~3200 BCE. It is not directly associated with the Beaker culture however (line 450 in the preprint).
Looks a bit weird if it was steppe-rich groups who were the origin of the Beaker culture, to not carry any Beaker culture with them and the culture to appear later, essentially independent of them.
That being said I will give the academia paper you linked a read this evening.
@Gaska Yes if you have papers regarding the origins of Beakers I'm interested. Post them somewhere in my blog, or I can make a burner mail to send hem there if you want
"We find a subtle, but non-significant, signal of shared drift with individuals that carried Villabruna-like ancestry MLZ (Z = 2.972) which is absent in Goyet Q116 (Z = 1.783) (Supplementary Table 2.10)."
Wow.
@ Orpheus
If you weren’t so lazy & daft you’d be able to read the supplement and discuss with the relevant archaeologists for yourself
@ RichS
Orpheus’ cutting edge ctrl / F analysis disagrees . Maybe you could post a relevant Twitter link ?
@ Andrze
“Pretty much. Villabruna is from the Balkans”
Not exclusively. It developed over a very wide region, from Italy to the azov
However the group probably acquired AHG (pseudo-Dzudzuana) related admixture in the Balkans, after Balkan groups moved into Anatolia and acquired Natufian wives
Demographic transitions?
- Archaeogenetic analyses of late antique and early medieval cemeteries from the Rhineland -
The transition from late antiquity to the early medieval period in central Europe has long been a research focus in historical and archaeological sciences. Particularly, whether the observed political and cultural changes are accompanied by demographic changes, remains elusive. Here, we study ancient DNA from multiple cemeteries in the Rhineland spanning the period from 300 to 800 AD, including the transition point at 450 AD. We analyse burials from late Roman military contexts, Bonn and Jülich, and those from local population cemeteries, especially Alt-Inden. We benefit from precise archaeological dating to correlate our genetic results and view them as a high-resolution time-series in the time span before and after 450 AD.
First, we find evidence of different ancestry backgrounds between the legionary camps, suggesting that the camps were comprised of people from a similar region, but this origin was different between the two sites. Second we observe signals of ancestry shifts through time in both the legionary burials as well as the local cemeteries, which we interpret as the result of migration into the region. Last, we find haplotype sharing indicative of close familial relationships between Jülich and Alt-Inden, whereas the individuals from Bonn show no relatedness to any other site that we studied. In conclusion, our study provides a new high resolution temporal and spatial insight into the demographic patterns of the transition time between late antiquity and early middle ages in the Rhine region.
Large-scale analyses of Avar-period cemeteries show strikingly different genetic ancestry despite cultural similarities
Based on archaeological, historical and genetic evidence, we can infer Avars moving to the Pannonian Steppe from the East in the 6th century in what can be construed as a long-distance migration event. Originally considered nomadic, the Avar-associated groups were, however, not stable throughout the era of the Avar dominion in the region and they are considered on the frequent move between the core and the periphery of the realm. The Avar-associated cemeteries in Austria, at the presumed border of their empire, are some of the largest cemeteries investigated fully with ancient DNA so far, with altogether more than 700 individuals from three cemeteries analyzed in this study. Extended relatedness networks that encompass almost all the individuals from the sites allow for the investigation of the interplay between migration, mobility and cultural identity on both the small and large scale and bring insights into possible reactions of communities to migratory events of a considerable size.
The study is a great advance on Ice Age history in Western Europe (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05726-0); it still seems very unclear what is going on in Italy and SE Europe prior to and during the LGM. The gap between Paglicci and Tagliente is long.
In terms of sex-biased migration into Anatolia after the LGM (@Rob), it's noteworthy that at the moment, the Villabruna/Oberkassel/IronGates group has no C1 (https://imgur.com/a/HoRICTq), which is the haplogroup that Pinarbasi has (and, unrelated except at a very deep level, HG in Iberia with more surviving Fournol cluster ancestry). Was this typical, or unusual? One sample is very limiting.
One thing that could have benefitted new Ice Age study which they did not take advantage of was including Charlton 2022 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01883-z), where we find at Gough's Cave (SW England), approximately 14.7kya, there is a sample that forms a very tight cluster with the similarly dated GoyetQ2 (Belgium) and Rigney1 (Eastern France). (These samples had the highest shared outgroup f3 in the Euro HG set; drastically small population sizes). The claim there was this may have been evidence for persistence by GoyetQ2 cluster as reindeer hunters on the tundra...
@Suevi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic_culture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Finno-Ugric_substrate
These links are useful why EHG has nothing to do with PIE’s evolution linguistically.
