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

892 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   601 – 800 of 892   Newer›   Newest»
Arza said...

@Davidski

Is there any way to make a quick PCA

sum_IBD>8, first 50 PCs, ~40 samples with unknown group IDs are missing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jwyitkKBTMcpZE0LP9BsQYU1yetr5onc/view?usp=share_link

Rob said...

@ Vara

''Do you understand what the word associated means? I didn't even say he represents Proto-Slavs you dumbass.

https://imgur.com/dPaM06M
Scythian_UKR, Scythian_RUS and Scythian_RUS_Urals are rejected.''


You see, you dont understand basics. You need formal models, not your pathetic G25 attempt, to determine what passes or what is rejected. Your model is meaningless


''Let's see cultures that are associated with early Slavic groups. Chernoleska (scy009 btw)''


So it's funny this ''early Slav' bears R1b-P312 associated with Halstatt groups & is modelled with Kyatice (late east Urnfield)



''"While Scythian invasions and their traces discovered in destroyed Lusatian settlements are beyond dispute."''

not at all, C14 dating places these at various differnet times. And the ''Scythians of Central Europe'' were not Scythian at all
Sedov is irrelevant, most of his theories are wrong.
The impact of SCythians in Europe has been overstated in the past, without a doubt. They certainly werennt in Poland.

The main flow is Eastern Europe -> Iran
In fact, Iran is barely even Iranic, theyre mostly non-IE language-switchers . As genetics tells us


It would help you to deal with reality instead of yelping around like a wounded animal



Simon Stevens said...

@Davidski

Hey Dave are the rumors of R1b-M269* in Volosovo true? That would make them the oldest M269 bearers on record correct?

Davidski said...

@Simon

Not true.

These are related lineages, but unless you see one of these samples with M269 in a final paper, then no.

Davidski said...

@Arza

Do you have a spreadsheet that's more user friendly than the one in the paper?

Arza said...

Sort of. I've created a matrix for IBD>8, but I wouldn't call it user friendly.

What do you need exactly?

Davidski said...

@Arza

Since you're offering, I need...

- a matrix of total shared IBD between individuals based on IBD>8

- a matrix of total shared IBD between populations (minus outliers) based on IBD>8

- anything else you think might be useful to create graphs and plots

vAsiSTha said...

Mitra is undoubtedly Indo-Iranian in origin, no Thracian explanations needed. Rsi Vasistha and Agastya are said to be the sons of Mitra-VaruNa and Urvashi.
Quite clearly these are imports from the east to the west. Mitra is Sanskritic languages means 'friend' today.

@Matt
Thanks.
VK90_noUDG.SG Denmark_Viking.SG I8726 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 max_IBD 12.53789663
VK280_noUDG.SG Denmark_Viking.SG I11456_enhanced Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 max_IBD 12.00180054
VK232_noUDG.SG Sweden_Viking.SG I8726 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 max_IBD 9.724798799

What do you think is going on here between Vikings and Indus periphery? How are we to read results with 1 segment shared between 8-10cM? What level of relatedness does that imply?

Suprisingly, these Indus periphery samples have no such shared segments with Swat samples.

vAsiSTha said...

@Matt
Don't think we can expect high degree of shred segments between samples 500 years or more apart? which is probably why Swat and IVCp dont share segments.

Gaska said...

@Hi Rocca

You remind me of Fray Tomas de Torquemada, maybe it's time for you as a good Italian-Argentine-American to remember some Latin “Excusatio non petita acussatio manifesta”

I mean, if you try to prove that a battle axe is the definitive proof that this man belonged to the CWC, taking into account that in Bohemia they had been burying their men with those grave goods for thousands of years, then you have not understood anything. You can save that speech for the few sheep who still believe your fairy tales.

Ringbauer has also put the last nail in the coffin of the Yamnaya culture. Remember those glorious days when you and your friends used to say that the eastern bell beakers were an offshoot of Yamnaya (following Carlos Quiles and his model of demic diffusion)? There are no IBD links between Yamnaya and BB culture, do you understand?

Gaska said...

There are some Russian ultranationalists like Archie who pretend that M269 has its origin in the Volga or even in the Volosovo culture (which by the way is 500 years more modern than the Smyadovo sample in Bulgaria). They can continue dreaming, if it appeared there, it would be related to the Baltic not to the Volga.

Vara said...

@Rob

Yesss, I got a double comment again. Someone is seething for sure. But will I see a deleted comment soon?

" iranica Encyclopedia theories"

Come on Bobby, stop being invested in my comments to someone else. Besides, it was the first link I swear! And monkeys don't live in caves. LOL.

"Your model is meaningless"

My model matches the conclusions presented here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223350/

Even Davidski's PCA shows the "Balto-Slavic drift" for scy009.

"early Slav"
Doubt he was a Slav. Rather someone who is Baltic_BA like. However, Chernoles interacted with Early Slavs whether in Lusatian or Milograd cultures.


"not at all,"

Greatest rebuttal ever. As expected, uncited garbage again. Then a rant on Sedov who I didn't even quote. But please tell me about Chernykh metal provinces from 1984 cause that's all the "archaeology" you seem to know about.

"The impact of SCythians in Europe has been overstated in the past"
The direct impact? Maybe, but I've already told you Vekerzug is related to the Sigynnae and not "proper Scythians" which in fact is more important to my glorious secret theory ofc.

I'm not sure why you deflect to west Iranians when we are talking about "Scythians". So please stop arguing with your other personalities LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l60MnDJklnM

Gaska said...

@Matt

You have done a good job with Ringbauer IBDs.

IMO the link to Corded Ware is fairly weak, also it should also be noted that there are dozens of mtDNAs shared between Yamnaya>CWC and BBC, that would be more than enough to justify those small shared segments.

There are many people who believed that we were going to find L51>L151 in Yamnaya because for years everybody repeated the same arguments, now the same thing is going to happen with L151 and the CWC i.e. people are going to claim that this lineage is typical of the CWC when in fact this culture was overwhelmingly R1a (Germany, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bohemia etc etc).

Do you think it is normal for two cultures that supposedly share both male and female uniparental markers to have such weak genetic links? For God's sake, theoretically L151 abandoned the CWC and created the BBC and yet their shared IBD fragments are very small (that is, greater distance in years). Look at the El Argar culture data, that is a kinship relationship, not the data we are seeing in Germany or Bohemia between the CWC and the BBC.

Matt said...

@vAsiStha; hmm... I'm not sure how to interpret that.

As a table with all the matches involving "Viking" samples at >12cM - https://imgur.com/a/INPGjHg

The vast majority of the inferred links are between Viking or historically close populations, but there are some, some of which I've highlighted over much longer time scales. I'd have to look through the dataset to identify how common this sort of long time linkage for these compared to the whole dataset. It could be that there is still some imperfection in the model sometimes, that has come up here. It may be worth emailing the author to ask about that one.

When Ringbauer gave a presentation at SMBE (https://www.smbe.org/smbe/MEETINGS/SMBE2021.aspx), the slides (https://imgur.com/a/HZsLznU) be put up showed that it's unusual for 12-16cM links to involve a more than 1000 year distance; in the figure, it looks like fewer than 1-2% of links. Maybe once I've looked across the dataset it may be more obvious if there is some tendency for problems with the Viking era samples. But they were only comfortable calling age errors in samples when they encounter >16-20 cM links at over 1500 years.

Vladimir said...

@Gaska
Ha-ha. If you saw what real Russian nationalists are saying, then Archie is a tolerant Eurocentric liberal against their background

Matt said...

@vAsiStha, it may for the time being (at least) be worth using the total IBD and n IBD as a more stringent check on what results are potentially interesting for the 12cM category; in the example for Maikop, e.g. the Yamnaya_Samara I0443 showed 2 separate 12cm links to Maikop MK5004, and a total length over 12cM of 24.9. That could make it more plausible than a sample that showed a longer, single link in the 12cM class. Although I think any long segment in 16cM class should still be considered relevant.

I guess in theory it might be possible for a long segment to survive a long time, if there is some combination of male generation time is elevated over a very long time / there is some long term inbreeding. But not sure what the mathematical expectations are of the distribution of this...

I'll keep looking at the date separation of samples; the only thing that I've been seeing so far is that many East Asian Siberian ancient seem to much more separated in time than may be plausible for their separation in YBP.

vAsiSTha said...

@matt

Heres another interesting couplet

VK461_noUDG.SG Sweden_Viking.SG I2959 Pakistan_Udegram_Medieval_Ghaznavid maxIBD 8.258104324 sumIBD>8 16.35249853 2 segments>8

gamerz_J said...

@Davidski

It is still a good representation of results one gets using these new relate/tsinfer genome-wide geneology based methods. It's part of the same stream of papers that led to the IBD one.
To me at least, it seems the Reich is lab is moving towards these and other more haplotype-based ones along with the conventional qpAdm/graph tools.

@Vasistha
"VK90_noUDG.SG Denmark_Viking.SG I8726 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 max_IBD 12.53789663
VK280_noUDG.SG Denmark_Viking.SG I11456_enhanced Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 max_IBD 12.00180054
VK232_noUDG.SG Sweden_Viking.SG I8726 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 max_IBD 9.724798799"

To me at least this strongly looks like a technical artifact, or at the very least hardly makes any sense considering thier ancestries and time separation. Add to that the apparent not sharing with Swat samples...

StP said...

@Orpheus, Thanks for the interesting two posts (16:05 and 16:29.

As for the evolution of PIE and its first dialects, I like the theory of the Indo-Europeanist L. Badnarczuk ("JÄ™zyki Indoeuropejskie” (I/1986, II/1988).
From this theory it follows that pre-PIE developed in a small homeland (in the lineage R1a-M417?) as centum. Then, in the homeland of the PIE (in the R1a family), satem innovations of the Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs were created.

Whereas, during the migrations of the original centum, separate regional post-centum innovations were created on various substrates, e.g. Italo-Celtic, Germanic-Scandinavian, Tocharian and others). The latter dialects, after all, have no common but separate innovations.

Copper Axe said...

@Rob

"Agree -
No chance that Yenesei are WSHG related"

It is probably the case that Proto-Yeniseians were basically a WSHG/ANE shifted version of the Karasuk_o sample. The Glazkovo, Okunev, Munkhairkhan type populations don't work as well, could be the differences in streams of east Eurasian ancestry. The Ket have significant Uralic ancestry, but the Ket coordinates not on G25 are essentially Karasuk_o+WSHG+Kra001+steppe_mlba. If you replace Kra001 with Nenets or something it still is a mixture of Samoyedic+Karasuk_o(+a bit of WSHG/ANE). Southern Yeniseians would not have this strong Uralic shift, it is not significantly present in populations that are derived from southern Yeniseian nomads assimilated by the medieval/early modern (Yenisei) Kyrgyz such as the Shors.

This is an average of the samples I made on genoplot:
Target: Ket_Tuebingen
Distance: 11.4828% / 0.11482781
34.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
32.6 RUS_Karasuk_o
25.6 RUS_Tyumen_HG
7.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Baikal_BA
0.0 RUS_Baikal_BA_o
0.0 RUS_Baikal_N
0.0 RUS_Kolyma_Meso
0.0 RUS_Trans-Baikal_BA
0.0 RUS_Trans-Baikal_N
0.0 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN

With Kra001 replaced with Nenets:
Target: Ket_Tuebingen
Distance: 9.3764% / 0.09376430
71.2 Nenets
17.2 RUS_Karasuk_o
11.6 RUS_Tyumen_HG

There is variety in terms of the amount of ancestry they have from those components amongst the samples, but there is no real variation in terms of sources they pick up. Distances are bad because of the enormous genetic drift the Ket have.

In the second model the percentage of Nenet ancestry is probably overestimated a bit because I have reasons to suspect that the northern Yenisei river had geneflows from mostly Kra001 populations, but it still shows that they have significant Uralic ancestry and that the non-uralic part of their ancestry pcan be summed up as Karasuk_o+WSHG. I've been adamant about this region and this genomic profile being associated with Yeniseians for years when many people thought they should be associated with subarctic neolithic populations due to the Dené-Yeniseian theories.

This doesn't say where the language of Yeniseians come from but a signifcant component of their original ancestral profile, as well as their paternal lineages, are derived from those ANE-enriched populations north of the Altai-Sayan region during the bronze age. This is also the core region of Yeniseian hydronyms indicating that this is their likely urheimat. So you could actually make that argument that the language they speak comes from such populations if you hold that those populations spoke the languages of their ANE-rich paternal ancestors but at that point you are just speculating.

Copper Axe said...

"Ha-ha. If you saw what real Russian nationalists are saying, then Archie is a tolerant Eurocentric liberal against their background"

Speaking of Archie where has this man been? I kind of miss his semi-intelligible rants calling other commenters unscientific frauds lmao. Also the insistence on R1a being from Baikal neolithic was gold. We have to admit he definitely was correct on some cases like the "Sredny Stog" sample being a later Srubnaya sample or those z93 "Usatovo" samples just being misdated bronze age/iron age Indo-Iranians.

Rob said...

@ Gaska
Funnily enough, Vladimir has taken up Archie’s propaganda efforts, although funnily enough he was always the subject of his mockery
Vlad will spin that R1b is from Soviet Central Asia, M269 from time-travelling Muscovites, & WHG from the Middle East.
Somebody needs to help the poor guy and explain to him that only thing that comes from that far east is him


Vladimir said...

@ Rob

No, Rob, we are all from the Balkans and WHG, EHG, ANE and R1a, R1b and protoIE. If not from the Balkans, then from the Basque country for sure. Ha-ha

a said...

". Using IBD, we find that individuals from diverse Corded Ware cultural groups, including from Sweden (associated
with the Battle Axe culture), Russia (Fatyanovo), and East/Central Europe share high amounts of long IBD with each other, and also have IBD sharing up to 20 cM with various Yamnaya groups "

The old Yamnaya Russia Samara Oblast samples are mainly R1b-Z2109+>kms67+, except sample I0443 which is R1b-L23+ and dated to 3331-2930.


Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, you are the only one on the planet that doesn't consider OBR003 as anything but a Corded Ware sample:

1. A clear Corded Ware Axe, which is easily distinguishable from trapezoidal Global Amphorae Culture axes.
2. Buried in the quintessential Corded Ware manner, that is, semi-flexed on his right side, heads pointing west and facing south.

Why don't you reach out to the authors of the paper, some that have been publishing archeological papers for decades, and see what they say about your drivel. Like I said, you are a charlatan of the first order.

Arza said...

@Davidski

a matrix of total shared IBD between individuals based on IBD>8

1. Should I keep Genetic_IDs (e.g. DA123_noUDG.SG) or change them to Master_IDs (e.g. DA123)?

a matrix of total shared IBD between populations (minus outliers) based on IBD>8

2. Shouldn't it be a matrix of average total shared IBD per pair between populations (to account for different sample numbers)?

3. What outliers should I remove? All marked as "_o"? Or keep some of them (e.g. Yamnaya Ozera).

4. Should I remove any sample marked as a relative of another one?

5. Should I fill the diagonal with zeros or calculate intra-population IBD sharing (e.g. average total shared IBD per pair between all samples in a given population)?

alex said...

@Matt

Seeing how Vikings match even samples from the Greek Neolithic at 8-9cM, I would not take their IBD seriously unless it's a decent-sized segment and makes chronological and historical sense.

Suevi said...

HistoGenes Talks: Patrick J. Geary | Public lecture at the HistoGenes Plenary Meeting in Oct 2022

https://youtu.be/ZkFDpgyoXK8

Rich S. said...

@Orpheus

"Wouldn't Afanasievo be irrelevant for Beakers since the steppe DNA in them comes from CWC and not Yamnaya, which is where Afanasievo also come from (Yamnaya, not CWC)?"

