Monday, February 13, 2023
Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let me tell you about Yamnaya
Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. recently claimed that the Yamnaya people of the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe carried "substantial" ancestry from what is now Armenia or surrounds.
However, this claim is essentially false.
Only one individual associated with the Yamnaya culture shows an unambiguous signal of such ancestry. This is a female usually labeled Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera_o:I1917. The "o" suffix indicates that she is an outlier from the main Yamnaya genetic cluster.
Unlike I1917, typical Yamnaya individuals carry a few per cent of ancient European farmer admixture. This ancestry is only very distantly Armenian-related via Neolithic Anatolia (see here).
It's difficult for me to understand how Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. missed this. I suspect that they relied too heavily on formal statistics and overinterpreted their results.
Formal statistics are a very useful tool in ancient DNA work. Unfortunately, they're also a relatively blunt tool that often has problems distinguishing between similar sources of gene flow.
There are arguably better methods for studying fine scale ancestry, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
Below is a somewhat special PCA featuring a wide range of ancient populations that plausibly might be relevant to the genetic origins of the Yamnaya people. Unlike most PCA with ancient samples, this PCA doesn't rely on any sort of projection, so that all of the actors are interacting with each other and directly affecting the outcome.
Here's another version of the same plot with a less complicated labeling system. Note that I designed this PCA specifically to differentiate between European populations and those from the Armenian highlands, the Iranian plateau and surrounds.
And here's a close up of the part of the plot that shows the Yamnaya cluster. This cluster is made up of samples associated with the Afanasievo, Catacomb, Poltavka and Yamnaya cultures. All of the individuals in this part of the plot are closely related, which is why they're so tightly packed together. The differentiation between them is caused by admixture from different groups mostly from outside of the PC steppe.
The Yamnaya cluster can be broadly characterized as a population that formed along the genetic continuum between the Eneolithic groups of the Progress region and Neolithic foragers from the Dnieper River valley (Progress_Eneolithic and Ukraine_N, respectively). However, this cluster also shows a slight western shift that is increasingly more pronounced in the Corded Ware samples. This shift is due to the aforementioned admixture from early European farmers.
Indeed, the plot reveals two parallel clines extending west from the Progress samples. One of the clines is made up of the Yamnaya cluster and the Corded Ware samples, and pulls towards the ancient European farmers. The other cline includes Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera_o:I1917 and pulls towards samples from the Armenian highlands and surrounds.
Being aware of these two clines and knowing how they came about is important to understanding the genetic prehistory of the PC steppe and indeed of much of Eurasia.
At some point, probably during the late Eneolithic, a Progress-related group experienced gene flow from the west and became the Yamnaya and Corded Ware populations. Sporadically, admixture from the Armenian highlands and the Iranian plateau also entered the PC steppe, giving rise to people like the Steppe Maykop outliers and Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera_o:I1917.
Unfortunately, this sort of PCA doesn't offer output suitable for mixture modeling, basically because the recent genetic drift shared by many of the samples creates significant noise.
However, to check that my inferences based on the plot are correct I can create composites with specific ancestry proportions to see how they behave. In the plot below Mix1 is 80% Progress_Eneolithic and 20% Iran_Hajji_Firuz_N, Mix2 is 80% Progress_Eneolithic and 20% Armenia_EBA_Kura_Araxes, while Mix3 is 80% Progress_Eneolithic, 15% Ukraine_N and 5% Hungary_MN_Vinca (Middle Neolithic farmers from the Carpathian Basin).
Obviously, we can't get Yamnaya by mixing Progress_Eneolithic with any ancients from the Armenian highlands or the Iranian plateau. On the other hand, Mix3 works quite well, at least in the first two dimensions. In some of the other dimensions genetic drift specific to Ukraine_N pulls it away from the Yamnaya cluster, but this is to be expected.
By the way, the plots were created with the excellent Vahaduo Custom PCA tool freely available here. It's well worth trying the interactive 3D option using my PCA data. The relevant datasheet is available here.
See also...
Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let's set the record straight
The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
892 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 892 Newer› Newest»@Rob, Rob: their male uniparental markers are East Gravettian, apart from in some LUP Iberians which maintain C1a.
Then when the Tagliente switch-over occurs (more like 90% in my models), at least half the Y-hg remains Goyet-Q2 derived (I2a1 vs I2a2).
Samples are still pretty limited, and there's like 4 of them for GoyetQ2 - I wonder will it really so precise that all LGM Tagliente/Villabruna cluster will be from these two different primary branches of I2a? How to explain that the 25% C1a in GoyetQ2 (but only 1 out of 4 samples!) goes to 0?
What happened to the 5/8 C1 in the Vestonice cluster too? All very mysterious. Some of these processes may reflect chance, with low population numbers.
''Here, we report five Yamnaya individuals well-dated to 3021 to 2501 calibrated BCE from kurgans in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, displaying changes in bone morphology and distinct pathologies associated with horseback riding. These are the oldest humans identified as riders so far.''
Since we are waiting for the Afanasievo horse remains to be tested,
5021-4501BP is in the same time frame as R1b-Z2109+Yamnaya Turganik Dom2 sample. Theses burials(presuming they are R1b-Z2103/9)also predate R1b-Z2103-Z2109 found in Corded ware, Potapovka(early horse bit),Sintashta,Catacombe cultures.
Also Yersinia pestis samples that fall between--5021-4501BP
RK1.001 4828-4622BP
Rise 509 4836-4625BP
Gen72 4833-4592BP
Gyvakarai 4571-4422BP
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04550-9/figures/2
@ Xdzyn
Please reread everything I said about foragers with darker skin, diet, calcium and local conditions.
Inuit evolved as foragers who rely heavily on fatty fish. Their traditional diet is rich in vitamin D from fish, and calcium from animal products.
Since the 1920s, when their diet began to change to more cereal products and less fatty fish and meat, Inuit have indeed been observed to suffer from rickets and milder vit D insuffiency.
@xdzn What did you not understand about this statement?
“A forager WITH ANY SKIN COLOR and RICH in dietary vit D (eg fatty FISH, mushrooms, egg yolks) CAN FLOURISH in the same place where lighter-skinned people (eg grain farmers) with a less than optimal diet may suffer deficiency disease.”
In fact it was mesolithic people in the cloudier coastal areas of western Europe, and Arctic peoples to the present day, that I was thinking of specifically.
To reiterate. Lack of ultraviolet light for skin to produce vitamin D can be offset — compensated for — by a diet rich in vitamin D. A good source of calcium makes the processing more efficient.
@Xdzyn Latitude is not the same thing as altitude.
Sample OST003 from the new European Hunter Gatherer paper looks like the first I1 from a WHG (Oberkassel). Dated to 5100 YBP it's also quite late for a pure WHG.
@Orpheus & Rich S
There are qpAdm models that demonstrate the arrival of Yamnaya ancestry in Western Europe much earlier than previously thought and also linked to male lineages other than R1b. Ancient genomes reveal social and genetic structure of Late Neolithic Switzerland-Anja Furtwängler-HapY-I2 marker and steppe ancestry.
I0405-Mina3- (3750 BC)-HapY-I2a1a-Yamnaya (14.70%)
I0406-Mina4-HapY-I2a2a-Yamnaya (11.40%)
I4308-Collet Redon(3.500 BC)-Yamnaya (10.60 %)
I0520-Banbury Lane-(3.230 BC)-HapY-I –Yamnaya (24.70%)
I2629-Isbister-Orkney Islands (2.980 AC)-HapY-I2-Yamnya (46.80%)
Regarding Smyadovo everything has already been said, the sample does not have Yamnaya ancestry per se because this autosomal composition did not exist yet. It cannot be modeled using Yamnaya because the models would be anachronistic. You can only do distal models and then you will see that the main component of that sample is WHG-29%, incompatible with a steppe origin.
LGK-
The official narrative since 2015 is that of massive migrations of R1a and R1b that changed the language of the neolithic societies. Those mass migrations never reached Western Europe and neither did they produce conquests, so my point is that if we are talking about lone explorers, I do not understand how they had the ability to change the language of farmers if they also acculturated immediately and appear buried in caves, dolmens
@Matt
The Ice Age papers are very interesting, and with respect to the uniparental markers there is no surprise. We cannot find R (R1-R1b) in western Europe simply because this lineage is of Siberian origin and did not even exist as such in Aurignacian or Gravettian culture times. After the LGM the situation changes drastically with the appearance of Villabruna (and two cases of R1b-L754 in the WHGs), then the debate about the origin of this cluster is crucial also to understand the geographical origin of R1b. And here (surprise surprise), I agree with Rob that this cluster had to originate in a wide area from northern Italy, Balkans to the Sea of Azov. The fact that all European hunter gatherers have Villabruna blood means that R1b can appear in Magdalenian, Azilian and even Mesolithic samples. Time will tell if we find them.
Regarding C1a2, the truth is that it is astonishing to think that they became extinct in Europe, although it is true that they survived especially well in the Balkans (Croatia, Romania Bulgaria, Serbia) even up to the Iron Age (Macedonia, 670 BC)-This marker is also especially abundant in neolithic Germany, Hungary and Anatolia (Pınarbaşı-13.357 BC, Boncuklu-8,050 BC, Çayönü-7.562 BC, Catalhöyük, Barcin, Tepecik Ciftlik & Bademagacı-6.250 BC)-Considering that it is older in Europe I think the movement is Europe>Anatolia and not the other way around, unless the European hunter gatherers C1a2 became totally extinct and the European Neolithic samples came in with the Anatolian farmers (who knows?).
Regarding Iberia, its role as a refuge during the LGM has been confirmed. The genetic change in Italy is dramatic and we know almost nothing about the Balkans
Looking at some more f3 and f4 stats from the paper "Palaeogenomics..." paper graphed against time: https://imgur.com/a/hBnO7kp
It seems like there are definite increases in affinity to Natufian and a slight decrease in affinity to Ust Ishim after 20kya in this set... So that seems like it would be explained by some geneflow between the ancestors of Natufians and Euro HG - it can't be just explained by geneflow from Euro HG into Pinarbasi without geneflow involving Natufians in some respect.
The Ust Ishim signal would indicate some "Basal Eurasian", but generally I think this is stat seems hard to use to index Basal Eurasian because there is some variation among Euro HG in relationship to Ust Ishim that could swamp out the BEu signal... (E.g. the Blatterhohle who definitely have some low level of Anatolia_N have a higher shared f3 with Ust Ishim than Serbia_IronGates, who don't, and a more significantly higher level comparing to Russia_AG3 / Russia_Samara_HG / Russia_Karelia_HG).
The ancient direct stats comparing Russia_AG3 and TTK seem to me to kind of affirm that there is no significant Basal Eurasian excess in TTK relative to AG3, e.g.
f4(Mbuti.DG, Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG; Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 0.199
f4(Mbuti.DG, Israel_RaqefetCave_Natufian; Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 1.058
f4(Mbuti.DG, Georgia_Kotias.SG, Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 1.03
f4(Mbuti.DG, Anatolia_Pinarbasi; Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 1.131
f4(Mbuti.DG, Tajikstan_C_Sarazm; Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 2.69
f4(Mbuti.DG, Iran_GanjDareh_N; Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 3.42
f4(Mbuti.DG, Russia_Karelia_HG; Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: -3.79
And for present day people on Human Origins:
f4(Mbuti, Guarani_GN, Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: -3.085
f4(Mbuti, Ukrainian_North, Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 0.451
f4(Mbuti, Irish_Ulster, Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 0.761
f4(Mbuti, Chechen, Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 1.207
f4(Mbuti, Polish, Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 1.228
f4(Mbuti, Basque, Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 1.258
f4(Mbuti, Tajik, Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 1.904
f4(Mbuti, Georgian, Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 3.021
I don't really understand why they don't seem to have any tests involving South Asian folks here for the moderns, but anyway, among the modern people, it seems that whatever preference for AG3 over TTK that EHG shows, it's only shared by Native Americans, not modern Europeans, and whatever counter-influence (could be mediated various different ways) is slightly but non-significantly stronger.
Gaska is so funny I'm feel like I am dying from laughing so hard. He says he doesn't want people to tell him what to believe then he tells people not to listen to certain other people that are posting detailed information about specific samples then Gaska decides not to believe the facts because they don't suit his bias and instead decides to make erroneous statements without details to support his erroneous statements and in other cases twists words by confounding Steppe autosomal people as meaning specifically Yamnaya. It is also obvious that his erroneous hypothesis has even basic mathematical errors.
I will repeat data, albeit possibly in a different form than provided in the past by others or myself, even though Gaska enjoys ignoring basic facts and states he does not need basic facts explained to him.
The most important data is that there is not a single specimen positive for R-L23 or a downstream SNP that does not have Steppe autosomal DNA. That does not mean the first person with R-L23, or it's subclades, was in a culture that can be labeled as Yamnaya. But it does mean that he was in a culture with Steppe autosomal DNA which is non-existent in Western Europe prior to 3000 BC and all Yamnaya have Steppe autosomal DNA meaning the Yamnaya and all other people with Steppe autosomal DNA have common ancestry. If there was a founder effect where a R-P311 or R-L52 or R-L23 person had no Steppe autosomal DNA but had children with a female that had 100% Steppe autosomal DNA then most of his descendants would have had to have also had children with females that had a very significant amount of Steppe autosomal DNA because if they had not then the Steppe autosomal DNA would have become too diluted to be detected. Therefore, all of the people positive for R-L23, and any of the related subclades, that have been found in western Europe after 3000 BC also have Steppe autosomal DNA because their ancestors were in a group of people that were positive for both R-L23 and Steppe autosomal DNA both of which are independently absent in western Europe prior to 3000 BC.
Now let's say for the sake of argument, which Gaska likes to do, that hypothetically there were multiple introgressions of R-L23 peoples without Steppe autosomal DNA with women that had Steppe autosomal DNA. There is not a single ancient specimen anywhere positive for R-L23 without Steppe autosomal DNA. If R-L23 peoples without Steppe autosomal DNA were so numerous then there would have been a specimen found by now that is positive for R-L23, or a subclade, but without Steppe autosomal DNA. It hasn't happened and even if it had, all R-L23 descended people in western Europe descend from people that lived east of western Europe and likely somewhere between central Europe and Afanasievo which places them in eastern Europe where Steppe autosomal DNA originated.
All of this is so basic that someone such as Gaska that has spent so much time reading studies and looking at DNA results of ancient specimens should understand all of this. That is why it is so funny that he can't comprehend basics.
@Matt
"Overall it looks like TTK is a sample that has enriched affinity to Iran_N, without any extra Basal Eurasian or really broader Near Eastern ancestry."
This 20% Iranian in TTK is the earliest Hotu/beltcave related ancestry present in SC Asia, no additional CHG/Anatolian/Levantine ancestry detected in 6200bce. This sample is also interesting because its location almost touches the border of Afganistan.
Do note that at least as per Allentoft et al modeling, 4500bce Turkmenistan Monjukli depe sample will have minimal to no anatolian ancestry although it already has suppressed ANE (65% iranN, 30% CHG, 5% Yana). Although in my experience, IranN + Anatolian can sometimes be confused with CHG if the setup isn't great.
Between 6200-3500bce, this region receives additional IranN and Caucasus_N (Aknashen, Masis_N, Azerbaijan_LN related) ancestry, and the ANE ancestry is reduced to 20% (in sarazm, which is very close from TTK) and 10% in Geoksyur, parkhai, Anau, Shahr-sokhta, IVC etc.
@Romulus, it seems like OST003 might potentially have some low level of Barcin related ancestry if we consider that slightly earlier OST002 and OST003 have some (12-20%, 1 great-grandparent-ish), and that OST003's position in G25 is less extreme than the most extreme Oberkassel "WHG" samples. There are some interactions like seem with Wartberg, Blatterhohle, in this area. It would not be more than 5% (1 great-great-grandparent) if so though. I don't think this could be related to I1 though.
("The small island Tannenwerder is located in Lake Ostorf in the city of Schwerin, northern Germany. The first inhumation burials were detected on the island already in the 19th century and various excavations during the 20th century revealed a larger cemetery with a total of c. 74 individuals across 33 burials (Lübke et al., 2009; Patolla & Henke, 2009). Fieldwork directed by F. Lüth in 2012 revealed a new burial and additional interments might be present at the site. While typological evidence suggested a Neolithic date, the location of the cemetery on an island is uncommon for this time. Furthermore, the frequent presence of grave goods such as transverse arrowheads, animal tooth pendants sometimes in large numbers, and fish hooks led to the interpretation of a surviving final Mesolithic population (Schuldt, 1961). New systematic studies including a series of AMS-dates assign the site to ~5,200 to 4,900 calBP (Funnel Beaker to early Single Grave Culture) (Lübke et al., 2009; Olsen et al., 2010; Fernandes et al., 2015). The suggested Mesolithic lifestyle of the population is supported by elevated 15 N-values, which indicate regular consumption of freshwater resources (Fernandes et al., 2015; Terberger et al., 2018). Mesolithic roots for some of the individuals could also be revealed by the first paleogenetic data showing the presence of individuals with U5 mtDNA haplogroups (Bramanti et al., 2009). The Ostorf population was living within a spatially and temporally Funnel Beaker context and adopted some Neolithic cultural elements, but followed a subsistence strategy normally associated with a hunter-gatherer diet (Fernandes et al., 2015)".)
@Matt
And f4(Mbuti.DG, CHG; Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK)?
Re; TTK again, distance difference in G25 coordinates Davidski provided are consistent with TTK compared to other ancient ANE-rich being closer to ancient and to a lesser extent modern South-Central Asian populations.
Distance Difference - https://imgur.com/a/yoDW12M
The specific populations other "ANE" are closer to are:
AG3<TTK: Present and Ancient South Americans, in particular (Surui, Karitiana, Brazil_5800BP)
Tarim_EMBA<TTK: Neo-Arctic populations, in particular (Aleut, Kolyma_Meso, Beringian, Eskimo), and Northern Amerindians
Tyumen_HG / Sosnivoy_HG<TTK: Kazakhstan_Botai, Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov, Kazakh_Steppe_EMBA and Neo-Arctic / Northern_Amerind
Partly seems like that might reflect slight East Asian/Neo-Siberian ancestry in these other populations.
Oddly enough, TTK seems to be closer to Steppe_Maykop than the other ANE rich populations are, although this does not necessarily indicate that the ancestry came from TTK I wouldn't think - as it could be that East Asian ancestry and lack of Iran_N/CHG relatedness in the other makes them further away. TTK in general is somewhat closer on G25 to West Eurasians, just peaking at SCA.
Distance to outgroups in Africa seems similar between TTK and AG3 (AG3 slightly closer), which may reflect some mix of AG3 being older and so less drifted, and AG3 having less of its drift captured by G25.
What is interesting for me is that the earliest proposed admixture date of West and East seems to be around 15 000 years ago. Not far from the time when R1b Villabruna Man came into the picture....Seeing that the proposed date of origin of R1b is around 18 000 years ago their formation predated the main admixture event between West and East. So I think R1b originated somewhere near Perm and not near Ukraine, the Baltics or the Balkans.
@Romulus, re; Ostorf again, just to comment further on my suggestion OST003 has some farmer ancestry:
1) The f3 outgroups shows that OST001, OST002 and OST003 all have an accelerated level of f3 sharing with each other. This is probably the case due to sharing relatively recent ancestors from a small population pool.
2) The modelling the paper does find a small Anatolian ancestry share in OST003; approx 20% in OST001 and OST002, but only 7% in OST003.
A few graphics for this: https://imgur.com/a/jTsR6jD
OST003 probably has very little Anatolian (going by their analysis, slightly more than the 4% I found with a quick model, but not more than the 7% they find). But probably has some. Additionally, although the paper doesn't seem to talk about this, possibly these three may even share ancestors not too far back. (OST002 has I2a2a1b while OST001 is female).
The Ostorf 3 also look like they have farmer mtdna (H1+16189, J1c3j, H) although this was not necessarily ubiquitous for them as Bramanti 2009 found that some samples from the site have U5 (https://www.science.org/cms/asset/57141862-7b36-43ad-9f05-46d24a79b7dc/pap.pdf)
This thesis will be presented in March, it has some interesting findings-"The fate and legacy of the last hunter-gatherers in western Europe and northwestern Africa"-Luciana Simoes
To address questions surrounding the origins of the pre-neolithic genetic ancestry in western Europe, we generated whole genome sequencing data for 36 western European hunter-gatherers, from the Iberian Peninsula and northwestern France, with a focus on the late mesolithic period. We analysed the patterns of admixture between two European Late Pleistocene lineages-one associated with central European Magdalenian hunter-gatherers, such as Goyet Q2 (12 kya from Belgium) and El Mirón (19 kya from Spain), and another with southern European Epigravettian hunter-gatherers, such as Villabruna (14 kya from Italy).