Pick any etymology of any word listed as a Paleo-European EHG language (Proto-Laplandic in Scandinavia, Volosovo for Mordvins and Mari El, etc), and you realize that EHG tribes didn’t even speak closely related languages, let alone being ancestral to PIE for that matter.
BTW, I figured out that the Proto-Laplandic substrate (33%!) in Sami is from a Combed Ceramic EHG tongue(s), which may be related to each other but are distinct from the ones spoken by Narva HG or Volosovo. Modern Scandinavians OTOH are SGC(CWC) + GAC with some trace amounts of SHG, not EHG.
@Davidski et al. Rzucewo Culture- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rzucewo_culture
This entry claims that this culture came about from a merger of CWC groups with both Narva HG and GAC.
Did they leave any living descendants, or were they a localized, temporal phenomenon that became extinct?
Could they explain the Balto-Slavic drift by any chance?
It seems that there is a group that we still don't have samples of (or maybe it's something related to Dzudzuana) responsible for the slightly higher affinity that the Vestonice group has for the Middle East compared to Kostenki. This greater affinity appears just when haplo I begins to appear in Europe.
@Orpheus
I am just now reading the Chintalapati paper, but I wanted to mention that the EBA Mallorca sample, a female, is radiocarbon dated to 2468-2294 calBC, which is of course what makes her an EBA sample and not a Chalcolithic sample. The inference that the oldest date of steppe pastoralist-related admixture in EBA Mallorca is ~3200 BC refers to the use of the paper's novel Dates method "that leverages ancestry covariance patterns across the genome of a single individual to infer the timing of admixture". It does not refer to the estimated time of the arrival of steppe pastoralist-descended persons in Iberia but rather to the approximate date of that admixture in the target individual, in this case, ~3600–2800 BC or ~3200 BC. In other words, steppe DNA got into her individual genomic pedigree around 3200 BC. We don't know exactly where and how that happened, although we can safely infer that it involved sexual intercourse.
So far, no human remains with steppe DNA or Y-DNA R1b-M269 have been found in Iberia that predate ~2500 BC.
@ Gaska
"Don't you find it strange that the conquerors gave up their customs so soon?"
Who identified these early outlier guys as conquerors except you? All you need to do is look at recent history to understand how frequently males leave their societies and become accepted into neighbouring ones, marrying local women and fathering mixed children. Especially if by their original background they offered useful knowledge or technology. These were genetically successful people who retained some sense of their cultural background but not conquerors.
Some examples are British and American "beachcombers" in the Pacific Islands, or medieval Chinese exiles/escaped convicts going south of the imperial border into Yue country.
Maybe our friend Gaska can comment on the two recent papers. All SW European males before & during the Ice Age belong to Y-hg C1.
@Orpheus
"No, I was referring to the samples included in the Southern Arc paper
Samples are I0826 (Spain)
I0455 (Spain)
I1392 (France)
I1970 (Portugal)
I ctrl+f "Beaker", these are the oldest samples in their file. All carry 0% EHG."
I couldn't find all of those samples in the Southern Arc paper, but I did find them in the Olalde et al Beaker paper. The males, all but I1392, who is female, belong to Y-DNA haplogroup I, two of them to I2a, one (I1970) only covered as far I. None of them has steppe DNA.
Honestly, I refer you back to what Rob said so well earlier, that the state of beakerology is a mess and needs to be redone (I'm paraphrasing somewhat). I'm not an expert, but personally I don't regard those Neolithic Iberian early "Beaker" remains as belonging to the classic Beaker culture. If you read the descriptions of the burials, you don't see classic Beaker burial rites. What you see instead are fragments of maritime beaker ceramics and perhaps a few Palmela arrowheads. You don't see the classic Beaker single grave burial rites that so closely resemble Corded Ware burial rites, nor do you find physically robust skeletons or Y-DNA R1b-M269 and steppe DNA. I don't know about those particular samples, because they're not described in anthropometric terms, but usually early Iberian "Beaker" remains are essentially European Neolithic farmers of Mediterranean physical type, small in stature, with gracile skeletons.
Drinking beakers could be obtained by Neolithic Iberians from Corded Ware traders at Le Grand-Pressigny in what is now France. It would not have been hard for Neolithic Iberian potters to copy them. What Neolithic Iberians did not copy from Corded Ware traders was their very specific, gender dimorphic, single grave burial rites. Those don't appear in Iberia until after ~2500 BC, and when they do, the skeletons in the burials are actual Beaker skeletons: robust, tall for the time period, with males of Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-M269 bearing steppe DNA. At that point a big change begins to overtake Iberia, with R1b-M269 eventually replacing about 90% or more of the native Neolithic Iberian Y-DNA, and steppe DNA entering the Iberian genome.
