Hello authors, Thanks for the interesting preprint and data. However, I'd like to see you address a couple of technical issues and perhaps one theoretical issue in the final manuscript: - the output you posted shows some unusual results, which are potentially false positives that appear to be concentrated among the shotgun and noUDG samples. I'm guessing that this is due to the same types of ancient DNA damage creating IBD-like patterns in these samples. If so, isn't there a risk that many or even most of the individuals in your analysis are affected by this problem to some degree, which might be skewing your estimates of genealogical relatedness between them? - many individuals from groups that have experienced founder effects, such as Ashkenazi Jews, appear to be close genetic cousins, even though they're not genealogical cousins. Basically, the reason for this is reduced haplotype diversity in such populations. Have you considered the possibility that at least some of the close relationships that you're seeing between individuals and populations might be exaggerated by founder effects? - thanks to ancient DNA we've learned that the Yamnaya phenomenon isn't just an archeological horizon, but also a closely related and genetically very similar group of people. Indeed, in my mind, ancient DNA has helped to redefine the Yamnaya concept, with Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b-Z2103 now being one of the key traits of the Yamnaya identity. So considering that the Corded Ware people are not rich in R1b-Z2103, and even the earliest Corded Ware individuals are somewhat different from the Yamnaya people in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, it doesn't seem right to keep claiming that the Corded Ware population is derived from Yamnaya. I can't see anything in your IBD data that would preclude the idea that the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples were different populations derived from the same as yet unsampled pre-Yamnaya/post-Sredny steppe group.See also... Dear Harald #2 On the origin of the Corded Ware people
Saturday, April 8, 2023
Dear Harald...
I've started analyzing the Identity-by-Descent (IBD) data from the recent Ringbauer et al. preprint (see here). Unfortunately, it'll take me a few weeks to do this properly, so I won't be able to write anything detailed on the topic for a while.
Meantime, this is the comment that I left for the authors at bioRxiv (at this time it's still being approved, but it should appear there within a day or so, possibly along with a reply from the authors):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
443 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 443 Newer› Newest»"You think a large migration is a necessary condition for Y haplogroups to travel?
J1 from Caucasus/Iran found in Karelia and Popovo EHG with minimal autosomal ancestry from south. How did it happen?"
Karelian and Popovo date back to 5000-7000 BC, with J1 and accompanying CHG ancestry likely arriving during the Paleolithic era.
CHG admixture is detectable in nearly all HGs from Russia and Ukraine...
This ancestry is more evident in Eastern European HGs as we near the Forest-Steppe border and further south.
There's also an J1 in the unpublished Khvalynsk samples, one of which belongs to a clade that formed around 17,300 years ago (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-CTS1026 - Afanasevo samle from Mongolia belongs to that clade as well), probably when it entered Europe from the Caucasus.
Ten thousand years later, how much CHG ancestry would you expect to find?
The TMRCA for modern Y3+ individuals and the Y3+ Abashaevo samples? A mere 4,500 years ago. Less than half of that.
"You think a large migration is a necessary condition for Y haplogroups to travel?"
Also, what's the argument you're trying to make? That there's no Steppe-MLBA in India at all? C'mon, bud, even you must admit that's a bit far-fetched!
"I always thought you are R1a-L657 but turns out you have not even done a dna test which makes your obsession and coping about R1a-Y3 and R1a-L657 even funnier."
You Kang about my pappa strongest after having done a dna test.
I'm here for the scientific truth, not 'my pappa strongest' kanging, which is why I rely on the data, unclouded by my personal ancestry.
The fact of the matter simply is this. L657 expanded around 2000bce, or slightly before. Steppe autosomal ancestry does not touch India before 1500bce in any detectable manner. There is no L657 in either any of the steppe sources you profess, neither is it there in the 45 swat males, swat being the gateway into the subcontinent. Neither does north of swat have any modern group with its own exclusive L657+ subclade. In no shape or form is an invasion of thousands of L657 migrants concluded from this data. On the other hand, 70% of Indian R1a is under L657, about 15% of all males.
Put 2 and 2 together, and find a solution to this conundrum with your genius brain.
@altvred
"Also, what's the argument you're trying to make? That there's no Steppe-MLBA in India at all?
Not even worth responding to.
@Freakk and others like him
1) I am not surprised by you and the Indians that you reveal so many contradictions in your thoughts and statements. They are partly due to the wounds inflicted by colonialism that resonate here. On the one hand, we must admire the achievements of the Indians from the colonial times (it was not a waste of time!), and on the other hand, we must remember the humiliation and suffering suffered. Against this background, contradictory political ideologies, economic concepts and a critical attitude to scientific achievements arise: suspicions that they do not favor colonial ideology.
Therefore, the author of "Early Indians", Tony Joseph, advises well: let's not look for traces of some Indo-European invasion and conquest; let us rather talk about migration, because this is how all the nations and states of Europe and Asia arose.
2) The migration from Europe to India of the R1a paternal line (I counted 104 rather ancient branches on the Yfull tree) lasted many centuries, leaving behind hundreds of cemeteries and graves. Exogamous marriages during migration gradually reduced the original autosomal identity. But the paternal genetic lineage, Y-DNA-R1a-Z645, its patriarchy and partilinearity, give a hundred percent identification of this ancient and present lineage among Indo-Iranian Aryans and European Balto-Slavs; he was the cause of the migration.
3) Moorjani et al. in 2013 write that from about 2200 BC to about 900 BC (beforeChrist) migrating Indo-Europeans mixed with the Dravidians at least twice, sharing some genomes with him, just as they also shared with the Balto-Slavs (you may have seen in the work of A.K.Pathak 2018, the picture of the close genetic relationship of the Vedic clans, especially the Rors clan, with the Balto-Slavs). These close origins and entangled migration routes of IE and DR are certainly a great obstacle for geneticists to establish a clear course and routes of migration. Do not be surprised at the great shortcomings of their successes. But I admire their enthusiasm and perseverance in these works!
@vasistha
I would not care about these funny copes and fairy tales if not for the fact that this illiterate ultranationalist sentiment sabotages archaeological and (archaeo)genetic research of South Asia. Thanks to this we have in the last 30 years few competent archaeological works in South Asia and even modern population genomics is in a very poor state. Where for example is the big R1a study Chaubey promised? He tested hundreds of Indians and seeing the results would be very interesting but I guess the results not supported R1a from Neolithic India hence he not publishing it. If anything this sabotaging of research is quite insulting to your ancestors and gives a bad image of India.