Some of the analysed individuals from Iberia dated to an older period, the Upper Palaeolithic, ranging from ca. 22.000 to ca. 18.000 years ago.Our results indicate a genetic component that was previously unappreciated in Iberia, present at least in the north of the Peninsula during and after the LGM ?????
@Davidski Imagine being this paranoid and thinking everyone's out to get you. Re-read what I wrote, CWC was absolutely a single ethnic group (with a shared ethnic consciousness and identity) early on, as was Yamnaya. But not later on, due to language splits. I wasn't talking about early CWC. In fact there's strong evidence that they were indeed the same ethnic group with a shared ethnic consciousness, and no evidence against it. Even the initial leading CWC clans who (presumably) adopted farming and became much more competitive wouldn't have a different ethnic consciousness than the rest.
The paper you linked talks about identity (also based on an assumption of what they indicate, p.2) and cultural information (p. 13). You don't need a shared ethnic consciousness to have a shared culture and cultural identity, although it helps. They talk about communities with shared practices (p. 2) which is not necessarily an ethnic group (ethnie).
Communication is also impossible if there are different languages spoken. And ideas and cultural elements can persist even if the ethnic consciousness and languages fracture.
Ethnic consciousness is an assumption by the individual of a shared genetic origin with a group/community. Ethnic groups (ethnies) emerge out of this.
CWC cultural identity can exist among different ethnic CWC groups. Get my point? CWC being culturally more or less homogeneous with a similar cultural identity and religion amd some worldviews (in some aspects at least, eg burial practices) does not require a shared ethnic consciousness and thus ethnic group after their initial communities (which constituted a single ethnic group due to shared ethnic consciousness among its members) had formed.
An example of this is CWC and Yamnaya. Their origin community was a single ethnic group, yet Yamnaya and early CWC weren't, despite being genetically similar and with many shared cultural practices (ie cultural identity).
If DragonHermit was talking about early CWC then he was wrong. I assumed he was talking about the later CWC groups
@ Matt
“So that seems like it would be explained by some geneflow between the ancestors of Natufians and Euro HG - it can't be just explained by geneflow from Euro HG into Pinarbasi without geneflow involving Natufians in some respect”
I didn’t say it’s explained by EuroHGs migrating to Anatolia
I see that they migrated to Anatolia and then mixed with Natufians (eg see the archeo on Pinarbasi) and this then brought it back to Europe due to the mating networks
In fact WA_Ep is already present in Vestonice, but you won’t detect it with simple F/D stats because Vestonice have too much Aurignacian ancestry . A vanguard with hg I (recent split from Caucasian J), + U5 , closely related U4
Re TTK
At first glance I thought TTK has extra ENA over ANE in addition to Zagros but that was just PCA based
@ Gaska
“I think the movement is Europe>Anatolia and not the other way around, unless the European hunter gatherers C1a2 became totally extinct and the European Neolithic samples came in with the Anatolian farmers (who knows?).”
Right on . But then Neolithic C1a tested so far falls under the AHG clade , not Brana
@Davidski "The Corded Ware people were an ethnic group that eventually spawned new ethnic groups."
That's what I'm saying pretty much. However the new ethnic groups didn't appear out of thin air but were "shared CWC" culturally (early on as they became different ethnic communities), but not linguistically. Language drift is more common than culture drift especially in ancient and small grouos spread over big distances
@gimby20 Eh probably not
"Special attention is deserved by the case of the individual of Csongrád-Kettőshalom in Hungary (fig. S12). Displaying five traits, this 25 to 35 years old scores as high as our five Yamnaya individuals and thus meets our requirements to qualify as a rider with a sufficiently high probability."
Probably just wagon riding affecting the skeleton. Evidence for domesticated horses early on in Yamnaya is still 0. Maybe they rode donkeys
@Rob Lmfao show me the pages he says that in Olander 2022. I hope your IQ isn't as low as to not check whether the matches are for "balkanic" (the language family, plenty of mentions) in Kloekhorst's chapter. He doesn't bring it up in his Troy paper either
Your schizophrenia is causing you to hallucinate again.
@Gaska
Don't obfuscate by conflating two different things. Lets be very clear: early steppe outliers such as Smyadovo that were being discussed above, who you referred to as conquerors who lost their language, are not so. They can be broadly identified as "explorers" or their descendants, for lack of a better term. They did not induce language change, and they became integrated into the foreign societies hence being buried with them.
Language change at a widespread society level in Europe was later, and associated with larger scale migrations of related people originating in the same general geographic area as the early "explorers", beyond the frontier of the Neolithic societies.
@Gaska C1 HGs and their DNA could have survived through females. The males not being successful at reproducing (or their offspring dying) does not affect the females with the same genetic composition. There's a reason you won't find more than 48-49% steppe DNA in Europe today even if the person's haplogroup is the Yamnaya-est (sic) you can find.
"The Corded Ware people were an ethnic group that eventually spawned new ethnic groups"
Thank you Davidski for saying this. This is how I always put it.
Now I'm not the only one.
@ Gaska
''Considering that it is older in Europe I think the movement is Europe>Anatolia and not the other way around, unless the European hunter gatherers C1a2 became totally extinct and the European Neolithic samples came in with the Anatolian farmers (who knows?).''
Its beyond dispute, Pinarbasi C1a2 is from Euro_UP lineages. Its phylogenetically derived & contextually younger, and appears after nobody had lived in Anatolia for 20,000 years.
However, the C1a in Neolithic samples does appear to be from AHG then coming back to Europe.
So, as with everything, dilligent understanding is required. The La Brana line sadly appears to have died out. But lets wwait to see if any C1a lingers around in minor amounts in Greece or the west Black Sea area
@ Matt
''It seems like there are definite increases in affinity to Natufian and a slight decrease in affinity to Ust Ishim after 20kya in this set... So that seems like it would be explained by some geneflow between the ancestors of Natufians and Euro HG - it can't be just explained by geneflow from Euro HG into Pinarbasi without geneflow involving Natufians in some respect.''
The suggestion was not that these affinities can be explained solely by UP Europe-> Anatolia, but that these colonists then mixed with WA _Ep populations and diffused back into Europe via the mating networks
Otherwise, WA_Ep ancestry is already present in Vestonice. But it won't be demonstrated with basic F/D-stats because there is too much Aurignacian ancestry. The uniparental link is the I/J split and mtDNA U4, U5
@ Gaska
“We cannot find R (R1-R1b) in western Europe simply because this lineage is of Siberian origin “
TTK & the Altai HG have demonstrated ANE-rich populations in Central Asia and Siberia bore Yhg C1 and Q2 . AFG-2 is also Q, UstKyatka C. Native Americans Q & C
We are still yet to find any R1b in those regions before the Bronze Age. This means that it arrived to Europe as a basal R c. 25000 bp, became locally extinct in asia, and then returned thousands of years later from the west
@Gaska
"There are qpAdm models that demonstrate the arrival of Yamnaya ancestry in Western Europe much earlier than previously thought and also linked to male lineages other than R1b. Ancient genomes reveal social and genetic structure of Late Neolithic Switzerland-Anja Furtwängler-HapY-I2 marker and steppe ancestry.
I0405-Mina3- (3750 BC)-HapY-I2a1a-Yamnaya (14.70%)
I0406-Mina4-HapY-I2a2a-Yamnaya (11.40%)
I4308-Collet Redon(3.500 BC)-Yamnaya (10.60 %)
I0520-Banbury Lane-(3.230 BC)-HapY-I –Yamnaya (24.70%)
I2629-Isbister-Orkney Islands (2.980 AC)-HapY-I2-Yamnya (46.80%)"
I have to confess that I am no qpAdm expert, but I am certain you are misreading the Furtwangler spreadsheet, because none of those samples has any steppe DNA. If they had, it would have been big news long before now.
Regarding "Villabruna blood" in HGs: all of the remains in the Villabruna Cluster belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup I, mostly I2, except for one, the eponymous Villabruna himself. He was R1b-L761, with no coverage at L389, but P297-.
See this: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/05/villabruna-cluster-near-eastern-migrants.html
@Davidski
You are misrepresenting my simple statement of fact. I never claimed that the Yamnaya people were mounted warriors who invaded Anatolia on horseback. I only presented evidence that they were among the earliest people to ride horses for various purposes, such as transport, herding, hunting, etc. Horseback riding was a sensible and feasible activity for early WSHs, and bone changes don't occur simply because they were used sparingly.
In fact, I'd go further and state it is not unreasonable to assume that some of them rode horses into battle.
Your argument that there is no evidence of a mounted invasion of Anatolia by WSHs is irrelevant and does not refute my original statement.
I get that you can be really touchy at people making statements about your civilizationally bereft ancestors, but you shouldn't be. None of these things were negatives! The negatives come more from your ancestors complete lack of accomplishments till the last 200 years.
@Gaska
Your comment is based on a misunderstanding of what qpAdm models can and cannot do. qpAdm models are not meant to provide definitive answers about the ancestry of a population, but rather to test hypotheses and eliminate implausible scenarios. They are also sensitive to the choice of source and outgroup populations, which may not reflect the true ancestral components of a target population1. Therefore, qpAdm models should not be used as evidence for or against a particular historical scenario without proper validation and interpretation.
Furthermore, your examples of individuals with Yamnaya-related ancestry in Western Europe are cherry-picked and do not represent the general pattern of genetic variation in that region. The majority of ancient genomes from Western Europe show little or no evidence of Yamnaya-related ancestry until the Late Bronze Age. The presence of some individuals with Yamnaya-related ancestry and non-R1b haplogroups does not invalidate the overall trend of increased Yamnaya-related ancestry and R1b haplogroups in Western Europe after 2500 BC.
Finally, your claim that Smyadovo does not have Yamnaya ancestry per se because it predates the formation of Yamnaya culture is misleading. Smyadovo has a high proportion of Steppe ancestry, which is one of the main components of Yamnaya ancestry. Steppe ancestry originated from a mixture of EHG and CHG, which occurred before the emergence of Yamnaya culture. Therefore, Smyadovo can be seen as an early example of Steppe ancestry spreading into Southeastern Europe.
So in conclusion, your comment does not provide convincing evidence against the hypothesis that Yamnaya culture was associated with the spread of Indo-European languages into Western Europe. On the contrary, it shows a lack of understanding of how qpAdm models work and how genetic data should be interpreted in light of archaeological and linguistic evidence.
@Rob
"TTK & the Altai HG have demonstrated ANE-rich populations in Central Asia and Siberia bore Yhg C1 and Q2 . AFG-2 is also Q, UstKyatka C. Native Americans Q & C
We are still yet to find any R1b in those regions before the Bronze Age. This means that it arrived to Europe as a basal R c. 25000 bp, became locally extinct in asia, and then returned thousands of years later from the west."
Yet Mal'ta Boy was Y-DNA R, and he is the type model of ANE.
When you say "Europe", how far west do you mean?
@gimby20
Like I said, I am no qpAdm expert, but I am certain Gaska is misreading the Furtwangler spreadsheet, which is where he is getting the Yamnaya_Samara figures in column L as percentages.
Take a look at the column L figures for a couple of other samples to see if you think Gaska is interpreting the spreadsheet correctly. For example, look at sample I2565, a Beaker man from Amesbury in England. Read Gaska's way, I2565's Yamnaya_Samara score is 98.5%! Who imagines that is right?
Here's another: sample I5376, a River Thames Beaker man. Interpreted Gaska's way, he has 90.2% Yamnaya_Samara!
Yeah, sure, you betcha!
Those two British Beaker guys have steppe DNA, but not to the tune of 98.5% and 90.2%.
No, none of the samples Gaska claimed have Yamnaya_Samara DNA actually has any steppe DNA at all.
Where did the Y-DNA Haplogroup J and MtDNA Haplogroup T2 in Sidelkino come from ?
P.S.: Ahola (2020), commenting on Bourgeois & Kroon (2017) talks about similarities and differences in Yamnaya and CWC, specifically similar types of "SGBR" steppe burial practices (Furholt, 2019) shared by CWC (with variation in the Baltics being noted), Bell Beakers, Unetice, Mierzanowice, Nitra. These ethnic groups are obviously not the same ethnic group as CWC, especially early CWC (regardless of DNA).
It's what I mentioned, material culture and even religious rituals and thus significant aspects of cultural identity can very well persist among different ethnic groups, as their ethnic consciousness drifts away from the earlier one.
Furholt (2014) notes significant regional variation in CWC burials as well as material culture and deviation from the alleged "unifying norms" (shared practices) of the culture. This could (or not) point at the development of different ethnic consciousness and thus ethnic groups throughout the CWC areas. It's not something concrete, and archaeologists have varying interpretations. Language is both more important and more concrete hence it ranking so high in the composition of an ethnic group/consciousness compared to some similar cultural elements. This is further highlighted by shared practices among CWC and the non-CWC Yamnaya, Beakers, Unetice, Mierzanowice, Nitra and at the same time regional variation within all these groups (Furholt).
@Orpheus
No one claimed that Bell Beakers, Nitra etc. were CWC or the same ethnic group as CWC. The claim being made is that CWC was an ethnic group, Bell Beakers were another, and so on.
And let's be honest, Furholt's a bit of an idiot who would still be arguing that CWC had nothing to do with the steppe if not for the ancient DNA evidence.
@ Gimby
“Smyadovo has a high proportion of Steppe ancestry, which is one of the main components of Yamnaya ancestry. Steppe ancestry originated from a mixture of EHG and CHG”
That’s not quite accurate
Smyadovo has high amounts of UkrN ancestry, EHG and EEF . Only late Steppe ancestry has high CHG, but steppe ancestry did not originate with CHG. That’s one of the several reasons why the southern arc hypothesis is flawed
@ Rich
“Yet Mal'ta Boy was Y-DNA R, and he is the type model of ANE.”
But he dates exactly to the LGM, and represent a dead end lineage. By then R* was in Europe
By “west” I mean west of Urals- Eastern Europe
I haven't looked at the Smyadovo sample, but apparently the new sequence does show proper steppe ancestry, including the CHG-related signal.
There are steppe samples with very high levels of CHG-related ancestry dating to ~4,500 BCE, including some of those new Sredny Stog samples.
And there's already significant CHG-related ancestry in the Middle Don forest steppe well before 5,300 BCE. Apparently this is actually Meshoko-related ancestry.
So this type of ancestry may have been on the steppe even before 6,000 BCE.
@Rob
"But he dates exactly to the LGM, and represent a dead end lineage. By then R* was in Europe
By “west” I mean west of Urals- Eastern Europe"
That's kind of what I thought, but I wanted to clear it up before certain persons started thinking you meant the Atlantic seaboard.
Still, I think seriously old DNA like that is in short supply. Who knows what will turn up?
@Davidski Ha I did catch some "oh we can't be sure if they are genetically related" undertones at the beginning of the paper. Hence I stuck with just the archaeological data.
"The claim being made is that CWC was an ethnic group, Bell Beakers were another, and so on."
For a unified ethnic group (also known as ethnie or ethnic community or ethnicity) you need a shared ethnic consciousness. A shared ethnic consciousness leads to group members identifying with each other on the basis of shared elements that distinguish them from other groups. Major examples are language, culture, religion, etc. Historically, shared language can override cultural differences but not the other way around (as is seen even in non-CWC groups using CWC practices).
In CWC, language presumably drifts oveer time, and changes and cultural differences (material and mortuary) increase. This is still in the genetically same group, which splits into different ethnic groups with different ethnic consciousness (perceiving themselves as distinct ethnicities from other CWC-derived people) over time. At the same time there's virtually zero chance of early CWC not being a single ethnic group.
I guess they stopped being a single ethnic group around 2500-2300 BCE coinciding with proto-Italo-Celtic. Before 2500 BCE, any CWC group coming in contact with another CWC group would most likely consider it the same as itself (same ethnic group).
@ RichS
Well during the ice age Western Siberia and the Volga -Kama area were within the same cultural complex
@ Dave
The new, higher resolution Smyadovo outlier can be modelled as
BGR_ChL_outlier
RUS_Eneol_Piedmont
UKR_N
HUN_Vinca_MN
best coefficients: 0.206 0.183 0.611
tail prob .285948
Or -
BGR_ChL_outlier
RUS_Khvalynsk_Eneol
UKR_N
HUN_Vinca_MN
best coefficients: 0.275 0.096 0.629
tail prob 0.354169
Hence - lowish amounts of CHG, higher EHG, Ukr_N +, high EEF
''And there's already significant CHG-related ancestry in the Middle Don forest steppe well before 5,300 BCE. Apparently this is actually Meshoko-related ancestry.
So this type of ancestry may have been on the steppe even before 6,000 BCE.''
We can’t have Meshoko too early, because Levant farmer ancestry (needed for Meshoko) was only arriving to western Georgia c 55/5000 bce . And there’s no trace of Meshoko communities north of the greater Caucasian range before ~ 4700 bc
As I understand it, Smyadovo has poor Y-DNA coverage, with positive calls for only two SNPs of the 97-SNP R1b-M269 block.
Let's stipulate that he was some kind of R1b-M269 . . . maybe. Still, he looks steppe derived, and his remains were recovered pretty far east in Bulgaria, but I repeat myself.
Not sure why Gaska thinks Smyadovo is a big plus for his team (and his team currently has 1 member).
@Matt
Thanks for that analysis of the Ostorf samples. I made the statement about it being a pure whg based on one of the supplemental files that listed it as being part of the Oberkassel genetic cluster. Makes sense given the date that it would contain some farmer ancestry.
@Gimby20 & Rich S-
Smyaodovo is autosomally an Old European farmer with small percentages of ancestry with Ukrainian and steppe eneolithic origin. But that is frequent in the Bulgarian Neolithic, in fact there are other samples with higher percentages of those components which also are not R1b-M269. Then the argument that it is an outlier is even debatable
The qpAdm models I quoted were made by Furtwangler, not me, in any case you should give her lessons on how to use this too.
BUT, I will agree with you that the Yamnaya percentage is inflated in many samples, this is because Furtwangler was very keen that the R1b-M269 samples found in Aesch, but especially those found in Auvernier and Burgaschisee had higher Yamnaya percentages. With her models she got those samples to have 20-30%. It is certainly very difficult that these samples had no steppe ancestry at all but her models are inflated. If you do not agree that these very old I2 samples had steppe ancestry then you would also agree that the R1b-M269 samples did not have this component, right?
@LGK-
The problem is that not only Smyadovo seems to be an outlier, but also the samples in Switzerland (Aesch, Auvernier, Burgaschisee), Belgium etc., so the argument that those lone acculturated explorers could change the language is also applicable for the population movements that reached Western Europe. According to the most prestigious linguists, only a massive migration (Anatolian farmers or steppe shepherds) could have the capacity to change the language of a culture.
@Dos paises
The “basics” is that there is no European post 2500 BC who does not have steppe ancestry, whatever their male or female uniparental markers. Attributing an autosomal component only to a uniparental marker is not only nonsense, but shows that you have not understood the basic principles of genetics.
@Rob
"We are still yet to find any R1b in those regions before the Bronze Age. This means that it arrived to Europe as a basal R c. 25000 bp, became locally extinct in asia, and then returned thousands of years later from the west"
This is not correct. R1b-PH155 and pre-PH155 have been found in bronze age Tarim and SC Asia. The formation date of PH155 is 20000 yrs ago. This lineage is not found in Europe.
Therefore, basal R1b can be proven to exist in central asia/SC asia/xinjiang or nearby since a long time, independent of presence in Europe.
@ vasistha
Lol your statement
“R1b-PH155 and pre-PH155 have been found in bronze age Tarim and SC Asia.”
My statement - “We are still yet to find any R1b in those regions before the Bronze Age”
So you confirmed that I am correct , although you might wish I was not
“The formation date of PH155 is 20000 yrs ago. This lineage is not found in Europe. The formation date of PH155 is 20000 yrs ago. This lineage is not found in Europe.”