@Rob, ah... Hasn't Gaska conceded the point on lack of R1b in Ice Age SW Europe? I thought he was on some theory where R1b-M269 moved to the west during the Chalcolithic from the Russian forest zone, but then like I1, only becomes visible for some reason after the disruptions of steppe movements (but it is not associated to Indo-European language)? (I don't really understand it clearly, seems to change).
On another note, it's a shame that the GoyetQ2 cluster samples from Poland (Maszycka (18–16 ka) in southern Poland) in this paper are such low quality, although it's interesting that they seem to have confirmed that they cluster with the GoyetQ2 group.
Confirms the picture from Charlton's paper (with the sample from England) and Posth 2016 (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Late-Pleistocene-and-Early-Holocene-Archeological-Sites-and-Hunter-Gatherer-mtDNA_fig1_292986515) that the GoyetQ2 group seems to become widespread across Northern Europe, presumably expanding from the SW, after the LGM (19.5-14.5 kya), and then got thwacked by the Late Glacial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B8lling%E2%80%93Aller%C3%B8d_warming), and replaced by this Oberkassel group with only 25% GoyetQ2 (per their model anyway!) and no (or almost no?) C1. Poor C1 guys, after lineages survived since perhaps 40kya, had no luck in the end.
aDNA from Poland coming up
https://www.embl.org/about/info/course-and-conference-office/events/ees22-09/#vf-tabs__section-53de8397-0f08-449c-b4a4-0fdca47249f2
Vyazov, Leonid
Genetic identification of Slavs in Migration Period Europe using an
IBD sharing graph
Orfanou, Eleftheria
Multiproxy investigations at Late Bronze Age Central European sites
Metspalu, Mait
Genesis of genetic landscape in Northeast Europe
https://www.embl.org/about/info/course-and-conference-office/wp-content/uploads/EES22-09_Poster-listing.pdf
https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2022/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2305
Y-chromosome analysis of Goths from the Maslomecz group cemeteries in southeastern Poland
The Goths were an important part of European history from the 1st to the 8th century AD. For many years, various hypotheses have emerged among researchers regarding their origin and dispersal. Unknown is also the scale of assimilation of the local people they encountered during their migrations across Europe. The aim of this study was to determine the origin and genetic structure of the male lineages of the Goths from the Masłomęcz group who inhabited the Hrubieszów Basin (southeastern Poland) from the 2nd -4th century AD using Y chromosome. The material for analysis consisted of skeletal fragments collected from 43 individuals. Samples with the highest endogenous DNA content were sequenced directly to low genome coverage. For the others, after sex determination, we performed targeted enrichment with a custom panel of 10k Y chromosome SNPs. This allowed us to determine the Y chromosome haplogroup of 18 individuals.
A total of 14 individuals (78%) represents the Y chromosome haplogroups most closely related to the Scandinavian population. Thirteen individuals were classified into subclades of haplogroup I1, four to haplogroup R1a and one to haplogroup J2b. Haplogroup I1 currently occurs mainly among people living in Scandinavia. Ancient DNA analyses showed show that I1 has been present in the Scandinavian population since at least the Bronze Age. One of the individuals belonging to haplogroup R1a-Z284 belongs to a subclade found almost exclusively in the ancient and modern Scandinavians. The remaining four individuals belong to haplogroups R1a and J2b most probably represent the effect of assimilation of local people, met by Goths during their numerous war expeditions and settlement expansion.
The research is part of the project „Genetic history of Poles” (2018/31/B/HS3/01464) financed by the National Science Centre, Poland.
Looking at some of the f3 stats from this Ice Age paper; although TTK seems to have an affinity to Iran_N, I'm not sure it has any Basal Eurasian.
E.g. on the stats for Russia_Ust_Ishim, Russia_AG3 and Anatolia_Pinarbasi - https://imgur.com/a/SwiNonO
It looks like TTK has outgroup f3 with Ust_Ishim that's pretty comparable to European HG (such as e.g. Serbia_IronGates or Russia_Sidelkino/Samara or Ireland_Mesolithic. It also has a higher affinity to AG3 than the other ANE rich HG they've included, Tyumen_HG and Sosonivoy_HG. Seems to be no evidence that it has a great degree of Basal Eurasian, at any rate not enough to dampen the outgroup f3 with Ust Ishim or AG3...
Also if you look at Serbia_IronGates vs Anatolia_Pinarbasi, there's no evidence of an increased affinity to Pinarbasi relative to IronGates, compared to MA1 or AG3.