@Davidski It's been a while since I looked up that study, from what I remember (and what I found when looking at it again) they aren't comparing the fits of Yamnaya ancestry and Sintashta/Andronovo ancestry with proxies, but do distal models instead. Their fits hover around ~0.1-0.2 area.
So it's probably Yamnaya ancestry at the earliest and Sintashta/Andronovo ancestry later on. Reich hasn't commented on the paper as far as I know. He addressed the paper in the pdf of the 2018 lecture by simply saying that models Sintashta/Andronovo related ancestry can statistically work (in those distal models). Which I didn't argue against.
In any case a study will be out on that sooner or later I guess.
Also the word for lions is related to the same word in surrounding languages East and South of Anatolia at pretty early dates, not that lions didn't exist. It's not the same line of argument as wheels, wine etc
@LGK You're the one arguing against the paper you linked yourself as evidence so I guess you're pretty stupid after all.
"only that the local arrival of their genetic signature is associated with a period of upheaval in the region"
It isn't. The arrival of steppe ancestry is older, and there's nothing associating the steppe-admixed communities of the time with the upheavals. The paper you linked does mention that there are other communities associated with them though.
"No shit they would appear in northern Greece slightly earlier than destructions or their appearance further south"
Oldest samples are found near right next to Athens and in Boetia so you're wrong even in that. Logkas samples are later. As for the rest of your argument it's a non-sequitur but I guess your pea-sized brain failed to notice it.
"accompanied by cultural changes"
Wanna try and find in the paper what kind of changes in the affected areas, and where can they be traced back to?
Can you actually provide a source for your argument or will you keep sperging? There's nothing tying the small and literally insignificant random villages with steppe ancestry with any change in the area. Even the local culture there isn't anything noteworthy. But you can try and find a source arguing against this, I'd rather read that instead of your schizo ramblings.
Here's the same line of argument: "The appearance of CHG-rich populations and cultures from south of the Caucasus in the steppe coincides with highly significant changes in religion, culture, and lifestyle." Damn guess you really proved IE homeland is south of the caucasus.
Now on top of all that you'll have to prove how these steppe-harboring samples are the steppe source in Mycenaeans, since this is the actual argument. Good luck lol
@Simon_W "That is, to be ready to accept whatever the evidence suggests. In contrast, it's fatal to start with a preconceived conception and then to look how the evidence might fit into it."
Of course. I'm afraid this isn't a habit around here though heh
@Folker Neither pure pastoralists/nomads. That's the point, and this is why the steppe hypothesis now favors Sredny.
@CeRcVa Wine is brought up due to wine cultivation. It's nowhere near the steppe and first appears in the proposed homeland of the Southern Arc
Not sure if it is also found in nearby (south of the caucasus) ancient non-IE languages. Have not checked it in a while
@Davidski Eh not really, most recent linguistic papers pretty much discard Sintashta/Andronovo and any post-CWC/euro-IE-associated population. Combined with Vedic elements in BMAC (and a lack of them in the steppe), R1b Yamnaya instead of R1a MLBA in Mittani, the aDNA must make a really strong case to support a nEast Caspian origin of I-Ir. Remains to be seen I guess, but an uphill battle.
@Copper Axe The line of thinking is probably that these Sintashta-descending (among others, but a good chunk of Sintashta) people changed their language even though their ancestors were seen as epic heroes but got cucked by a couple of siberian nomads (language shift in this case is factual and documented), whereas R1a in India is not associated with a language shift.
Could be wrong though, I'm not in his head.
@Altvred Honestly it would be more convincing to look at the timeline. All R1a in India could be from the steppe, but if it doesn't tie with I-Ir, Vedic etc then it's pointless. Like the N in various IE-speaking populations.
@StP
You are ignorant of the research, but you are also not a good reader.
Moorjani 2013 clearly says western admixture in IE groups is much younger. The dates provided are iron age dates.
"First, nearly all groups experienced major mixture in the last few thousand years, including tribal groups like the Bhil, Chamar, and Kallar that might be expected to be more isolated. Second, the date estimates are typically more recent in Indo-Europeans (average of 72 generations) compared to Dravidians (108 generations)"
Specific admixture generations from that paper (Table 1):
Kshatriya - 78 gens
Brahmin - 85 & 65 gens (2 groups analyzed)
Sindhi - 67 gens
Kashmiri Pandit - 103 gens
Pathan - 73 gens
"Our estimated dates of mixture correlate to geography and language, with northern groups that speak Indo-European languages having significantly younger admixture dates than southern groups that speak Dravidian languages. This shows that at least some of the history of population mixture in India is related to the spread of languages in the subcontinent. One possible explanation for the generally younger dates in northern Indians is that after an original mixture event of ANI and ASI that contributed to all present-day Indians, some northern groups received additional gene flow from groups with high proportions of West Eurasian ancestry, bringing down their average mixture date."
Wrt Tony Joseph - He's a journalist, not a scientist, not even worth reading.
Wrt Balto slavic & Indo Iranian
I understand that you are unaware of some of the opinions, so ill list them.
Kortlandt 2016 - "The large majority of special correspondences between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are archaisms, not innovations. This implies that a comparison of Balto-Slavic with Indo-Iranian leads to a reconstruction of an early stage of Indo-European."
Kummel 2022 - "Indo-Iranian does not have a clear next relative."
Pronk 2022 - "The discussion above leads to the conclusion that there are hardly any facts that can be better explained if it is assumed that Balto-Slavic was itself part of a larger subgroup of Indo-European."
Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990 - Greek-Armenian-IndoIranian branch
Erich Hamp, 2012 - Asiatic IE, Indo-Iranian next to split off after Anatolian.
Correction: Lions were an indication when PIA was located near Khvalynsk instead of Sredny (as far as I know there weren't any lions there). Lion remains have been found near Sredny's and CTC's area, so in a scenario where PIA developed in Sredny independently of the language they spoke before, a word for lions in PIA isn't a problem for the steppe hypothesis. (It was a different word with cognates in other non-IE languages, not lions)
A potential lack of lions during early Sredny's timeframe would be a problem though, but that's hypothetical and an overall weak argument imo. So overall lions don't seem to be a problem, unless proven otherwise.