I wasn't talking about Beaker. I was making the point that Gaska never addresses the presence of R1b-L51 in Afanasievo, so far east, and so early.

I'm not sure where Gaska thinks L51 came from, not that it matters. His viewpoint has shifted steadily eastward as the years have passed and as his various positions have become so obviously untenable.

Rich S. said...

@Gaska

"There are many people who believed that we were going to find L51>L151 in Yamnaya because for years everybody repeated the same arguments, now the same thing is going to happen with L151 and the CWC i.e. people are going to claim that this lineage is typical of the CWC when in fact this culture was overwhelmingly R1a (Germany, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bohemia etc etc)."

Guess you missed Papac et al and Linderholm et al. There is plenty of R1b-L151 in Corded Ware. Apparently it is typical of Corded Ware, which is what those who can read have concluded.

You also seem to be clinging to some obsolete notions regarding the origin of Beaker. Apparently the only posts you really read here are your own.

As for finding R1b-L151 in Yamnaya, time will tell. R1a-M417 hasn't been found in Yamnaya yet either, yet no one seems to dispute its steppe pastoralist bona fides.

So, give us the benefit of your official take on the origin of R1b-L51. Where was it hiding until it shows up suddenly in Early Corded Ware ~2900 BC? How did its bearers get all that Yamnaya-related autosomal DNA?

Is it of no significance that both L51 and Z2103 are brother clades under L23?

Rich S. said...

@Matt

"[I]n the final spreadsheet I have, at the >12cM level, there are 467 matches between Beaker and Corded Ware, involving 50 different CWC individuals and 81 different BBC individuals. YMMV on whether this seems like a lot or a little given their set includes 51 different CWC individuals and 93 BBC individuals."

I must confess I have not yet read the Ringbauer paper, but >12cM seems like a lot to me. I have matches at the 12cM level with whom I share known common ancestors in genealogical time.

When you say ">12cM" in this case, I don't how big the closest of those matches are, of course, but 12cM is within a couple of hundred years.

Davidski said...

@Arza

1. Master IDs

2. Yes, averaged, plus some sort of normalized version

3. Yes, keep the useful outliers separately

4. Yes, remove relatives

5. Intra IBD sharing would be better I suppose, but no idea in practice

Matt said...

@arza, I'd expect average IBD cM to make sense if anything, but would say for either your or Davidski's interest:

- I don't expect PCA to be very useful here because it's likely that do to the preponderance of samples sharing lots of IBD with close relatives and then little IBD thereafter, you're going to get very large numbers of orthogonal (unrelated) dimensions, which each just describe/explain those close relationships within sites/groups.
- If anything I'd expect that the average of ((total length>8cM)-(total length>12cM)) might be the most amenable result to PCA.
- Be aware also that the families in the dataset will skew things lots if you use total length>8cM raw I think. E.g. the GAC family, Maikop family, Afanasievo family etc.

@alex, it seems like there's a mix of interesting and expected connections and stranger stuff with the Viking.SG; I'm going to keep exploring this and other connections. It's possible some groups/methods are having technical issues with the model used here - one other thing I've noticed is that there are lots of odd long segments shared between Neanderthals and Siberians from 10kya ago, and other populations; I don't think this reflects long, not broken up Neanderthal ancestry, so it may be some kind of reference bias that affects them.

Matt said...

@arza and Davidski, you definitely can remove samples labelled as relatives although you might end up with a slightly skewed picture given that one relative can show a match which another may not. Or not skewed, but a slightly different picture in random ways depending on which of a set of relatives you include. It's somewhat random in the dataset which sample is labelled "Relative of X" and who has been chosen to be left as unlabelled as a relative.

StP said...

@Rich S: „So, give us the benefit of your official take on the origin of R1b-L51. Where was it hiding until it shows up suddenly in Early Corded Ware ~2900 BC? How did its bearers get all that Yamnaya-related autosomal DNA?
Is it of no significance that both L51 and Z2103 are brother clades under L23?”

It was all there: both cultures and lineage PIE - R1a-Z645 and Z93 in the Glasvanesti burial mound:
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/glavanesti-r1a-z93-yamnaya-cwc.jpg

DragonHermit said...

The western steppes were already a mixture of R1b/R1a BEFORE Yamnaya. There is no reason to suspect Yamnaya was 100% anything, when I2 has already appeared.

Some people in the genetics community have really got to stop with these haploautistic theories. Ancient DNA findings really don't have to fit your % ratios of unipaternals. The Y-DNA of Corded Ware is a perfect example of a founder effect.

People came up with the theory of founder effects, because it actually happens, and quite frequently. It's not some random theoretical concept.

Davidski said...

@DragonHermit

You're missing a very important point, which is that Yamnaya can now be defined more precisely thanks to ancient DNA.

There's a reason why Yamnaya is rich in Z2103 while Corded Ware isn't.

Yes, that reason is an expansion and a resulting founder effect, but that founder effect now actually defines Yamnaya.

My position is that Yamnaya per se didn't exist before that expansion and founder effect.

And Corded Ware sure isn't derived from the post-expansion/founder effect Yamnaya, because if it were, then it would be rich in Z2103.

Ergo, Corded Ware isn't derived from Yamnaya.

Another point that you're missing is that there probably was a Corded Ware homeland away from the steppe. That homeland was probably located in southeastern Poland, and has been described by archeologists as the Corded Ware X horizon.

Rich S. said...

@StP

"It was all there: both cultures and lineage PIE - R1a-Z645 and Z93 in the Glasvanesti burial mound:
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/glavanesti-r1a-z93-yamnaya-cwc.jpg"

Of course, you quoted what I asked about R1b-L151 and then by way of reply posted something about R1a-Z93.

Are you saying Z93 has been found in Yamnaya in Romania? If so, what paper is that from? I'm not denying it, btw, and I expected R1a to turn up in Yamnaya eventually, but I had not heard that it had.

On the other hand, R1b-L51 has already turned up twice in Afanasievo in Mongolia, in two separate publications, and of course Afanasievo is virtually identical to Yamnaya.

Of course, what I am about to mention is worth only slightly more than wind pudding, but I understand that Anna Szécsényi-Nagy announced at a conference on 26 August 2020 that R1b-L51 has been recovered from male remains in a Yamnaya kurgan in eastern Slovakia, but the video of that announcement has since been pulled from YouTube because the announcement was made too far in advance of publication.

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe + @Rob

But how can Yenisseyans come from Karasuk if the latter are described as having strong Europoid features?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0

Rich S. said...

@Davidski

"There's a reason why Yamnaya is rich in Z2103 while Corded Ware isn't.

Yes, that reason is an expansion and a resulting founder effect, but that founder effect now actually defines Yamnaya.

My position is that Yamnaya per se didn't exist before that expansion and founder effect.

And Corded Ware sure isn't derived from the post-expansion/founder effect Yamnaya, because if it were, then it would be rich in Z2103.

Ergo, Corded Ware isn't derived from Yamnaya.

Another point that you're missing is that there probably was a Corded Ware homeland away from the steppe. That homeland was probably located in southeastern Poland, and has been described by archeologists as the Corded Ware X horizon."

You seem to be defining Yamnaya very narrowly. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it's something I've wondered about for awhile, which is: What exactly is Yamnaya? What do we mean by it? I've always thought of it rather broadly, which is why Yamnaya is referred to as a cultural horizon rather than as a culture, but maybe it should be more narrowly defined.

I'm also really serious interested in the CWC-X Horizon. As I understand it, there are two known CWC-X burial sites thus far: one at Hubinek, and the other at Srednia, both in Małopolska in SE Poland. They're supposed to represent the transition between Yamnaya-style and CW-style burial rites, including the use of red ochre, which is absent in the CWC-A Horizon.

Polish archaeologist Piotr WÅ‚odarczak also calls CWC-X the "Pre-Corded" horizon.

Sure wish someone would do some ancient DNA work on both Hubinek and Srednia.

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

@ Copper Axe
Would agree that Yeniseian is associated with ANE-rich Yhg Q

@ Dave
Especially “eastern Yamnaya” & Afanasievo - seems like a huge founder effect even more than CWC

Davidski said...

@Rich

The idea that Yamnaya is a cultural horizon populated by relatively diverse populations has been proven wrong by genetics.

Yamnaya people are all very similar and overwhelmingly Z2103 from Hungary to Kazakhstan. I've seen no evidence so far, in all of the published and yet to be published data, that would suggest otherwise.

To me, Yamnaya is defined by that founder effect that made its population so homogeneous.

Corded Ware people weren't part of this founder effect, so even though they're closely related to Yamnaya, they're not derived from it IMO.

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “@ Copper Axe
Would agree that Yeniseian is associated with ANE-rich Yhg Q”

Then how come Kett are 80%-90% East Asian?

Innuit-Aleut and Native Americans are overwhelmingly ANE-rich Yhg Q. Does it mean that their languages are from ANE? They are majority East Asian and only various degrees of minority ANE.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aipqmE-dw4Y -sound of the Ket language

Sounds more like Innuit than to anything else

Andrzejewski said...

Kett have too much East Asian (not Uralic per se). That perplexes me.

Would you agree with Blažek that Yenisseyan is related to WSHG pops like Botai, Kelteminnar, Steppe Maykop or Okunevo?

How can you explain that Botai’s genetic profile is diametrically different than Yenisseyan people’s? What language do you think was spoken by Botai if their Ydna was Basal N, R1b and O?

Andrzejewski said...

A ridiculous proposition is that Hequos in PIE stems from a Botai/Yenisseyan loan word for horse…

Andrzejewski said...

Were WSHG (we know that they were up to 45% East Eurasian) phenotypically white? The Tang dynasty described the Jie, a likely Yenisseyan speaking tribe part of the Xiungnu Hun confederacy as very European looking. Additionally, the article I’ve linked above claims that Karasuk culture were conspicuously Europoid (maybe attributed to the Afanasievo and perhaps some Andronovo they assimilated). Another query relates to the Pre-BA Tarim Mummies: we know of Beauty of Lulan, Ur-David and the other famous European looking mummies, who all date to the Bronze to Iron Age (3,800-3,000ybp). But what did the preceding TM look like? They were speculated of being WSHG according to a newer study (2022, forgot authors). Did those WSHG look similar to “our” IE famous mummies?

@Rob @CopperAxe

Arza said...

@Davidski
I'll need a day or two.

@Matt
It's not a bug, it's a feature, I think.
On such plots we can visualize founder effects and see who else shares them.

GAC
https://i.postimg.cc/wBHsmdbb/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA.png

CWC vs. Sintashta
https://i.postimg.cc/TP95jHz2/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-1.png

CWC vs. Yamnaya
https://i.postimg.cc/kgWbG5wb/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-2.png

Samples marked as "Other" are projected.

Davidski said...

@Arza

Yep, no problem.

Very nice plots.

Matt said...

@arza, if you find them useful and that in practice they don't simply load on a single population and end up better visualised as just plotting (average>8cM Pop X) vs (average>8cM Pop Y).

@rob: Especially “eastern Yamnaya” & Afanasievo - seems like a huge founder effect even more than CWC

It's unfortunate that in this paper the 5x Yamnaya from Serbia, Bulgaria and Hungary (I18793, I18794, I18801_d, Bul4, I11446) to make the cut.
We know that Reich Lab have some higher coverage samples where one show relatively recent links to Afanasievo, as David Anthony mentioned it...

On the debate about "derived from Yamnaya", I think that although the populations are not literally derived mainly or only from the people buried in the kurgans (who have whatever special qualifications to be included), so in a sense that's correct, it is at least and seems at the moment closer to ground truth than "derived from separate populations that split during Sredny Stog", even if there was some degree of separation emerging, e.g. 3500 BCE that isn't represented on the steppe by limited post-4000 BCE and pre-3300 BCE samples.

...

As a side-note, looks like AADR was patched following Ringbauer's pre-print, perhaps some minor edits to population labels that they didn't get across. (I didn't look at much - it seems like they stopped marking Yamnaya Ozera as outlier for some reason, which doesn't immediately make sense).

Matt said...

What do you guys think of the linkages for the Sintashta outliers o2 and o3? : https://imgur.com/a/sg0wIMX

Unfortunately the o1 outliers didn't make it across, but I think it seems consistent with o2 being admixed between Sintashta main cluster and Sintashta o1. I'm not sure if the results evidence the o2 mixing back into being ancestral to other later Steppe MLBA populations or not.

Sintashta o3 seems to be close to the sample I6795 in Alakul.

Links by Potapovka that made it over (Potapovka_o1 sample I0244) confirms the PCA finding of a Yamnaya like element in Potapovka, but does not seem to have any links to later Steppe_MLBA that followed on from Potapovka or possibly constituted another element in that complex: https://imgur.com/a/Ptn1rvA .

Stronger links to Yamnaya / Corded Ware Europe, weaker links to the "ANE admixed" cluster.

StP said...

@RichS

I saw the records: first with Carlos Q. (for which thanks to him!) and in the work Sirak 2019/2020 (before it disappeared, because the search for a genetic "company" for Z93 is ongoing). I also found records on ISOGG and on Yfull, but in the group of unconfirmed SNPs.
I made a picture.
https://indo-european.eu/2020/03/earliest-r1a-z93-from-late-trypillian-in-the-podolian-volhynian-upland/
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/z93-r1a1a1b2.am01870-ena-isogg-yfull-sirak.jpg

Matt said...

The results on Sintashta seem to me to undermine an alternative to the Afanasievo hypothesis for Tocharian, whereby Sintashta / Steppe MLBA was linguistically diverse and included proto-Indo-Iranian and Tocharian. The relationships with the cluster was seem to make that feel a bit less plausible, while the direct relationships between Afanasievo and EBA Steppe related populations in East Asia strengthen that. The challenge remains bridging the gap.

It also seems strengthened by relationships between CWC and Yamnaya; that strengthens the suggestion that Afanasievo could lose connection with the core evolving IE earlier than the CWC derived cultures would, and fit with Tocharian's outgroup position on the usual trees.

Davidski said...

@StP

That Z93 from Romania doesn't have a C14 date, and it looks like a wrongly dated Scythian or Sarmatian, because the sample in question has Siberian ancestry.

StP said...

@Arza said...
„CWC vs. Sintashta
https://i.postimg.cc/TP95jHz2/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-1.png
CWC vs. Yamnaya
https://i.postimg.cc/kgWbG5wb/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-2.png ‘”

SE-Polish CWC = Fatjanovo CWC = Germany CWC = homeland PIE?

@David
I have not read anywhere that Glavanest has Siberian DNA. And if so, we need to reorient ourselves :D

Rob said...

@ Matt


''On the debate about "derived from Yamnaya", I think that although the populations are not literally derived mainly or only from the people buried in the kurgans (who have whatever special qualifications to be included), so in a sense that's correct, it is at least and seems at the moment closer to ground truth than "derived from separate populations that split during Sredny Stog", even if there was some degree of separation emerging, e.g. 3500 BCE that isn't represented on the steppe by limited post-4000 BCE and pre-3300 BCE samples.''


Yes something happened post 4000 BC which homogenized initially more heterogeneous steppe populations, i.e the 'eastern shift' of originally Ukr_N_like males (the middle Don set are just a slightly more eastern variant).

I also think labels like Repin, Sredni Stog, etc, have had their day. Theyre based on single type-sites or impressionistic ''pottery zones''. No archaeologist has a definition which matches another.
Soon we will have new more objective cetergorization based on time, genetics, burial posture, etc


Gaska said...