Overall it looks like TTK is a sample that has enriched affinity to Iran_N, without any extra Basal Eurasian or really broader Near Eastern ancestry.
@Xdzyn I don’t think I ever heard a scientist say that.
It is not cold, nor altitude per se that selects for fair skin. It is a combination of sun (UV) exposure and a diet which makes up for any lack, or which doesn’t.
A light skin can compensate for lack of sunlight (specifically the Ultraviolet) by being more efficient at picking it up. The body uses it to manufacture vitamin D. Vitamin D is essential for bone development and maintenance, among other things. Calcium also plays a part in the vitamin D process, so people who have a calcium-rich diet can process vit D more efficiently than those who don’t. This only matters when vit D is in short supply.
A forager with any skin color and rich in dietary vit D (eg fatty fish, mushrooms, egg yolks) can flourish in the same place where lighter-skinned people (eg grain farmers) with a less than optimal diet may suffer deficiency disease. In fact, when I was a child in a heavy-industrial area, I thought it was normal that old people had visibly bowed legs. If vit D deficiency doesn’t result in rickets visible at 50 metres, then a more subtle debility and less than optimal bone and tooth growth can still easily happen. This can begin in the womb. it was still not uncommon when I was a child: it happened to me.
Environmental factors that affect UV exposure are latitude (because (a) winter days are short (b) the ”angle” of the northern hemisphere to the sun means that atmosphere obstructs UV penetration and (c) cooler &/or wetter weather causes a secondary issue — covered-up skin. Also (d) cloudier climates (such as maritime) have their effect. As does industrial smokiness or keeping the body too covered up in places where UV is only available for five months of the year.
Some places like a lot of the western coasts of the British isles have several of these factors in one place. The body starts running out of vitamin D in the winter months, whatever your skin color, unless the diet compensates.
Latitude is important regarding skin color not because of cold as such, but because UV is restricted to a short time of year, and so is vitamin D production. The body cannot store it for very long. (Where I live, there is a marked difference in the vitamin D levels of people winter and summer, even with a modern diet. The vit D level of older people who can take winter holidays in warmer, brighter places is significantly better — even if they only go away for a couple of weeks.
Below about 45 degrees latitude, fairer skinned people start to get selected out, at least in Europe: here, it’s the approximate latitude where sunlight gets strong enough to make fair skinned people significantly more vulnerable to skin cancers. Again, this is not a direct north-south divide. A lot depends on more local conditions.
It was always sensible that early WSHs rode horses:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade245
Abstract
The origins of horseback riding remain elusive. Scientific studies show that horses were kept for their milk ~3500 to 3000 BCE, widely accepted as indicating domestication. However, this does not confirm them to be ridden. Equipment used by early riders is rarely preserved, and the reliability of equine dental and mandibular pathologies remains contested. However, horsemanship has two interacting components: the horse as mount and the human as rider. Alterations associated with riding in human skeletons therefore possibly provide the best source of information. Here, we report five Yamnaya individuals well-dated to 3021 to 2501 calibrated BCE from kurgans in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, displaying changes in bone morphology and distinct pathologies associated with horseback riding. These are the oldest humans identified as riders so far.
@Rich S. Oh that makes much more sense, thanks for the clarification on DATES.
I wasn't referring to haplos though, since Beaker culture could have developed independently and haplos appearing later on. Hence why I found those samples interesting.
@Rich S. If you type just the numbers without the letter they should come up. They're registered as I2a in the excel file
Interesting info on the archaeological background, guess I'll just have to wait for archaeological papers to converge on some positions while the response papers to these being unable to refute them.
Might take a while so in the meantime guess I'll sit back and enjoy the show here with the back and forth hehe
@Xdzyn Selection is a thing (and prevented the development of light skin genes, let alone selection and expression, in numerous HGs).
Inuits are also light skinned, "light skin" doesn't just mean the fair/pinkish (literally pink undertone) white skin of mostly NW europeans, but pretty much anything depigmented from dark (intermediate is the main light skin shade in the world, I believe)
@ Matt
Here's the thing, although Goyet-Q2 derive most of their ancestry from west European Aurignacians like Goyet-Q116, their male uniparental markers are East Gravettian, apart from in some LUP Iberians which maintain C1a.
Then when the Tagliente switch-over occurs (more like 90% in my models), at least half the Y-hg remains Goyet-Q2 derived (I2a1 vs I2a2).
Same with Vestonice Gravettians. If we were to believe the claims of papers, they disappaeraed. But how can that be when Vestonice-derived Y-hg I and mtDNA U5 are everywhere after the LGM ? Seems more like bottlenecking and shifts in social- networks, possibly acquiring female-mediated admixture from pre-Natufians.