@vAsiSTha Isn't it also a problem of populations? Steppe cultures of the time (MLBA) were a few hundreds at best, meanwhile CA and SA had several hundred thousands (basically the opposite of the mass immigration in BA Europe). Side-by-side living of Andronovo and BMAC would also point at a different picture.
Wrt earliest steppe ancestry, have you tested what's the best fit for it (Yamnaya-related or Sintashta/Andronovo-related)?
@David ever thought of allowing some people to have free G25 results?that way samples(that people can find through gedmatch or other DNA companies) from unsampled areas could be added to the spreadsheet.It's easier than trying to convince such people to go through the whole process and pay or to have other hobbyists do it for them.Some site that they could just upload the raw data and get the result would also help.
@Orpheus
Steppe ancestry arrived in India via Sintashta-related groups. There weren't any Yamnaya migrations into India.
David Reich got it wrong initially. Read his book where he obviously gets it wrong.
But he accepts now that steppe ancestry arrived in India via Sintashta-related groups. See that's why he's putting his name on papers that clearly spell this out. Email him and ask him if you don't believe me.
I don't have time to educate you here. Pull your head out of your ass.
@orpheus
Best steppe source in swat as well as modern south asians is a bmac admixed andronovo source. Da382 Turkmenistan_ia from iron age Yaz culture fits best within the available samples wrt qpAdm.
@Rob
The fact that you threw a tantrum of an offended child there is all that you are showing there and everyone saw it, that's why the reaction is like this. Well, it's not a shepherd from a mountain Balkan village who should talk about Russian archaeologists :)
@ Vladimir
I live in a metropolis, you can’t even get your jokes right
I actually have great patience in dealing with morons like you , but every now and then you need to be slapped into place :)
I get you feel the weight of your multiple Soviet fails , but projecting your orientalist fantasies isn’t going to fix your problems
It’s ok that you’re a nobody & a halfwit, but it’s your lies that makes you a lameass, like your compatriot Archie.
So learn some basics instead of pretending to be an expert
Here is Vlad & the halfwits demonstrating their complete stupidity about Balto-Slavic drift being from Russia
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?26154-Slavic-Chronology&p=926923#post926923
Btw Vlad, Balkan mountain villages are beautiful. Certainly better than whatever Soviet concrete shithole you’re from
And why pay out Balkan people when your boyfriend Probislav is from there ?
Orpheus: @vAsiSTha Isn't it also a problem of populations? Steppe cultures of the time (MLBA) were a few hundreds at best, meanwhile CA and SA had several hundred thousands (basically the opposite of the mass immigration in BA Europe). Side-by-side living of Andronovo and BMAC would also point at a different picture.
I doubt they ever had population sizes in the hundreds? Lack of strong genetic drift visible in Fst. However probably lower (judging by some significant IBD)?
Compound growth over even 300-600 years can drastically alter relative sizes - https://imgur.com/a/CUoXHZx
@Rob
Of course, I could arrange a skirmish here, which is better, but I have many other things to do and I do not suffer from an inferiority complex to prove something to you. And Pribislav is a good guy, like Mikhail from Poland and the inhabitants of the Yellow River and so on, it's not about the Balkan village, but about your problems that you put on the surface. Well, the failures of the Soviet government is a relative question. You can be convinced of the success of the post-Soviet regime when you return from the metropolis back to a mountain village in Macedonia and see post-Soviet ruins there.
@Rob
It seems that at least in SE Poland some potentially unadmixed HG survived till the end of the 3rd millennium BC:
Certain late Mesolithic populations underwent
‘Beaker’ acculturation, but some continued to
function in undisturbed form (including the para-
Neolithic form), at least until the end of the 3rd mil-
lennium BC
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352781214_The_Neolithic_vs_the_Mesolithic_in_Southern_Poland_Is_Everything_Known_Yet
Moreover there's a sudden uptick of WHG-related ancestry around Carpathians in the Bronze Age and it's hard to explain it without one or more genetically nearly pure WHG groups being present in the vicinity of the Carpathians.
@ Arza
Maybe, but I prefer north-central Poland. It housed a greater denstiy of HGs, near the resouce-rich Baltic.
Whatever the case, no way they came from 'the East'. Not even Ukraine is a contender - these people in LBA were post-Fatyanavids & Thracians. Little wonder such groups were appearing in Central Europe.
@ Vladimir
LOL Vlad. You skirmish a 6'5'' Yugoslav thouroughbreed ? Russia doesnt even have Penicillin these days dude.. you won't make it
As i said, I do understand that you want to sound important. But let's face it, you're wrong about everything, and because you're an obsequious anti-European Troll it just riles you up that your Nostratic pseudo-sicence never worked out
And me saying this is because Im Australian, I have nowhere to 'go back to', and we say it 100% straight.
You're so dumb & prejudiced your only rebuttle is strawman deflections ''er.. Balkans''. Is the Baltic in the Balkans ? Is west Ukraine in the Balkans ? You aren't capable of retorting genetics & history apart from some incoherent verbal diarrhoea, which for some reason earns applause by morons like Cold Mountains, 'Sir" Michal the Lame & your Belgradian whore.
Yes, I agree. I think in Europe, we can also see some correlation between Y-DNA and autosomal. Certain languages correlate with certain PC1 ranges:
https://postimg.cc/R6xmWgqC
If a certain ancient sample has right Y-DNA and falls within right autosomal PC1 range, then there is high probability that it belongs to certain ethnicity. In case Y-DNA and PC1 range do not correlate, then the ethnicity is disputable.
If this is correct then wouldn’t you agree that certain Fuzesabony, Nitra samples and Trzciniec samples which Z282 and Slavic PC1 range could be linked with Slavic ethnicity. Abashevo if it is within Slavic autosomal range would also be debatable.
@Davidski
“Y-chromosome haplogroups are the most important markers when it comes to ancient culture and language expansions, because such expansions were usually male biased.
The order is this:
- Y-DNA
- autosomal
- mtDNA”
Sorry, above should be pasted before words "Yes, I agree".