That’s not how it works
You’re not going to find pH155 in Turan, whilst its cousin L754 is all the way in eastern Europe
That’s because lineages were incubated in & expanded from specific regions during and after the ice age
L754 expanded from Eastern Europe, PH155 will very well be somewhere in the Volga-Ural-west Siberia region
That’s why it only appears in Central Asia within an afansievo related context
And that’s why only R2 appears in Iran
@Ric Hern
"Where did the Y-DNA Haplogroup J and MtDNA Haplogroup T2 in Sidelkino come from"
Probably from a mixture of CHG and ANE ancestry that originated in the Middle East and spread into Eastern Europe during the Upper Paleolithic period
@rob
Nothing you said changes the fact that R1b mutated into ph155 locally in central Asia/Siberian related ancestry (hence found in tarim) around 20k years ago.
@epoch "And f4(Mbuti.DG, CHG; Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK)?", that's covered by
f4(Mbuti.DG, Georgia_Kotias.SG, Russia_AfontovaGora3, TTK) Z: 1.03
Satsurblia is the same.
@Rob: "At first glance I thought TTK has extra ENA over ANE in addition to Zagros but that was just PCA based"
A quick comparison of TTK vs some crude G25 models with AG3, Tarim_EMBA and Iran_Hotu (last seemed preferred to Iran_N): https://imgur.com/a/9jJhvPl (percentage of Iran_Hotu in models about the same as vAsiSTha estimated).
It looks like TTK has a shift towards present day and ancient South Asians in the PCA dimensions beyond what the models of AG3/Tarim_EMBA plus Iran_Hotu can achieve in G25.
I don't *think* this is mainly due to AASI in TTK, as it lacks much East Eurasian shift in Vahaduo North Eurasia PCA and in the South Eurasia PCA. Looks like a specific shift towards the least AASI end of Indus_Periphery. (Whereas West_Siberia_HG ~= AG3+EHG+East Asian and Tarim_EMBA ~= AG3+East Asian, TTK looks like AG3+Iran_Hotu+specific Indus_Periphery shift). But there could be some. TTK doesn't seem itself to want Indus_Periphery ancestry, or some but very little.
(If TTK truly has some Iran_Hotu like ancesty, it has a comparatively small shift on comparison of f3 outgroup stats vs AG3, as can be seen in the Supplementary Tables).
(Of course, these models are anachronistic on some level but best I can do).
@ Ric
It's the same Y-hg J1 that's seen in karelia, Popovo, etc
Think of it as the front-guard of the 6000 bc CHG-movement which took it to the lower Volga, but some individuals became integrated into the EHG world and moved further north & east
@ Vasistha
''Nothing you said changes the fact that R1b mutated into ph155 locally in central Asia/Siberian related ancestry'
hold on, lets be specific. "Central Asia - Siberia" is half the world !
Your previous theory was that Ph155 is from Turan. Maybe youve modified it
But at least Im brave enough to be more specific - west-Siberia-Ural-Volga region
And the facts are speaking for themselves - there is no R1b-M343 in central Asia or even central-eastern Siberia before the bronze Age.
It's not in Afantova Gora, which is even west of the Baikal, it's not in Altai_HGs, it's not in TTK, its not in Mongolia, it's not in pre-Okunevans, it's not in Iran.
Then people need to learn how to read Y-Trees, instead of cherry-picking arbitrary points in the tree and misunderstanding the meaning of 'basal' or diverged .
So lets look at the P-Tree
P form 40 TMRCA 30. Yana age 30
R form 30 TMRCA 28. MA1 (Y-hg 'R3') age 22
R2 form 28, TMRCA 16
R1 form 28, TMRCA 22
R1a form 22, TMRCA 18
R1b form 22, TMRCA 20
R1b-PH155 form 20, TMRCA 7
R1b-L754 form 20, TMRCA 17)
(Afontova Gora Q1, age 16 kbp)
The 'bottleneck' in R1b is not between L754 and PH155, but at the interval between P/R and the diversification of R1 itself
This is fairly clear what it means.
There was a wide radiation of P/ R lines c. 30000 bp across north Eurasia
Soon there after R1, R2, R3 trifurcation
R1 heads west and harbours in the West-Siberia-Ural-Volga/Kama region.
post-LGM shifts, Q1 re-expands from & becomes the dominant lineage in Siberia, R2 heads south, R1b re-expands from eastern Europe.
Of course, there is a bottleneck within Ph155 itself after 20,00 calBp, but that's just based on modern data we have so far. So it was probably bunkered up somewhere in Ural-Tobol. And as I said in my critique of the Tarim paper, it cant be a freak coincidence it shows up in the Tarim basin 2200 BC, preceisley when WSH-type 2 were migrating across Eurasia, and creating ''domino effects''
Everything happens when it does and how it does for a reason.
@ Matt
Cheers. What do you think are the fine grained differences between ANE, WSHG, TTK ?
@Rob
"hold on, lets be specific. "Central Asia - Siberia" is half the world !
Your previous theory was that Ph155 is from Turan. Maybe youve modified it"
This is what I said. Note the slashes, they mean 'or'. I missed adding Siberia.
"Therefore, basal R1b can be proven to exist in central asia/SC asia/xinjiang or nearby since a long time, independent of presence in Europe."
Fact is that R* is found in ANE, R1b-Ph155 and R1b-prePH155 have also been found in ANE linked samples. EHG, WHG etc have nothing to do with it till you can show R1b-prePH155 or PH155 in ancient samples.
"And the facts are speaking for themselves - there is no R1b-M343 in central Asia or even central-eastern Siberia before the bronze Age."
The granduncle R* is present.
"And as I said in my critique of the Tarim paper, it cant be a freak coincidence it shows up in the Tarim basin 2200 BC, preceisley when WSH-type 2 were migrating across Eurasia, and creating ''domino effects''"
I assume WSH = western steppe herder. Special pleading. There is no PH155 in any Afanasievo related sample in Russia, mongolia or china. Tarim_EBA has no steppe ancestry at all. Until you can directly prove its origin in the west, the site where oldest samples have been found remain the best candidates.
@Matt
are you seeing any para-American in EHG? I believe Kale on AG has said he's seen such a thing in almost all EHGs. I find that kind of hard to believe but I'm not well versed on the nuances of qpAdm and other related programs; I'm somewhat skeptical to be honest. I'm not well versed in biostatistics in general, but something that distinctive/minute being present in such ancient specimens, seems questionable and worth investigating. Dave has said that he's seen no such thing until the appearance of BOO in Northeast Europe.
@Orpheus “Communication is also impossible if there are different languages spoken. ”
Natives of the American plains and indigenous Australians would disagree with you. It is more common than not for tribal people, particularly transhumance or nomadic people, to speak more than one language. The smaller the group of people who speak a language, the more likely they are to be able to speak others (unless they are very physically isolated — not your scenario). Being bilingual or trilingual is normal for people from small &/or illiterate communities. I know this from personal experience but won’t bore you with it unless you want me to.
Akkadian and Sanskrit both functioned as trade languages / lingua franca between peoples who had mutually unintelligible languages. Swahili is a modern example, used in large areas of east Africa as the common second language where it has not been a native or a coloniser’s tongue. Hausa is spoken by millions as a second language in half a dozen west African countries. Again, formal instruction or literacy were not part of the process until very recently for most.
With all that is said about bronze age marriage patterns, it seems obvious to me that children of steppe fathers would normally be exposed to at least two languages, would certainly be very used to hearing several languages in their community — and girls perhaps consciously prepared for “marrying out” by continuing to speak their mother’s language. It would be perfect conditions for women &/or children to develop creoles, come to think of it — since the guys are presumably out and about cattle herding, reiving and whatnot, while women from varied origins co-operate in childcare, ceramics or textile processes.
@Orpheus “Historically, shared language can override cultural differences but not the other way around”
I’ve met quite a number of Kurds who speak mutually unintelligible Kurdish languages (as well as being mutually unintelligible in, say, Turkish or Arabic) and they certainly seem to share a feeling of being the same ethnicity.
“Kurdishness” also crosses religious boundaries (eg Zoroastrianism / Manichaeism / Islam). Although few are pastoralists today, I think it does actually stem from a period as transhumance pastoralists. The very fact that being Kurdish is a thing at all — it came from SOMETHING, despite different languages for a very long time, and it continued despite new religions being acquired (or imposed) in the last millennium and then new imposed nationalities in the later centuries.
What they had in common until the 19th/20th century was cultural — economic/geographic, music, dance clothing & food. These distinguished them to a lesser or greater extent from people who identified as citizens of nation-states. They also widely share certain social traditions or mores, like the status of women — perhaps increasingly different from populations around them who do not identify as Kurdish but, until recently — more in each generation self-identifying as Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi etc. (Despite a chunk of each country being their literal cousins.)
Is that unusual, for states to form around-but-apart-from groups whose lifestyle is more mobile? I think not. Nor is it unusual for the more mobile groups to resist being assigned a nationality (or overlordship) that cuts them off from part of their historic territory or identity. (Crimean Tatars being just one historic example.)
Zulus still retain a detailed and specific history of how they coalesced out of an initial ambitious group whose ethnogenesis could pretty much be that of the steppe pastoralists themselves. Or like the Huns or the Golden horde. In the 1780s, they leave as a small group of aristocratic scions from the Mthethwa confederation (either adventurous / land-hungry or expelled) and keep conquering and assimilating various other groups, and forge a common ethnic identity as Zulus in just a few generations by this meld. (Shaka being their third-generation king since spinning off from the Mthethwa.) These were peoples who had different languages and different lifeways, at least initially. Shaka’s state-building mission seems to have been big on imposing uniformity.
Anyway, today around 12 million people who mostly self identify as Zulu, feel their ethnicity in expressions like dance and beadwork clothing, yet speak four distinct dialects of the Zulu language.
It would be interesting to know what processes underlie the dialect differences in such a young but large (for its age) ethnicity. There are other Nguni languages that have some level of mutual intelligibility with Zulu. Did the “dialects of Zulu” arise from Zulu ethnogenesis and language spread/borrowing/creolisation in a nascent State? Or did they precede it as more distunct languages & / or become more convergent? Is it a case of a language being “a dialect with an army” and its dialects being those Nguni languages that didn’t?
Zulus share a language NOW. But in a parallel universe (let’s say, one where education and mass media don’t impose and police uniformity), would the four dialects become more different from one another? If so, would people stop considering themselves Zulu even if nothing else about their lives changed?
@Gaska
". . . The qpAdm models I quoted were made by Furtwangler, not me, in any case you should give her lessons on how to use this too."
No, the fault isn't Furtwangler's. It's yours. Very obviously you misinterpreted columns J, K, and L on the Furtwangler spreadsheet, which even a casual reading makes clear.
It's amazing that you aren't as embarrassed as you should be.
@Gaska
"The “basics” is that there is no European post 2500 BC who does not have steppe ancestry, whatever their male or female uniparental markers. Attributing an autosomal component only to a uniparental marker is not only nonsense, but shows that you have not understood the basic principles of genetics."
Ridiculous. It's a simple case of "before and after". Before the migration of the steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans into peninsular Europe, there was no R1b-M269 and no steppe DNA there. After the migration of the steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans into peninsular Europe, there was both.
All of the ancient R1b-M269 samples thus far found have steppe DNA. That is absolutely not true of samples belonging to the Y-DNA haplogroups that preceded R1b-M269 in peninsular Europe.
Have you still not read David Reich's book, Who We Are and How We Got Here? He lays out the whole before-and-after thing very well.
You seem to be interested in Iberia. It's really a classic example of how the whole thing worked. Should I explain it to you again?
@ Vasistha
''Fact is that R* is found in ANE, R1b-Ph155 and R1b-prePH155 have also been found in ANE linked samples. EHG, WHG etc have nothing to do with it till you can show R1b-prePH155 or PH155 in ancient samples.''
aren't you confusing geography with genetics ?
''pure ANE'' existed in the Volga-Kama region between 25,000 and 15,000 calBP. so there's no issue
''The granduncle R* is present.''
a granduncle who did leave many if any descandants east of the Urals.
''There is no PH155 in any Afanasievo related sample in Russia, mongolia or china. Tarim_EBA has no steppe ancestry at all. Until you can directly prove its origin in the west, the site where oldest samples have been found remain the best candidates.''
The Tarim basin wasnt even populated in the Ice Age, and Ph155 is very much a downstream lineage whose all close cousins are from eastern Europe. This 'relict theory'' belongs in a Romance novel
And the point is not that PH155 has ''western steppe'' ancestry, but only appears in the Tarim basin after WSH migrated and in turn spurred others on before them.
Happy to be disproven, but Im banking on PH155 showing up in western SIberia soon
Some people trying to hype up CW don't seem to understand basic linguistics. If CW were one homogenous group, we'd see a "CW group of languages" linguistically. That is not a thing. If that WERE a thing, Italo-Celtic, Germanic, BS would form a linguistic group. They don't. Germanic/Balto-Slavic are closer to "Yamnaya languages" like Albanian/Armenian/Greek than Italo-Celtic. This means Germanics/Balto-Slavics were late CWC groups from the steppe, and Italo-Celts are early CWC.
The relatedness of CW groups was similar to Norwegians and Swedes today. They were closely related genetically, culturally and linguistically, but there was already a division happening by the time CW happened. They were sibling groups with a parent in the steppe. They were only "together" in the steppe, that's why the steppe is the Urheimat.
So unless you're willing to exclude Italo-Celts from CW altogether, CW by definition cannot be 1 homogenous group, but a bunch of closely related groups.
@DragonHermit
I have no interest in your linguistic hypotheses.
The CWC represented populations that shared ancestry, culture and language.
They must have been able to communicate with each other, because they communicated with each other. This is a fact.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185971
@Davidski’s link: “ Our findings corroborate recent studies that suggest the Corded Ware was a male focused society.”
Right. Just like (Dutch) Bell Beakers.
But their acquired EEF admixture via their female line increasingly over time.
@Rich S
If you don't know how to interpret Furtwangler's models and you don't understand how autosomal DNA works, it is better that you don't continue arguing because instead of using convincing arguments you only say nonsense.
@Davidski
Can you please stop with the straw man arguments? When did I say CW groups didn't communicate with each other? I compared the difference between CW groups to the difference Norwegians and Swedes, which last time I checked, are still largely mutually intelligible. Anything within 1,000 years of a language splitting retains a high degree of mutual intelligibility.
PIE is first and foremost a LINGUISTIC theory. It establishes the axioms which genetics tries to prove. If it was for genetics alone, no one would even think of connecting Anatolians to steppe people.
And linguistics says there is no one "Corded Ware" language. That's not an opinion. That's fact. If CW was one homogeneous group, we'd see it show up linguistically. Italo-Celtic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic would form one linguistic group, while Armenian/Albanian/Greek another. That's just not the case.
@DragonHermit
Far flung Corded Ware groups communicated with each other.
Obviously if they communicated with each other, then they could understand each other by speaking some sort of common language.
People don't need to speak one and the same language to be an ethnic group. They just need to understand each other, like, for instance, all those Ukrainian and Russian speaking Ukrainians who are fighting on the same side against Russia.
And no, Ukrainian and Russian are not mutually intelligible languages.
By the way, try not to make up too much stupid shit when posting here. The fact is that historical linguists have consistently argued that Corded Ware people spoke the same language.
Exactly how the Corded Ware expansion explains the expansion of the different branches of Indo-European across Europe needs to be re-evaluated now in light of the new genetic data.
But I have zero faith in your hypothesis that Italo-Celtic was spoken in early Corded Ware Bohemia. That seems like a totally random choice without any backing from linguistic or genetic data.
It's possible that the precursors of Celtic and Italic languages were spoken in the Single Grave culture of Western Europe, but there's very little that can be said about that at the moment.
Regarding the latest papers, we finally have data on the Gravettian and Solutrean culture in Iberia.
mtDNA markers are typical of these cultures in the rest of Europe- M & U2'3'4'7'8'9 demonstrate the genetic relationship between Siberia (Sunghir and Yana) with the westernmost part of Eurasia (Iberia). In addition, the U8b'c marker in the Solutrean culture shows that (like its ancestor U8-Bacho Kiro) it is also a European marker and therefore also its descendants U8b and U8c. We have already discussed the male markers (mostly C1a2-v20) so nothing new except that they survived in Iberia at least for 20,000 years (La Braña-mesolithic).
@ Dragonhermit
I think you should really look at Dialects within certain Languages. Spoke to a Translator who lives in Southern Sweden and he told me that the Northern Swedish dialect is unintelligible for him. Same with some Dutch dialects for Dutch people...
My guess is because Corded Ware people were more mobile they could create a Levelling effect within Late Proto-Indo-European dialects making them more understandable. When people started to settle down the dialects became more unintelligible, rapidly diversifying due to relative isolation.
Some surreal stuff happening in Moscow.
https://twitter.com/StarshinaZapasa/status/1632493328749961217
I wouldn't believe this was real if I saw it two years ago as a prediction.
Inferences on regional networks based on local biological trees, the example of the French Neolithic site of Gurgy 'les Noisats'
The reconstruction of genetic relatedness in archaeological contexts has rarely been feasible, but thanks to the recent optimization of ancient DNA methods, it is now possible to reliably reconstruct biological relationships. What may sometimes seem anecdotic at the site level can reveal insightful when examining population structure and social behaviors.
The extensive genomic analysis of the French Middle Neolithic site of Gurgy ‘les Noisats’ in the Paris Basin has allowed us to reconstruct two massive pedigrees, one connecting 63 individuals over seven generations, and another with 10 individuals over four generations. We inferred a patrilocal and patrilineal system, as well as the practice of female exogamy, confirmed by strontium analyses.
We explored the non-local female diversity and their relationships and discovered a striking absence of close genetic affinities between them. Moreover, the overall length of runs of homozygosity in the group suggests a wider regional network. The Paris basin at this period is well known for massive funerary monuments belonging to the Cerny culture, called Passy-type structures. In contrast, Gurgy is characterized by an absence of monuments and therefore of potential selection of individuals buried there according to economic or social hierarchies. Furthermore, the cultural attribution of Gurgy to the Cerny culture remains unclear, with multiple influences from different cultures. While the archaeological data suggests an isolation of the site from the local context, the genetic evidence shows strong regional links with a large biological network over several generations. One plausible hypothesis would be that the site represents the burial practices of the non-elite part of the Cerny population in the region.
Overall, this study provides insights that go beyond immediate genetic relatedness and allows us to explore the group structure, its size, funerary and settlement practices in a much broader social and cultural context.
Kinning in death at Middle to Late Bronze Age Megiddo
In 2020, Agranat-Tamir et al. published the largest DNA study to-date on ancient individuals from the southern Levant, featuring 35 individuals from the ancient city of Megiddo. Onto this dataset of 35 we add newly generated full-genome aDNA data of another 24 individuals. Whereas Agranat-Tamir et al. focused mainly on large-scale population genetic dynamics, here we seek to re-integrate the numerous attested cases of close biological relatedness at Megiddo with the respective burial contexts to explore kin-formation practices (i. e., kinning) at the site.
All studied individuals from Megiddo were buried within city limits, in most cases in graves located under the floors of contemporary residential structures. By doing so, the houses’ living inhabitants chose to maintain a close physical connection with a select group of deceased. At the same time, a close relationship between the buried individuals is inferred from the arrangement of graves in clusters or from the placement of multiple bodies within single burials. On several occasions, cases of close biological kinship correspond to such close spatial arrangements of skeletal remains. We interpret these specific burial practices at Megiddo as mechanisms of kinning through creating physical connections between 1) the living and the dead as well as 2) between the dead themselves.
Due to the density of genetic links between individuals buried in connection with one residential structure (Area K courtyard house) and through a comparison of burial contexts, we are able to identify one likely case of kinship in a double burial that was solely based on social relations.
For all and David, Interesting
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade2451
@Rob, something like: I think if you're starting from AG3 as a point of comparison, I guess it looks like:
Tarim_EMBA: More Northern East Asian (some), ANE splits closer to the actual population contributing to later Botai/Steppe_Maykop etc?
WSHG: Like Tarim_EMBA but with more EHG?
Botai: Like WSHG with more Northern East Asian?
TTK: Probably splits off from the ANE tree before AG3 (E.g. before ~18kyBP? Could be after LGM but pre-AG3?), likely to have further drift that contributes to SCA populations in some fashion, some geneflow from Iran_Meso or a similar population with less Basal Eurasian?
Kind of still guesswork and not in detail, may be invalidated by more thorough analysis. That's probably not exact enough.