Perhaps it is good to remember all the M269s in Papac's paper-After 2,770 BC-R1a, Q and Z2103 appear in the Bohemian CWC

PNL001 (2.896 BC)-Plotiště-two bone belt clasps, bone awl, chipped industry blade
OBR003(2.893 BC)-Obritsví-Pot,2 bone belt clasps, stone battle axe, chipped industry, blade.
STD002 (2.777 BC)-Stadice-Grave goods: three shell beads, chipped industry, blade
KON005 (2.727 BC) Konobrzé-Grave goods: two bone belt clasps, chipped industry blade-
KON003 (2.700 BC) Konobrzé-Grave goods:drilled animal tooth, chipped industry, flake-
VLI011 (2.775 BC)-Vlineves-Grave goods: NO finds
VLI015 (2.775 BC)-Vlineves-Grave goods:chipped industry, two blades
VLI092 (2.755 BC)-Vlineves-Grave goods:chipped industry , blade
VLI085 (2.719 BC)-Vlineves-Grave goods: NO finds
VLI081 (2.700 BC)-Vlineves-Grave goods:NO finds
KO1002 (2.660 BC)-Kolin-Grave goods: flat stone axe

@Rich S

I know you’re not that dumb, so I can only conclude that your intentional misrepresenting of my view is because you’re a weasel

Andrzejewski said...

But on a second listening- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aipqmE-dw4Y Sound of Kett Language

Vs.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FD2yPqODlBA -sounds of Proto-IE (probably CWC language).

The accents may sound familiar, both laryngeal

Copper Axe said...

@Andrzejewski

"Were WSHG (we know that they were up to 45% East Eurasian) phenotypically white? The Tang dynasty described the Jie, a likely Yenisseyan speaking tribe part of the Xiungnu Hun confederacy as very European looking. Additionally, the article I’ve linked above claims that Karasuk culture were conspicuously Europoid (maybe attributed to the Afanasievo and perhaps some Andronovo they assimilated)."

The Jié phrase that has been attested probably is southern Yeniseian as a Turkic reading makes little sense whereas the southern Yeniseian proposal is quite sound, but it is still speculative. However this doesn't guarantee that the Jié people were genetically very Yeniseian still. Furthermore caucasoid in this context means more like "caucasoid from the perspective of an east asian person" rather than fully west eurasian looking.

WSHGs were phenotypically with an increase of mongoloid traits as you go further eastcaucasoid mainly, but didn't exactly look like any modern population.

"Another query relates to the Pre-BA Tarim Mummies: we know of Beauty of Lulan, Ur-David and the other famous European looking mummies, who all date to the Bronze to Iron Age (3,800-3,000ybp). But what did the preceding TM look like? They were speculated of being WSHG according to a newer study (2022, forgot authors). Did those WSHG look similar to “our” IE famous mummies?"

You might be interested in these:
https://musaeumscythia.blogspot.com/2021/11/a-look-at-kumsay-graveyard-of-giants.html

https://musaeumscythia.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-tarim-mummies-were-not-people-or.html

"But how can Yenisseyans come from Karasuk if the latter are described as having strong Europoid features?"

The _o in Karasuk_o signals it is a genetic outlier from the main group of Karasuk peoples, which are a mixture of Proto-Iranians and Siberian peoples. The sample is 25% wshg 75% east asian from my memory. There is a bit of bronze age Indo-Iranian in Yeniseians but I cannot say what the exact source is yet. Could be Karasuk, could be other Andronovo derived groups.

"Then how come Kett are 80%-90% East Asian?"

They aren't. Furthermore spoken languages are not dictated by the degree of ancestry their speakers have.

I hope that helps.

Rich S. said...

@Gaska

"I know you’re not that dumb, so I can only conclude that your intentional misrepresenting of my view is because you’re a weasel".

What a devastating form of argument calling me a "weasel" is! Ouch!

Anyway, I just asked you what your view is, because it's really not possible to tell from your posts, not exactly anyway. I know only that you are rabidly against a steppe pastoralist IE origin for R1b-L51.

Since I have been reading your stuff for a number of years now, I remember you began your internet career defending the old, now-obsolete idea that R1b wintered the LGM in the Franco-Cantabrian refuge. When that became untenable, you asserted that R1b-P312, at least, originated in Iberia along with Bell Beaker and spread to the rest of Europe out of Iberia with Beaker. Olalde et al put paid to that idea. After that, you fell back on the claim that R1b-DF27 originated in Iberia and is in no way Indo-European.

You seem to have acquired the rabid anti-steppe point of view as a reaction to and a grudge against the people you have encountered here and elsewhere who have, step by step over the years, been right where you have been proven so terribly wrong, since by far most of them believe that R1b-L51 is of steppe pastoralist Indo-European origin. It is the hatred of us steppe "weasels" that seems to most animate you now.

I'm not really sure what your view is of the origin of R1b-L51. From what I can gather, you seem to think steppe DNA spread west into peninsular Europe primarily via females, and that the earliest R1b-L51 males were without steppe DNA to begin with.

Maybe you'd care to elucidate? If you think R1b-L51 is not of steppe origin, not Indo-European, and originally had no steppe DNA, please address how that can be when its brother clade under R1b-L23, Z2103, is so obviously connected with Yamnaya. You should also take the time to address the presence of R1b-L51 in Afanasievo so early and in very early Corded Ware.

Why is it, given your point of view, that, despite thousands of ancient samples from peninsular Europe, R1b-L51 is missing until it shows up in very early Corded Ware ~2900 BC?

Honestly, I don't expect a coherent answer or even an honest answer from you. I'm too familiar with your modus operandi for that.

Rich S. said...

@StP

Okay, thanks. Aside from what Davidski said about the likelihood of that skeleton belonging to a Scythian, it's pretty iffy and there's no paper readily available. So, really, there's no evidence of R1a in Yamnaya yet either.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing R1a-M417. Maybe it will show up in Yamnaya someplace sometime. It would be cool if it did, but maybe Davidski is right about Yamnaya, and we shouldn't expect either R1a-M417 or R1b-L51 in it.

If that's right, then there was some kind of steppe Eneolithic source population that fed into both Yamnaya and Corded Ware. If Russia and Ukraine ever stop fighting, maybe we'll find it someday.

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob Do you still believe that Globular Amphora spoke a WHG derived language? (And not ANF)

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe “Kumsay Giant” looked white, very baltoid, but he was 50% Yamnaya so no wonder :)

Steppe Maykop probably looked very similar. Kelteminnar? Jury’s out on Kelteminnar.

But Botai were 45% East Asian, so looked much different, I surmise.

If Botai’s ydna were anything but ANE (N, O and R1b), they seem the opposite of Kett (ydna ANE-rich, overall not much WSHG ancestry) - therefore i doubt that their languages had much in common.

Rob said...

@ Andrze

'' Do you still believe that Globular Amphora spoke a WHG derived language? (And not ANF)''

Yes, within the limits of ''archeogenetic guessing'' in pre-literate contexts.

Essentially, their WHG ancestors adopted agropastoralism from post-LBK groups & mated with their females, leading to population growth & rise in EEF ancestry, but kept their cultural distinction centred around their own male clan chiefs.

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe “https://musaeumscythia.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-tarim-mummies-were-not-people-or.html”

I read the blog post but I’m confused: are you saying that the Tarim Mummies are an admixture of ANE rich people (Okunevo?) with Afanasievo, and that they spoke Tocharian?

Gaska said...

@Rich S

Yeah a weasel, there is nothing worse than dishonesty whilst holding a false facade of being a nice guy.

Matt said...

Hey all, re; the Ringbauer IBD results, I made some histograms showing the date ranges that each level of match typically falls into (for any pair that have at least one such match): https://imgur.com/a/khqL3Oj

12cM has 70% within 500 years, 19% within 500-1000 years, 5% within 1000-1500 years and 2% within 1500-2000 years. Overall 96.4% chance of being within 2000 years.

16 cM has 83% within 500 years, 13% within 500-1000 years, 3% within 1000-1500 years, and 0.4% within 1500-2000 years. Overall 99% chance of being within 2000 years.

20cM has 90% within 500 years, 7.5% within 500-1000 years, 1.4% within 1000-1500 years, and 0.2% within 1500-2000 years. Overall 99.2% chance of being within 2000 years.

Some of those numbers would get better if I filtered out the populations that cause most problems; the biggest offenders are Russia_Siberia_UP:UKY001, Russia_AngaraRiver_N:irk034_noUDG.SG, Spain_EBA_oNorthEurope:I4558, Russia_LenaRiver_LUP:yak025_noUDG.SG which generates a large share of date mismatches. Though the majority aren't attributable to any particular sample.

I think it shows that most matches are relatively close in time, at least at these scales.

DragonHermit said...

@Davidski

The "homeland" of CW is the Middle Dnieper culture. This where Yamnaya transforms into Corded Ware. Unfortunately, this is a very poorly sampled region DNA wise, that's why we're only seeing the more bottlenecked southern/eastern RZ2103 Yamnaya.

Davidski said...

@DragonHermit

Hungarian and Ukrainian Yamnaya are basically the same as Samara Yamnaya, with a lot of Z2103.

In regards to the Middle Dnieper culture, there's no evidence that this was the Corded Ware homeland.

And its links to Yamnaya are speculative.

Samuel Andrews said...

I'm curious.

Who in SE Poland do you think is the origin of the Corded Ware culture?

Davidski said...

The steppe population that gave rise to both Corded Ware and Yamnaya.

We could say that this was Yamnaya, but obviously this wasn't the classic steppe Yamnaya.

So maybe it should be called something else?

Matt said...

Another exploration of dates for matching samples; this time I've focused on the matches between Globular Amphora samples and samples from other cultures (although note this includes the matches to the Corded_Ware_o1 outlier, who basically looks like she's from GAC in terms of her IBD and PCA).

The graphics are here: https://imgur.com/a/oIWWl9E

In essence you can see that:

1) The GAC samples who match non-GAC are generally older than the non-GAC samples they match to. That seems to support the idea that generally or exclusively the GAC samples are donating to the non-GAC. (Although in theory there could be biased sampling explanations).

2) As we move through higher IBD classes, we find that the distribution of non-GAC matches gets narrower around the date of the GAC samples.

At 12cM, there's still an appreciable proportion of matches to ~2700-2450 BCE GAC samples showing up at ~1700 BCE (about 40 to 30 generations).

However by the time we get to 20cM matches, they are essentially all within 500 years (20 to 15 generations) and the bulk of them are within 200 years. (The one exceptional match with a longer time gap was Kazakhstan_MLBA_KazakhMys:I4783 dated 1450 BCE who matched Poland_Koszyce_GlobularAmphora:RISE1164 (individual 6, dead 14 year old female from the mass grave family) dated approx 2450 BCE.)

3) We also find that the date of the GAC and non-GAC sample in the pair tends to be correlated at 20cM links; so that means that the later GAC samples are tending to provide the match for those later instances where a non-GAC sample is matching a GAC sample. This is based on relatively small numbers of samples tho!

...

I think this all tends to support the idea that the 20cM matches are pretty strong evidence for co-ancestry within ~700(?) years, with few exceptions (whether the pattern is explained best by a common ancestor of A and B approx within 700 years ago; or else actual donation from a recent ancestor of A->B or recent ancestor of B->A).

Can look at other cases like Bell Beaker and Corded Ware if there's an interest.

In general in terms of finding long matches between populations, it seems to indicate that:

1) The samples can't really be separated by more than 1000 years, or more than 500 perhaps for long IBD.

2) It's a lot easier if there's very high internal sharing and relatively low pop size/recent expansion, like there is with GAC. Populations which were more substructured might not be so easy to work with.

StP said...

@Rich S (15.03.2023)

In the samples of only lineage R1a from the populations Chłopice-Vesele (Nitra, unpublished), SE Poland (Linderholm, unpublished), Germany CWC and Fatjanovo CWC, it is necessary to look for their closest common ancestor.
This will make it easier to look for a transitional element, common ancestor(s) with Yamnaya from the Carpathians prefields or some other place!

StP said...

@Davidski said...
„StP That Z93 from Romania doesn't have a C14 date, and it looks like a wrongly dated Scythian or Sarmatian, because the sample in question has Siberian ancestry.
March 15, 2023 at 2:58 AM”

Probably all Eurasians have a Siberian component in them
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/k10-ancient-admixture-linder.jpg
it's the light blue color.

Matt said...

The lack of much matching between the steppe Bell Beaker groups and other European LN pre-steppe groups than Globular Amphora, really does make me wonder if this is because we haven't got the right samples, or its just the case that Bell Beaker mixed only with GAC, and just retained a slightly higher level of GAC ancestry than CWC groups. It seems like there must have been some other admixture, or it's kind of hard to explain why steppe ancestry continues to decrease going south. There are only a handful of matches and the most plausible seem to Croatia_Popova_CA (POP39) with Poland_Southeast_Beaker (pcw260) - see: https://imgur.com/a/kI72i7b

Also a link of Italy_Remedello (RISE489) with Italy_North_BellBeaker (I2477), however I2477 although clearly culturally linked to Beaker (https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/246907/EB2BFD9F-FB54-4234-99D2-F26C88342D3A.pdf) seems to have no steppe ancestry.

Given that the PCA David Anthony revealed showed links with Yamnaya Hungary admixing into EEF (https://i.imgur.com/tAmTLJh.png), at this point I kind of wonder if that admixture won't be GAC as well ;)

Rob said...

@ Matt

I think there is something problematic with this IBD
It produces results which don’t make sense. I simply doubt that CW-BB only associated with GAC
Moreover, how can the source of additional EEF with time increase be from GAC when by this time such groups were already in Scandinavia or SW Europe (whilst GAC had essentially dissolved as a coherent group).

Samuel Andrews said...

@davidski. ?????

DragonHermit said...

@David

There is no population which "gave rise to Yamnaya and CW". Yamnaya starts at 3500 BC, and the earliest split is the Afanasievos/Tocharians ~3300/3200 BC (also confirmed by language). They are also RZ2103-heavy.

Core PIE by definition split AFTER that, meaning CW comes from a RZ2103-heavy, POST-AFANASIEVO parent population, i.e. Mid-Era Yamnaya.

If this hypothetical parent of Yamnaya/CW gets pushed back earlier than 3500 BC, you wouldn't get these IBD results, and most certainly you'd see a massive linguistic difference between CW languages and Yamnaya languages like Armenian/Albanian/Greek. That difference just isn't there. In fact, it's the Beaker languages that are the slightly more archaic.

Davidski said...

@DragonHermit

The IBD results show that Yamnaya and Afanasievo are essentially the same population, while Corded Ware is closely related but different. I'll demonstrate this in my next blog entry.

This also fits well with Y-DNA results, because obviously both Yamnaya and Afanasievo are heavy in Z2103, while Corded Ware is not.

So how do you reconcile your claims that Corded Ware split from Z2103-heavy Yamnaya after Afanasievo did with these facts?

Rob said...

@ Dragom Hermit

Nither Afansievo is the earliest split nor does CWC derive from MDC. many of your contentions are quite confused in fact.

Vladimir said...


I think the immediate ancestor of Yamnaya and CWC is the Zhivotilovka horizon, stretching after 3500BC from the Caucasus to the Carpathians. This was also written about in a recent article by Heid and Nordevist. But even in this case, with all the similarity of the burial rite, it is clear that this population has already been divided into three groups: Zhivotilovka proper, Usatovo and Repino. So the separation within one group occurred after the collapse of Novodanilovka/Suvorovo in the period 4000-3500BC.
https://www.academia.edu/27859681/NORTH_PONTIC_STEPPES_AT_THE_END_OF_THE_4_TH_MILLENNIUM_BC_THE_EPOCH_OF_BROKEN_BORDERS?email_work_card=title

Vladimir said...

Yes, starting from 2.07, there is a review of aDNA using the IBD method and it is really clear that Yamnaya and Afanasievo are one population, and CWC is a related, but different population
https://youtu.be/SOeiOLRLgDc
https://imgur.com/a/fGLhA3S

Rob said...