@Rob
you'd rather be worried about the fact that in Australia they didn't cut welfare for idlers like you, and not about Russian penicillin :)
@vAsiSTha
I will answer your arguments only when I understand how they relate to my PIE and BR data, and whether they undermine my arguments, those that I have not yet provided.
You write something from Moorjani, which, however, is not related to what I gave from the same paper.
You mention Tony Joseph, but only rather his person, that he is not a scientist and not worth reading.
Meanwhile, I did not write about the person (although I know that he is a writer, columnist, publisher and for the book "Early Indians" he receives praise and valuable public awards) but about what he writes about IE conquests and migrations). So we're falling apart!
I have a suggestion.
Read the work of A.K. Pathak et al. 2018 in which he gives a lot of clear material for discussion: The Genetic Ancestry of Modern Indus Valley Populations from Northwest India,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6288199/bin/mmc6.pdf.
And supplemental Date:
https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.10.022/attachment/711bfd84-99c1-44e6-8b40-fbde264460f6/mmc1.pdf
There is, for example, Fig 2A, about how the Vedic clans, especially the Roros, choose Balto-Slavs as their closest genetic relatives in IBD.
There is Fig. S2B, a heatmap you can read about Indians IE, Dravidian IE, European IE to understand who is close to whom or who is from whom
Lots of valuable data there.
Y-chromosome haplogroups are the most important markers when it comes to ancient culture and language expansions, because such expansions were usually male biased.
The order is this:
- Y-DNA
- autosomal
- mtDNA”
Autosomal = 96% of nuclear dna
y = 2%
Only absolute annihilation of logic explains the reversed order of importance.
@vAsiSTha I was mostly curious about the earliest samples. So if it's Sintashta/Andronovo-related, Mittani got their steppe from the Yamnaya-related ancestry that appears in Armenia, while retaining culture and language from BMAC (or something similar)? Very interesting, it would mean that they started moving before any steppe made it through BMAC.
This would point at I-Ir reaching S-C Asia without any steppe accompanying it (if the I-Ir speakers had any to begin with).
@Matt Oh I'm talking about the entire area (steppe, CA, SA), not specific cultures/sites like BMAC. BMAC was obviously lower (what's interesting is that even then it was a pretty big obstacle for Andronovo who would rather settle near them).
@Davidski Sure, DNA can be a statistical issue at the end of the day (and a Sintashta-related source outcompeting Yamnaya). I won't insist on it.
2_3/3
Bonus: "Furthermore, the presence of "new/intrusive" cultural elements such as apsidal houses, terracotta anchors, shaft-hole hammer-axes, ritual tumuli, and intramural burials precede the EHIII period in Greece and are in actuality attributed to indigenous developments (i.e. terracotta anchors from Boeotia; ritual tumuli from Ayia Sophia in Neolithic Thessaly), as well as continuous contacts during the EHII–MH period between mainland Greece and various areas such as western Asia Minor, the Cyclades, Albania, and Dalmatia.[16] Changes in climate also appear to have contributed to the significant cultural transformations that occurred in Greece between the EHII period and the EHIII period (c. 2200 BCE).[17]"
All of this was easily found with a search, not even paywalled.
@Vladimir Yugos suffer from both schizophrenia and inferiority complex, let alone LARPing as slavs while being slavicized locals for the most part. I wouldn't be expecting much from that poor soul, let him be (he has enough problems already).
Bonus schizo points for diaspora status
Very late reply due to a health emergency (better now thankfully).
@Folker/Rob - "Why? Agricultural terms are used by farmers. It is safe to see the early Anatolians as pastoralists, not farmers. It is not the same ecological niche."
Ruling over farmers would necessacite the terminology though.
"Therefore, termes related to agriculture found in the different IE languages are different because imported from different languages (the one of the people living where IE adopted agriculture)."
They're uniform outside of Anatolian though. So it helps trace their history.
@Rob - it would help to know which western Anatolian steppe-admixed samples you're referring to then. Could you point to them for me? Thanks.
"(and a Sintashta-related source outcompeting Yamnaya)"
Meant that the opposite of this would be a statistical illusion, and a more fitting proxy with Sintashta ancestry would give better fits.
In case a couple of previous comments were too long: The TL;DR for the Helladic argument is from Wiener (the paper LGK linked here earlier) and Skourtanioti et al 2023. Skourtanioti mentions Iranian-related ancestry increasing around the EH III (Nea Styra sample), there are no northern cultural influences (but there are Minoan and Anatolian influences, especially Minoan influence in the early Mycenaean shaft graves), Wiener even explicitly mentions how the common view now is that the turmoil was unrelated to any migrations and is attributed to local groups instead. The settlements in question are just part of the Helladic culture of the time, and any steppe ancestry predates EH III since in its earliest forms it's already admixed with locals.
Earliest samples with steppe-related ancestry are Koptekin's from 2100 BCE. Clemente's are from 1950 and 1850 BCE average, and they're CWC-related in all three studies analyzing them (Clemente, Skourtanioti, Ringbauer).
One could argue that there was a general decline in the mainland a few centuries after steppe ancestry appeared, presumably acting as a barbarizing downgrade or whatever.
A few Cetina influences are found, but postdate the initial appearance of steppe ancestry (and linguistically don't fit the picture either).
One of the two papers also mentions that the upheavals started from east to west, starting from Anatolia and further east (instead of north to south). I think it was Wiener's, since he mentions BA Anatolian groups being suspected for some of the unrest.
The intrusion argument was just a rationalization for the language change. Wiener explicitly states so when explaining how this position got discarded over time since no actual intrusion let alone cultural influence can be found, besides actually some eastern one. The aDNA corroborates this since the steppe-admixed settlements are nothing noteworthy, just typical sedentary farmers of the time.
However there's no requirement for some kind of unrest in order to explain the language change (which of course happened), so idk why you cling to it @LGK. My initial comment was exactly about this, there are population movements and language change without any significant archaeological trace, let alone destruction, associated with them.
@StP Longer IBD with from what I can see Latvians, Lithuanians, Russians, Swedes and Ukrainians would point at a later arrival of steppe ancestry in India (=more recent), from a Sintashta-related source, possibly carrying some minor Siberian ancestry with it. Estonians sharing longer segments whereas Belarusians shorter could also point at this (but not necessarily).