@Davidski, lots of strange stuff going on there.
@Suevi, thanks for these abstracts - it seems like a lot has been done on kinship reconstruction, but not much has been published yet, even as preprint. Perhaps these papers are all being held up by some common factor of method that is underpinning them and requires peer review.
...
The horseriding information is interesting; it would perhaps lead us to more seriously consider the preprint here (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.08.491072v1.full):
"The simplest temporally plausible and best-fitting (WR = 3.4 SE) model we found (modified group composition, 8 admixture events, Figure 5b, Figure S8j, upper panels) supports inferences 2 and 4, and is incompatible with inferences 1, 3, and 5 (Table 2). This newly found model can be interpreted as follows. There is a trifurcation of three deep lineages: a lineage maximized in Western and Central Europe (up to 100% of ancestry in a Late Paleolithic group from France, LP_SFR), a Western Steppe-specific lineage (up to 55% in TURG), and a Tarpan-specific lineage (22% in Tarpan). Western and Central European horses, represented by LP-SFR, by the majority ancestry in horses found in the Corded Ware culture context (CWC), and by the majority ancestry in wild Neolithic Anatolian horses (NEO_ANA), contributed about half of the ancestry in the Western Steppe groups TURG, C-PONT, and DOM2. The other half of ancestry in the Western Steppe groups is represented by the Western Steppe-specific lineage. That lineage also contributed about 50% of ancestry in wild horses from the Yana Upper Paleolithic site (ELEN), and the other half of ELEN’s ancestry is derived from an even deeper lineage. The Botai group is modeled as a mixture of European horses (69%) and Siberian horses (31% ELEN-related ancestry). In contrast to Librado et al. (2021), Tarpan is modeled as a mixture of its specific lineage (22%) and a DOM2-related group (78%), and CWC also received ancestry (21%) from a DOM2-related group. All the populations included in the model except for LP_SFR are admixed, and there is evidence of substantial genetic influence from a lineage that was eventually maximized in the Western Steppe (although it did not necessarily originate there) in the ELEN and Botai groups. We consider this model to be plausible from both temporal and geographical perspectives."
I do think the authors acknowledge the lack of a control group - "No doubt, a comprehensive basic study on reliable control groups (e.g., Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik (LBK) versus Early Medieval Eurasian nomads) with proven rider and nonrider background is lacking.". It could also be useful to know if they could look at e.g. a bunch of skeletons from Funnel-beaker or Khvalynsk and say "Well, there's no sign of the same pathologies" or something like this.
Davidski,
The geno files for Uzbek_IA samples are here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_MmWYMIRFp9LcraJ88nDQ4UuHYlUdlZ-?usp=sharing
Could you convert them into G25? Thanks.
Most of these Uzbek IA samples are very low quality.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1weUGD1abDvr21zpshjFEn3hYqSFfV0d-/view?usp=sharing
New genetics study. It’s hilarious when Kurd and Turk nationalists say Armenians invaded Armenia !
“ The Peopling of Anatolia over the Past 2000 years”. Results indicate genetic signature of Kurds & Turks significantly more recent than Armenians and migration of Kurds en masse from Iran to Anatolia within last 400 years
https://twitter.com/Dilawer54815590/status/1632831721606348804
@Gaska
"If you don't know how to interpret Furtwangler's models and you don't understand how autosomal DNA works, it is better that you don't continue arguing because instead of using convincing arguments you only say nonsense."
Funny. You screw up, get caught, and then accuse me of not knowing how to "interpret Furtwangler's models".
I said up front I'm not a qpAdm expert (I'm certainly not). But I can read, and it is plain from a casual reading of Furtwangler's spreadsheet that you misinterpreted and then misrepresented it. Shall we go over it again?
Had an issue with gmail, I'll be using this account for the foreseeable future
@Weee e That's a pretty fair observation, I do admit that my assertion was wrong. After all communication doesn't even require understanding of a language.
I don't think there was a lot of linguistic diversity in early CWC though. The mix with farmers occurred early on and didn't really continue after that until centuries later. Kroonen et al 2022 also mentions how European IE languages underwent an agricultural shift. Iirc the roots for the words are IE not loanwords. If there was no major EEF language influence in the very early 50% Steppe 50% EEF CWC groups that then dominated the rest 100% Steppe CWC groups creating the common 75% steppe 25% eef CWC profile, then there certainly wasn't a shift later on (just linguistic drift from different CWC dialects).
@Weee e "I’ve met quite a number of Kurds who speak mutually unintelligible Kurdish languages (as well as being mutually unintelligible in, say, Turkish or Arabic) and they certainly seem to share a feeling of being the same ethnicity."
I can't really analyze anecdotal evidence, and you also don't clearly define "ethnicity". Are you sure it's ethnic consciousness you're talking about and not a simple feeling of shared cultural identity? This existed in many empires, it's not a feeling of ethnic group. Take many modern Mediterraneans, or Scandinavians for example. Ethnic groups can consider themselves brothers to others (and genetically this can be true) despite self-identifying as distinct ethnic groups from each other.
I think it's a bit obvious that this does not apply to modern times, or perhaps even medieval times. You can now know your ethnic group even if you've never been to your native country, don't speak the language etc. Are there examples from let's say Iron Age or antiquity of people sharing an ethnic identity despite speaking different language? I highly doubt it
"What they had in common until the 19th/20th century was cultural — economic/geographic, music, dance clothing & food. [...] (Despite a chunk of each country being their literal cousins.)"
I mean yeah, that's not ethnic consciousness. The most major unifying factors are language and religion (refer to A. Smith's work on that), and as you said Kurds are split in those. Which, until we have a better way to measure ethnic consciousness and thus how ethnic groups perceive themselves, points at different ethnic groups being aware of belonging to a common culture, but still considering themselves as distinct, biologically unrelated entities (in their mind). 150 years ago this would be true, however now with all the knowledge we have about ethnic origins, DNA etc I find it unlikely. And they have as much access to these as much as we do.
"Is that unusual, for states to form around-but-apart-from groups whose lifestyle is more mobile?"
Wait, who's supposed to be mobile here? The sedentary farmers of the Corded Ware culture certainly weren't. Are you referring to earlier steppe groups? That would depend on the similarities of the ethnic consciousness each steppe group had at the time it met another one, mostly language and religion. But culturally they could very well consider that they belong to the same group.
"Zulus share a language NOW. [...] If so, would people stop considering themselves Zulu even if nothing else about their lives changed?"
Entirely depends on the timeline. Historically yes, we see this with EEF groups, Beakers, CWC, Yamnaya, West Asian groups, basically every group whose language drifts even if genes (or cultural similarities) don't. Nowadays though no. We have access to huge amounts of data and information about a group's history, DNA and so on and we don't rely on assumptions to infer biological reality (ethnic consciousness does exactly that).
@DragonHermit I don't think they were split into different ethnic groups before 2500 BCE. Maybe they were in the process of doing so but not completely
@Davidski I gave the paper a read. Are you sure it points at communication? Shared customs do not require any communication if they stem from a common "parent culture", which did exist in early CWC. It looks like they're arguing that CWC were a mixed bunch of EEF, steppe and half-EEF half-steppe groups who communicated with each other and formed a network, because they don't mention the much simpler and much more accurate explanation of a shared culture accounting for cultural similarities instead of "communication networks". See this:
"The very similar way in which CWC communities created burials and dressed their dead highlights that these communities shared information on this burial ritual over a large area."
This is a non-sequitur because we know CWC came from a single genetically and culturally homogeneous group. It's perfectly explained by a common shared culture existing in the past for all CWC groups, which as we know, did exist. This argument (not the one they make) also explains all the cultural differences that existed between CWC groups, because if "intense communication" did exist as the paper implies, then we wouldn't see so many differences by their logic (including ideological/worldview differences according to their logic). But we do, so this points to shared origins rather than different groups that have to communicate with each other to exchange very important information and ideas etc.
See this too:
"This implies that the homogeneity we perceive in Corded Ware society is grounded in intensive communication between its members."
No lol, the homogeneity we perceive in CWC is grounded in their DNA and their common origins. They make it seem like they lived in some kind of empire where one group assimilated the other genetically distinct group without these CWC groups being genetically homogeneous.
You can also look at how in the end they mention NOTHING about how CWC were indeed one genetic entity, for the most part, especially early on. That was in 2017, there's no way they missed the studies on autosomal CWC DNA from a few years earlier. They just ignored them. Then they write, "We argue that studying the exchange of cultural information is a key complement to the more recent biological perspectives on prehistoric migrations and that it provides a unique insight into how prehistoric society was constituted."
What exchange lmfao, these cultural information were already in place from before, from a shared past culture. If anything CWC demonstrate a breakdown of communication over time as evidenced by local cultural divergence.
They're arguing that many of the CWC groups had a different culture before but were assimilated by other CWC groups. Which as we know did not happen, and there's no other explanation for what they are arguing.
There's no argument for "communication" that can't be explained in a better way by common DNA (and thus a common origin, and a common culture in that origin). Then, any evidence for communication (eg isotopes) can be explained with trading among similar cultures who were naturally closer, and I bet also had easier access to one another. Afanasievo-Yamnaya "communications" can be suggested with the paper's logic, except there wasn't any. There was a shared origin and shared parent culture, though.
@Davidski @Orpheus
You guys should really learn some linguistics... If you had a single point of origin, you should have 1 language. This is not negotiable. Were CW related to each other with similar dialects/languages? Yes. Were they one exact group with the same dialect? No.
If we had 1 CW group that split into Italo-Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, we should be able to construct a Proto-CW language. That's just not a thing.
The single point of origin has to be THE STEPPE. CW groups were just SIBLING tribes with similar dialects that descended from the steppe, but they cannot by definition be a single point of origin for future people.
And David, if you don't believe me, feel free to ask anyone who knows anything about linguistics. We just can't have 1 reconstructed Proto-CW language...
@DragonHermit
The Proto-CW language was nuclear (late) PIE. Or are you now claiming late PIE isn't a thing?
You know, late PIE as in the same thing that was apparently spoken by the Yamnaya people.
So, at a minimum, CWC groups understood each other without making too much of an effort.
And I've never seen anyone argue that CWC didn't have a single point of origin until you came along.
That's really dumb.
@Rich S
Furtwangler-Supplementary Data 4. qpAdm admixture models for each individual. P-values greater than 0.05 (model is not rejected)
I don't know what data you are looking at, it doesn't take an expert to read the percentages obtained by Furtwangler, only in the Aesch dolmen, besides Aesch25 (79.8% Yamnaya), there are many other neolithic farmers (HapY-G2) that obtain good percentages of this component. Aesch16 (23.7), Aesch20 (19.3), Aesch21 (25.4), Aesch6 (12.3), Aesch7 (13.4), Aesch9 (14.8) etc, which means as we have said hundreds of times that this component is not exclusive to any uniparental marker. Look, researchers are NOT infallible and often you have to take their models with caution, that's why I said that in my opinion these percentages are inflated, but they are also inflated for the R1b-L51 cases that have been found in Switzerland, so that for example Auvernier and Burgaschisee have very little steppe ancestry, which is very strange for newcomers from the steppes. Don't you think so?
By the way, there is an R1b-P297 at Minino that demonstrates the connection between WHG (Baltic) and EHG (northern Russia) in the so-called northeastern technocomplex (Kunda-Veretye-Butovo cultures). The typological homogeneity of assemblages between regions spanning the Baltic to the Ural Mountains led Kozłowski (2009) to call it the North-Eastern Technocomplex. The Kunda culture developed around the eastern Baltic, from the Polish plains to the Gulf of Finland; the Butovo culture in the Volga and Oka regions; and the Veretye culture in the eastern part of Lake Onega. The population of the final Palaeolithic Swiderian culture of deer hunters, migrated during the Palaeolithic–Mesolithic transition at the turn of the 11th–10th millennium BC to the north-east following the retreating tundra (Terberger et al. 2018)-In that region there are tons of R1b-P297 & R1b-Y13200 showing repopulation related to the Swiderian culture and relationship with the epigravettian. In other words, the Villabruna-WHG HapY-R1b-L754 moved northward in the early Mesolithic and settled in the Baltic and northern Russia, while other R1b-L754 and R1b-V88 remained in the Balkans. In my opinion R1b-M269 can appear either in the Balkans (Smyaodovo-4,500 BC), in the Baltic or in northern Russia, some of its branches like V1636 reached the Middle Volga (Khvalynsk around 5,000-4,500 BC). The M269 marker is old enough not to be related to the IE, and as for its descendants, the debate is open.
MN2003 (8.534 BC)-Minino2, Vologda region, Russia-HapY-R1b1a/1-P297-Posth, Yu, 2.023
@ Gaska
And somehow the MtDNA Haplogroup U5 in Minino 2 and the U5b in Villabruna were not linked to WHG ? But somehow Villabruna, Irongates and Minino 2 have Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b yet they show some EHG related ancestry ? So where did the EHG come from if both MtDNA Haplogroup U5 and Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b were only WHG related ?
@ric hern
it is an outdated debate: ANE is mostly an oldr version of WHG. Most of its ancestry comes from paleo europeans aurignacian that developed in the same regions where WHG is from id est balkan/ iron gates ( early aurignacian) and mediterranean ( proto aurignacian). R1a and R1b are born in this euro-siberian population that stem from this complex.
@Ric Hern
The mtDNA issue is interesting but generally Gravettian markers are shared between eastern and western Europe.
If your reasoning is aimed at trying to prove that R1b=EHG, nothing could be further from the truth. Of course there are tons of R1b-EHG but this is much later (late mesolithic & early neolithic)
In this paper, 18 males belonging to the Sidelkino-EHG cluster have been analyzed-7 Q1a1, 1 Q1b1, 2 J1, 4 R1a, 3 R1 (low coverage ?), 1 R1b-P297. Ergo at the beginning of the mesolithic (10.000-8.000 BC), R1b-P297 is an outlier in northern Russia but later it becomes a quite frequent marker (Lyalovo, Volosovo etc...).
On the contrary, the Baltic is overwhelmingly R1b-Y13200 & P297 with some Q1 outlier. As the neolithic progresses the male lineages are mixed and in many cultures we can see the three main EHG markers R1a, Q1 and R1b (Khvalynsk etc).
Mesolithic & neolithic Ukraine is another thing, overwhelmingly I2a1, with many Q1a, Q1b and R1a. All the R1b I know except one or two are V88, even a sample has been published that is almost as old as the Balkan ones-VSL004 (Vasylievka1-8.483 BC).IMO it demonstrates the genetic and cultural relationship between the Balkans and Ukraine during the Epigravettian and mesolithic
With the data we have, M269 is much more likely to have originated in northern Russia than in Ukraine.
I’ve not seen any convincing evidence that Villabruna has ANE related admixture
Mesolithic ANE might have arrived with Q1
@Gaska
Here's what you wrote:
"There are qpAdm models that demonstrate the arrival of Yamnaya ancestry in Western Europe much earlier than previously thought and also linked to male lineages other than R1b. Ancient genomes reveal social and genetic structure of Late Neolithic Switzerland-Anja Furtwängler-HapY-I2 marker and steppe ancestry.
I0405-Mina3- (3750 BC)-HapY-I2a1a-Yamnaya (14.70%)
I0406-Mina4-HapY-I2a2a-Yamnaya (11.40%)
I4308-Collet Redon(3.500 BC)-Yamnaya (10.60 %)
I0520-Banbury Lane-(3.230 BC)-HapY-I –Yamnaya (24.70%)
I2629-Isbister-Orkney Islands (2.980 AC)-HapY-I2-Yamnya (46.80%)"
Plainly you claimed that each of those Neolithic samples has high Yamnaya ancestry when none of them actually has any Yamnaya or Yamnaya-like ancestry. You came to that conclusion by misunderstanding, misreading, and misinterpreting the Furtwangler spreadsheet. You read column K as a straight percentage of Yamnaya ancestry. Apparently, according to you, there was plenty of steppe ancestry in peninsular Europe prior to the steppe migrations of the 3rd millennium BC.
Do you still wish to assert the truth of that?
@Gaska
"In this paper, 18 males belonging to the Sidelkino-EHG cluster have been analyzed-7 Q1a1, 1 Q1b1, 2 J1, 4 R1a, 3 R1 (low coverage ?), 1 R1b-P297. Ergo at the beginning of the mesolithic (10.000-8.000 BC), R1b-P297 is an outlier in northern Russia but later it becomes a quite frequent marker (Lyalovo, Volosovo etc...).
On the contrary, the Baltic is overwhelmingly R1b-Y13200 & P297 with some Q1 outlier. As the neolithic progresses the male lineages are mixed and in many cultures we can see the three main EHG markers R1a, Q1 and R1b (Khvalynsk etc)."
On the contrary, the R1b-P297 sample from Minino in the Upper Volga region is a couple of thousand years older than any of those Baltic samples, most of whom belonged to clades downstream of R1b-M73, like R1b-A11291 and R1b-FTA35785.
Seems to me that R1b-P297 from Minino dated 10654-10413 cal BC shoots a lot of what you have asserted right in the foot . . . or the head.
HGs who were R1b-M73 could have easily wandered down river valleys from the interior of Russia to arrive in the Balkans, and now we have a much older R1b-P297 in the Upper Volga.
I think I inadvertently typed "BC" in that last post when I meant "BP". Mea culpa.
The sample of still a couple of thousand years older than any of those Baltic samples.
@Samuel Andrews You said on your blog that R1a replaced R1b in Central Europe, but then were replaced in turn by the early Beakers. Do you know who these early R1b were?
Ligurian and Lusitanians are considered to be non-Italo-Celtic (or para-Italo-Celtic branch) within the Northwest Indo-European one. I read that the ancient Belgians were on the same category. What’s your opinion?
@Samuel Andrews “EHG has a higher frequency of light skin genes than the later Yamnaya culture !! 😱😱” - From his blog…
Does it mean that Yamnaya became darker because of the CHG and EEF?
@DragonHermit said...”If we had 1 CW group that split into Italo-Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, we should be able to construct a Proto-CW language. That's just not a thing.
The single point of origin has to be THE STEPPE. CW groups were just SIBLING tribes with similar dialects that descended from the steppe, but they cannot by definition be a single point of origin for future people.”
Indo-Europeanist L.B. in the two-volume manual describes the development of PIE:
The basis and starting point was Centum, which hypothetically appeared in two varieties.
The first remained in the original homeland (the cradle of the language), creating common innovations, formed the Satem dialect.
The second Centum, without any innovations of its own, migrated on various substrates (including satem) and created various separate innovations and separate Centum dialects. Centum dialects do not have any post-Centum shared innovations.
@ old europe
Did I say anything about ANE ? Please reread. I'm talking about that study that shows Sidelkino/EHG ancestry in Villabruna the Balkans etc...If U5b was WHG then where did the Sidelkino/EHG-like ancestry in Villabruna come from if not from the Male Line/R1b ?
"According to the main characteristics of the stone inventory complexes, the Late Paleolithic (19,000-16,000 years ago) sites of northeastern Europe are close to the sites of the middle pore of the Upper Paleolithic of Southern Siberia (30,000-20,000 years ago). In Central Asia, the Kulbulak Upper Paleolithic culture of the western Pamir Tien Shan was identified. Characteristics complexes of stone implements of the stage of existence of a developed culture (30-25 thousand years ago) have a significant similarity with the structure of the complexes of stone implements of small-blade industries in Siberia and early Late Paleolithic sites of northeastern Europe." This apparently shows the division of the R group into R1 and R2 in southern Siberia in the period 30,000-25,000 years ago.
http://uralhist.uran.ru/pdf/UIV_2(47)_2015_Pavlov.pdf
http://old.archaeology.nsc.ru/ru/publish/journal/doc/2008/331/2.pdf
@Andrezjewski; that seems possible.
But the alternative would be that the Sidelkino cluster had genetic selection within itself, and may not necessarily have had different allele frequencies at the time of admixture between "CHG" and "EHG" (scare quotes because of topic about how the actual admixing populations may have been sister populations to these).
The Sidelkino cluster has SLC24A5 at around 100%, across all the samples from 12.7 kya (10700 BCE) to the youngest at 5750 kya (3500 BCE). But it's not clear from the paper whether this is the case for the SLC45A2 variant, which is at about 60% in them.