The Zhv-Volchansk culture is described to be a culture under Tripolje & Majkop influences. It has a distinctive burial posture which is not common in Yamnaya & CWC, and has nothing to do with Repin either. Genetics pending, it seems as an independent, brief phenomenon


The predecessor of CWC is probably the forest-steppe variant of the Budzhak culture
Both Yamnaya & CWC have the side-crouched burial - typical of Lower Mikhailovka/ Cernavoda, and an Eneolithic Balkan-Carpathian influence, & the supine -crouched which is an age-old steppe tradition since the Skelia period

Davidski said...

@Samuel

Ancient DNA (not inferences based on ancient DNA) must locate the steppe population rich in L51 and M417 that gave rise to Corded Ware.

That's the only way we'll be sure if Corded Ware is derived from Yamnaya, or from an immediate ancestor to both Corded Ware and Yamnaya.

The IBD results are useful, but they don't provide direct evidence that Corded Ware is derived from Yamnaya.

It's not surprising that Corded Ware and Yamnaya share a lot of IBD within a rough time frame of 500 years, because they're so similar in other ways and they probably kept in regular contact (which is suggested by the presence of goods of steppe origin in Central European Corded Ware burials).

The really interesting thing is the fact that Yamnaya and Afanasievo are overall more closely related in terms of IBD to each other than to Corded Ware.

This points to a basic split between Yamnaya and Corded Ware well before 3,000 BCE, and so there's no way to be sure that Corded Ware is derived from Yamnaya pending the aforementioned direct evidence.

Vladimir said...

Burials of the Zhivotil culture on the side are exactly the same as in the CWC. That's it!!! The burials of Zhivotilovka were performed on the side. The only thing that possibly distinguishes it is the differentiation of male and female burials. Although there are burials on both the right and left sides, but due to the lack of information about gender, it is unclear which burials are male and which are female. In Repino, all burials are on the back like Yamnaya. In Usatovo, part of the burials are on the back like Yamnaya and part on the side like CWC. Budjak is Yamnaya culture and secondly it is late since 3200BC. Budjak is probably a migration along the south, including towards the Pannonian Plain and Greece. 85% of the burials of the Budjak culture are performed on the back with bent legs, like Yamnaya, only 15% on the side.

MaxT said...

@Davidski
"The IBD results are useful, but they don't provide direct evidence that Corded Ware is derived from Yamnaya."

What about qpGraph?

Davidski said...

qpGraph is based on formal statistics, so it can't distinguish between the Yamnaya-related ancestry in Corded Ware and Afanasievo.

It's all the same in qpGraph.

Rob said...

IMO qpGraph is good for panoramic views of deep affinities & basic structure

Rob said...

@ Vladimir

“ Burials of the Zhivotil culture on the side are exactly the same as in the CWC. That's it!!! The burials of Zhivotilovka were performed on the side. The only thing that possibly distinguishes it is the differentiation of male and female burials. Although there are burials on both the right and left sides, but due to the lack of information about gender, it is unclear which burials are male and which are female. In Repino, all burials are on the back like Yamnaya. ”


Not quite that simple
Early Corded Ware also has extended burials with knees bent . So Yamnaya and CWC both have extended and side-crouched
The side-crouched burial style in CWC & Yamnaya are derived from Nizhne Mikhailovka. The Zhv-Vlch style is different - it is hyperflexed , this different.
They both also have the extended -knee bent style which is seen in Skelia & Repin
Then there is also the complete supine position with legs straight in Kvitanska , but that’s an extreme minority in Yamnaya, & missing in CWC

Rob said...

but of course, let’s see what adna shows

StP said...

@all
How did the CWC culture and community come about?
I suspect that:
The forest lords replaced the steppe lords on a large scale
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/ibd-neolit-braz-zelazo.jpg

Vladimir said...

Also pay attention in the work of Manzura to such a moment, talking about, as it seems to me, about family ties. The population of Zhivotilovka often used previously erected mounds for burial, while they used mounds of previously existing cultures: Konstantinovka, Novodanilovka, Nizhnyaya Mikhaylovka and even in the west of Chernavoda, but categorically did not use the mounds of Repino and Usatovo. I think it can be interpreted that Repino and Usatovo were not considered related groups for the population of Zhivotilovka. On the basis of Usatovo, Budzhak then appeared, and on the basis of Repino, the standard Yamnaya.

EastPole said...

I don’t knwo if I understood property but Leonid Vyazov seems to claim that Late Bronze Age steppe cultures of Central Asia are not connected with Fatyanovo and Sintashta, as people used to think, but with the cultures of Bronze Age Central Europe. Could somebody listen to this (2:30:08):

https://youtu.be/SOeiOLRLgDc?t=9008

Matt said...

Some more histogram, this time Yamnaya samples: https://imgur.com/a/ImhuDf9
So this excludes matches between Steppe_EMBA (most of their matches), between them and the admixed Steppe_EMBA-ANE rich samples from Russia and East and Central Asia (which make up a quite large proportion of matches to Steppe_EMBA!), matches with Maikop between Yamnaya_Ozera and that one Yamnaya Samara, matches between Yamnaya and Hajji Firruz BA, Armenia_LBA, matches with the Steppe_MLBA that live in Central Asia, etc.

The results seem qualitatively similar to the results from the GAC comparison, but relative to the total >12cM, less matching at higher length classes (16-20), which seems to suggest that the sampled Yamnaya (from roughly 3100-2700 most commonly) are indeed not the mixing population and that the true mixing population for CWC and LNBA Europe is probably a few hundred years back from this time?

In case anyone (lol) actually wants to look at these as a spreadsheet (open as .csv format):

Yamnaya and "Europe" matches - https://pastebin.com/cu0a1KpM
Yamnaya All matches - https://pastebin.com/ZYZSQbPf

...

@Rob, it does seem like a puzzle. It may be something wrong with the method. Or just that the method only works to detect a link when you have substantial admixture from one population that's closely related (and not bits from a lot of more distantly and deeply related people across Western Europe), and that it needs to be close in time (so 3000-2700 BCE GAC better than 3500 BCE other European farmers) and we have the good luck so far to have had a samples from the right time from a GAC population that shares a lot of IBD because they have rapidly expanded themselves (replacing earlier TRB etc farmers), and also via Papac and other relatively many Central Europe early 3rd millennium samples. Maybe more will crop up as more samples from Southern France / Northern Italy / North Balkans will show up.

There is fairly abundant IBD detected *within* earlier farmer groups (e.g. essentially it seems to me that the patterns involving IBD between North France/Britain tend to replicate the findings of Ariano - https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/357536349/mmc4.pdf)

Matt said...

Re; Afanasievo and Yamnaya's greater connectedness, although as a caveat on this, looking at their IBD sharing matrix, which presumably is based on a neighbour-joining tree in the background, it seems kind of like Afanasievo sits at the joint there between Yamnaya+Poltavka and Corded Ware. So that may reflect that (I think?) the Afanasievo samples are a bit older and so perhaps a bit more likely to be close to the "true co-ancestor" population, and have a shallower split (although not a trifurcation) within the presumably (CWC(Afanasievo(Yamnaya))) clade structure. Linguistic phylogeny might be the same or different, if ongoing contact effects btwn Yamnaya+CWC are > or < than intermarriage. Need to have a look at this later and confirm whether some of this looks accurate.

Arza said...

@Davidski

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cBRgwoJFU17S6T_LNQOwUshrrU4XVAxT/view?usp=share_link

It'd be good to check both matrices by hand before using them.

I did not remove any outliers from the pop matrix. If you provide me a whitelist or a blacklist of populations (list of pop names is in the file) I can easily create other matrices, also based on columns other than "sum_IBD>8".

Davidski said...

@Arza

Thanks, I'll check this out tomorrow.

Btw, what's your take on the IBD relationship between Yamnaya, Afanasievo and Corded Ware?

Do Yamnaya and Afanasievo form a clade to the exclusion of Corded Ware?

DragonHermit said...

@Davidski

"So how do you reconcile your claims that Corded Ware split from Z2103-heavy Yamnaya after Afanasievo did with these facts?"

Because most of those RZ2103s are dead ends and not Core PIE. What we call "Core PIE" is simply a specific northwestern subsection of Yamnaya. Most of these RZ2103s are just distant cousins speaking related dialects, i.e. Afanasievos/Tocharians.

That paper on cereal terms was very clear that Core PIE is NOT from eastern Yamnaya, but from a "farming-heavy" western region of Yamnaya speakers, since all modern PIE languages share cereal-related terms.

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

You seem to be under the impression that someone's arguing ALL Yamnaya gave rise to modern IEs, and that's just not the case. It's like saying that all ancient Italic languages gave rise to modern Romance languages. No, it was simply a small % of people in the city of Rome. Most ancient Italic branches are dead today.

In the same way, it was only a small number of Yamnaya somewhere in the northwestern steppe that gave rise to Core PIE. Most Yamnaya left no linguistic/genetic legacy.

Orpheus said...

@Matt To test real Yamnaya and CWC relatedness, the earliest Yamnaya samples we can find are required. Basically right when the culture was formed, and preferrably from multiple areas it spanned (regardless of haplos). If that doesn't show direct descent (and assuming this doesn't change in future stufies possibly correcting earlier ones) then yeah CWC would have split from a pre-Yamnaya common ancestor with Yamnaya instead of early Yamnaya.

@Vara From time to time sadly yeah.

StP said...

@Davidski said... „what's your take on the IBD relationship between Yamnaya, Afanasievo and Corded Ware? Do Yamnaya and Afanasievo form a clade to the exclusion of Corded Ware?”

Linderholm 2020 on the PolishCWC-Yamnaya-Afanasievo relationship
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63138-w

„1)The study of individuals associated with the CWC complex detected ancestry and admixture patterns with the HG groups, individuals of the Steppe culture groups such as Afanasievo and Yamnaya complexes.

2)Overall, although non-significant the results suggested a trend where the four groups share more genetic drift with Russia_Afanasievo than with Yamnaya and Groups I, II and III share more genetic drift with Poland_CW than with Russian_Afanasievo (Table S14 & Fig. S20). This pattern was also mirrored by thef2-statistics.

3)When tested with other published European Neolithic populations we observed similar pattern in Late Eneolithic and Final Eneolithic populations, but not earlier ones, e.g. Globular Amphora. Groups I-IV are genetically closer to Russia_Afanasievo than to Yamnaya individuals (Z > |2.9|) and are also closer to Russia_Afanasievo than to each other (Z > |2.9|). Even when we compare two individuals from the same group, same chronology and same site with Russian Afanasievo with f4-statistics they share significant more genetic drift with Russian Afanasievo than with each other. These results indicate that there might be a bias in f3- and f4-statistics towards Russian Afanasievo. We do not observe this bias in the f2-statistics where individuals within groups are closer to each other than to Russian Afanasievo as expected. Due to low sample size of Afanasievo group (n = 5), which was further reduced by removing RISE507, likely the same as RISE50811 the observed affinity to the Russian Afanasievo should be interpreted with caution. To further investigate our observations and trace any bias that might result from the way reference data was generated, we perform the same f4-statistics calculation with division of Yamnaya dataset into whole-genome sequenced dataset (WGS) and enriched dataset (CP), we only trust the results of F4 stats using WGS Yamnaya data. We find that we still observe similar results to those obtained while using mixed reference dataset albeit with more similarities within WGS generated dataset (Table S16). Selected f4-statistics results are listed in Table S16.

4)These ties are not new but they might indicate an interesting southern affiliation that has not been as clear in other previously studied samples from Poland. Furthermore, we detect less association between CWC groups from the Kuyavia region and southern Poland revealing fine scale routes of the spread of CWC traditions. The most unusual signal identified is the one between the CWC and the Afanasievo complex. This genetic incorporation from a Steppe population further east than the Yamnaya culture, is novel for these parts and suggests a CWC population structure and history more complex than previously thought.”

Matt said...

@Orpheus, although it may be difficult to find burials from exactly the right time frame; if the general hypothesis is that this is the time when the groups that make the transition to using wagons began to move away from the river values, leading to a population increase and a founder effect for a small number of y-dna haplogroups, then they may not be building the larger kurgan structures that are seen, but also do not really have settlements that we can identify either. So where do archaeogeneticists look for the samples?

StP said...

@all,

If the CWC, as research by Linderholm has shown, is closer to Afanasievo than to Yamnaya, then it could not have come from Yamnaya.

StP said...

@David,

It was necessary to examine whether this proximity of CWC to Afanasievo applies to the entire CWC complex, or only to the subgroup from south-eastern Poland (upper Vistula and San),subgroup CWC Germany and the entire ceCWC group - according to the Flegontow map:
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/from-central-europe-to-fatjanovo-ru.jpg

Orpheus said...

@Matt Any kind of burial from the early Yamnaya period would do, even mass graves if they're found. The objective is to test whether any individual associated with early Yamnaya (when CWC didn't exist yet as a culture) is the main source of later CWC groups. Even areas adjacent to early Yamnaya could yield results from assimilated individuals.

@StP Aren't Afanasievo considered coming from a proto-Yamnaya population, not just genetics-wise but also culture-wise? In that case CWC would show affinity and descent from early Yamnaya (like Afanasievo did) rather than from later Yamnaya.

Matt said...

@StP: For what it's worth, when David Anthony gave his talk in 2021, he mentioned a cousin (of some degree) between Afanasievo and western Yamnaya from Hungary. So it's possible that the population structure ended up with the groups of Yamnaya that dispersed east and west being more related in some ways than the groups that remained on the steppes? (Rather than a simple east->central->west relatedness pattern with Steppe groups of this time period). And then possibly western Yamnaya may end up sharing some descendants with Corded Ware.

Though, it's not evident in the slide that Reich shared with 8-12cM links that included the western Yamnaya groups - https://imgur.com/a/6jb4GMg

I can't see any sign of an f4 signal between Afanasievo and any CWC more or less than another though - https://i.imgur.com/rEthDhD.png

Vladimir said...

@StP according to the Flegontow map:
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/from-central-europe-to-fatjanovo-ru.jpg

This is a Phlegontov map showing Y-DNA R1a-M417

a said...

Poland Corded ware basal-branch -R1b L-51* with a lot of Yamnaya?
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L51/

id:PCW070--R-L51*
Rzzeszow Foothills. Swiete Jaroslaw district site 11.
Polish Corded ware male-30-35 years old 2460-2340BC (Grave 876).



-2916,-2321,595,Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya,Poland_Southeast_CordedWare,RISE550_noUDG.SG,pcw070_noUDG.SG,12.4277025461196,20.6892997026443,2,12.4277025461196,1,0,0,0,0

-2890,-2321,569,Kazakhstan_EBA_Yamnaya,Poland_Southeast_CordedWare,Damgaard2018Yamnaya_noUDG.SG,pcw070_noUDG.SG,12.1342986822128,20.1703011989593,2,12.1342986822128,1,0,0,0,0

-2785,-2321,464,Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya,Poland_Southeast_CordedWare,I0438,pcw070_noUDG.SG,9.0038001537323,17.6824033260345,2,0,0,0,0,0,0

-2850,-2321,529,Ukraine_EBA_Yamnaya,Poland_Southeast_CordedWare,I2105,pcw070_noUDG.SG,8.24220180511474,16.3435995578765,2,0,0,0,0,0,0

-2382,-2321,61,Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya,Poland_Southeast_CordedWare,RISE552_noUDG.SG,pcw070_noUDG.SG,14.6391034126281,14.6391034126281,1,14.6391034126281,1,0,0,0,0

-2713,-2321,392,Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya,Poland_Southeast_CordedWare,RISE547_noUDG.SG,pcw070_noUDG.SG,12.6908957958221,12.6908957958221,1,12.6908957958221,1,0,0,0,0


Matt said...

@arza, thanks for that spreadsheet; it's still tricky to use in Excel due to sheer size but very appreciated.