@ East Pole
There was probably a wide-spread dialect continuum including the obvious Balto-Slavic, other now extinct dialects of central-northern Europe, pre-Indo-Aryan. The link with Thracian is probably mediated via Fatayanovo-derived R1a-Z93
@ Vlad
Well I won't disclose how much tax I "donate" to welfare, but lets say its probably to sustain our friend Orpheus' 'chronic back pain' disability pension
@ Orpheus
There you go again with "LARP", whatever that means. Try getting off lame millenial internet chat forums, go outside & learn some new vocab. Maybe your Nona can set you up with a nice girlfriend, so you can be less of an Incel :)
Perhaps I'd suffer from I.C. if I were an endogamous Islander manlet like you, but being Slav/ Roman Macedonia mix is pretty great, not that it defines me.
And I'm not sure how in all that bulk copy/pasting you still haven't learned about the Bronze Age migrations into Greece from the Balkans or the Slavic migrations which impacted right across the Balkans.
@ Ryan
''- it would help to know which western Anatolian steppe-admixed samples you're referring to then. Could you point to them for me? Thanks.''
The problem with genetics studies so far is they essentialise genetic categories such as 'steppe', "Farmer", 'WHG', "EHG". It is broadly useful, but that misses a lot of detail. It is no longer an adequate approach for complex questions and complex patterns of connectivity.
The female Barcin_C c 3600 bc (Lazaridies 2015) has Eneolithic steppe ancestry & the Yassitepe male from 2200 BC (Lazarides 2023) has a steppe -affiliated lineage (under I2a-M223) although his genome-wide affinity is an EEF/ AZE_N mix. There's of course a lot more to it, but it cant be tackled in a paragraph, and we just need more data from C-W Anatolia between 4000 & 2000 BC.
@Ryan
There's definitely steppe ancestry in the few Anatolian samples nearest to Troy, which makes sense, although everything would make more sense if we actually had samples from Troy.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-precursor-of-trojans.html
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/08/dear-iosif.html
@Rob
“There was probably a wide-spread dialect continuum including the obvious Balto-Slavic, other now extinct dialects of central-northern Europe, pre-Indo-Aryan. The link with Thracian is probably mediated via Fatayanovo-derived R1a-Z93”
Yes, there was probably a wide-spread Indo-Slavic dialect continuum in Eastern Europe. The question is how Slavic was Indo-Slavic spoken by populations within Slavic PC1 with R1a-Z282 Y-DNA.
@Orpheus said: „Longer IBD with from what I can see Latvians, Lithuanians, Russians, Swedes and Ukrainians would point at a later arrival of steppe ancestry in India (=more recent), from a Sintashta-related source, possibly carrying some minor Siberian ancestry with it. Estonians sharing longer segments whereas Belarusians shorter could also point at this (but not necessarily).”
I don't know what the problem is.
I have not discussed the time of IE or DR's arrival in India, but that Moorjani's time of multiple genetic contacts between IE and DR from about 4,200 to 1,900 yBP shows us that this could not have happened somewhere around the Indian peninsula, but began much earlier, during the established stay of the Indian IE in Europe (e.g. in the Fatyanovo culture).
This contact time, 4200-1900 BP, is given by Moorjani probably four times.
It also provides a confirmatory timeline of these contacts:
Dates of DNA mixture inter Indian IE and DR (about n.18): from 2200 yBP to 1900 yBP.
3480…2784…3277…4176…3277…2262…2407…3103…2465….1856…2175…2262…2204…2494…1885…1943…2987…2117
@Vasistha/Ashish
You once mentioned the following in response to RK:
"I think R1a-Y3 (formation date 2600bce) formed from Fatyanovo related R-Z94 near India. But there is a small chance it did form in steppe itself. However, its subclades R-Y27 and L657 (formation date 2200bce) have a 99.9% chance of having formed near indian subcontinent, given their absence in aDna and in modern steppes/europeans. This is only relevant in providing evidence against a mass male mediated steppe invasion of L657 males. After all, 80% or more of R1a in India is L657+. So if L657 was born in India in 2200bce in a single man, it completely negates Narasimhan 2019 claim of male biased steppe admixture in modern Indians (they didnt bother to differentiate subclades of Z94). Only the R1a-Z2124+ variants are definitely related to steppe autosomal ancestry."
So we have R1a-Y3 > Y2 > Y27 > L657. Now Y3 and Y2 might have been found in Eastern Europe on the forest-steppe.
What happens if even R1a-Y27 is also found in Eastern Europe around its TRMCA? Perhaps around ~4.4kya? Will you change your mind about R1a-Y27 and R1a-Y3? Note that these are estimated by Yfull to have formed and expanded almost at the same time, since they are separated by only 1 mutation.
You've got to admit that a signal of past expansion of R1a-Y3, Y2 and L657 in Eastern Europe could have been erased by later replacements. Case in point, the Indo-Iranian R1a thats found in the area where Fatyanovo expanded from, between Moscow, Finland and Estonia (far western Russia) is basically missing from that area now because of later replacements by R1a from Balto-Slavic people. R1a-Z93 may have actually gone through an original expansion there, only to have its descendants survive in other places but not in western Russia. The same could have happened for R1a-Y3 and its subclades.
@Ryan "Ruling over farmers would necessacite the terminology though."
This is a somewhat risky phrasing, since Sredny (proposed as the PIA homeland in the steppe currently) are supposed to be into agriculture a bit themselves, in their own communities. Placing conquest as a prerequisite would erase Sredny as a possibility given the timeline, remember we're talking about PIA.
(The Sredny samples assimilated into CTC are commoners among other EEFs too. Nikitin's paper)
The current hypothesis is that PIA was a local development of Sredny, in their area, around the time their culture first appeared.
@StP Indo-Iranian was never near Europe after ~3000 BCE though. Read the most recent linguistic papers. A split around the time Tocharian also splits is favored now (route not clarified).
An average of 3050 BP (1050 BCE) seems similar with the admixture dates appearing for the Sintashta-related proxy in Indians. Also fits the longer IBD from the paper you linked.