It could be the case that the older samples from Sidelkino would lack this, and be more similar in pigmentation to CHG and Anatolia Neolithic, and then when CHG and EHG met, they might have been more similarly pigmented. The majority of Sidelinko samples cluster around 6500 BCE.
A study of the Sidelkino samples over time might be useful to sort this out.
Another interesting thing about EHG/Sidelkino is that they seem to have the "farmer" variant of FADS 1/2 - rs174546 - that is associated with a diet with a lower share of animal fats (including fish) and which becomes common in agricultural and then Bronze Age diets in Europe.
It's interesting as it's at odds with any idea of the EHG being kind of uber-hunter population adapted to hunting and hunting large animals or eating fish exclusively; it may be that they used more plants in their diet, earlier than WHG, and this created more need for adaptation to get Vitamin D through the skin. (Although their estimates for modern frequency seem a little different than commonly made in some other papers).
See: https://imgur.com/a/iiOGDmS
This is actually consistent with "The Selection Landscape and Genetic Legacy of Ancient Eurasians" - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.22.509027v2 -
"We also find strong selection in the FADS gene cluster — FADS1 (rs174546; p=2.65e-10; s=0.013) and FADS2 (rs174581; p=1.87e-10; s=0.013) — which are associated with fatty acid metabolism and known to respond to changes in diet from a more/less vegetarian to a more/less carnivorous diet 27–32. In contrast to previous results 30–32, we find that much of the selection associated with a more vegetarian diet occurred in Neolithic populations before they arrived in Europe, but then continued during the Neolithic (Fig. 2). The strong signal of selection in this region in the pan-ancestry analysis is driven primarily by a sweep occurring across the EHG, CHG and ANA haplotypic backgrounds (Fig. 2). Interestingly, we find no evidence for selection at this locus in the WHG background, and most of the allele frequency rise in the EHG background occurs after their admixture with CHG (around 8 Kya, 33), within whom the selected alleles were already close to present-day frequencies."
Interesting that EHG seems to be adapting the same was as Anatolian Neolithic and CHG in many respects; shifting to light pigmentation variants and adaptation towards more vegetarian diet, presumably through plants they gathered along the banks of the great rivers of Western Russia. While WHG seems to retain more of the old style of having browner skin and being more adapted to a meat based diet. Perhaps this is linked to how EHG seemingly possibly has more Basal Eurasian than the WHGs? Some gene flow between them and the Near East which shares variants between them?
Probably the introduction of pottery among in EHG also helped them to make more use of plants and be less reliant on animal foods? Eating some sorts of porridges made from gathered plants?
For what it's worth "The Selection Landscape and Genetic Legacy of Ancient Eurasians" also thinks that SLC45A2 rose in frequency on the EHG genetic background over time.
@Rich S
According to me NO, according to Furtwangler those neolithic samples has high Yamnaya ancestry-Supplementary Data 4. qpAdm admixture models for each individual. P-values greater than 0.05 (model is not rejected)-3-way model-Sorry, you have a reading and understanding problem that prevents you from interpreting the results and therefore we are wasting our time-All percentages are copied from columnL so if you have any problem with the model, explain it to Furtwangler. If you had followed the discussion about those results two years ago you would understand where the problem is, now it is useless to try to explain it to you. ColumnJ-WHG, Column K-Anatolia_Neolithic, ColumnL-Yamnaya_Samara.
You should try to read something about the north-eastern technocomplex, the Swiderian culture and the repopulation of northern Russia from the south (you know the dates when the glaciers started to disappear, right?)-Even the Butovo culture is descended from the Epigravettian-If you don't, you won't understand anything.
Any P297 in the Baltic or northern ussia is younger than Villabruna (Epigravettian) therefore the path is clear Italian Alps/Balkans>>>>>Baltic>>>>North Russia not the other way around.
@Rob
IMO, Q1 (and R1a) are fundamental to understand the eastern Hunter gatherers because it is their eastern (ANE) component, while R1b is their western (Balkan) component.
Are Slavs 50%-60% while French and Germans are 40%-50%?
@Andre,
Hi, my telegram is the best place to reach me and ask questions.
@Andre,
The pre-Beaker R1b L51 in central Europe was sequenced by these two studies.
Pacpac 2021
Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi6941
Linderholm 2020
Corded Ware cultural complexity uncovered using genomic and isotopic analysis from south-eastern Poland
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63138-w
@Andre,
During the Early Corded Ware period, it seems R1b L51 existed across wide area from western Poland to the Netherlands.
Then, it seems, most of this R1b was replaced by R1a M417 during the Middle Corded Ware period.
@Andre,
"Does it mean that Yamnaya became darker because of the CHG and EEF?"
Yes. Yamnaya has a SLC45A2 frequency of 43%, EHG has 65%.
But that isn't a huge difference. Yamanya wasn't significantly darker only slightly.
@Andre,
"Does it mean that Yamnaya became darker because of the CHG and EEF?"
Yes it does suggest that. Yamnaya has 43% in SLC45A2, EHG has around 65%.
So EHG is lighter than Yamnaya. But not much lighter. They're about the same.
ancIBD - Screening for identity by descent segments in human ancient DNA (discussion)
ancIBD - Screening for identity by descent segments in human ancient DNA
Harald Ringbauer, Yilei Huang, Ali Akbari, Swapan Mallick, Nick Patterson, David Emil Reich
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.08.531671
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review
Abstract
Long DNA sequences shared between two individuals, known as Identical by descent (IBD) segments, are a powerful signal for identifying close and distant biological relatives because they only arise when the pair shares a recent common ancestor. Existing methods to call IBD segments between present-day genomes cannot be straightforwardly applied to ancient DNA data (aDNA) due to typically low coverage and high genotyping error rates. We present ancIBD, a method to identify IBD segments for human aDNA data implemented as a Python package. Our approach is based on a Hidden Markov Model, using as input genotype probabilities imputed based on a modern reference panel of genomic variation. Through simulation and downsampling experiments, we demonstrate that \ancIBD robustly identifies IBD segments longer than 8 centimorgan for aDNA data with at least either 0.25x average whole-genome sequencing (WGS) coverage depth or at least 1x average depth for in-solution enrichment experiments targeting a widely used aDNA SNP set ('1240k'). This application range allows us to screen a substantial fraction of the aDNA record for IBD segments and we showcase two downstream applications. First, leveraging the fact that biological relatives up to the sixth degree are expected to share multiple long IBD segments, we identify relatives between 10,156 ancient Eurasian individuals and document evidence of long-distance migration, for example by identifying a pair of two approximately fifth-degree relatives who were buried 1410km apart in Central Asia 5000 years ago. Second, by applying \ancIBD, we reveal new details regarding the spread of ancestry related to Steppe pastoralists into Europe starting 5000 years ago. We find that the first individuals in Central and Northern Europe carrying high amounts of Steppe-ancestry, associated with the Corded Ware culture, share high rates of long IBD (12-25~cM) with Yamnaya herders of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, signaling a strong bottleneck and a recent biological connection on the order of only few hundred years, providing evidence that the Yamnaya themselves are a main source of Steppe ancestry in Corded Ware people. We also detect elevated sharing of long IBD segments between Corded Ware individuals and people associated with the Globular Amphora culture (GAC) from Poland and Ukraine, who were Copper Age farmers not yet carrying Steppe-like ancestry. These IBD links appear for all Corded Ware groups in our analysis, indicating that individuals related to GAC contexts must have had a major demographic impact early on in the genetic admixtures giving rise to various Corded Ware groups across Europe. These results show that detecting IBD segments in aDNA can generate new insights both on a small scale, relevant to understanding the life stories of people, and on the macroscale, relevant to large-scale cultural-historical events.
NOTE: No new Ancient DNA samples presented in this paper.
ancIBD - Screening for identity by descent segments in human ancient DNA (discussion)
ancIBD - Screening for identity by descent segments in human ancient DNA
Harald Ringbauer, Yilei Huang, Ali Akbari, Swapan Mallick, Nick Patterson, David Emil Reich
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.08.531671
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review
Abstract
Long DNA sequences shared between two individuals, known as Identical by descent (IBD) segments, are a powerful signal for identifying close and distant biological relatives because they only arise when the pair shares a recent common ancestor. Existing methods to call IBD segments between present-day genomes cannot be straightforwardly applied to ancient DNA data (aDNA) due to typically low coverage and high genotyping error rates. We present ancIBD, a method to identify IBD segments for human aDNA data implemented as a Python package. Our approach is based on a Hidden Markov Model, using as input genotype probabilities imputed based on a modern reference panel of genomic variation. Through simulation and downsampling experiments, we demonstrate that \ancIBD robustly identifies IBD segments longer than 8 centimorgan for aDNA data with at least either 0.25x average whole-genome sequencing (WGS) coverage depth or at least 1x average depth for in-solution enrichment experiments targeting a widely used aDNA SNP set ('1240k'). This application range allows us to screen a substantial fraction of the aDNA record for IBD segments and we showcase two downstream applications. First, leveraging the fact that biological relatives up to the sixth degree are expected to share multiple long IBD segments, we identify relatives between 10,156 ancient Eurasian individuals and document evidence of long-distance migration, for example by identifying a pair of two approximately fifth-degree relatives who were buried 1410km apart in Central Asia 5000 years ago. Second, by applying \ancIBD, we reveal new details regarding the spread of ancestry related to Steppe pastoralists into Europe starting 5000 years ago. We find that the first individuals in Central and Northern Europe carrying high amounts of Steppe-ancestry, associated with the Corded Ware culture, share high rates of long IBD (12-25~cM) with Yamnaya herders of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, signaling a strong bottleneck and a recent biological connection on the order of only few hundred years, providing evidence that the Yamnaya themselves are a main source of Steppe ancestry in Corded Ware people. We also detect elevated sharing of long IBD segments between Corded Ware individuals and people associated with the Globular Amphora culture (GAC) from Poland and Ukraine, who were Copper Age farmers not yet carrying Steppe-like ancestry. These IBD links appear for all Corded Ware groups in our analysis, indicating that individuals related to GAC contexts must have had a major demographic impact early on in the genetic admixtures giving rise to various Corded Ware groups across Europe. These results show that detecting IBD segments in aDNA can generate new insights both on a small scale, relevant to understanding the life stories of people, and on the macroscale, relevant to large-scale cultural-historical events.
NOTE: No new Ancient DNA samples presented in this paper.
@ Andrzejewski
According to Dominique Garcia, Ligurians from Gaul are also probably a Celtic people.
https://www.academia.edu/1471483/Les_Celtes_de_Gaule_méditerranéenne_Définition_et_caractérisation
Also I think you guys will be interested in this paper - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.03.06.529121v1
"We found that the genetic formation of the Yamnaya is 5000-6000 years before present (4000-3000 BCE), approximately a millennium before their believed cultural formation determined from archaeology which is consistent with other recent results. We also show evidence of potential contact between the EHG and CHG in the eighth millennium before present (6000 BCE)."
So this is telling a similar story to Priya Moorjani and Nick Patterson's preprint - that there is some kind of admixture signal in Yamnaya dated ~500-1000 years prior to the samples - but also provides some support for Davidski's thinking about long term admixture between EHG and CHG that dates to the Mesolithic (and roughly the time frame that Rob was talking about upthread, the millennium of ~6000 BCE).
Reading on Genos Historia’s TG channel, there’s a discontinuity between IA Northern Italians and contemporary ones, modern day residents.
I knew the Langobardian impact was huge!
I wrote -
"HGs who were R1b-M73 could have easily wandered down river valleys from the interior of Russia to arrive in the Balkans, and now we have a much older R1b-P297 in the Upper Volga."
Phew! I was having a rough day yesterday! That should read "Baltic", not "Balkans".
Sorry. Bad head cold.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/39/9/msac179/6675590?login=false
False!
Tarim Badin mummies are either from the Afanasievo or from Andronovo Indo-European, especially the EMBA ones.
Not pure ANE.
@Samuel Andrews “ Yes it does suggest that. Yamnaya has 43% in SLC45A2, EHG has around 65%.
So EHG is lighter than Yamnaya. But not much lighter. They're about the same.”
And since CHG are 1/3 ANE but 2/3 Dzudzuana, we can infer that it was the AG3 that was responsible for Yamnaya having a fair skin.
Dzudzuana and EEF are therefore like MENA populations nowadays, and the recent findings about GAC being swarthy, along with current Southern Europeans having darker complexion on average only confirms this bias.
Samuel Andrews said...
"Then, it seems, most of this R1b was replaced by R1a M417 during the Middle Corded Ware period.March 9, 2023 at 7:20 AM"
In South-Eastern Poland it was the other way around.
@Andrezjewski: "And since CHG are 1/3 ANE but 2/3 Dzudzuana, we can infer that it was the AG3 that was responsible for Yamnaya having a fair skin."
The derived variants on SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 aren't present (or at high frequency) in Botai or WSHG or Tarim_EMBA as far as I know. Natural selection happens. I don't know about TTK at 6223 BCE.
"We found that the genetic formation of the Yamnaya is 5000-6000 years before present (4000-3000 BCE), approximately a millennium before their believed cultural formation determined from archaeology which is consistent with other recent results. We also show evidence of potential contact between the EHG and CHG in the eighth millennium before present (6000 BCE)."
That's exactly what I´ve been saying in my comments on this blog. Now the big question is where did the CHG come from and how did it look like autosomally. Is it shifted towards Iran_N etc.
Leonid Vyazov (Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic), Gulnaz Sagmanova (Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic), Olga Flegontova (Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic), Harald Ringbauer (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States), David Reich (Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States), Pavel Flegontov (Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic)
Genetic identification of Slavs in Migration Period Europe using an IBD sharing graph
Popular methods of genetic analysis relying on allele frequencies such as PCA, ADMIXTURE and qpAdm are not suitable for distinguishing many populations that were important historical actors in the Migration Period Europe. For instance, differentiating Slavic, Germanic, and Celtic people is very difficult relying on these methods, but very helpful for archaeologists given a large proportion of graves with no inventory and frequent adoption of a different culture. To overcome these problems, we applied a method based on autosomal haplotypes. Imputation of missing genotypes and phasing was performed according to a protocol by Rubinacci et al. (2021), and IBD inference was done for ancient Eurasian individuals with data available at >600,000 1240K sites. IBD links for a subset of these individuals were represented as a graph, visualized with a force-directed layout algorithm, and clusters in this graph are inferred with the Leiden algorithm. One of the clusters in the IBD graph emerged that includes nearly all individuals in the dataset annotated archaeologically as “Slavic”. According to PCA a hypothesis for the origin of this population can be proposed: it was formed by admixture of a Baltic-related group with East Germanic people and Sarmatians or Scythians. The individuals belonging to the “Slavic” IBD sharing cluster form a chronological gradient on the PCA plot, with the earliest samples close to the Baltic LBA/EIA group. Later “Slavic” individuals are shifted to the right, closer to Central and Southern Europeans and probably reflecting further admixture of Slavs with local populations during the Migration Period.
"Traits mostly associated with European hunter gatherers include brown or brunette hair, blue eyes, a higher heart rate, lower cholesterol and a higher BMI.
Those linked to Anatolian Neolithic farmers include blonde hair, blue eyes, lower heart rate, and lower BMI.
When it comes to height, researchers found that Europeans have Steppe Pastoralists to thank, although their genes are also to blame for higher cholesterol.
Traits mostly associated with Siberian populations include black hair, green eyes and a higher heart rate." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10489451/Europeans-owe-height-Asian-nomads-blue-eyes-hunter-gatherers.html?fbclid=IwAR1SWpto8keAW8UGZqgCir611ghdeiOiYISHLNUhgpbAezMrPHGjpCNzu3A
Phenotype-informative allele frequency changes in western Russia
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd6535
As a quick comment on the Ringbauer ancIBD paper (long awaited and looked forward to!), I'm having a deep dive into the supplementary table 'B_Results.IBD_Published'. This is going to take some time because the samples are labelled only by ID and not by population.
There are some interesting things already though which I have seen; for example quite a few IBD matches between Afanasievo/Yamnaya/Poltavka and Chemurchek samples. I don't know if we already thought that there were links between these cultures, but this seems to provide some further confirmation, potentially, if the method is working. No interesting matches for the Steppe_Maikop have come to my attention so far, not even between Steppe_Maikop and Steppe_Maikop_o.
Also I would say about Ringbauer's new paper is that I6561 (originally labelled Sredny Stog and since redated as Ukraine_Alexandria_MBA) seems to have a lot of IBD links with Sintashta and kin cultures through Central Asia. Assuming this method stands up to peer review, that seems to finally nail the coffin for suggestions that he's still somehow a much earlier sample that happened by coincidence to look like a later Steppe_MLBA person. Likewise Poltavka_EEF outlier is linked to the Sintashta cluster, so unlikely to be just a coincidental mixed Poltavka person.
More interestingly, some of the samples labelled Sintashta_o seem to have some distant links to the Steppe_MLBA groups (distant, but which may meet the threshold the paper applies to links between Corded_Ware and GAC). Which might prove that they actually did contribute some ancestry, which has been a topic of some confusion (are the outliers with elevated ANE related ancestry necessary or not?).
@Davidski
There's a Russian Slab Grave sample from Jeong 2016 (PTO001 in the dataset). Could you convert it to G25?
@Gaska
"According to me NO, according to Furtwangler those neolithic samples has high Yamnaya ancestry . . . "
No, Gaska. Furtwangler never said those Neolithic samples have high Yamnaya ancestry. Obviously not. You did not understand what you were reading. That's it in a nutshell.
@Gaska
"Any P297 in the Baltic or northern ussia is younger than Villabruna (Epigravettian) therefore the path is clear Italian Alps/Balkans>>>>>Baltic>>>>North Russia not the other way around."
Well, Villabruna was P297-. He was L761+, and L761 is upstream from L389> P297 and thus older than P297. But again, Villabruna was NEGATIVE for P297, so he's really not relevant to the discussion of MN2003, that R1b-P297 sample from Minino in the Upper Volga.
It is ridiculous to maintain that there was some sort of R1b-L761 migration from the Italian Alps/Balkans to the Baltic and then to North Russia. There is NO evidence of that in the first place. In the second, thus far the P297 in North Russia is a couple of thousand years OLDER than anything comparable in the Baltic.
Besides that, what was originally alleged to be R1b-P297 in the Baltic turned out to belong to downstream clades of R1b-M73.
Was Villabruna found in NE Italy? Yes, of course. HGs wandered widely. Does that mean R1b-L761 originated in NE Italy or the Balkans and spread from there? NO. It's possible that's what happened – anything is possible- , but there is currently NO evidence that is what happened.
But suppose for a moment that is exactly what happened. That does not change the subsequent history of how R1b-L51 arrived in peninsular Europe with the steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans, mostly in the third millennium BC.
Villabruna belonged to a cluster that was otherwise populated by males belonging to Y-DNA haplogroup I (mostly I2a), so there's no evidence R1b-L761 was even a significant part of the Villabruna cluster. There is a HUGE time gap in peninsular Europe between Villabruna and any subsequent R1b-L761. If Villabruna was all that important, one would think he would have left some surviving descendants in peninsular Europe, but he did not.
Meanwhile, you conveniently fail to address the two R1b-L51 remains at the far eastern end of the steppe in the Afanasievo culture and the numerous R1b-L51 remains in very early Corded Ware, all of which stand in stark contrast to the absence of R1b-M269 among the HGs and Neolithic farmers of peninsular Europe.
@Samuel Andrews
"During the Early Corded Ware period, it seems R1b L51 existed across wide area from western Poland to the Netherlands.
Then, it seems, most of this R1b was replaced by R1a M417 during the Middle Corded Ware period."
I'm not disagreeing with you, but what I think happened was that the first Corded Ware wave west was mostly R1b-L51. Westernmost Corded Ware experienced a few cultural changes and became Beaker. R1a-M417 filled in behind it to the east and was still practicing the older, non-Beaker rites.
So it only looks like R1b-L51 was replaced. It was still there, but we call it Beaker. IMHO Beaker is just a variant of Single Grave Corded Ware.
The first Mesolithic ancient DNA was sequenced in western Europe from "WHG."
They lacked SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. Were "dark skinned."
This convinced everyone that light skin evolved after the Mesolithic.
But, now we know that's not the case.
Light skin already evolved from the Mesolithic. It was restricted to eastern Europe & western Asia.
Light skinned populations from there for the most part "replaced" the darker skinned WHG in western Europe.
Most of the ancestors of modern Europeans were already very light skinned by 8,000 years ago, probably 10,000 years ago.