Just as a quick thing, using the average IBD, top matches for some populations I selected randomly: https://imgur.com/a/p3RVpIh

If you look at the top lengths, you can really see that some populations - Globular Amphora and Afanasievo, or early Neolithic France for example - share much more IBD with each other, typically, than some other examples. Intra-population IBD would probably show this even more intensely, but of course this has been removed due to the problems of recent relatives etc.

It's probably much easier to find a match here between a population like GAC - which seems to be small and/or to have recently expanded, judging by shared IBD - and anyone else, than it is something more like Hungary_C, where there's very little shared IBD between groups because of higher population size...

I wonder how much these can be used to detect if e.g. GAC had rapidly expanded or was small prior to being absorbed into CWC.

Davidski said...

@Arza

Is there any easy way to run PCA on selected samples/pops without having to create new datasheets with Python scripts etc?

Arza said...

@ Davidski

Nope. That's why I'll merge my scripts into one easy to use and send it to you. There's still plenty of closely related individuals in the spreadsheet that are messing up any PCAs, so you need to be able to remove them one by one.

Besides that other approaches seem to work better - No of segments, max shared segment or picking up max value between two populations in the pop matrix (finding two most closely related individuals between each pair of pops).

Another issue is the need to take time into account. Time is a factor already in G25, but the drift is very, very slow compared to the decay of IBD segments.

n_IBD>8 ind matrix
https://pastebin.com/tJmuGCs8
https://i.postimg.cc/XNdfSv5t/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-4.png

max_ibd ind matrix
https://pastebin.com/7Y1Pa1Wd
https://i.postimg.cc/nr4BvdZn/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-5.png

max of sum_IBD>8 pop matrix
https://pastebin.com/NsC11y5n
https://i.postimg.cc/8cQLJ22y/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-6.png


StP said...

@Vladimir said...StP according to the Flegontow map:
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/from-central-europe-to-fatjanovo-ru.jpg
This is a Phlegontov map showing Y-DNA R1a-M417
March 19, 2023 at 7:47 AM

Yes, other haoplogroups don't make sense to be related to R1a-Fatjanovo and Indo-Aryans

StP said...

@Orpheus said...StP Aren't Afanasievo considered coming from a proto-Yamnaya population, not just genetics-wise but also culture-wise? In that case CWC would show affinity and descent from early Yamnaya (like Afanasievo did) rather than from later Yamnaya.

I think you are thinking correctly!

Wise dragon said...

Hi guys, a poster on AG linked a blog that demonstrates why the conclusion of the Southern Arc paper is a farce. The Harvard fanboys will be outraged. They find it revolting when their gurus or experts get challenged and questioned. How dare you, peasants?!  Anyway, the blogger runs some informal tests on G25, and 

F4-statistics.  I won't quote the entire blog with the admixture models, but I will quote some segments of his assertions about the Southern Arc study. So look at the entire blog content yourself and make up your minds.


" Introduction

Lazaridis et al., 2022 suggested that a West Asian or Transcaucasian population related to Neolithic people of Armenia or Chalcolithic people of the Caucasus to Southeast Anatolia contributed around ~21 to 26% of the ancestry of the bronze age Yamnaya pastoralists. However, the researchers also did not detect any Anatolian/Levantine–related ancestry in Eneolithic populations at Khvalynsk and Progress-2, which implies that aforementioned Eneolithic piedmont steppe and forest steppe populations did not receive any input from the south after the admixture of EHG and CHG. The paper also posits a range of 4852-4258 BCE for admixture of EHGs and CHGs which formed the populations at Eneolithic piedmont steppe and forest-steppe zone. My findings differ and I’m really unhappy that the paper gets such basic things wrong. To rigorously analyse the conclusions of Lazaridis et al., 2022, I will make use of programs such as qpDstat and qpAdm from ADMIXTOOLS package and DATES.......

In this case, we get a decent result. The plot is somewhat noisy but that’s due to less no. of samples (n=3). EHG and CHG admixed 46.66±8.72 generations prior to the time Steppe_EN lived, corresponding to a 95% confidence interval of 6050-5073 BCE assuming 28 years per generation. Radiocarbon date on charcoal (4336-4173 BCE) from the site will be considered as reliable because of FRE.

DATES output of both the runs will be available in supplementary files. Sample IDs used under the label EHG_pooled and Iran_N_pooled are available over here.

Summary of DATES results -

Timing of admixture between EHG and CHG/Iran_N-related groups for Khvalynsk_EN and Steppe_EN does not match the timing given by Chintalapati et al., 2022 and Lazaridis et al., 2022.

My results show that EHG and CHG/Iran_N-related groups admixed in 6th millennium BCE to form Eneolithic populations at Khvalynsk and Progress-2/Vonyuchka-1 which is in contrast to the younger mid-5th millennium BCE estimate given by the two papers.

The younger mid-5th millennium BCE estimate indicates that estimated admixture date is confounded. Results obtained from applying DATES on Eneolithic steppe and forest-steppe populations should be preferred over Yamnaya-related pastoralists.

My opinion

I’m really disappointed by this paper. I was really shocked when I came across these inconsistencies. I found these inconsistencies while trying to do my own independent analysis on aDNA they published only from a part of Europe. If they got so many things wrong just in one part of Europe, who knows what’s the situation with Anatolia, Mesopotamia and South-eastern Europe? I really hope a future paper critically analyses the results from Lazaridis et al., 2022 and provides corrections. I’ve summarized each section concisely in points already so there’s not much left to discuss here but my actual opinion XD. Nevertheless, a tedious first post, isn’t it? I’ll be posting other things than archaeogenetics too in future so if you like what you read here, do subscribe. "


https://vicayana.substack.com/p/southern-arc-or-southern-farce

Wise dragon said...

"Before we begin with the technicalities, I apologize for the title. That’s the best I could come up with (LOL). Anyway, so I showed the signs for Anatolian/Levantine-related ancestry in samples from Eneolithic piedmont steppe in my previous substack post "Southern Arc or Southern farce?". So, what’s new in this post? In the current post, the main highlight will be the working qpAdm models for Eneolithic piedmont steppe samples (something I couldn’t showcase in the previous post). I’ll keep this post short since there’s not a lot to uncover but just an addition to what I’ve already discovered. One thing that has changed is that I no longer primarily use ADMIXTOOLS for these tests since it’s too slow. We’ll make use of ADMIXTOOLS 2 which is significantly faster than the previous software package. There’s not much difference between the two with respect to results, so let’s give it a shot............




Implications



Now, we summarize all of my findings-

EHG-related and CHG-related populations admix in the second half of the 6th millennium BCE to form populations at Khvalynsk and Piedmont steppe.

Steppe_Eneolithic samples definitely have Anatolian/Levantine-related ancestry.

Yamnaya has WHG-related ancestry.

Yamnaya get modelled successfully only when Steppe_Eneolithic-related, EEF and Ukraine_N-related populations are the sources in a rotating outgroups qpAdm model.

Therefore, Yamnaya most likely get this "Southern Arc" ancestry indirectly from Steppe_Eneolithic-related population itself rather than directly as shown in Lazaridis et al., 2022’s admixture modelling.

This surely messes up Lazaridis et al., 2022’s proposed timeline for the arrival of "PIE" (Core PIE) languages in north of Caucasus from Southern Arc (only if the Proto-Indo-Anatolian or archaic/early PIE homeland is in Southern Arc).

At last, I will also express my anguish for using such unconventional and confusing terminology. Better terms could’ve been used in their paper. And this is will be my last post on this topic."

https://vicayana.substack.com/p/southern-arc-or-southern-farce20

Davidski said...

I've actually been very restrained here in my criticism of the Southern Arc paper.

There are some important things that I could say about it, but it's probably counterproductive to go down that road.

Suffice to say that I think this paper should be retracted and published again with some serious corrections.

Anveṣaṇam said...

@Wise dragon

"Hi guys, a poster on AG linked a blog that demonstrates why the conclusion of the Southern Arc paper is a farce."

Yep, that's me.

@Davidski

"Suffice to say that I think this paper should be retracted and published again with some serious corrections."

Agreed.

Gaska said...

@Anvesanam

IMO, your reasoning about the genetic composition of Khvalynsk, Eneolithic Progress and Yamnaya is impeccable (my only doubt is if Darkveti Meshoko serves to justify the excess of CHG in Progress), but what is your opinion about the origin of PIE and the Indo-Anatolian & Balkan languages?

Increase in 1,000 years the southern Caucasian influence in the steppes, excludes the theory of an origin of the IE in the southern Arc?

Davidski said...

Gradual gene flow over thousands of years is not a good indicator of language change.

Sudden, even if minor, genetic waves are more compatible with language shifts, because they actually have more impact.

Steppe migrations into the Balkans and West Asia are thus much more likely to have caused language shifts there than the gradual spread of Caucasus-related ancestry in the steppes.

Matt said...

Re; Southern Arc, following from a discussion I had a while ago with CopperAxe, the Ringbauer paper looks like it will be really promising for detecting a movement in either direction. It looks likely that in both directions, the pioneer southern populations of the Caucasus and populations with a steppe ancestry moving around the west of the Black Sea, populations may be small and growing enough that we can find a long IBD signal, if it's there and the right samples are accessible. I don't see anything yet in either direction (including for any Southern Arc Turkey samples they managed to get through; one long segment between Steppe_En and a sample from Arslantepe, but nothing substantial), but in principle it may be possible - maybe this is because the right samples from the right time are not present. I had thought that we might not be able to detect both, because potentially the populations of Caucasus might be too large in order to detect any IBD pulse - whether some mere transient impulse or enduring legacy - to the north, but the Maikop results seem to suggest that may not be an issue.

Davidski said...

Is there any clear segment sharing between Yamnaya and any of the Eneolithic steppe groups, and Maykop and any of the Eneolithic steppe groups?

Rob said...

@ Matt

Agree, but in reality Y-haplogruops probably will probably remain the best tracer-dye, because they're so straightforward (if sampled & understood properly). Groups like YFull & ftDNA are working to phylogegenetically resolve where anceient samples sit in relation to each other and modern Pops. So e.g. one can see where a putative 'CHG'' lineage like J2a1h sits and who he relates to, same with the flow of Y-DNA back into Anatolia/ Western Asia from Europe.

a said...

A little bit of mix and match- between phylogeny of Yersinia pestis and shared IBD in Yamnaya, Corded ware groups.


Is there an older branch of Yersinia pestis that is connected to Yamnaya in Anatolia ?
Connecting interesting samples like Corded ware-- Gyvakarai1 and its relation to the samples below and Deriivka I5884 (R1b-z2103) which is calibrated (taking into account reservoir effect) to be downstream clade of Plinkaigalis242 and Gyvakarai1.

(-2850,-2495,355,Ukraine_EBA_Yamnaya,Lithuania_LN,I2105,Gyvakarai1_10bp_noUDG,10.1074993610382,20.0376987457275,2,0,0,0,0,0,0)

Known samples around 2800+/- connecting Caucasus- Corded ware -Afanasievo(Rise 509/510); basal Yersinia pestis -first 4 samples from Aida Andrades Valtueña paper--- RK1001(Cuacasus - Rasshevatskiy 1: R-Z2103 (2879-2673 calBCE )-Rise-509 Afanasievo female- (2887-2677 calBCE) ,VL1092(Bohemean Czech-Corded ware R1b-L151(xP312,U106 (2882-2669 calBCE)KNK001 Novotitorovskaya-culture
KNK001 (BZNK-1016/1, kurgan 1, grave 8): Single inhumation associated with the
Novotitorovskaya-culture located in a stepped pit imitating a wagon, located in the south-eastern
sector of the burial mound, east of the central profile bar.



Chad said...

Matt,

I think that's more verification of my idea I posted on my blog, years ago, that GAC primarily descend from Atlantic Megalithic people. A large genetic turnover in Central Europe during the Late Neolithic.

Matt said...

@Davidski, here are all the links for Steppe_En that I could see in a table: https://imgur.com/a/lDhgIyU (a couple of Vahaduo PCA plots with G25 data showing the distance between the samples with highest links, on North Eurasia and West Eurasia PCA).

There aren't many long ones IBD cM; the longest outside the links of PG2001 and PG2004 with each other are 12cM. Some of them look interesting, like a link between a steppe shifted outlier in Romania at 4088 BCE (roughly contemporary with the linked PG2004), but others are kind of pushing the time depth that normally seems to be associated with 12cM links. There are some total length of IBD links over cM with the Steppe_EMBA, Chemurchek and Corded Ware, but not very many considering the number of samples they could match with, which kind of agrees with any IBD links having decayed over a long time period.

@Rob, those are certainly useful, although there is the problem there of the huge founder effects of specific R1b and R1a.

Matt said...

@Chad, could be; I have to admit I can't see any wider links that jump out in the IBD average lengths (from Arza's spreadsheet) between GAC and Atlantic Megalithic groups.

It doesn't look like they're very correlated - https://imgur.com/a/SzyJPM6 (the correlation of IBD is quite high between England and Scotland Megalithic (even though this is quite a naturally noisy measure), less so again with Northern France Middle Neolithic, less so again between them with Southern France EMBA (no steppe), then less with Poland TRB and then very low/zero with Poland GAC.

But it could be that this way of looking at the IBD as a correlation is being dominated by the strong founder effect in GAC.

There are quite a lot of HG rich groups about (Southern France, Blatterhohle, from the upcoming big Danish paper "as well as herein reported early Neolithic genomes from Portugal (western Cardial), estimated to harbour 27% – 43% Iberian hunter-gatherer ancestry (Iberia_9000BP_7000BP). The latter result, suggesting extensive first-contact admixture, is in agreement with archaeological inferences derived from modelling the spread of farming along west Mediterranean Europe47. Individuals associated with Neolithic farming cultures from Denmark show some of the highest overall hunter-gatherer ancestry proportions (up to ∼25%), mostly derived from Western European-related hunter-gatherers (EuropeW_13500BP_8000BP)").

Davidski said...

Interesting. No hits with West Asians except Turkey_EBA_II.

Thanks.

Matt said...

It seems like it's not too surprising that the farmers that the early CWC encountered in East-Central Europe should've been themselves from a population that was either small and static or recently small and themselves expanding into a more depopulated landscape - if the population were big, they'd have simply been absorbed and the autosomal signature would go (just like any early outliers?).

Then it's only once these populations had admixed and experienced population growth that they further expand and pick up more farmer ancestry, and because these groups have less shared IBD and its coming from a wider range (generally?), there is not a clear IBD signal of ongoing increase in Anatolian+WHG related ancestry.

Perhaps these methods can be used to try and reconstruct population sizes as a complement to the RoH based method that Ringbauer previously used?

But it seems like a bit of a puzzle as to why there weren't large populations around at this time?

Matt said...

@Davidski, pretty much. Comparably there aren't many links between West Asians from any close to comparable time either; the Maikop samples (although really more from the 4th Millennium) basically link to each other and have no links to West Asia other than a couple shorter links to Turkey_Arslantepe_C. No Kura-Araxes etc. The one Caucasus Eneolithic they got on (I2056) has no substantial links with anyone (the rest of his small family aren't on, otherwise they'd all probably show links).

The West Asian groups don't seem to have very abundant non-local IBD at all, which would fit with them being populations that generally had pretty big size (relatively large agricultural populations by this time and part of the world generally?), but where sometimes you can find groups that had expanded quickly into a niche, or had stably been a small self-sustaining population in a particular place for a while (like the fairly strong/clear links between the Maikops and them with Yamnaya_Ozera).

Davidski said...

@Matt

What about Kura-Araxes/Armenia EBA? Any interesting hits there?

Rob said...

@ Chad

Whilst GAC might have extra Atlantic ancestry c.f. earlier Polish LBK, their patrilines fall under/ with Latvian HGs.
So a simple 'from Atlantic' scenario is not warranted.

Rob said...