@ANI excavator
The Y hg under which all (or most of) of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Nepali/Lankan Y3+ subclades lie is L657. All of Underhill 2015's M780(aka Y3) samples are also L657+. Similarly, there are 72/260 R1a in 1000Genome project (Poznik et al 2016), 5 groups from Indian subcontinent. Out of these 23 are Y3-. The rest 49 Y3+ are all also L657+.
So it is clear that in the Y3 lineage, L657 is the most important for the subcontinent.
Wrt frequency of R1a in 1000GP, dravidian Telugu and lankan Tamils from UK both have 28% R1a, similar to IE Gujarati (28%). Punjabi from Lahore have 35%, IE bangladeshis 21%. For all 5, L657 makes about 70% of all R1a. If you go by the simplistic Y hg = language spoken argument, there are always more exceptions than the rules, especially for non European countries.
"You've got to admit that a signal of past expansion of R1a-Y3, Y2 and L657 in Eastern Europe could have been erased by later replacements. Case in point, the Indo-Iranian R1a thats found in the area where Fatyanovo expanded from, between Moscow, Finland and Estonia (far western Russia) is basically missing from that area now because of later replacements by R1a from Balto-Slavic people."
This is false. On Yfull, there are 313/~2800 Z93+ in Russia out of which 290 are Sintashta related Z2124+. None of these are Indo-Iranian speakers.
(https://www.yfull.com/branch-info/R-Z93/#t5-tab)
There are 0/~2800 L657+ in Russia today.
(https://www.yfull.com/branch-info/R-L657/#t5-tab)
You have to introspect and realize how fanciful your best case imagined scenario is.
The main problem for me is this.
1. Formation dates as well as TMRCA for L657 and subclades are ~2000bce. Matches with Poznik et al date as well.
2. Autosomal steppe impact in swat is only a post 1400bce event. Admixture event in mainland Indian subcontinent even later, post 1000bce.
3. Swat_IA has minimal R1a (2/44) and no L657. Female mediated steppe migration.
None of the facts line up with the simple story of thousands of L657 men invading the Indian subcontinent. All of it is consistent with a 2000bce expansion of L657+ lineages from a man within the subcontinent itself.
@Orpheus
Indo-Iranian was never near Europe after ~3000 BCE though.
This is a very strange comment for so many reasons.
What do you think Srubnaya spoke?
You don't need to push out linguistic families beyond modern continental borders to accommodate deep linguistic splits.
Such splits could have happened simply due to these different cultures sticking to different ecological/economic zones.
@ Davidski
''What do you think Srubnaya spoke?''
I doubt they spoke actual Indo-Iranian . That need to have formed closer to Turan
@Vasistha
I'm not talking about the zoomed out picture like how many R1a-Z93 or Z94 exist in Russia. If you look at the available Fatyanovo genomes, they all carry basal clades of R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z94, and you also agreed in your blog Fatyanovo is probably where R1a-Z93 and Z94 first expanded. But all the Fatyanovo genomes come from the region between Moscow and the Baltic States, far western Russia basically. If you look at basal R1a-Z93 in Russia today, yes they exist but there are 0 of them from the region between Moscow and the Baltic states, even though the Fatyanovo culture, where basal R1a-Z93 or Z94 first expanded, came from there. The closest basal R1a-Z93 and Z94 come from Bashkiria much further to the east. This makes clear that you can get a hundred percent replacement that erases evidence of haplogroup origins and where they expanded from.
And the TRMCA of R1a-Z27 and R1a-L657 are both estimated by Yfull to occur at 4200BP. They are likely to be separated by only a couple of generations at most. Won't you agree that it's not plausible for one mutation appeared in Russia, and another mutation to appear in India almost immediately afterward? Its very difficult to get around this issue. But the alternate explanation is less unlikely. We already know that a major haplogroup expansion of R1a-Z93 and Z94 in Fatyanovo starting from the west, left no trace in western Russia. Even the expansion of Y3 and Y2 almost left no trace in Russia but for two R1a-F1417 in Bashkiria, we would not have guessed that it happened without these two men, but we know it happened because we got the Y3 and Y2 from Abashevo. So the disappearance of a major expansion of L657 is possible too, since it almost happened for Y3 and Y2.
As it is, Y3 and Y2 in Abashevo is already incompatible with what you proposed in your blog, that Y3 and Y2 appeared near India and L657 in India itself. But my sense is that If Y27 is found in Eastern Europe that makes your scenario even more untenable.
@Vasistha
The next stuff are not directly relevant to the question, but since you mentioned it I'll try to tackle it. What the DATES proves is not that Steppe ancestry in most Indians must have come from a later migration, but that the average age of admixture is later than what AMT proposes for the entry of Indo-Aryans into India. The issue is that very late dates for admixture are very common in places where admixture is ongoing. Nganasan ancestry reached Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov by at least 3500 years BP, but the admixture date for Nganasan ancestry in Uralic people nowadays is only 3000-2500 years BP, probably because mixing between high Nganasan ancestry ethnicities and low Nganasan ancestry ethnicities continued for a long time. If there is any place in the world where people who differ in ancestry by a lot live next to each other, it would be India.
The question of female-mediated Steppe ancestry in Swat IA. This is not a very solid finding, with multiple issues, and even if it was true its not an issue for AMT because we know that tribes and ethnicities with different ways of life (pastoralist, farmer, and hunters that lived in forests) and-- judging from how ancestry correlates with way of life in India today--different ancestry also, must have existed all the way down into classical Hindu civilization in the few centuries before and after 0AD. At that time forests still existed even along the Ganges, and forest-living people often formed powerful political groupings of their own that were independent of the states where post Vedic, mainstream "Hindu" literature such as Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed. We also know that some high-steppe groups and low-steppe groups existed in Swat from the fact that there are outliers (which also raises the issue of cremation and how that biases our estimate of how much R1a or sex bias there was), but the admixture date was quite old already, which suggests that the outliers are not entirely due to uneven mixing. The low steppe ethnic groups could have accepted women from high-steppe groups and vice versa, which is a common pattern for neighboring ethnic groups in many places in the world. Later when Hindu kingdoms with well-developed caste and gotra systems appeared, and farmers and hunter-gatherers were socially below brahmins and Kshatriyas, there could be the pattern of sex-biased admixture only from the high-steppe groups leading to the Indian populations we see now. We know from Moorjani's work that admixture between high and low steppe groups continued over a long time, and continues even today as love marriages get more important.