Latvians have the highest "WHG" ancestry.
But it doesn't mostly come from dark skinned Loschbour types.
It mostly comes from light skinned hunter gatherers like the Mesolithic Latvian hunter gatherers.
Sam: It mostly comes from light skinned hunter gatherers like the Mesolithic Latvian hunter gatherers.
Overall Baltic HGs were at about 25% derived SLC24A5 and 35% derived SLC45A2 - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05726-0/figures/5
Probably they would've been dark-skinned compared to Anatolian farmers. Unless the ancestry came from HG from further east.
Spoke too soon in my last comment, re; Ringbauer's paper there are some linkages between Steppe_Maikop and Steppe_Maikop_o and Maikop. The Steppe_Maikop triple actually themselves seem to have very high levels of IBD.
Also, it seems like there are some distant links between Steppe_EMBA and Maikop (Caucasus). Although caution these are distant and rare, however they seem more replete than linkages between Steppe_EMBA and EEF groups, which don't seem to be in any evidence at all. (The strongest link between these two seems to be Ukraine_EBA_Yamnaya:1917 with Caucasus_Maikop:MK5001 who are linked at largest segment 21cm of IBD, total >8cm 41).
There do also seem to be some links between the ANE rich populations from Central Asia like Mereke_EBA and Dali_EBA with Yamnaya. Those don't seem to be too obviously linked to Steppe_Maikop but bear in mind there are far fewer Steppe_Maikop samples (so matches are less likely).
A couple of few EEF matches between LNBA_Europeans (with Steppe Ancestry) and EEF, that I thought were interesting: https://imgur.com/a/m8Je0CJ . Kind of what you expect?
Generally it seems like GAC matches closest, which seems like a consequence of both a bottleneck in GAC maybe, together with contributing most ancestry? But it also seems like the fact that GAC is close in time helps as well - the samples that match best between GAC and CWC are virtually at exactly the same radiocarbon date. If we had more uncremated persons from other EEF cultures from around 3000-2500 BCE, I think we'd find some more matches not involving GAC. Other EEF who admixed in were probably part of larger populations and also our samples are more distant in time.
These seem potentially time-sensitive (although there are long term links), so it may be that we would see more links if looking at Sredny Stog and proximate SE European EEF.
Also PG2001 and PG2004 have lots of shared IBD.
(This massive spreadsheet is chewing up my little computer, lol).
From Ringbauer's new paper:
"We find that the first individuals in Central and Northern Europe carrying high amounts of Steppe-ancestry, associated with the Corded Ware culture, share high rates of long IBD (12-25~cM) with Yamnaya herders of the Pontic-Caspian steppe"
Lazaridis comments on this:
“We knew (in Haak, Lazaridis et al. 2014) that CWC could be modeled as 3/4 Yamnaya + 1/4 Europe MN. Chintalapati et al. (2022) proved this admixture coincided with Yamnaya expansion. And now, Ringbauer et al. proved recent genealogical links between CWC and Yamnaya. Case closed.”
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1634003329335414784
I don’t think that the case is closed. Recent genealogical links between CWC and Yamnaya could come from Yamnaya women:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-29914-5
It is quite possible that Indo-Slavic R1a CWC males came from Sredny Stog and mixed with Yamnaya females only. Then the language of Yamnaya is still an open case.
@Suevi: Vyazov et al "According to PCA a hypothesis for the origin of this population can be proposed: it was formed by admixture of a Baltic-related group with East Germanic people and Sarmatians or Scythians. The individuals belonging to the “Slavic” IBD sharing cluster form a chronological gradient on the PCA plot, with the earliest samples close to the Baltic LBA/EIA group."
Interesting; there's been no evidence of Sarmatian or Scythian related ancestry in contemporary Slavic-speaking populations on G25? Perhaps reduced down over subsequent generations from geneflow?
(Is there some very limited truth to the romantic ideology of Sarmatism after all - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism?)
@EastPole, while you can never please everyone, I think if you take the combination of:
- Steppe_EMBA (Yamnaya or descendant/sister cultures) with R1b-Z2103 seem to contribute to directly to Armenian language and potentially Greek through a documented migration, and both of these are core/late pIE languages.
- Yamnaya having strong, recent, genealogical links to contemporary, particularly early Corded Ware people with *both* R1b-M269 and R1a-Z93 perhaps indicative of relationships within less than 20 generations, and that these Corded Ware populations have even strong genealogical links with each other.
- The linguistic palaeontology lines up very well with late pIE situating with the level of technology known for the Yamnaya culture and not the Sredny-Stog culture (i.e. wheels).
Then I think almost all people debating this topic are going to come to a consensus where they accept a model in which the linguistic innovations of the Indo-Slavic clade (to the extent these languages co-evolved) are dated from after the expansion of Yamnaya and Corded Ware circa 3200-2900 BCE, rather than one which they are dated long before this time. "Your mileage may vary".
The feeling I have is that this subject is far from being resolving in the academy. The southern arc is very close geographically and this is often associated with ancestry flows. The similarity of the CHG source to other populations in the Caucasus also complicates matters. Scientists seem less passionate about interpreting the data, they appear to be less concerned with ethnocentric and indentary issues. I'm not discrediting your work, it's very useful, it's just not academic and that complicates possible comparisons. Maybe one day you can publish something academic.
@lala
It's actually very clear that Yamnaya doesn't have any Armenian ancestry, while, for instance, the Steppe Maykop outliers do.
This isn't all that complicated nor does it have anything do with with any ethnocentric and indentary issues.
Scientists are often wrong and they're often wrong because they're biased. If you don't know this, then you haven't looked at too many scientific papers.
@Matt
Is there any way to make a quick PCA or some sort of graph with the IBD data?
"According to PCA a hypothesis for the origin of this population can be proposed: it was formed by admixture of a Baltic-related group with East Germanic people and Sarmatians or Scythians."
Woah. Unbelievable. Our local "expert" told me that Scythians only interacted with Hallstat cultures.
It seems common sense prevails again.
@ Vara
Until you learn what eastern Halstatt is you shouldn’t comment on European history.
And there’s no scythian related haplogroups in expanding Slavs . So yes, moron, common sense prevails
@ Matt
“Interesting; there's been no evidence of Sarmatian or Scythian related ancestry in contemporary Slavic-speaking populations on G25? Perhaps reduced down over subsequent generations from geneflow?”
Not that I’ve seen
Slavs expanded from the east Baltic region, where there was no perceptible Scythian influence
Some southern Baltic tribes might have constituted the “farmer scythians”, but they’re a demographic and cultural stub (no continuity)
Would have to look at wii they defined as “scythians”, “Sarmatians” here because there were all those Tisza Sarmatians and Hungarian Scythians (eastern halstatt) with central European ancestry
@Matt
“Steppe_EMBA (Yamnaya or descendant/sister cultures) with R1b-Z2103 seem to contribute to directly to Armenian language and potentially Greek through a documented migration, and both of these are core/late pIE languages.”
But Armenian seems to be connected with Indo-Slavic.
https://www.academia.edu/37844906
https://postimg.cc/Cdx2fpz0
@Rob
Woah relax. I didn't know you were part of the EU council.
Was Hallstatt where Lydians were the ancestors of Hittites? Or was that your Vasconic speaking people of the Balkans being Pseudo-Indo-Europeans?
https://www.academia.edu/43431149/Iranian_and_Slavic_In_Encyclopedia_of_Slavic_Languages_and_Linguistics_Online_edited_by_Marc_L_Greenberg_Lenore_A_Grenoble_Stephen_M_Dickey_Masako_Ueda_Fidler_Ren%C3%A9_Genis_Marek_%C5%81azi%C5%84ski_Anita_Peti_Stanti%C4%87_Bj%C3%B6rn_Wiemer_Nade%C5%BEda_V_Zorixina_Nilsson_Leiden_Brill_2020
Bobby, please educate yourself so you don't go on a comment deletion spree LOL.
@ Vara
Great comments , they make complete sense
Please get help for your cultural, physical & intellectual inferiority complex
@Vara
This is just a claim and it's based on their interpretation of their PCA.
I'm willing to bet that their PCA is crap and/or they're not interpreting it properly.
@EastPole
Besides that Greek has some parallels with Slavic languages that are not present in the Indo-Iranian branch.
@Matt
"East Germanic people and Sarmatians or Scythians"
That's bullshit so big, that I'm seriously considering a trip to Warsaw next week to say this to the author's face.
@Davidski
TBH I don't think early Slavs carried significant "Scythian/Sarmatian" ancestry but they definitely interacted since those groups were the major powers in the region till the Dacian war.
@Rob
Nice rebuttal.
I could bash my keyboard randomly and it would still make more sense than "Hittite and Luwian derive from Proto-Lydian". Haha.
Yeah the idea that Slavs became more "western" e.g more EEF shifted relative to bronze/iron age baltic populations due to ancestry from Sarmatians or Scythians, populations with less EEF ancestry than bronze/iron age Baltic populations and with more Central Asian and Siberian ancestry than EEF is beyond moronic. It only is possible of one dabbles in historical inventions, like some archaeologists pretending that sedentary iron age Hungarians were Scythians based on some finds of akinakai and arrowheads, despite historians such as Herodotus making no mention of this in his chapters where he describes Scythians and the inhabitants of Pannonia. Oh wait geneticists do actually have this tendency...
@ Vara
''TBH I don't think early Slavs carried significant "Scythian/Sarmatian" ancestry but they definitely interacted since those groups were the major powers in the region till the Dacian war.''
You clown, the Vekerzug & Cimbrud groups (which Im sure you have no idea who they are) were present 700 - 400 BC. Hundreds of years before the Dacians war
The Sarmatian period is after the Dacian war
@ Copper Axe
''Sedentary iron age Hungarians were Scythians based on some finds of akinakai and arrowheads''
But there's more to it than that bro
Despite prevailing genetic continuity, the entire post-Urnfield situation changed - settlements ended, shift to inhumation (although cremation remained). Seems like a massive societal re-structuring. But this was stimulated by the earlier arrival of so-called 'Cimmerians" whilst just prior the post-Urnfieled/ eastern halstatt groups had expanded east toward the forest-steppe of Ukraine (Cozia-Saharna, Gava-Holihrady).
The 'forest-steppe' Scythians, which are popularly connected with early Slavs, are a mix of these eastern Halstatt groups, some early southern Balto-Slavs & maybe the odd true Scythian admixture. However, they disappeared after 300 bc, thus cant be ancestral to medieval Slavs.
@Bobby
You've been posting here for years but still haven't learned the basics. Like I said please educate yourself the Dunning Kruger effect is not doing you much good.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigynnae
@Davidski
Sorry, I meant Jeong 2020 (A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe), not 2016.
@ vara
Yes you learned that term from me, but obviously forgot. But it doesn't apply to you because deep down you know you're a halfwit
''https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigynnae''
Yes - '' Pannonian Basin in the 8th century BCE by the westward migration of the Scythians''
8th century. Tell us how that is after the Dacian wars, and how they supposedly introduced Slavic to Europe from Iran, Majkop, or whatever ?
@Matt,
Hey devil's advocate. I wasn't talking about Narva.
I was talking about latvian Hgs.
Look at the results for Latvian HGs in the new paper on Paleolithic Europe.
SLC45A2 *rs1426654-71%
SLC45A2 *rs16891982-28%
Those Narva results are based on a small sample size
Latvian Mesolithic Hgs, published years ago were.....
SLC45A2 *rs1426654-71%
SLC45A2 *rs16891982-28%
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/phenotype-snps-from-ancient-southeastern-europe/
@Rob
Yeah, I learned about the "Median colonists" from you Herodotus not like I brought them up a long time ago.
Not only a reincarnation of a Pseudo-Anatolian but Herodotus himself! Amazing!
But let's get back to your reading comprehension. "Till the Dacian war" means that the "Scythians" were the major power in Eastern Europe from before the Dacian war, ie specifically from 700BCE when they were warring with Near Eastern super powers till their defeat by emperor Trajan. Now slightly after that period these Iranian nomads were no longer a super power and were ruled by various non-IE nomads (Huns and Avars) even though most of these non-IEs were heavily influenced by Iranians. I hope my very simplified explanation makes sense to one of your personalities at least.
Idk what Maykop has to do with it. I guess me schooling you on Anatolians left quite an effect on you since you can't quote me saying something as stupid as "Proto-Lydian the big daddy of them all" lol. Take your meds and stop making shit up in your head please.
@Rob
Yeah exactly, the influence is more due to "Cimmerians", in quotations because the real Cimmerians were only on the eastern black sea, the Agathyrsi lived to their west on the steppes at this time. And this influence was one primarily of military nature with some cultural as well, the degree of which is highly overstated in my opinion. I think some Hungarian academics suffer from steppe mania a bit due to their origins. The key is that the Scythians had little to do with it.
The Scythian farmers are a different story of course although Herodotus does separate them quite clearly from the nomadic Iranian Scythians. After all Scythia was a country and these peoples ere inhabitants of said country. I agree that these probably arent the direct ancestors of Slavs but share a relation.
@ copper axe
“I agree that these probably arent the direct ancestors of Slavs but share a relation.”
Yea because they feature Balto-Slavs. But the forest steppe settlements declined when the royal Scythians demised / retreated to Dobruja & Crimea . After that the Zarubintsy culture appears which looks very different, although some Slav archaeologists try to paint a picture of continuity
@ Vara
“Till the Dacian war" means that the "Scythians" were the major power in Eastern Europe from before the Dacian war, ie specifically from 700BCE”
Yeah, No.
If you’re taking about “Dacia”, then the demise of “Hungarian Scythians” occurred ~400 bc due to the Celtic migrations
Maybe start with Wikipedia then come back in 10 years and speak to us
You’re confusing the situation in the Black Sea, and even there there is a gap between Sarmatiams and Scythians, not to mention you’re forgetting of the Goths
“I guess me schooling you on Anatolians ”
Lol. You don’t know basics
And you very well know it was a typo- proto-Luwians is what I meant
@ Copper Axe
The other thing of course is we dont have any Royal Scythian DNA yet
So the question is do they look more like ''Altai Scythians'', or Saka,. Hpow much local Cuacasian, Balto-Slav, ''Thracians/ Halstatt" admixture, if any, did they experience..?
@arza; hah, interesting mental image there.
@Sam, the figure I referenced giving frequencies in Baltic HG is from the same paper.
I think you're citing the p-optimum from Supplementary Table S2G, but for rs1426654(SLC24A5) that can't be the derived variant frequency because if you look at the table Oberkassel (post LGM WHG) has 1.00 in that table. Given that Sidelkino is at 0 and Ukraine_HG at 0.067 it's probably the ancestral variant frequency.
Otherwise, if we interpreted that as derived frequency, we are turning everything previously published on frequencies of this variant on its head (and stating that EHG has 0% derived SLC24A5)!
Therefore the derived variant in Baltic_HG would be (1-0.72) = 0.28, which is the same as is shown in the figure from the paper.
The figure there for rs16891982(SLC45A2) is 0.358, and this does represent the derived variant.
It would be very strange if the paper published a supplement that was completely opposite to its key figure.
Appreciate it's confusing if papers indicate the derived variant in the figures and then give the ancestral variant in the supplement. Overall, likely the Baltic HGs taken together would've had lower frequences of the largest effect depigmenting derived variant (rs1426654(SLC24A5)) than EEF/Yamnaya/CHG/EHG.
@Davidski, it might be possible to turn the sum IBD>8 or max IBD into some form of matrix and then transform that to PCA; but this would take some time. I don't think there's the required information to replicate the kinds of matrices in the paper, exactly. I'll have a think about it.
@Rob
Nice deflection. Goths are related to Iranian and Slavic contacts?
Now whether the Sigynnae were gone by 400 or 200 BCE is irrelevant as various other Iranian nomads exerted their influence in the region. For example, the Roxolani and Iazyges.
In case you're missing the point let me spell it out for you. The Iranian nomads had a considerable influence as such it is ridiculous to claim that they had no influence over the Proto-Slavs whose homeland wasn't that far from the Scythians.
"And you very well know it was a typo- proto-Luwians is what I meant"
Stop lying, Bobby. You admitted it was a mistake after claiming that Hittite derives from Luwian. Funny thing is that all three are different languages that derive from Proto-Anatolian LoL!
@ vara
''. The Iranian nomads had a considerable influence as such it is ridiculous to claim that they had no influence over the Proto-Slavs whose homeland wasn't that far from the Scythians.''
It's only ridiculous to you because you have no grasp of genetics, chronology or basic geography. Given that proto-Slavs are not from Dacia or the Azov steppe, the lack of direct influence on the main core of expanding Slavs should in fact be no surprise.
Whatever contact was secondary and mediated by other groups, certainly not the time of 'massive influence' you're deparately angling for
By the time Slavs were actually expanding, after 500 AD, the Scythinas were long gone, and the Sarmatians were in Caucasian Alania and western Iberia
''Stop lying, Bobby. You admitted it was a mistake after claiming that Hittite derives from Luwian. Funny thing is that all three are different languages that derive from Proto-Anatolian LoL!''
Hittites are a splinter group of Luwians & the languages are extremely similar. Hittite, Luwian, Lydian, Carian, were all a recent-ish founder effect in Anatolia. And not from Kura-Araxes :)
It's best to call it Luwian, after the largest group, instead of some non-sensical term like Indo-Anatolian.
@ Vara
''You admitted it was a mistake after claiming that Hittite derives from Luwian. Funny thing is that all three are different languages that derive from Proto-Anatolian LoL!''
You're imagining & confusing things as per usual.
I re-iterate that Luwian, Carian, Hittite are all closely related and represent a recent-ish found effect in Anatolia. In fact, Hittites are a mere splinter group of Luwians that took over central Anatolia and then expanded outward from there
And yes, it's best called something like 'Luwian' because they were the largest group. Certainly better than nonsensical 'Indo-Anatolian"
@Rob
Nooo. Why can't you google the basic stuff.
Hittite is more archaic than Luwian. Luwian, Pisidian..etc derive from Proto-Luwic which is the sister of Proto-Hittite.
I give up.
@Rob
"The other thing of course is we dont have any Royal Scythian DNA yet
So the question is do they look more like ''Altai Scythians'', or Saka,. How much local Cuacasian, Balto-Slav, ''Thracians/ Halstatt" admixture, if any, did they experience..?"
Yes this is very much an issue still, we only have one scythian sample that we can consider "unmixed" which is not enough to estimate the baseline ancestry of Pontic Scythians in antiquity.
Actual elite burials will probably have varying degrees of Geto-Thracian and Caucasian ancestry, the Balkan layer being the more recent one and the Caucasian layer being a relic of their kingdom prior to the Sauromatian expansion. Greek ancestry should appear too but more sporadically. I think the Balto-Slavic "Scythian farmer" ancestry will be more of a border zone feature rather than a core comonent within the steppes. If we actually get some decent sampling from burials with mid-sized mounds in core zones we will get decent batches of pure Scythian samples that did not partake in long distance marriage networks.
From the current Scythian samples I can gather that they were more Siberian shifted than Sarmatians, but less so than the pre-Scythian period samples of course.
@Arza
“Besides that Greek has some parallels with Slavic languages that are not present in the Indo-Iranian branch.”
Yes. Linguists tell us about Slavic influences in Tocharian, Armenian, Thracian, Greek, Indo-Iranian (not Balto-Slavic influences but Slavic), and even in Turkic languages (around 40 Slavic words in Turkic languages). How is this possible?
I see only one explanation: Indo-Slavic which expanded with R1a CWC groups after 3000 BC from Poland-Ukraine homeland was closer to Slavic than we think. Maybe it even can be called pre-Slavic because we see that these CWC groups carried also Slavic cultural influences especially in religion. Slavic myths which survived till modern times in folk stories and songs best explain elements of Rigvedic and Orphic myths which otherwise have no explanation.
Vedic and Orphic religions were influenced by Slavic religion. This, when combined with linguistic influences and the history of Bronze Age migrations coming from Slavic homeland in eastern Poland and western Ukraine, changes our view of history. The theory that R1a CWC Indo-Slavic groups were actually early Slavs is therefor quite possible. Indo-Slavic was closer to Slavic than Indo-Iranian to Slavic and this necessarily implies at least partial mutual intelligibility between Indo-Slavic and Slavic. If there was a mutual intelligibility of languages and similarity in culture, religion, then what else is needed to make an ethnos?