@ Matt


''Rhose are certainly useful, although there is the problem there of the huge founder effects of specific R1b and R1a.''


I was referring to your comment - ''like it will be really promising for detecting a movement in either direction. It looks likely that in both directions, the pioneer southern populations of the Caucasus and populations with a steppe ancestry moving around the west of the Black Sea''

With some academics engaging in mental gymnastics with their autosomic-based claims (although of course their claims are readily invalidated by more genuine & proximal qpAdm modelling), male uniparentals can very clearly delineate if there was a male-mediated 'southern Arc' impact in Europe. And of course, same the other way around

Even for CWC & BB, the founder effects are immensely useful because they inform us about the paths taken by certain clans and how they developed into local variants of the broader 'Corded Ware oikemene'.

Matt said...

@Davidski; here are the links for Armenia_EBA_Kura-Araxes and Armenia_EBA -

https://imgur.com/a/fpwln8Q

Note I've separated out these links for these labels into two tables (and two versions of each table for longer and all links), although I believe some of the "Armenia_EBA" may be Kura-Araxes so in some sense that may not be information.

Also for context and comparison I've included Turkey_Arslantepe_LC, because it is the only set of samples that seems to show some long links with Armenia_EBA. (Not totally clear to me if these links are historically plausible but there we go anyway!). The long links for Armenia_EBA_Kura-Araxes and Armenia_EBA are essentially within these cultures, barring the above link to Turkey_Arslantepe_LC.

Included the links for Maikop too for comparison.

You may notice that the short 8-10cM links show the same sort of problematic questionable links with Viking.SG samples, which vAsiStha and myself (others too) talked about upthread (in connection with some odd links involving Shah-i-Sohkta and VK); there may be something questionable with how these samples have been incorporated that finds some true positives but also possibly some false positives. There may also be some issues with other .SG samples at short lengths, since they invariably are the ones popping out as "unexpected" at short lengths. (They seem OK at >12cM, although sometimes you get multiple <12cM segments that may be spurious and so maxIBD may be long spuriously.)

Matt said...

@Davidski, also could be interesting to you, some of the Ukraine Pre-Yamnaya results (although some overlap in time): https://imgur.com/a/XhAXliJ

Ukraine_N that got through show a few long links with each other, which makes sense, but no long links with anyone else, apart from a couple with the Viking.SG set which seem questionable for the aforementioned reasons. (Ukraine_Meso is similar, although with some more long IBD links, literally a couple, just at the 12cM threshold in HG groups outside Ukraine - this may be due to the smaller population sizes of HG).

Ukraine_En_oHG:I5882 shows some longer links with Yamnaya/Afanasievo and Steppe_EMBA related populations (Corded Ware, Dali_EBA). I think both the Ukraine_Eneolithic_oHG (I5882 and I4110) I believe are from around 3400-3000 BCE, so it's not improbable they have links with Yamnaya, but that these are more distant than the 16cM strong links. These are the ones that look between Steppe and some HG group.

Finally UKraine_En_o:I1411 shows no long links. She's the Eneolithic person who looks straight from the EEF from SE Europe, who shows up in early Eneolithic at 4600 BCE. She probably comes from too large a population to have much IBD with each other, and is also probably too early to be expected to have any links with later people.

Ukraine_EBA_oEurope:I5884, who I believe is the interesting HG rich guy 2750 BCE who has R1b-M269 (https://amtdb.org/sample/I5884) oddly doesn't seem to have made it through, though it seems to me like he'd have met their coverage threshold.

Ryan said...

A bit of off-topic fun:

Beethoven's genome has been sequenced: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(23)00181-1

Y-haplogroup is I1a2b (Z139)

MtDNA haplogroup is H1b1.

However, the Beethoven family is R1b-FT446200, so there's a non-paternity event in his paternal line somewhere. Not sure which branch FT446200 corresponds to.

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt “ There are quite a lot of HG rich groups about (Southern France, Blatterhohle, from the upcoming big Danish paper "as well as herein reported early Neolithic genomes from Portugal (western Cardial), estimated to harbour 27% – 43% Iberian hunter-gatherer ancestry (Iberia_9000BP_7000BP). ”

What could’ve made the WHG ratio to fall so drastically and precipitously to 10% on average today?

LivoniaG said...

MATT - what you posted at https://imgur.com/a/p3RVpIh
(Average IBD cM (Azra Spreadsheet) Top)

What caught me eye was the "Hungary_LateC_EBA_BADEN_Yamnaya"

Am I right that that these Yamanaya don't look very Yamanaya?

It looks like the out of top ten relateds, most are like neolithic and western Europe. (France, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy) Discount the obvious related Balkan neighbors, and there's nothing a lot that says regular grade A steppes Yamanaya.

And this helps to add a little mist in my mind about Yamanaya being the source of early Greek.

Of course i don't really understand the tables or what IBD is, so the observation may just be stupid.

thanks

Davidski said...

@LivoniaG

Check this out...

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/hungarian-yamnaya-predictions.html

epoch said...

Nice to see that the Afanasievo Chemurcheck connection looks confirmed.

Matt said...

@LivoniaG, yes, indeed you're correct to notice that in short, those samples - "Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya" - don't look like the Yamnaya/Afanasievo of the steppe in terms of anything (y-dna, autosome, probably).

I believe that the reason that Reich Lab labels them this way ("Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya") is because archaeologists advised them to label them as such but Davidski's datasheets tend to keep this as just HUN_LCA. When I put together extracts of the matches for Yamnaya upthread, I was too lazy to remove thse ones!

These samples are: I5117, I5118, I5119, I5116, and their dates are around 3100 BCE. (Sample I5116 is labelled as an outlier by Reich lab, but as she has only 15847 SNPs, too little for G25, I can't say why). They are at the same time roughly as a bunch of samples who are labelled Hungary_LateC_BADEN. Only one of these, I5118 (y-dna: G2a2a1a2a1a) had enough quality to be tested in Ringbauer's analysis.

I believe that Reich lab labelled these samples this way because they were excavated from a kurgan burial - Olalde 2018: "The total number of excavated graves from the MezÅ‘csát-Hörcsögös cemetery is 16. Most of the graves (8 scattered cremations and inhumations) were located under an earthen tumulus (kurgan) and 2 additional inhumation graves were unearthed outside the mound (the “First cemetery”). In the middle of kurgan an aniconic stone slab 257 was erected, symbolising the burial site of a Late Copper Age community. The number of the children was relatively high: 6 from a total 16 graves. The cremation burials contained most of the grave goods (mainly vessels). Based on the typological examination of Nándor Kalicz and László György, this cemetery can be attributed to the Viss group of the classical Baden culture.". There are more details in that supplement but they do have some burial similarities within the kurgan to the Yamnaya of the steppe we know about (e.g. I5117 - "The positioning of the body is very similar to the burials of the Yamnaya culture").

I think I mentioned upthread (but will repeat myself as it was probably lost in a flurry), that Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya:I5118 is unusual (for a autosomally farmer-like sample) in that he has some long links to a couple samples: GB and I10494. GB (Romania_C_oHG) is an unusual sample of mostly hunter-gatherer ancestry which has been argued based on G25 by arza to represent a link to hunter-gatherers who contributed ancestry to lots of distinctive HG-rich Bronze Age samples from Central-Eastern Europe, and I10494 is another unusual sample who is off-cline for an admixture between Yamnaya and people from Hungary/Balkans. No links to Yamnaya / steppe samples though.

IBD Links here: https://imgur.com/a/HihZCah

PCA for comparison here: https://imgur.com/a/YDsyV14 (the Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya aka HUN_LCA seem slightly shifted to either steppe or HG here; it's hard to be sure without more analysis, but it looks no more than 5% and perhaps less).

Certainly seems pretty interesting to me that this one sample, labelled Baden_Yamnaya, although apparently very similar to other Hungary_LCA, has these unusual affinities. The time of these samples are about the right time for this to seem plausible.

Also keen to see what happens when we apply this technique to more and more samples of Yamnaya from the Hungary and Balkans, and those who have more definite links to the Yamnaya of the steppe; both the two samples of these we have from Mathieson and Lazaridis's studies who are good quality enough to make it to G25 seem to be too low quality to apply Ringbauer's technique at the moment (these are BGR_Yamnaya_o_~2900_BCE:Bul4 and SRB_Yamnaya_EBA_~3000_BCE:I11446, included in the above PCA).

So good question; I don't know if this has anything to do with the origins of Greek at all though!

Matt said...

@andrezj, Basques have slightly more than that I think, but it is a combination of more dilution through the neolithic-copper age period as the early admixed samples got drawn together more with neolithic who had admixed less (evening admixture out to 20-25% HG, less than some of the very admixed pioneer samples we found in Southern France and which the Copenhagen group apparently find in Iberia), and then Bronze Age dilution down by ~30% steppe ancestry (which pushes down to 14-15%).

alex said...

@Matt

Very interesting analysis, thank you. It's tempting to think that proto-Greeks could descend from one of these mixed Balkan Yamnaya/EEF groups. A northern Balkan origin is the scenario that makes the most sense archeologically and genetically, as opposed to Lazaridis' straight from the steppe "20% Yamnaya + 80% Minoan" model. It also helps explain the patchwork of Y DNA we've seen from Greece. Hungarian and Romanian LN/Chalcolithics were quite diverse, including J2a, G2a, C, E-L618, some of which appear relatively close to ancient Greek and N. Macedonian samples in FTDNA's tree (including the Hungarian sample I5118 you mentioned). The obvious issue I see with this theory is that these northern Balkan EEFs often packed decent amounts of WHG ancestry which is almost totally absent from Greek samples to date. Maybe the additional admixtures (southern Balkans, Greece itself) could dilute it to the point of not being detectable? Not sure.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews I like your Telegraph channel but some White Nationalists using derogatory words like “muds” are trying to turn it into Stormfront. The last thing I need is for us to be lumped with them. Otherwise more scientists would come up with nonsense articles about Indo-European peoples’ origins just to “prove” that we’re not “special”. Plus, the current admins policies towards Trump’s supporters are already too much for me to stomach.

Rob said...

Some G2a-mediated links between Balkans/ 'old West Anatolian' and newly founded Late Chalc/ EBA sites in Central Anatolia (Ikiztepe, Camlibel Tarlasi), alongside the I2a link in Yassitepe & Halikarnassos in western Anatolia., etc


Matt said...

@alex:"The obvious issue I see with this theory is that these northern Balkan EEFs often packed decent amounts of WHG ancestry which is almost totally absent from Greek samples to date. Maybe the additional admixtures (southern Balkans, Greece itself) could dilute it to the point of not being detectable? Not sure."

Seems like this question might benefit from a comprehensive survey (I'm not going to do it but someone should! lol) of the Balkans and what dates we have samples from and what their ancestry was like.

When I run a quick Vahaduo model (perhaps slightly distorted but should be close to qpAdm) with Greek samples, the Logkas pair (~2300BCE) are almost consistent with being a mix between Steppe_EMBA and 97-100% Anatolian. So there's a question, like you say, there of whether there is anywhere in the Balkans that could plausible at around 3000-2500 BCE, with still having almost 100% Anatolian people around, that coul admix with Steppe_EMBA (taking about 1/3 of ancestry from this source).

It may be very tricky to detect whether a low bound of WHG ancestry is present though; if a source was 75% Steppe_EMBA and 25% EEF, which is about what Corded Ware is at 2600 BCE, and that EEF in this case was 9% WHG and 91% Anatolian, then if that admixes into another population to get ~20% Steppe_EMBA, then that's (0.2/0.75)*(0.09/0.25)= ~1% WHG at the end of the scale. The test would need to be pretty sensitive and accurate to detect that properly (I'm not sure even well-designed qpAdm or G25 get to being very certain to that level of accuracy about these deeper components).

(Quick Vahaduo G25: https://imgur.com/a/YjNZVJs)

Andrzejewski said...

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-hunter-gatherer-genes-early-european-farmers.html

A new study about adaptation of ANF migrants to European pathogens by admixing with hunter gatherers

Orpheus said...

@LivoniaG Yamnaya isn't the source of proto-Greek but of Balkanic. The chances of some random Yamnaya group being isolated somewhere and speaking a language that went from Balkanic to Greco-Albanian to Greco-Phrygian to Greek are basically 0.

@alex Archaeologically no, and genetically we still don't know (especially in the light of most 30-40% steppe EBA groups in Greece being associated with CWC and some even with BB -culturally too- instead of Yamnaya). Lazaridis' calculations of a 1:10 Steppe:Minoan-like ratio also don't make claims on language, just on the origin of the steppe autosomal DNA in Mycenaeans (the ones that do have some steppe).

"The obvious issue I see with this theory is that these northern Balkan EEFs often packed decent amounts of WHG ancestry which is almost totally absent from Greek samples to date. Maybe the additional admixtures (southern Balkans, Greece itself) could dilute it to the point of not being detectable? Not sure."
From Skourtanioti et al 2023, the higher steppe EBA samples in Greece didn't really have a lot of WHG. If they did have any it could have easily been diluted to just 30% or less of its original amount, in the scenario where these are the groups that contributed steppe to Mycenaeans.

@Matt Highest qpAdm fits for the Logkas samples are Steppe_EMBA/Europe_LNBA and something Minoan -like or Helladic like. This is much more consistent with the rest of the EBA 20-40% steppe samples from Greece we got from Skourtanioti's recent study. Log04 might have ~15% extra Steppe_EMBA but that's the closest connection they have to Steppe_EMBA.
Check Clemente et al 2021 (supps) and Skourtanioti et al 2023 (also supps). A CWC-related source is consistently preferred over a Yamnaya-related one for the two Logkas samples, like for the rest of the samples from Skourtanioti et al 2023 (bar Tiryns IA).

Also isn't 3-9% WHG only found in LBK? TRB and GAC and CTC have ~20% WHG.

Rob said...

https://ibb.co/2YpMPdq

Rob said...

There's no real mystery here guys. IMO there's too much & not enough going on in Matt's PCA


Let's start by removing too many late Myceneans & Minoans, and work with BA stuff & include BA Thrace, which is the key here. Incl Theopetra BA (G23) and the Sarakinos data, alongside EBA Helladic mainland

new PCA

Note that BA Thrace has at least 3-4 clusters, as described in the southern Arc paper (they did a decent job there).
What we see is the proto-Greeks (Logkas & Theopetra) plot close to Ezero, with slight pull toward EHA mainland.

Myceneans in turn are situated between the proto-Greeks and pre-Greek mainland, but with a slight Anatolia shift c/w the 'orientalizing pottery' influence.










Rob said...

Of course, that’s PCA inferences are just a start
Then we add some formal stats and qpAdm , marry uniparental data
Then beef it up with archaeology & linguistics

Matt said...

@Orpheus: "Also isn't 3-9% WHG only found in LBK? TRB and GAC and CTC have ~20% WHG."

A few graphs to answer the question: https://imgur.com/a/RBQSadI

What I've done here is identified all samples in my G25 datasheet from Europe dated between 7000 - 2700BCE, run a Vahaduo ancestry model, then filtered out those that can't be modelled with >=90% ancestry from Anatolia+Iron Gates, and then the plots show the HG ancestry vs time.

I've done these separately for all Europe, and then SE Europe (BGR, HRV, MKD, MNE, GRC, ROU).

Across Europe as a whole, there is an evening out of HG ancestry to around 30% - probably more realistically to 20-25% given that I think HG is still slightly compressed/shrunk in G25 - with HG rich outliers the whole period.

But when we zoom to SE Europe, we have 1) very poor coverage after 4000 BCE, particularly outside Romania, and 2) of the few samples that cluster around 3000-2800 BCE (essentially two samples, who may even have uncertain dates, I don't know), from BGR and MNE they have HG levels consistent with <6%.
So my thinking is that this area is poorly undersampled, but it seems possible that people with very low HG ancestry were still about in SE Europe. More sampling would be needed to test things.