So I don't see a very strong argument that should make us discount the traditional theory--interpreting the Swat data as definitely proving one thing or another seems to be overdoing it.
@Rob
Srubnaya originated near the Urals.
@ Davidski
''Srubnaya originated near the Urals.''
meaning ?
Meaning it formed close to Turan.
Not sure about the prospect of Narasimhan's paper using DATES (or the similar re-analysis with newer version last year):
"Our qpAdm and admixture graph analysis suggests that the Late Bronze-Iron Age South Asian individuals (Swat Protohistoric Grave Type - SPGT) harbor AASI, Iranian farmer-related and Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry. To characterize the most recent event of mixing of the AASI and Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry, we ran DATES using surrogates of AASI ancestry AASI ancestry (South Asian individuals from the 1000 Genomes Project (Phase 3) including Sri Lankan Tamil from the UK (STU.SG), Indian Telugu from the UK (ITU.SG) and BIR.SG) as one reference and Central_Steppe_MLBA as the other reference."
These populations are possibly not precise enough: https://imgur.com/a/MEiPsNh
Possible it could push the time back as a result of not having quite right ratios of AASI:Iran_N_related. And I don't know what the affect of a modern surrogate is.
"But all the Fatyanovo genomes come from the region between Moscow and the Baltic States, far western Russia basically. If you look at basal R1a-Z93 in Russia today, yes they exist but there are 0 of them from the region between Moscow and the Baltic states"
"This makes clear that you can get a hundred percent replacement that erases evidence of haplogroup origins and where they expanded from."
This is false. There are many Z2124 from Moscow today on this Z2124 tree, right where Fatyanovo culture was. There are many Z2124 in Poland, Ukraine, even Germany.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2124/
There is no L657 in any of these countries, on yfull.
"As it is, Y3 and Y2 in Abashevo is already incompatible with what you proposed in your blog, that Y3 and Y2 appeared near India and L657 in India itself. But my sense is that If Y27 is found in Eastern Europe that makes your scenario even more untenable."
The focus always should be on L657 for all the reasons that I gave above (99% Y3 in subcontinent is L657+). There is an Indian subcontinent sample on literally every subbranch of L657 (include SE asia). No major subbranch is specific to any country outside of the subcontinent. L657 is wholly rooted in the subcontinent. Scroll down this ftdna tree here
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-L657/tree
The inescapable conclusion made by anyone with half a brain should be that the expansion of L657 occurred within the subcontinent, as opposed to all these L657 clades all finding their way south and colonizing India.
Wrt Swat, I consider all your claims as cope. Before the data came out, most of you lot were excited to see the conclusive proof of male mediated steppe invasion. The whole tone changed after the data. FYI, there is 60%+ steppe mtdna in the Kalash people.
"What the DATES proves is not that Steppe ancestry in most Indians must have come from a later migration, but that the average age of admixture is later than what AMT proposes for the entry of Indo-Aryans into India."
First off, there is not a single item of steppe origin in the archaeological record of bronze age India (ref Kenoyer, Mallory, Sarianidi, Francfort, Lamberg-Karlovsky, BB Lal and others). This is just fact. Whereas there's a lot of evidence of iron age contact with the north, starting with Yaz pottery found in Punjab 900bce (Petrie et al) to Iranian town name suffixes in Punjab as written by Panini in 550bce (VS Agarwala) to the Achaemenid invasion, to Alexander's aide noting Zoroastrian opensky burials practiced at Takshashila and finally the Saka invasions (Indo-greek kingdom with saka soldiers, kushans etc.).
On the specific aspect about DATES, yes it gives an average date in case of multiple or continuous admixture. But the older bound for steppe admixture is provided by BMAC samples as well as Swat_IA samples. pre 1500bce large migration from steppe is just an impossibility. 1450-1150bce range is when steppe ancestry admixes with Swat locals. The ancestry reaches deeper into India later than that.
@Davidski
"Srubnaya originated near the Urals."
As per Mallory and Adams (1997) it is north to Caspian. Andronovo is east of Caspian and close to Urals. Or do you have another source?
Srubna(ya) culture here:
https://tinyurl.com/3uv3pdbv
"...The Srubna culture, which takes its name from the use of timber con- structions within the burial pit (Rus sruh ‘timber framework’), was the successor to the earlier Yamna, Catacomb and Poltavka cultures and is co-ordinate, if not closely related to the Andro- novo culture east of the Caspian. Settlements consisted of semi-subterranean one and.two-roomed houses. More obvious are its cemeteries consisting of five to ten kurgans..."(p. 541).
@Carlos Aramayo
North of the Caspian is close enough to the Urals/Turan for what I meant.
@Davidski
"North of the Caspian is close enough to the Urals/Turan for what I meant."
Maybe, anyway the map shows the distance about 500 km, from Samara in mid-Volga to Ufa (a little west of Southern Urals):
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ural-Mountains
Which is the closest Srubnaya culture sites and Southern Urals can be, c. 500 km.
@vAsiSTha
There are many Z2124 from Moscow today on this Z2124 tree, right where Fatyanovo culture was.
This is not many and not from Fatyanovo, but from Sarmatians, Tatars, and from all over Russia.
Moscow is the capital of Russia for many centuries. Did that thought cross your little crazy mind?
By the way, you piece of shit, Z2124 is extremely rare in Poland and Germany, and again represents late eastern arrivals from beyond the Urals.
@vasistha
Not a long time ago you were claiming Fatyanovo Z93 came from males from South Asia or South Central Asia lol. I know this is hard to understand for some but Z93 is a very young lineage compared to most other lineages in the world and not significantly older than 5000 years. So please show that Z93 was present in Central Asia or South Asia before 2000 B.C. But yeah you can not prove that and continue with idiotic claims about ancient DNA based entirely on modern distribution. According to this logic Fatyanovo was Baltic, Volosovo Uralic and ancient Illyrians Slavic.