Slavic linguistic influences:
https://i.postimg.cc/QMVqVq74/SlavicO.jpg
Genetic expansion from Poland east:
CWC–>Sintashta–>Andronovo–>India/Iran
https://i.postimg.cc/05Cnpw1Z/CWC-BS-II.jpg
Genetic expansion from Poland south:
CWC/Mierzanowice –> Nitra–>Otomani–>Balkans
https://i.postimg.cc/5tV8fSWL/screenshot-287.png
It agrees with what Russian linguist Oleg Trubačёv wrote about Slavic languages:
“Currently, there is an objective tendency to deepen the dating of ancient Indo-European dialects. This also applies to Slavonic as one of the Indo-European dialects. However, the question now is not that the history of Slavonic may be measured by the scale of the II to III millenniums B.C. but that we can hardly date the ‘emergence’ or ‘separation’ of pra-Slavonic or pra-Slavonic dialects from Indo-European dialects because of the proper uninterrupted Indo-European origin of Slavonic”
“"East Germanic people and Sarmatians or Scythians"
That's bullshit so big, that I'm seriously considering a trip to Warsaw next week to say this to the author's face.”
A lot of bullshit had been produced in XIX and XX century by German linguists and historians. It was motivated by racial hatred. It is sad that a lot of people are still brainwashed and repeat it.
Re; Ringbauer's IBD table from the supplement, as a slightly pointless exercise, from what I've done so far, I made a quick version of the table containing the matches involving any sample from Spain with a color code for the types of populations involved: https://imgur.com/a/ETeUljI
Top of the lists are of course links between people from BA, CA and MLN sites who we already know are relatives and/or have good reason to suspect of links between sites.
Surprisingly to me, the matches between any Spanish sample with steppe ancestry (Copper Age, Early Bronze Age or later) and any earlier sample from Middle Neolithic or Chalcolithic Spain were very, very limited, and only show up near the bottom of the ranking for matches with one segment over 12 centimorgan in common. I've put a red border around these matches.
The reason why I chose this is that Spain is a region where we know that we have samples of early farmers all the way up to the arrival of steppe ancestry, and we have good reason to think there's lots of local admixture after steppe ancestry arrives.
So I think this kind of shows that, even in the case of lots of local admixture, what is seen with the Corded Ware and GAC is very much the exception to the rule of being hard to find IBD between preceding people and the following population, even when we know there was admixture.
The interaction between GAC and early CWC may have been a special case of two populations encountering with limited numbers, followed by a high and strong population growth by CWC.
(Links involving a sample from Spain look, if anything more evident between Early Neolithic France and Spain, or between early Bronze Age Central Europeans particularly Bell Beaker with post CA Spain, than they do between Spain_CA and then Spain_Post_CA (and there are no links at all between Spain_CA and post_CA populations outside Spain). Must show the power of populations with high growth to share IBD compared to steady state size/declining populations).
@EastPole
On that point, Lazaridis is right. Yamnaya -> CW is case closed. Even linguistically, Greek/Albanian/Armenian derive from Yamnaya and have no differences with CW languages. The evidence at this point is overwhelming. People are just hanging on because of Y-DNA.
Yamnaya precedes CW by a bit, so still finding 20 CM segments, proves a direct ancestry. "Yamnaya women" are not enough to model CW autosomally as Yamnaya + 27% GAC EEF.
When we see the earlier Khvalynsk for example, we have R1a, R1b, J, etc... For some reason, Yamnaya was bottlenecked with RZ2103, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There were R1a and R-L51 Yamnaya. Autosomal, IBD, archeology (D. Anthony '08), and linguistics all point to Yamnaya -> CW.
Just read about the Ainu v. Modern Japs, and there were many references to either the Ainu or the Jomon era Japanese being partly descended from ANE or Paleo-Siberians. Japanese does have phonology similar to some Native American languages (words like “Watanabe”) and it was written that many archeological, cultural and other traits were shared between Jomon and North American “Indians”.
Furthermore, it was a consensus among scientists that the Ainu’s language and many customs like bear worship derived from Okhotsk Culture, which was a Paleo-Siberian one like Nivkh and Kamachdals.
Is that a proof that these languages are vestiges to Ancient North Eurasian proto-language, and that Ainu or Japanese may have developed from a common distal language that eventually became Proto-Indo-European? Ainu are about 30% Caucasoid because of their ANE admixture.
Another point, what’s the relationship between the 75% ANE in EHG and the 35%-50% ANE in CHG/Iran_N? Are they highly divergent from each other?
I’m attempting yo find out if Elamite, the BMAC language, Botai or Burusho have anything to do with the ANE language that may have been ancestral to PIE many millennia ago.
Hungarian is classified as Uralic because of its core Uralic vocabulary, phonology and morphology. Its vocabulary with clear Uralic etymology is only 20% while IE words constitute 20%-35%, Turkic ones are 5%-10% and the rest are “unknown”. Could it be related to some WSHG language like the Hunnic language?
Speaking of the Southern Arc theory, which in my eyes is an utter hogwash - why do posters ignore CHG’s 35% ANE’s gehetic legacy? Sure, EHG could be >65% ANE (other peer reviewed articles pin it to 9% and the rest being WHG-related); however, maybe Kartvelian is from ANE but Adyghe is from Dzudzuana and perhaps *that’s* why they are completely unrelated?
@Rob
"It's only ridiculous to you because you have no grasp of genetics, chronology or basic geography. Given that proto-Slavs are not from Dacia or the Azov steppe, the lack of direct influence on the main core of expanding Slavs should in fact be no surprise.
Whatever contact was secondary and mediated by other groups, certainly not the time of 'massive influence' you're deparately angling for"
I missed this comment. Somehow me mentioning the Dacian war triggered you. No one cares about Dacia. My comment to Davidski was about Sycthians being the major power in Eastern Europe until their defeat in the war. I know you like to make shit up in your head but please pay attention. The 500 CE expansion is irrelevant when talking about earlier influence to Proto-Slavs as that would make it a late Middle Iranian influence when I'm arguing for something more archaic. In fact you can google Proto-Slavic map and you can see that Scythians were obviously their neighbors.
As for the influence on Slavic it is there secondary or not:
https://www.academia.edu/43431149/Iranian_and_Slavic_In_Encyclopedia_of_Slavic_Languages_and_Linguistics_Online_edited_by_Mar
@kaksoipiste
Not enough data. Have a look at the coverage and number of markers. Almost nothing.
@DragonHermit
No one's claiming that CWC is a mix between GAC males and Yamnaya females.
What we're suggesting is that both CWC and Yamnaya are derived from the same post-Sredny Stog parent population, and that they kept in contact via female exogamy.
I guess you missed this...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-origin-of-corded-ware-people.html
No way is the case closed on this.
@ vara
''I missed this comment. Somehow me mentioning the Dacian war triggered you. No one cares about Dacia. My comment to Davidski was about Sycthians being the major power in Eastern Europe until their defeat in the war''
lol the Scythians werent defeated in the Dacian war.
I'm just upholding basic historical facts and trying to help you because you're confusing events 300 years apart.
If you dont understand these basics, there is no way you're going to understand the intracacies of Iranic-Slavic contacts.
btw many of those Sogdian loans in Blazek are mediated via the Avar period, who were known to have Sogdian merchants in their service. Details & context are everything
@Bobby
"lol the Scythians werent defeated in the Dacian war"
Sure, let's call them Iranian nomads to make it easier for your pea sized brain.
"If you dont understand these basics, there is no way you're going to understand the intracacies of Iranic-Slavic contacts.
btw many of those Sogdian loans in Blazek are mediated via the Avar period, who were known to have Sogdian merchants in their service. Details & context are everything
"
Again you argue with your other personalities. Also, I've already educated you on the Persian-Slavic alliance against Heraclius before so these Middle Iranian contacts don't interest me.
But funny how you ignore the archaic younger Avestan related language highlighted by Blazek which was the whole point. Details and context are everything. Lol so much for intricacies.
@ Vara
Nobody has said there are NO Iranic loans , so you’re simply constructing a straw man
The original point I made years ago was that Scythians mostly interacted with east Halstatt groups, and not so much with protoSlavs, who were at that time further away. This is irrevocably true
You tried to laugh about it after misunderstanding an abstract. You then took us on an inside tour of how little you know about history. Nice work
Vara
As long Blazek does not propose an etymology directly coming from Iranian, these words could very likely be of Slavic/Thracian origin via the Medes and their cultural influence over the Persians.*
For example, Baga/ Boje, God is one of the many for which I personally will immediately give you a Slavic etymology, which is missing in Iranian.
The primary meaning of Baga-God is the red one, the dyer - the sun.
from Hesychius we know that the Thracians called the god of light Bagayos.
B. Hrozny identifies the names Mitani and Medes (Medians) in Ancient History of Western Asia, India and Crete, Artia, 1952, p.113.
the Mitanni (whose god is Mithras) were a horse people, and one of the strongest of their time
the name of Mithras is not Persian, but belongs to the Medes (C.A.Wauters, Mithras, p,19)
*According to Herodotus, the ancient Persians were conquered by the Medes in the distant past (History I-102)
The father of history claims that the lands north of the Danube River, as far as the Adriatic Gulf (present-day Slovenia) were inhabited by people called Sigini, who were of the Medes' race and dressed like them.
( History -V-9). In the described region, toponyms and hydronyms are explicable in the Thracian language. The settlements and rivers located north of the Danube, such as Rusi Dava, Aki Dava, Buri Dava, Pata Visa, Na Bari(s), are related to those located south of the Danube - Kapi Dava, Brege Dava, Visa, Temon Bari... The material culture from the Danube Delta to the Adriatic Gulf is Thracian, the burials are also of the Thracian type. This is proof that the Medes and the Sigyns descended from them belong to the Thracian community.
Mithras is one of the most ancient Thracian names of the sun. It is not by chance that this god is depicted in Thracian clothes, such as those worn by the Getae and Phrygians, who worshiped the deity of light under the name Mithra Bata (Phrygian inscription Nphr. - 48)
@Davidski
Thanks anyway.
@Matt
Could you give a quick primer on how the read the IBD supplement file? Been short on time and havent been able to read the paper yet.
Re; Ringbauer's supplementary table, a very quick Sunday dive into the links at 12cm or greater between samples from Maikop: https://i.imgur.com/vaFWnKP.png
Where all the samples with links at 12cm or greater to Maikop sit, on the Vahaduo West Eurasia and North Eurasia PCAs: https://i.imgur.com/09O7X7s.png and https://i.imgur.com/HrJekkf.png
What we see is:
1) Identification of the direct, recent, expected family relationships within the Late Maikop kurgan graves in the Caucasus and Kuban Steppe.
2) Identification of Steppe_Maikop main cluster being tightly related to each other (at a less direct level than within above), and also long IBD relationships between the Steppe_Maikop and Steppe_Maikop outliers.
3) Now this is where the new bits start; a direct relationship between Yamnaya_Ozera outlier and the LateMaikop kurgan in the Caucasus. We knew on PCA that Ozera outlier looked like she had a Caucasus related ancestry, but this is a more specific link.
4) More unexpectedly relationships between the Afanasievo people in Xinjiang at site Ayitohuan with the Kuban Steppe LateMaikop. These are samples who are labelled Afanasievo, but have extra ANE and East Asian admixture. Note that compared to the links between Ozera and LateMaikop, the max segment length is similar but the sum of IBD is much *lower*; this is really consistent with the total ancestry donated to Ozera from a Caucasus like source being high, and that in Afanasievo being much diluted and almost undetectable.
5) We also see, later in time than Ozera, a long segment shared with a Yamnaya_Samara individual from the main cluster and LateMaikop Caucasus. This to me seems plausibly linked to a story where Yamnaya_Ozera or her family contributed ancestry to the later Yamnaya populations, but the Caucasus related element was much diluted.
6) The relationships we see between Afanasievo in Xinjiang at Ayitohuan and Kuban Maikop are also reflected in a larger number of Afanasievo samples. This includes folks from the Altai without extra ANE admixture! This seems like its consistent with the Afanasievo samples tending to form family graves (unlike Yamnaya who are more distantly related) and being a founder population who'd be expected to share the same links back to populations to their west. Because of the different nature of Afanasievo and Yamnaya burial, I would be careful not to interpret this as more links or less links involving either of these populations.
7) There is also a link between Caucasus Maikop and the Kuban-Tersk admixed Steppe_EMBA + Caucasus population; this is not unexpected but it seems weaker than the Ozera link. I'd guess this is probably due to the time gap involved (Ozera and her linked sample MK5001 are only 200 years apart, while for Kubano-Tersk its >1000 years).
8) Finally there are a few links between Maikop and LNBA Europeans, but these seem very rare considering the sheer sample sizes, so they must be quite diluted and broken up and may be pushing the methods here to detect accurately at these lengths (e.g. likely <8cm and not very frequent).
Importantly for me, these aren't filtered at all, just all the >12cm links in their table. So it's not like the method is finding a whole lot of random relationships and I've cherrypicked them here. It seems like it is likely to reflect some real interactions.
Perhaps with more samples from the mid-late 4th millennium from the likely interaction region of Kuban steppe, more links will come up...
natsunoame
Well, I apologize for roping you into this. Me and Rob like to have lighthearted conversations from time to time.
"these words could very likely be of Slavic/Thracian origin via the Medes and their cultural influence over the Persians.*"
>The oldest layer of these words are related to Y. Avestan and/or some sort of archaic Khotanese and not West Iranian like Median and Persian.
"For example, Baga/ Boje, God is one of the many for which I personally will immediately give you a Slavic etymology, which is missing in Iranian."
>Baga is attested all throughout Greater Iran. Eg. Baga in the Behistun inscription, Bagabuxsa(Megabyzus), Baghdad...etc.
"the name of Mithras is not Persian, but belongs to the Medes (C.A.Wauters, Mithras, p,19)"
>Mithra/Mitra is an Indo-Iranian deity attested both in the Vedas and Avesta commonly worshipped by Persians as attested by the well known name Mithridates. Also, mentioned in Artaxerxes' inscriptions.
"The father of history claims that the lands north of the Danube River, as far as the Adriatic Gulf (present-day Slovenia) were inhabited by people called Sigini, who were of the Medes' race and dressed like them."
>Indeed. He claims: "They call themselves colonists from Media"
Olbrycht also sees archaeological evidence for that
https://www.academia.edu/11934986
Although, I highly doubt they were Medes (ie West Iranian). More likely Sindoi-Mitanni related.
"This is proof that the Medes and the Sigyns descended from them belong to the Thracian community."
>The Medes clearly do not have their origin in Thrace.
"Mithras is one of the most ancient Thracian names of the sun."
>Not that ancient. These date after the Achaemenid empire which ruled Phrygia for centuries. Mithras popularity even reached Rome.
@Rob
"Nobody has said there are NO Iranic loans"
I am happy you conceded.
"and not so much with protoSlavs, who were at that time further away."
Let's see cultures that are associated with early Slavic groups. Chernoleska (scy009 btw), Lustian, Zarubintsy..etc as far as Chotyniec, Kujawy, Tarnobrzeg all have clear evidence (conquests/raids in some cases) of interactions with steppe Indo-Iranians. Yes, further away on planet Arrakis?
Suffice to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.
@Vara @Natsunoame @Rob “ As long Blazek does not propose an etymology directly coming from Iranian”
Blažek is another Gaska. His theories about WSHG people like Kelteminnar, Steppe Maykop, Botai and Okunevo speaking some para-Yenisseyan languages is unsubstantiated at best. All Paleo-Siberian languages including Ket, Nivkh, Gilyak, Chukchi, Yukaghir, Innuit are a result of a back migration of Na-Dene/Paleo-Innuit through the Bering Strait back into Asia. Yamukhtakh Archeological Complex, or something like that it is called.
All these groups are at least 67% East Asian. WSHG were maybe 45% EA at best, and Botai male hap were O (Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan), Basal N (trans-Baikal, Ulchi) and even some R1b clade highly divergent from AG3 and PIE.
@Davidski
Yamnaya/CW being in different archeological horizons, but still sharing 20 cm segments even after GAC admixture, means a few generations back they were part of the exact same population, and CW were Yamnaya migrants who departed the steppe. David Anthony mentioned Yamnaya migrations into CW since 2008.
Like I've mentioned in my previous posts, your theories linguistically make absolutely 0 sense. Core PIE requires that all modern European languages were a single point of origin sometime AFTER the 3300 BC split of Afanasievo/Tocharian (last papers estimate ~3000 BC). This "separate but equal" stuff is not going to cut it, because you would see linguistic divergences that simply aren't there.
So we have
4500 BC to 4000 BC - Anatolian
(4500 BC to 3500 BC - Sredny Stog)
3400 to 3300 BC - Afanasievo/Tocharian
3000 BC - Yamnaya/Core PIE (Germanic, Greek, BS, IC, Armenian, etc...)
There is no room for "Sredny Stog" or "Post-Sredny Stog" anything. Everything is tied to Yamnaya ~ 3000 BC. This is an airtight theory, that's why Reich, Anthony, Lazaridis aren't questioning this anymore.
@Davidski
Do you think that this new IBD paper proves a direct Yamnaya contribution to CW rather than shared Stredny Stog ancestry? I am seeing this claim being made, and it seems to me as much from the paper but not entirely sure.
Also, does anyone know what's the deal with Dali-related samples sharing IBD with Yamnaya? Recent connections across the Steppe?
@Matt
"Finally there are a few links between Maikop and LNBA Europeans"
So Maikop contributed ancestry to Europe after all? Always had the impression they went extinct. Alternatively it could be something via the Caucasus that looks Maikop-like such as the J2b carriers for example discussed earlier.
@Matt wrote: „Ringbauer's supplementary table, a very quick Sunday dive into the links at 12cm or greater between samples from Maikop: https://i.imgur.com/vaFWnKP.png
Where all the samples with links at 12cm or greater to Maikop sit, on the Vahaduo West Eurasia and North Eurasia PCAs: https://i.imgur.com/09O7X7s.png and https://i.imgur.com/HrJekkf.png”
By convention, the shortest recombinant DNA segments are not measured in centimeters = cm, but in centi-Morgans = cM.
@All
I'm out hiking, but when I get back tomorrow I'll start working on a new blog post about the Ringbauer paper.
My gut feeling is that there's something off about the IBD results. Hopefully I'll be able to say a lot more about that in a few days.
@Davidski said...
„I'm out hiking, but when I get back tomorrow I'll start working on a new blog post about the Ringbauer paper.
My gut feeling is that there's something off about the IBD results. Hopefully I'll be able to say a lot more about that in a few days.”
And Ringbauer pleased me. The following fragment of his heat map (12-16 cM) confirms the identity of the FatjanovoCWC with the GermanCWC, which in turn is identical with the CWC in Southern Poland (ceCWC - in Saag).
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/fatjanovo-ce-ger-cwc-ringb.jpg
@vAsiStha, the way I've been reading it is in Supplementary Table B, you have the columns: iid1, iid2, max_IBD, sum_IBD>8, n_IBD>8, sum_IBD>12, n_IBD>12, sum_IBD>16, n_IBD>16, sum_IBD>20, n_IBD>20.
So these are:
- iid1 and iid2 - the sample ids that share one or more inferred IBD segments at any of the length classes greater than 8 cM. I don't think these matter in terms of what order they are in (i.e. which is 1 or 2).
- max IBD is the length in cM of the longest segment they share
- sum IBD>8 is the total length of IBD that they share when summing all inferred segments over 8cM
- n_IBD>8 is the number of separate segments that are identified as IBD; more separate segments per total length indicates that the ancestors were longer ago in the past.
repeat for the separate length classeses in cM. Higher cM segment classes are stronger indications of a recent relationship - you'd be best off probably referring to paper for what each means (I'm still not totally clear)!
What this table lacks is a labelling of which populations iid1 and iid2 are from, so what I've been doing is just matching up and backfilling this, so I can easily filter and look at all the matches for e.g. Maikop samples, that they've found. (Harald seems like a nice guy so it's possible he'd upload or share a table with the population IDs if you asked him).
I'm tending to try and look at only the matches at 12cM or above for the moment, because the paper used that as the threshold for which the interesting links between Steppe_EMBA and GAC were found. Although they say that "we demonstrate that ancIBD robustly identifies IBD segments longer than 8 centimorgan for aDNA data with at least either 0.25x average whole-genome sequencing (WGS) coverage depth or at least 1x average depth for in-solution enrichment experiments targeting a widely used aDNA SNP set (’1240k’)", so in theory the 8cM links are interesting too.