(Interestingly also, doing this analyiss this showed to me that ROU_Ploiesti_BA, who was one of the samples with links to "Baden_Yamnaya", doesn't seem to require steppe at more than 9% with Progress source or 11% with Steppe_EMBA source).

Matt said...

@Rob, probably correct it's overly busy.

Although that said here's another overly busy plot: https://imgur.com/a/Z0s62mw (no judgment on your argument in post above intended by this plot, just a whole bunch of samples I thought were of interest to me to see together)

So do you think that the early or late CWC had any role to play in the chain of Balkan steppe admixed populations circa ~3500-2000 BCE (beginning of this well pre-CWC)? It doesn't seem necessary to me.

Matt said...

@Davidski, also, not relating to any topic we're discussing here (Greek, the IBD paper, or indeed the main topic of the thread), but I noticed that the sample I20071 (MDA_Catacomb_Dănceni_MBA, 2500 BCE, Female) appears to be another instance of the hazardous misdating of later Iron Age nomads within kurgans that have seen re-use.

Her main affinities in G25 are to Tagars and Sarmatians: https://imgur.com/a/u8Ee1Mu

Her label in the paper was: "One or two destroyed children's burials was located to the north. The distance between burials was 1.5-4 m. Graves 93 and 308 were of the catacomb type. Some scholars attribute them to the Thraco- Getae period (4 th -3rd centuries BCE (377)). I20071/ DIIGB308, grave 308. Catacomb or Thraco-Getaean (tooth), genetically female".. The G25 data seems much more consistent with an Iron-Age nomad link.

Important for labs to sort these errors out, or we're going to get misapprehensions that East Asian Siberian autosome and later y-dna clades are present at entirely wrong times.

Apologies if this is something that has already come up.

Mark said...

@Alex @Matt

There are essentially only 2 J2a-M410 haplogroups amongst the many samples from the Skourtanioti paper which have a Neolithic phylogeny and obvious dispersal, namely:

XAN029 Chania, Crete
J2a1a2-Y13128>Z36829
and GLI003 Glika Nera, Attica
J2a-PF5252*

The former is also attested in aDNA records across the Pannonian Basin, Balkans and Greece.

On the other hand you have 14 (clear majority) non Aegean/any sort of Balkan Neolithic J2a-M410 haplogroups. J2a1-M319, J2a-Y17002, J2a2-PF5008 and J2a-Z7671 are clearly the result of geneflow from Copper Age and/or Early Bronze Age Anatolian groups into pre-Mycenaean Greece, see the Y-DNA make up of Minoans for instance.

XAN016 sample belongs to E1b-L618>CTS10912>BY6578 and there was also an Iron Age C1a-V20 sample from North Macedonia in any case these would not have to have come from the Central Northern Balkans or Pannonian Basin, as they have already been attested in the Southern Balkans and Greece. A more widespread Neolithic presence in the Balkan Peninsula is what the data rather suggests.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Andrze,

You can message me on telegram if you have concerns about my chat group. That or email is the best way to reach me.

I will clean up the chat. I will do so when I start begin posting youtube videos which will probably be in a few months.

Matt said...

For more IBD long links from Ringbauer's paper, here's some for Bulgaria and Moldova: https://imgur.com/a/0t7YMHC

The earliest Bulgaria_EBA:I2180 at est. 2959 BCE has a long link to Hungary_LateC_Baden_C, but no long links to Steppe_EMBA. This is interesting and quite rare.

On the other hand the contemporary I2165 does have a long link with Afanasievo. Still the long links between these two samples with Yamnaya/Afanasievo/Corded Ware from similar times are very limited.

It's possible that this could give credence to the idea that their steppe ancestor was from an outgroup to (CordedWare(Afanasievo(Yamnaya))).

Later samples seem to show some trends of picking up longer segments with Sintashta/Corded Ware/Globular Amphora, which may give some credibility to more mixing involving them or bringing in their ancestry later in time.
Logkas_MBA did make their cut btw, but neither sample has any long IBD with any other populations (apart from one 12cM with a Czech Bellbeaker VLI029), only short IBD with European_LNBA. Presumably their steppe ancestry bearing and non-steppe ancestry ancestors diverged from the others in the reference set too long ago to find long links.

Orpheus said...

Correction, meant Steppe_MLBA*/Europe_LNBA and not Steppe_EMBA/Europe_LNBA.

Orpheus said...

@Matt If I remember correctly from a couple of studies in the last couple years there are indeed 90%+ Anatolian samples in the SE, but I was under the impression you were talking about the EEF in CWC (which is not from the SE type). Maybe I misread.

@Matt Late CWC and post-CWC groups like BBs 100% moved into the Balkans, there's a BA group in Crete with best fit from Beakers who was also culturally related to them. The interesting thing here is to figure out what happened to the Yamnaya-rich groups in the Balkans and how they interacted with the CWC-related groups (if they did at all).

@Matt I guess you could run DATES on the two Logkas samples using a Helladic source and a CWC/BB one to find their admixture dates. Having an IBD link to CWC-related groups seems to confirm the findings from Clemente's and Skourtanioti's papers, but keep in mind that the absence of strong IBD links could be due to their specific parent group(s) not being discovered yet, possibly going extinct. Them being migrants actually makes this plausible under the proposition that their tribe lost its territory to other tribes and the few that survived without resources had to move, and ended up in the SE (eventually going extinct too? Who knows).

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski & Samuel

Take it to email.

Rob said...



@ Mark

I dont think it's as simple as you say.

If we look at J-Z1846, for ex, which is in the Minoan site at Halgos, it is not evident from the aDNA record that the earliest samples are a simple case of being from Anatolia or further east. Esp if one is aware of the demographic record of Anatolia (major shifts post 5000 bc).
We see Asrlantepe ~ 3300 BC & MBA Kalehoyuk on the branch tree, but the earliest individual belonging to that family is Ripa Blance, Italian Neolithic 5300 bc !
Similarly, J-CTS7683 in Ikiztepe 24 is linked to an older clade within Barcin N and Kotias.


*Much of the classical Farmer Anatolia in Capadocia and the southern Konya was depopulated after 5000 BC and new settlements formed after 4000 BC. As I said above, some of these G2a & J2a lineages are in fact contendors for migrations from western Anatlia to the East c/w observed 'homogeniation' between CHG & ANF stated in 'Arc' paper.

J-Z8074 in the Mycenean site Glyka Nera 3 is nested with 3500 BC Prague Jinonice Eneolithic.

Obviously J-L24 in Imerpial Rome is an East Mediterrenean arrival.
Etc.

Rob said...

@ Matt


Soz I did not mean to imply that your PCA was bad in anyway, but i think you got what i mean - less product more source

Also, I dont buy into this 'where are we going to find 90% EEF, its such a problem dude."
these guys are rendering with G25 becauase populations are always mixing. It's pseudo-algebraizing things and is essentially bullshit. Do proper admixture analysis


'So do you think that the early or late CWC had any role to play in the chain of Balkan steppe admixed populations circa ~3500-2000 BCE (beginning of this well pre-CWC)? It doesn't seem necessary to me.'

Yes there is the epi-corded impact. E.g. R1-Z93 I2163 from MLBA Merichleri, BGR who is from the Fatyanoavo-Srubnaya line, and another 1 or two similar. Individuals like him (post-Catacomb, Srubnaya'ized, KMK/babino, partially Beakerised) were certainly present around northern BGR & eastern Romania and obviously contributed to the formation of Thracians & explain the observed Balto-Slavic links with Thracians (being from the EE Forests, afterall).

Then there is some minor post-Beaker geneflow during the MBA in northwestern Balkans, e.g. Tumulus culture impact from central-western Europe. We see a few R1b-L151 in northern Illyrians, Slovenia IA,but now we are talking quite a way down the line








Rob said...

@ Orpheus


''I guess you could run DATES on the two Logkas samples using a Helladic source and a CWC/BB one to find their admixture dates. ''

That's provide you a nonsense result because the source of steppe admxiture in Logkas is Yalmanaya from somewhere in the Balkans, not Corded Ware



''There's a BA group in Crete with best fit from Beakers who was also culturally related to them. ''

There are Bell Beaker Minoans ? Which ones ?

Matt said...

Rob: "Also, I dont buy into this 'where are we going to find 90% EEF, its such a problem dude."

these guys are rendering with G25 becauase populations are always mixing. It's pseudo-algebraizing things and is essentially bullshit. Do proper admixture analysis"


I don't think I was implying that it would be a big problem to find people like that at these dates (maybe others made comments like this), but that they were weakly sampled in the current record. I don't think the problem is that G25 inaccurately represents autosomal HG ancestry ("bullshit") - it seems to me it probably overweights HG ancestry a bit in general but is quite correlated - but that there simply isn't too much sampling of a relevant area in the right time frame.

Orpheus said...

@Rob "the source of steppe admxiture in Logkas is Yalmanaya from somewhere in the Balkans, not Corded Ware"
Nah

"There are Bell Beaker Minoans ? Which ones ?"
No it's from the post-Minoan era. Don't have access to a pc right now, I'll post the excerpt tomorrow. It's from Skourtanioti et al 2023 but can't remember if it's main paper or supps.

Ramber said...

@Davidski

Can you upload these samples into G25 please? Will greatly appreciated it. Here is the genotype data.
https://zenodo.org/record/4681100#.ZCEHHHZBy3A

Davidski said...

@Ramber

Wrong type of genetic data.

Ramber said...

@Davidski

It has only microhayplotype data but lack of autosomal genomic stuff?

Davidski said...

I can't see the genotype data. If you know where it is please post a direct link.

Rob said...

@ matt

I meant that the way (other) people try to breakdown things into broad ancestry components (HG/ steppe/ EEF)and marry it up with other regional groups isn't an appropriate way to formulate hypotheses other than perhaps for a very general preliminary screen


@Orpheus

Wouldnt be surprised in post-Minoan era.

Orpheus said...

@Rob Found the excerpt, it's actually post-BB Bell Beaker-related and not directly BB.

"(...) the genetic analyses demonstrate that Cretan populations at larger port cities biologically mixed with populations coming to the island during the course of a few centuries. The presence of individuals with some of the highest WES-related ancestry proportions within LBA Aegean (Crete LBA group C), despite fitting with a scenario that the Greek mainland was the only source of incoming people, it could also suggest that populations from more distant areas (for example, Italy) contributed to the Crete LBA transition, a possibility that is supported in the material culture as well61,62,63."

There was mobility from groups with affinities to Bell Beakers up until the LBA through the Balkans and even more to the south. Yamnaya presence is far more elusive as of now. Maybe Kopetkin's 2400 BCE samples have Yamnaya-related ancestry but they'd be too old for proto-Greek and would be speaking a parent language (with proto-Greek splitting later on somewhere in Greece).

epoch said...

Paper on Shomutepe-Shulaveri also having this on Kura-Araxes:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04681-w#Sec24

"We also observed some Steppe ancestry in two Kura-Araxes groups (Kaps, Shengavit), but at the lowest proportion than during the Late Bronze Age. At the end of the Kura-Araxes period, more frequent connections with the Steppes are also evidenced in the burial rituals."

Davidski said...

@epoch

It's obvious from archeology that there was strong influence from the steppe in Armenia and Azerbaijan from the Copper Age onward.

Kura-Araxes absolutely had contacts with steppe people and was influenced by them. I wrote about this years ago.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-potentially-violent-end-to-kura.html

What I don't get is how Iosif Lazaridis, David Reich etc. are apparently unaware of this.

Their attitude reeks of bias.

Rob said...

@ Orpheus

“There was mobility from groups with affinities to Bell Beakers up until the LBA through the Balkans and even more to the south. Yamnaya presence is far more elusive as of now. Maybe Kopetkin's 2400 BCE samples have Yamnaya-related ancestry but they'd be too old for proto-Greek and would be speaking a parent language (with proto-Greek splitting later on somewhere in Greece).”

Not at all. Quite the contrary, the long held position by most archaeologists is that the protoGreeks arrived during the shadowy EHIII- MHI transition (2400 bc) has been decisively confirmed and there will be no doubt in near future
Some people often confuse the Mycenaean period with the ‘coming of the Greeks’, but that’s there’s issue

BB impact in Balkans is very minimal. Even in Csepel the leading men had Baden (I2a1) lineage
As I said, actual BB impact is late, indirect and limited to NW Balkans, maybe some “Sea People” involvement in the Aegean , that’s it
But if you claim otherwise, show it with your qpAdm and uniparental analysis.

Orpheus said...

@Davidski They probably consider it far-fetched. In light of the recent Kroonen et al paper, an eastern pontic steppe > north caucasus > south caucasus route for proto-Anatolian after it split from PIA would have to avoid Tocharian and Indo-Iranian as they split and moved to the east too. Some west-to-east movements on the steppe must be traced for this. Thus EBA 3000BCE steppe ancestry (0.02 fit at that) near Iran and Anatolia would point at Indo-Iranian rather than Anatolian.
At the same time, "For the Early Bronze Age populations of Armenia, we also note that the best models (p = 0.08 for Talin and Karavan and p = 0.51 for Kaps) are involving CHGs instead of a Steppe population. This suggests that the admixture at the base of the Kura-Araxes ancestry occurred between an unsampled population from the Caucasus with a profile more similar to the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers and a Mentesh-like population from the Late Chalcolithic period. Thus, it is unlikely that Kura-Araxes populations had yet received a significant gene flow from the Steppe at this period." I'd wait until we get some decent 0.2-0.4+ fits.
They traced some EHG too but one would have to argue that this is EHG from proto-/pre-Yamnaya and not other EHGs roaming around in the steppes.
Furthermore I doubt they consider Maykop a vector of Anatolian or even late Indo-Anatolian. See for example for the steppe-rich Areni: "Part of the Areni-1 pottery as well as the funerary architecture and pottery from Soyuq Bulaq connect them with the Maikop tradition43."
There's also this, "This gene flow from the north mirrors the earlier (Maikop period) increase of the South Caucasus ancestries in the populations living on the northern slopes of the Great Caucasus after the end of the Neolithic, thus showing that the mountains act as a bridge rather than a frontier." You already know what they mean by this hehe

That aside, there seems to be something related about what you were saying about CHGs. "Compared to the Mentesh Tepe Neolithic individuals, an archaic ancestry associated with CHG re-emerges during the Early Bronze Age/Kura-Araxes period." Let's see if that ancestry is a better fit for Yamnaya instead of CHG proper.


@Davidski @epoch https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317147238_The_Early_Bronze_Age_in_Azerbaijan_in_the_light_of_recent_discoveries
That's the source cited in the paper about late KA. The four-wheeled wooden wagon is found in Phase 3 (2536-2300BCE) with two female high status skeletons. The author connects them to ~2500BCE Martqopi culture.
Kurgans are also linked to Maykop, Leyla and other cultures and not directly to Yamnaya. Vectors complicate the issue of any steppe > Anatolian route for proto-Anatolian (or late PIA).
Late KA would be irrelevant for Anatolian but related to Armenian or Indo-Iranian. If Harvard gets some data from these sights I guess they'd talk about them. It fits with their theory for Armenian after all. Another potential is Hittite samples (presumably high status) that would have steppe ancestry that can be linked to KA ancestry (even outliers), otherwise there isn't really a reason to mention KA.

Orpheus said...