Then when Anatolian Farmers (themselves 40% Euro_UP) arrive, these lineages remain in Northern & western Europe, but propagate the Anatolian wave.
These paint very different scenarios to those constructed by alone genome-wide stats. hence, whilst indepsensible, they are insensitive, and can even be misleading.
I just did Ctrf + F on the IE book, and Kloehurst's chapter lights up with Balkans & Anatolia. It seems that Orpheus can't even copy/paste competently
@gimby20
The discussion here wasn't about whether some Yamnaya men rode horses, but whether the Yamnaya people were mounted warriors.
DragonHermit claimed that if Anatolian speakers came from the steppe then we should see evidence of a mounted invasion of Anatolia, which is gimby20 level of stupidity.
Yamnaya people traveled on carts pulled by oxen, and there's no evidence that they were mounted warriors, even if they did ride horses occasionally for transport or herding.
@Orpheus
DragonHermit just posted an opinion free of any facts or evidence.
The facts are that Corded Ware groups were very similar culturally and genetically, and they shared information with each other to the exclusion of non-Corded Ware groups.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185971
The fact that they shared information means that they could communicate, which also basically means that they shared a language.
So they sure look like an ethnic group, and so do the Bell Beakers, and many of the other archeological/genetic ancient groups. There's no reason to claim that this is controversial unless you have some agenda like many of the freaks who spam here.
Here's a better link to that article on the osteological evidence that Yamnaya actually rode horses:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade2451
"First bioanthropological evidence for Yamnaya horsemanship", Trautmann et al (2023).
As I recall, there were also a number of Beaker remains that showed osteological evidence of horseback riding, like Poirier's Facet. One has to spend A LOT of time on horseback for it to show up in his bones. I'd be willing to bet the same sort of evidence would show up in the skeletons of Corded Ware people, if someone looked for it.
As for the mounted warrior thing, I don't think anyone is claiming steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans were like disciplined cavalry soldiers or anything like that. In my own humble opinion - and that's all it is, my opinion - when it came to horses and combat, IE steppe pastoralists were like mounted infantry: they rode horses to the scene of a conflict, dismounted to fight on foot like infantry, but then remounted to make their getaway.
@Davidski
We had Yamnaya in Central Europe and Yamnaya close to China being close cousins. Spare me the "ox carts" b.s. That distance can only be covered on horseback. I told you even David Anthony went on Razib Khan's podcast and said "they're just moving too fast" for them not to be horse riders. How much weaponry they did or didn't use while on horses is of secondary importance. I wasn't there to see how proficient they were in combat with their horses. All I was stating is that it would have been hard for them to colonize Anatolia before the domestication of the horse because Yamnaya colonization was facilitated on horseback.
As for Corded Ware, I don't disagree with anything you said. All I meant was that Corded Ware represented a fusion of steppe people and local EEF people and that this mixture was done in waves with different Y-DNA/IE dialects. But there are clearly subsections even within Corded Ware, and this is why we have Italo-Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, etc... Just to quickly summarize from wiki
"Archaeologists note that Corded Ware was not a "unified culture," as Corded Ware groups inhabiting a vast geographical area from the Rhine to Volga seem to have regionally specific subsistence strategies and economies.[2]: 226 There are differences in the material culture and in settlements and society.[2] At the same time, they had several shared elements that are characteristic of all Corded Ware groups, such as their burial practices, pottery with "cord" decoration and unique stone-axes.[2]"
@DragonHermit
They were big, heavy ox carts you moron.
There are claims that the post-Yamnaya Catacomb people had smaller two-wheeled carts that were pulled by horses.
If David Anthony actually thinks that its much quicker to get to Mongolia with a horse cart than an ox cart then he's losing his mind.
And obviously the Corded Ware culture originated in a single place and then eventually differentiated and broke up.
The Corded Ware people were an ethnic group that eventually spawned new ethnic groups.
Kloekhorst section in the IE book is the stupidest thing I've ever read. It's no surprise the dude believes Etruscan comes from Anatolia.
Here's the gist of it:
Balkan route is stronger because a west to east movement can be seen with Galatians and Phrygians thousands of years later but Mitanni, Kurdish and Turkish don't count because they don't come directly from north of the Caucasus.
WTF! You can't make this shit up haha. God help these poor confused souls of IE studies.
David and All ! Here
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade2451
''Here, we report five Yamnaya individuals well-dated to 3021 to 2501 calibrated BCE from kurgans in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, displaying changes in bone morphology and distinct pathologies associated with horseback riding. These are the oldest humans identified as riders so far.''
Post a Comment