Another side note is that they've only compared samples with at least 1x 1240k coverage, which does mean they're only using a subset of the Eurasian ancient dna record - for example, it would be really interesting to see what all 3 of the early CWC female no steppe samples do here, but only one (the most Globular Amphora culture, who here has links with GAC) is available.
(Also means that some interesting populations like Khvalynsk had no one who made the cut. One of the Darkveti family and also Kotias were present but both matched no one. I4910 from Sarazm only matched I11478 from ShahrISokhta). (cont...)
@vAsiStha (cont)... I definitely don't think that the matches are random. For example, we've got 4275 Eurasian samples, available, so if we were finding matching between literally all, we'd expect 18,271,350 matches, but they only found 104,100 matches at the >8cM level, or 0.5% of all possible pairs.
Another factor is that the matches don't "look" random to me. For an example, I'm looking at all the 12cM matches involving Sweden Pitted Ware Culture right now, and they only match each other at this level with the following exceptions (far down the list): Sweden_Ansarve_Megalithic, Denmark_Viking, Norway_LN_BA, Scotland_Orkney_MBA. Geographically and historically it makes sense, right? That doesn't seem to reflect anything random or something that can be attributed to deep ancestries (although I do question slightly the link of a segment between PWC and Denmark_Viking over such a long time!).
Another example is that the Pakistan_IA samples generally match each other quite strongly at the 12cM level, but, more rarely, they are also picking up some 12cM segments with Steppe_MLBA samples like Kazakhstan_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul, Russia_MLBA_Sintashta, Ukraine_Alexandria_MBA (I6561), Tajikistan_BA_DashtiKozy, Russia_Fatyanovo, Kazakhstan_Zevakinskiy_BA, and not Steppe-rich European LNBA really. (Although I also noticed a link to Uzebekistan_Bustan_BA I11027, just far down the list). Interpretations of the Steppe_MLBA link have varied in this comments section, but we all agree its real, and this seems very intuitively to reflect that.
Or in the above example of Maikop; you're not getting random links with Kura-Araxes or anything like this that would reflect deep ancestry, or links with the Steppe_Eneolithic pair, and neither links between Steppe_EMBA and pops like Kura-Araxes, but specifically the populations that I think you wouldn't be surprised to see contact between, from the archaeology. To take this a little further, consider that you've got both Yamnaya_Ozera_o and Yamnaya_Samara I0433 both matching at >12cM to Caucasus_LateMaikop MK5004. Well, we also know that Yamnaya_Ozera_o and Yamnaya_Samara I0433 also match to each other at the >12cM level. To me that seems to make sense if there's a story where Yamnaya_Ozera_o has some Maikop related links, and then she or her kin are some ancestor of I0433, in a way that strongly dilutes any Maikop ancestry but leaves a long segment. Of course, there may be some other interpretations, and other directions of linkage could be theorised (Steppe->Maikop, although this seems less simple given Yamnaya_Ozera_o).
I do have some questions about the matches - some seem temporally improbable to me. (Like I don't know - is the Sarazm_En to Shah-I-Sohkta link I mentioned above literally plausible given dates, locations and the size of populations involved). But it doesn't seem random, that's for sure.
@gamerz_j: "So Maikop contributed ancestry to Europe after all? Always had the impression they went extinct. Alternatively it could be something via the Caucasus that looks Maikop-like such as the J2b carriers for example discussed earlier."
It looks specific to them and not shown by the Darkveti Eneolithic or later Caucasus samples included, and to reflect samples living at similar times and decay rapidly thereafter. But I would say in context that these are few, rare long segments, in a few samples, considering the sheer number of Steppe_EMBA and Europe_LNBA that could be matched against. (I would caution against any interpretation as a "game changer" in any way about overall ancestry or anything cultural that could be linked to ancestry). However it does seem to show that reasonablly plausibly expected contact happened at the time and place that we might expect it to happen.
Alright, will catch up with you all later, that's about it for me today.
@ Andrze
Agree -
No chance that Yenesei are WSHG related
@Matt Davidski is talking about a CHG-like population that is unadmixed with Levantine and Anatolian ancestry. Any kind of CHG ancestry post the Neolithic carries these two ancestries. If a CHG admixture in Yamnaya is dated to ~5000 BCE then in Davidski's argument it becomes a yet unsampled CHG-like population, presumably the same as the initial CHG-like population that Davidski alludes existing on the steppes, mixing again with EHG-rich populations to form the ancestors of Yamnaya.
@Matt Andrzejewski has comprehension issues when it comes to phenotypes, not only does he think Yamnaya were fair skinned (in reality they were darker than EEFs in the northern Europe and probably darker than most modern MENAs) but also that carrying a gene means that this gene expresses itself (like 50% of Albanians having genes for blue eyes but a much smaller percentage of them actually having blue yes).
@Suevi So we finally have confirmation of early Slavs being mostly drifted Balts and later Slavs being much more mixed, including with Scythians (explains the Nganasan DNA) and Southern Europeans (I doubt it's Illyrians, probably something more southern they mixed with in their communities). Would be fun if they try to calculate the proto-Slavic (AKA real slav) in modern populations, especially in the Balkans while using Illyrian samples too. I can only imagine the identity crisis.
@Rich S. 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)?
@Matt Baltic HGs were 60% intermediate skinned and 40% dark skinned, with 80% blue eyes from some Latvian HG samples. They would be similar to early Anatolian farmers but darker than TRB for example. Saag et al 2021. Also shows how swarthy CWC and MLBA steppe groups were but we already knew this from the Southern Arc phenotypes and a couple of other studies on CWC. Looks like MLBA euros depigmented a bit more due to the agricultural lifestyle they adopted which allowed them to select for lighter genes to be expressed.
@Matt There isn't a paper testing specific Scythian or Sarmatian sources but plenty of studies have found some Nganasan ancestry in many slavic speakers (and non-slavic speakers too). Lamnidis et al 2018, Peltola et al 2023, Jeong et al 2018, Feldman et al 2021.
@Matt Indo-Slavic is rejected in the most recent linguistic papers that have come out. Indo-Iranian share a few archaisms with Baltic but that's pretty much it. An early split of Indo-Iranian is favored now. This is consistent with Reich's 2018 lecture of steppe admixture in India not coming directly from Sintashta but from a later admixed source, and Hasanlu having Yamnaya rather than Sintashta ancestry.
Also note that Armenian and Greek exist in the Balkanic group, they aren't single languages. Whoever is responsible for them is also responsible for Thracian, Phrygian, Albanian etc
@Vara Yeah it wasn't something major. Could be bride trading, or some admixture happening from the Hun/Mongol invasions and then any resulting y-haplogroups being extinct (mtDNA would remain the same). I'm inclined to think that it happened after the early Slavs in the Baltics, going by the wording of the paper. So probably Huns/Mongols.
Scythian admixture could be a statistical illusion due to shared IBD from the Nganasan ancestry. This existed in Northern and NE Europe since at least 1500 BCE. But this would have to be studied with specific sources, in the papers I mentioned they just use distal Siberian Asian ancestry without any proximal Scythian groups.
@DragonHermit In terms of culture and DNA, it does indeed seem like CWC is an offshoot of Yamnaya. Maybe there was a linguistic and cultural split in early Yamnaya which led to CWC, who knows. But yeah the theory that CWC is some kind of PIE is dead, so long for that origin story.
CWC drifting from Yamnaya linguistically could potentially coincide with their cultural drift and eventual split. Not sure if drift led to the split or they were already isolated before that (and then drifted quicker). What's complicated is to try and find out which proto-languages they spoke based on the most recent IE trees. Basically there's an early split of Tocharian and Indo-Iranian, then Italo-Celtic splits first.
Off the top of my head I'd imagine a single proto-Yamnaya language (which might or might not include Tocharian and I-Ir), then there's a split with CWC, and both CWC and Yamnaya (post-CWC split) are speaking two (or more) separate proto-languages. Italo-Celtic splits from CWC and the rest of the CWC languages (known and unknown) begin drifting, meanwhile an unknown number of Yamnaya languages including Balkanic is forming.
Any ideas and objections?
@ Vara
So educate us about the theory you stole from Alberto about how Scythians introduced Slavic into Europe, whilst Kura-Araxes was PIE.
Instead of copy/pasting outdated nonsense claiming that Iranian was spoken since 8000 BC, use qpADM, pertinent Y-DNA and archaeological contexts. I realise that you know nothing of these matters of course, but it'll be good for a laugh
Here I'll even help you
Scy 009 - R1b-M269 !
left pops:
Ukraine_IA_WesternScythian.SG
Hungary_LBA_Kyjatice.SG
Russia_Sarmatian.SG
Moldova_Cimmerian.SG
best coefficients: 0.304 0.629 0.066
TP :0.37
Where are the Slavs ?
@Ringbauer
Beakers do not show links to Yamnaya, and the link to Corded Ware is fairly weak which is strange if the BBC is an offshoot of the CWC.
The relationship of Yamnaya with the CWC in Bohemia is undeniable (uniparentals say so too), but this is from 2,750 BC. Before (i.e. when L51>L151 appears, 2.950 BC) besides the connection with the east (exogamy) we have also connection with the north
Vara
First, B. Hrozny identifies the names Mitani and Medes. I can assure you that he did not draw the conclusion based on sound similarity in the words alone.
Then the quote from Herodotus is clear:
"...marching against the Persians, he attacked them first, and they were the first whom he made subject to the Medes. [2] Then, with these two strong nations at his back, he subjugated one nation of Asia after another. .."
Herodotus was not the only one to write about a Thracian campaign in Asia.
The old authors Philostratus, Euripides, Hyginius, Cicero, Seneca, Apollodorus, Ovid, Nonius, Pliny, etc. they talk about it. Lucius Arrian even credits the Thracian Dionysus with the creation of Indian civilization, adding that Dionysus also gave religion to the Indians. The religion of the Indians is sealed in the Vedas where Mitra and Varuna are mentioned. Therefore, the names of these deities are easily explained through Thracian/Slavic.
"Mithra/Mitra is an Indo-Iranian deity attested both in the Vedas and Avesta"
What does the name Mithra mean then, do you know?
You will not find an answer in Avestan and Iranian. C.A.Wauters thinks that Mitra is not Iranian and he wrote a book about that particular problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KunsthistorischesMuseumMithrabulSacrifice.jpg
You didn’t answer why is Mithra depicted in typically Thracian clothing rather than Indian and Iranian? The answer is simple and obvious.
The first mention of the god Mithras (under the name Mithrasil) was not in Iran or India, but in Asia Minor inhabited by Thracians in the deepest antiquity.
"Baga is attested all throughout Greater Iran. Eg. Baga in the Behistun inscription, Bagabuxsa(Megabyzus), Baghdad...etc."
What you give is obviously not an etymology and as I said you won't find it in Iranian. What is the meaning of Baga?
This is the place to ask you, are you aware why Avestan has 3 genders, similar to the clear IE core including Sanskrit, and Iranian has none, similar to typical non-IE languages?
You won't like the answer.
This absence of gender in Iranian is not a matter of some minor inconsistency, the grammatical structure of a language is the most stable part of a language. There is a very good reason for that change.
I have to disappoint you but Iran and Iranians have zero role in IE matter.
@natsunoame
„What does the name Mithra mean then, do you know?”
Vedic and Iranian gods have Slavic etymology.
For example:
Slavic.’ Ogni’–> Sanskrit ‘Agni’
‘o’> ‘a’
Another common sound change is ‘l’> ‘r’
In Slavic we have roots ‘mil-/mir-‘‘ “miłość, mir, pokój”, “love, peace, order” and ‘mir-‘ is linked with Mitra:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/mir%D1%8A
In Slavic religion the Sun, heavenly fire, the source of light was also the source of love and peace jest i.e. the Sun =‘mil-/mir-‘
Vedic Mitra =Agni =heavenly fire i.e. love and peace and order.
See RV.7.12.3; 3.5.4; 5.3.1 etc.
That idea that the sun was the source of love and peace was borrowed from Slavs by Thracians, Phrygians, Greeks (Orphic), Indo-Aryans, Iranians and even Christians via Orphism (Christ is love and the sun).
Rob
"So educate us about the theory you stole from Alberto about how Scythians introduced Slavic into Europe,"
Bobby, you're so stupid you can't realize I am arguing for Balto-Slavic being part of NWIE. At this point your schizophrenia is probably not a joke.
"Where are the Slavs ?"
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.
"A group of three in-dividuals (scy009, scy010, and scy303) showed genetic affinity to north European populations, hereafter referred to as a north European (NE) cluster."
"archaeological contexts."
That's exactly why I brought up scy009. It shows non-"Scythians" in a Scythian context.
This obviously happens quite often. Let me educate you.
Eg. Palmyrene was clearly not ethnically Roman yet it was engrossed in Roman culture and spread Roman influence to the point that centuries later Muawiya wrote his inscription in Greek after restoring the baths. No one is saying Odaenathus and Muawiya are pure blooded Albanese descendants of the Julli just like nobody's saying Proto-Slavs come from Scythians(except the voices in your head).
With the current data Chernoles being the Proto-Slavic homeland is untenable yet check this out:
"the Chornoles culture -- Scythians --+ Iate LC groups (or, possibly, the Chornoles culture --' Srythians ---' the Milograd culture ---.' late LC groups)... Its substratum could have been a cultural element identified with nomadic Scythian populations"
http://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl:8080/bitstream/10593/3687/1/C14%20-%20Baltic-Pont.pdf
Raids as far as the Lusatian culture:
"While Scythian invasions and their traces discovered in destroyed Lusatian settlements are beyond dispute."
"in Gorzyce, Tarnów district (Szpunar et al. 2009), which indicates the significant spread of eastern impacts, reaching the areas of Lesser Poland. The presence of these artefacts in the Central European zone is considered a sign of adaptation of nomadic elements and extensive contact with the steppe population."
https://www.academia.edu/44959467/The_Chotyniec_agglomeration_and_its_importance_for_interpretation_of_the_so_called_Scythian_finds_from_south_eastern_Poland
There's much more in Russian but I can't bother google translating Sedov and other Soviets archaeologists for you.
Scythian influence was all over Eastern Europe much like Greek was all over West Asia post-Alexander.
@natsu
Oh no, crackpottery. What did I get myself into.
"B. Hrozny identifies the names Mitani and Medes. I can assure you that he did not draw the conclusion based on sound similarity in the words alone."
>>Incorrect. Mitanni comes from the name of an individual called Maitta, the alleged founder of the clan, who doesn't show up in contemporary sources yet: "de Martino notes that the name of the kingdom, etymologized as “land of Maitta”, may refer to an eponymous founder" (Schwartz, 2014)
"marching against the Persians, he attacked them first, and they were the first whom he made subject to the Medes. [2] Then, with these two strong nations at his back, he subjugated one nation of Asia after another."
>>You realize Herodotus claims that Deioces became king in Ecbatana in western Iran right and didn't fly from Thrace?
How did the Thracians teleport to Western Iran I wonder? This is not a Thracian campaign. Learn to read. Show me a quote where it says Thracians campaigned in Media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deioces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes#:~:text=The%20Medes%20%2F%CB%88mi%CB%90,between%20western%20and%20northern%20Iran.
BTW no evidence of Deioces kingship in contemporary sources.
"What does the name Mithra mean then, do you know?"
>> I do, as does every Indo-Europeanist, Iranologist, Indologist and average person who can google stuff:
"Both Vedic Mitra and Avestan Mithra derive from an Indo-Iranian common noun *mitra-, generally reconstructed to have meant "covenant, treaty, agreement, promise." This meaning is preserved in Avestan miθra "covenant." In Sanskrit and modern Indo-Aryan languages, mitra means "friend," one of the aspects of bonding and alliance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra
C.A Wauters is irrelevant and is never cited in any relevant publication.
"You didn’t answer why is Mithra depicted in typically Thracian clothing rather than Indian and Iranian? The answer is simple and obvious."
>> Yes it's obvious because the Romans picked it up from Western Anatolia
Here is Mithra depicted as Sasanian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra#/media/File:Mithra_(4684713252).jpg
"The first mention of the god Mithras (under the name Mithrasil) was not in Iran or India, but in Asia Minor inhabited by Thracians in the deepest antiquity."
The first mention of Mitra is in the Mitanni scripts in Syrio-Anatolia 1400BCE.
"What you give is obviously not an etymology and as I said you won't find it in Iranian. What is the meaning of Baga?"
Except it is found in Iranian.
"Baga- is attested in early and late Iranian with two meanings (1) agent noun “distributor,” glossed by Parsi Sanskrit vibhaktar- and (2) noun of action and result “portion.”"
https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baga-an-old-iranian-term-for-god-sometimes-designating-a-specific-god
"This is the place to ask you, are you aware why Avestan has 3 genders, similar to the clear IE core including Sanskrit, and Iranian has none"
But Avestan is an Iranian language and Old Persian also has 3 genders.
You could've gotten the above answers by googling.
@Orpheus
^Is this what you deal with if you know what I mean?
@Andrzejewski
I wouldn't listen to linguists when it comes to homelands and who spoke what since it's based on some ridiculious presumptions (salmon, elephant, snow and rain arguments come to mind). This is especially true when it comes to Blazek.
However, he has to be given credit for tackling problems that other linguists couldn't solve. For example, he showed recently that there is linguistic evidence for the PIE smith that has always been reconstructed based on typology.
Garska claiming that Bell Beaker has "weak" links to Corded Ware, when R-P312's predecessor R-L151 shows up in pure Corded Ware burial OBR003 (2911-2875 cal BC) complete with a Corded Ware hammer and in typical Corded Ware East-West flexed position shows he is a first rate charlatan and snake oil salesman of the highest caliber.
Here is an image of the burial for those that have forgotten: https://i.postimg.cc/kXn29wYy/Czech-Republic-CWC-Burial-OBR003-L151.jpg
This looks like an interesting thesis: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/346698/Thesis_full.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
"I dated the genetic formation of the Yamnaya from 16 individuals of the 17 present in my MesoNeo subset (Table 4.4). Most estimated admixture dates are 5000-6000 years before present, a millennium or so before their believed cultural formation. Three outlier samples have inferred admixture times of more than 7000years ago.These all have large standard errors on the estimates and so are less reliable. However, even allowing for larger confidence intervals based on higher standard errors, their admixture times are placed well before 6,000 years before present. NEO212 is the oldest of these samples and falls between the other Yamnaya individuals and Eastern hunter gatherers in PC space which suggests it might be a relatively early hybrid. These admixture dates are much older than the archaeological appearance of the Yamnaya and so, subject to technical artefacts they suggest extended prior genetic contact between EHG and CHG well before the emergence of the Yamnaya culture, potentially early as 7000 years ago."
@Gaska, in 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.
Most BBC individuals, as they've labelled them, have at least one match at this level, and the ones that did not show an overrepresentation of unusual individuals (GBVPO.SG:France_LaClape_LN_EMBA_BellBeakerPossible.SG, GBVPL.SG:France_LaClape_LN_EMBA_BellBeakerPossible_oNeolithic.SG, I10345:France_EBA_BellBeaker_oEEF, I4895:Czech_BellBeaker, I7044:Hungary_EBA_BellBeaker, I2741:Hungary_EBA_BellBeaker, I2477:Italy_North_BellBeaker_2, I2364:Hungary_EBA_BellBeaker, I5531:Germany_BellBeaker, I13027:Netherlands_LNB_EBA_BellBeaker, I3594:Germany_BellBeaker, pcw260_noUDG.SG:Poland_Southeast_BellBeaker.SG). They don't seem to label any Iberian sample as Beaker here though.
@gamerz_J
This looks like an interesting thesis: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/346698/Thesis_full.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
This looks like the usual nonsense and a total fail.
Yamnaya is mainly a mixture between Progress-like and Ukraine_N-like populations.
It's hard to say when this happened, but probably well before 4,000 BCE.
And Progress-like populations probably already existed on the steppe well before 5,000 BCE.
@Davidski
I cannot find the ancient Australians dna samples anywhere in plink or eigenstrat format, but I figured since they are in G25, you must have them somewhere? Would that be possible to share them in plink or eigenstrat format?
I know I might be asking too much, but I decided to try my luck anyway...
Thanks!
Post a Comment