@Rob Citation needed. Also archaeologists being low IQ as usual and being uncultured swine detached from linguistics and genetics is not my problem. 2400BCE is way too early for any proto-Greek language to exist, perhaps even for Greco-Phrygian to exist. Filos, West, Drews all give a date of 2200-2000BCE, Parpola & Caperlan give a date of 2200BCE, Blegen of 1900BCE. Katona to 2400-2300BCE and he considers it as already formed in Ukraine (lmfao). Anthony gives a 2200-2000BCE date too. There's no mention of 2400BCE, and their (literally "source: trust me bro") dates are probably still too early. I'll assume your memory [read: medicine] simply didn't serve you right instead of assuming you were lying.
Now they'll have to link any steppe-harboring sample in EBA Greece with A) Yamnaya and B) Mycenaeans. Oh wait that's not something boomer grifter archaeologists can do.
At the same time the 2400BCE samples are too early, and if they're CWC-related too then they will be linked to the later samples. The Yamnaya-related ancestry in BA Bulgaria is a better candidate compared to any steppe-harboring sample in pre-Mycenaean Greece so far.

That being said, feel free to give me some excerpts from the works cited (or other ones) actually talking about archaeological finds from the EBA that they can link to Yamnaya.

"has been decisively confirmed"
Indeed, CWC-related steppe ancestry in Greece during the EBA has been decisively confirmed by three studies (including IBD) now.

"BB impact in Balkans is very minimal."
I'm talking about mobility, not traceable archaeological impact from extant BA Balkan cultures. And the samples aren't BB but BB-related, I have no reason to claim otherwise since as for now we don't know if the steppe in the earlier EBA samples is from BB or just some CWC subgroup closer to the Balkans.

Vara said...

@Davidski
"What I don't get is how Iosif Lazaridis, David Reich etc. are apparently unaware of this."

They aren't.

"Our newly reported data reveal that a large
proportion of individuals in Armenia and North-
west Iran belonged to the R-Z2103→R-M12149
haplogroup during the 2nd and early 1st mil-
lennium BCE, providing a genetic link with
the Yamnaya in these regions where no archae-
ological presence of the Yamnaya culture it-
self is attested...During
the same period at Hasanlu in Northwest Iran,
many individuals have no trace of Eastern
hunter-gatherer ancestry at all despite the
presence of R-M12149 there (6), suggesting
that the initial association of this lineage with
Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry on the steppe
had vanished as R-M12149 bearers reproduced
with Southern Arc individuals without East-
ern hunter-gatherer ancestry"

1. The steppe ancestry south of the Caucasus is not at the right time nor in the right context. The direction of cultural influence from ~4000-3000BCE was from south to north. Even the founding steppe Maykop grave of Ipatovo shows southern ancestry. On the other hand, the opposite can be seen in the south as those with steppe Y-dna were not elites as evidenced by the R1b sacrificed boy in Arslantepe.

2. As of 2400-2000 BCE these areas with steppe Y-dna were Hurrian(Itabalhum) related. However, It should be taken into consideration that Mesopotamians always lumped foreigners together.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski “ Their attitude reeks of bias.”

Everything BROAD writes smacks of bias

Andrzejewski said...

Davidski, Rob & Samuel Andrews are much more on point on most critical issues than MIT Broad.

Davidski said...

@Vara

This paper is a hundred times more accurate and informative than the so called Southern Arc paper, even though it doesn't include any ancient DNA data.

https://www.ajaonline.org/field-report/3676

Matt said...

Some more samples from the Ringbauer IBD analysis (fairly quick and dirty): https://imgur.com/a/vgREPIK

The two "Slavic like Avars" (AV1 and AV2) from Szolad have an affinity with long IBD links to Croatia_Medieval_o:I15742, who has some of the "Balto-Slavic drift" (and I think has some similarities to present day Croatians, or more than the Croatia_Medieval samples?).

However, AV2 also has some long IBD links to Hungary_Conqueror_Elite samples, one of whom is labelled HUN_early_Avar_military_leader in G25 dataset. So that seems like it may be some expected / confirmatory evidence that there was some flow between these "Slavic like Avar" people who are I think are quite sparse, and other samples who are labelled as Avars.

IBD links may find some interesting things with these kind of populations in the "Migration Era", where a signal might get lost in genome wide ancestry. (Although I haven't tested these samples at all; possibly it's pretty clear in genome wide ancestry!).

Davidski said...

@Orpheus

You're confusing linguistic hypotheses with things that actually happened.

People from the steppe actually moved into the Southern Caucasus from the Copper Age onward and they had significant influence on the Kura-Araxes culture.

There's nothing far fetched about that.

Vara said...

@Davidski

That's an oversimplification. The violent end of K-A dates to ~2500 BCE and isn't that relevant to the IE debate so that's one of the few things that Harvard got right.

However, the Yamnaya related groups aren't the only culprits. Iranian archaeologists recently solved another piece of the puzzle; abandonment of K-A sites in the Alborz. What stopped the K-A expansion to the Alborz was Grey Ware Hissar related groups.

"In northern Iran ETC occupation is succeeded, after a hiatus of uncertain duration, by settlement at sites such as Ghal-e Ben with new burial practices suggestive of greater social stratification... In the southern Caucasus, including along the southern banks of the Araxes river, ETC settlements are abandoned by about 2400 BC and kurgan tumulus burials appear across the region, heralding “a new way of life predicated on increased mobility, social inequality, and a politics of charismatic militarism”"

Unlucky bunch. So you have 3 main culprits. Hurrians, Yamnaya, and Hissar groups. This is also supported by the paper you linked: "The Kura-Araxes culture may have disappeared in various ways; the transition to the post– Kura-Araxes time may not be explained by a single model."


On south vs north caucasus interactions:
Early on the main population north of the Caucasus (Krasnodar Krai) was progress related which then was replaced by steppe Maykop groups where the cultural influence was from south to north. There is no evidence of influence from the steppe on Shulaveri Shomu or early K-A groups. In fact the K-A groups south of the Caucasus being the southern mirror of the Yamnaya is disproven
"Evidence from south Caucasus ETC sites reveals a strong reliance on cereals, with barley dominant at higher altitudes and minimal evidence for non-cereal crops such as pulses, alongside an element of pastoral transhumance of flocks of sheep and goat"

With the collapse of Maykop and the beginning of the collapse of K-A in Iran beginning around 2700BCE the situation changed to north>south where by 2400 BCE there is evidence of large replacements south of the Caucasus by warriors from the steppes and not in some obscure context like L1a Areni or the Arslantepe boy.

Davidski said...

@Vara

Archeology shows that steppe incursions into the South Caucasus started during the Copper Age. That's why there's steppe ancestry in the Areni Cave samples.

It's just that these incursions became more intense at the end of the Kura-Araxes period.

Kura-Araxes itself might be some sort of West Asian mirror image of Yamnaya due to steppe influence.

Vara said...

@Davidski

"Archeology shows that steppe incursions into the South Caucasus started during the Copper Age"

Link?

Davidski said...

Here you go, a bit of nice background for you about how Kurgans ended up in the South Caucasus.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347555812_Reconstructing_Funerary_Sequences_of_Kurgans_in_the_Southern_Caucasus_The_first_two_seasons_of_the_Azerbaijan-Italian_Ganja_Region_Kurgan_Archaeological_Region_Project_GARKAP_in_western_Azerbaijan

George said...

Off Topic:

Genome-wide analysis of a collective grave from Mentesh Tepe provides insight into the population structure of early neolithic population in the South Caucasus.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04681-w

Also see; http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/index.php?
a quote from Genetic Geneology:
"On the PCA these individuals are shifted towards the former individuals of the Pontic Steppes. In the ADMIXTURE figure, they include a new maximum red component in steppe individuals and also present in Caucasian hunter-gatherers. Interestingly, the Chalcolithic individuals from the Areni-1 cave in Armenia all possess this component, while the Chalcolithic individual from the Alkhantepe site in Azerbaijan does not. These results suggest gene flow from the steppes into the South Caucasus population. The qpAdm software shows that these individuals from Areni-1 cave can be modeled as coming from a genetic mixture between a steppe population (25%) and the Neolithic population of Mentesh Tepe (75%). The contribution of the steppes increases in individuals of the Kura-Araxes culture between the beginning and the end of the Bronze Age, suggesting migrations from the steppes to the southern Caucasus during this period."

Vara said...

@Davidski

Nothing that says influence from steppe groups other than citing Reinhold on Kurgans who actually explains the differences between the Khvalysnk and Maykop kurgans.

This is her statement btw:
"However, during the 5th millennium B.C., steppe communities and their neighbours developed funerary practices which involved exceptional and lavish burial paraphernalia to mark social differences among the deceased. This process is best studied at the site of Varna in Bulgaria"

https://www.academia.edu/43070142/Reinhold_2020_Transforming_the_Horizon_Early_Mounds_and_Monumentalised_Landscapes_in_the_North_Caucasus_and_Their_Social_Context

Well, the Varna chief doesn't have steppe ancestry.

Early K-A was the opposite of Yamnaya. They were pretty much poor agropastoralists who later became metal traders. It's a pretty unique phenomenon much different than everything going on at that time. No evidence of a warrior culture like in Maykop-Novosvobodnaya or their later Yamnaya and Hissar enemies.

From your link:
"it is quite striking to notice the lack of presence of metal objects among the funerary goods of the kurgans of western Azerbaijan, but this might be related to an absence of social differentiation of the members of the communities of the Kura-Araxes I period"
^Total opposite of Yamnaya.

Wise dragon said...

@Davidski

"What I don't get is how Iosif Lazaridis, David Reich etc. are apparently unaware of this.

Their attitude reeks of bias."


In my opinion, it's not only bias at play. But there is also a display of arrogance of power. The truth of the matter is that 3 labs—Harvard, the Max Planck Institute, and Paabo's— have a near monopoly over archeogenetics and aDNA.

So who can seriously challenge them? Where are the Davids who are not too awestruck or too scared to dare question the Goliaths of the archeogenetic world?


Orpheus said...

@Davidski Sure, linguistics aside it doesn't sound far-fetched.

@Vara Hovsepyan (2015) seconds this wrt cereal. KA were very cereal-heavy in general.

@Davidski Gave a read to the paper you linked, Maykop incursions from south to north predate the kurgans. Calibrated dates for the Kurgans in the paper are 3660-3500 BCE (including from seeds), and from Reinhold (referenced in the paper) we can read that Maykop beings at 3900-3800 BCE. And the Maykop period's influence was pretty major compared to kurgans who can be linked to non-significant cultural interaction (especially with southern kurgans being much more elaborate than northern kurgans): "In this period occurred the introduction of a broad spectrum of innovative technologies in metallurgy, economics and mobility, for which the earliest evidence is frequently found in Maykop complexes of the north Caucasus.46"

Maykop Kurgans are also earlier than KA ones: "Among the early mounds can be counted the largest in the Caucasus foothills near the village of Urvan, with a diameter of approximately 160 m and an original height of over 30 m (eg. 1: A). This mound has not yet been excavated, but organic samples from modern looting place this construction in the first quarter of the 4th millennium B.C."
Steppe influence wrt kurgans in KA can be traced to Maykop instead of straight from the steppe. As far as I know Areni ~4000-3900BCE samples did not have any kurgans. Also was their ancestry ever analyzed with steppe maykop, yamnaya, ehg etc groups in the competing sources? Steppe movements into the south Caucasus are pretty meaningless unless they have a connection to IE speaking people (which would not be pure EHG or steppe maykop or even khvalynsk).

Davidski said...

@Orpheus

I linked to that paper to show that the kurgan burial tradition originated on the steppe. That is the academic consensus.

How the early steppe kurgans, Maykop, and the Copper Age kurgans from the South Caucasus all fit together is beyond my understanding and interest.

You would have to talk to the authors of the paper I linked to.

And no, the Areni Cave people don't have Steppe Maykop ancestry, they have Steppe Eneolithic ancestry, like those Progress samples from >4,000 BCE, which were buried in a kurgan.

StP said...

@Dawidski,

there are some indications in the scientific literature (e.g. Kaja 2021, Balanowsky 2015) of the emergence of the origins of the Dravidian population, about 35 generations (29 years) earlier than the Indo-Aryans, from the steppe prePIE in Europe. So, could this disappearance of Nadir Tepesi and ETC not mean the start of Protodravidians migration to Indus late Harappa and South India, spurred by another early IE group?

Matt said...

IBD wise, the Armenia_C guys with y haplogroup L and mtdna H seem to have only one 12cM link between each other: https://imgur.com/a/5rJru3W

No wider links in the samples we have found, and only some 8cM links more widely which will reflect deeper history/affinities (and potentially some spurious matches for Viking/.SG samples).

Davidski said...

@StP

there are some indications in the scientific literature (e.g. Kaja 2021, Balanowsky 2015) of the emergence of the origins of the Dravidian population, about 35 generations (29 years) earlier than the Indo-Aryans, from the steppe prePIE in Europe.

There are no such indications. This is just your imagination.

StP said...

Davidski said...
@StP
there are some indications in the scientific literature (e.g. Kaja 2021, Balanowsky 2015) of the emergence of the origins of the Dravidian population, about 35 generations (29 years) earlier than the Indo-Aryans, from the steppe prePIE in Europe.

There are no such indications. This is just your imagination.
March 30, 2023 at 1:40 AM

But you didn't add that it's imagination... sick. So I have my first success in this topic :D!

epoch said...

@Orpheus

I somehow doubt that high status Hittite preserve ancestry as it was known that several Hittite kings adopted nephews or cousins and even less related men as sons in order to thwart takeovers by siblings.

I entertain the idea that IE might have spread in Anatolia as a trade language with a status not quite unlike Swahili or Afrikaans in Namibia.

While a different scenario, as Swahili was not an imported language, its spread went beyond the genetic markers of its origin due to be a trade language.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05754-w?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20230330

Copper Axe said...

@Epoch

The largest driver of the spread of Swahili was European colonization not trade.

Orpheus said...

@epoch Could be. I guess we'll just have to wait for a good amount of early Hittie and pre-Hittite samples (regardless of status) to get a better picture.

The trade language hypothesis is interesting, care to elaborate? I.e. what purpose did it serve (for trading what), how did it offer an advantage over the native tongues being spoken (wrt trading), and from which route into Anatolia?

Rob said...

@ Orpheus

“Citation needed.”

Prof Rob 2015-2023


“Also archaeologists being low IQ as usual and being uncultured swine detached from linguistics and genetics is not my problem. 2400BCE is way too early for any proto-Greek language to exist, perhaps even for Greco-Phrygian to exist. Filos, West, Drews all give a date of 2200-2000BCE””

Lol even your God Lazarides ?

First off , how is Drew’s a linguist.?
Secondly, ask any serious linguist and they’d say they “don’t do (absolute) dates. It’s not like words can be C14 dated
Thirdly, proto Greek being dated by some linguists to 2200 bc matched the 24500 bc genetic evidence almost perfectly . What do you expect to match exactly 11am Wednesday morning ?
Maybe the 2500 bc guys weren’t Greek yet, still paleo-Phrygian-Macedonian-Greek
There’s no problem except your own poor understanding

Rob said...

@ Davidski

“How the early steppe kurgans, Maykop, and the Copper Age kurgans from the South Caucasus all fit together is beyond my understanding and interest.”

Borrowing by Caucasian groups and Eneolithic steppe migrations south
But the kurgan tradition never took hold amongst Caucasian groups, just patchy occasional use
Until the KMK migration (proto-Armenians)

Rob said...

@ epoch

Yes you’re onto something
Troy emerged to dominate the Anatolian trade network after Arslantepe began to demise
And Troy , and the western Anatolian coast, have obvious links to west Pontic region

Wee e said...

@Epoch “trade language” is not named for what “drives its spread”.

The term just refers to its general structure (initially simplified grammar, usually a melded vocabulary) and to its most common utility in commerce.

A “trade language” is a pidgin with wings, so to speak. it allows ordinary folks with various mother tongues over a wide area to communicate with one another. It may well become a mother tongue of subsequent generations, especially urban populations.

It distinguishes it from a language of diplomacy or record — it’s not restricted to being spoken/written between elites with different native languages (as Latin and to an extent French became).

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 800 of 892   Newer› Newest»