Also unlike your claims L657 is and was common outside the Indian subcontinent in Afghanistan, Sistan/Balochistan, South Central Asia, and Xinjiang. Sure some of it may come from Buddhist era Indic settlers but the fact that some R1a-L657 was even found in Iron Age samples with a Saka-like profile and zero connection to South Asia (C3316, Ili Region in Xinjiang) makes your claims of all R1a-L657 coming from India ridiculous. R1a-L657 just happen to have strong founder effects in South Asia hence highest highest in frequency and numbers in some South Asian communities.
@Davidski
It's nice when you curse, then I know you're losing it.
The claim was that Fatyanovo Z93 lineages have been wiped out from Moscow to Baltic. That is 100% a false claim. You of course cannot prove that all of these are Sarmatian, tatars, bashkirs etc. And even if they are, so what? Clearly their Y hg is local to that region since long.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z2124/frequency?view=table
Ftdna frequency of Z2124.
Russian Federation 131 3%
Poland 67 2%
Lithuania 26 3%
Ukraine 62 4%
@vAsiSTha
Are you really stupid enough not to realize that these Z2124 lineages aren't associated with Fatyanovo, but with Scythians, Sarmatians, Tatars etc.?
@vAsiSTha
lol. Are you not aware that most Z2124 in Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine is from Ashkenazi Levites under R-Y2619, which ultimately is of Iron Age West Iranic origin? Also these are not frequencies in percentage but the numbers of persons who tested positive for it. Anyways what the lack of R1a-Y3 in East Europe proves again? Neither Russians have Y-DNA from Volosovo HGs for example so Volosovo not existed or was N1c according to your logic?
Fatyanovo in general had not a high population size and much of Central Russia became depopulated already in the Abashevo period. And the Middle Volga region of Abashevo has seen so many migrations and population replacements in the last 4000 years that the lack of R1a-Y3 does not mean much either (actually Y3 is present in Bashkirs but this could be a back migration from South Central Asia)
Do a subclade analysis and prove it.
It's not that complicated. We already have enough samples from both Western Indo-Iranians and Easterns ones. Y3 and L657 are irrelevant when it comes to the spread of Indo-Iranian languages not significance in terms to modern day populations ofc.
For Mitanni and Western Iranians: Hasanlu/Dinka Tepe 1800-700 BCE the current proposed homeland of the Mitanni before their movement into the western Hurrian regions and a region ruled by Iranians from 9th century BCE and onwards. R1b from Yamnaya related groups.
Indians and Eastern Iranians: R1a-z93 from steppe_mlba.
The source of steppe ancestry in these groups are different. The only real link all of these groups share is "Turan" related ancestry and lineages (eg. J2a1h2 in Taldysay) and the only link they have with the rest of the Indo-Europeans is the "West Asian'' related ancestry.
I don't know enough about y-dna so the following may not be relevant, but: Are there any issues with using capture adna to kind of understand y-dna haplogroups at this fine a scale? E.g. determining whether sampled dna at Fatyanovo was truly basal within some clade, or derived in some way that either wasn't thought important enough to include in the capture set, or just isn't represented in modern populations (but would be found if you had whole genome sequences or high coverage shotgun).
Kivisild raised some of these issues in his now quite old paper from 2017 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28260210/), where e.g. the Germany Corded Ware samples from Esperstedt all looked like diverse basal branches within M417 (which splits at 8kya / 5000 BCE), but actually might have had a closer common ancestor whose defining SNP on the y were not sampled by capture (whether its known or not in present day people at some level). (Although that said, the two of these samples I0103 and I0104, who made it through to Ringbauer's IBD method seem not to closely related).
Can we say with reasonable confidence that, if the L657 ancestor was present on the steppe, it was as a minor lineage within those cultures, with other branches within Z93 being more common (enough to have avoided being sampled?), and one likely to have been lost there? (Combination of within culture expansion and outside culture expansions?). That's still kind of an unusual story if it is the case. (I.e. why aren't the main lineages found in the time period found in India after Steppe_MLBA ancestry is found?). Or is it the case that the limitations of capture dna, even within the numbers of available Steppe_MLBA male samples, prevents us saying one way or the other at all?
(Also, if we were talking about an extremely rapid radiation of L657 that arrived in India around or slightly earlier than ~2000 BCE, and then diversified there, uncoupled from Steppe_MLBA ancestry, isn't that possibly closer to the sort of Asko Parpola idea of very early IA language expansion into South Asia, with actual autosomal ancestry coming later ~1400 BCE, and nothing to do with language? Rather than anything else.)
@Coldmountains
"Not a long time ago you were claiming Fatyanovo Z93 came from males from South Asia or South Central Asia lol."
What a shameless liar. Prove it. Produce a single example where I said this.
@vAsiSTha
Do a subclade analysis and prove it.
There's no chance that Z2124 reaches over 1% in gentile Poles and Germans.
These lineages are Jewish, and they come from Asia.
Looks like Coldmountains beat me to this point anyway...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/04/dear-harald.html?showComment=1682673049532#c3988573825201216139
You really are a dumbass.
@matt
Not just R1a-L657 is missing but also R1a-Y40 and most older Z2124 clades especially the ones under Z2123 with a TMRCA around 2000-2200 B.C but common in South Asia today (see R1a-Y47, R1a-SK2031,..). What we have for now from Steppe MLBA and Andronovo are either low-coverage samples, basal Z2124 or clades specific for later Steppe_IA and Iranics. But like in the case with R1a-L657 it really not means much because Steppe MLBA groups were tribal with a lot of founder effects. Also we do have not really that much high-coverage samples from very early Indo-Iranians in southern Central Asia and Proto-Indo-Aryans as one of the earliest waves should show up in different layers than the ones currently sampled (early Fedorovo in IAMC for example).
@matt
R1a-L657 in South Asia is of course associated with Steppe MLBA admix. I really don't get the point of why the clown theory of R1a-L657 arriving with no Steppe MLBA DNA is entertained. How else should Jatts/Ror with something like 30% R1a-L657 and zero amounts of Saka or even Iranic Y-DNA end with 30-35% Steppe MLBA?
Last year's Y-DNA study of the modern population of Central Asia. There are Tajiks and Khazara with Z94/Y2/Y8/Y928, Z93/BY226207, Z93/FGC82884/Y34292
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36292661/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-3-uid-2
Garrett et al’s secondary convergence & language areas come to mind here with various streams of flow forming Indo-Iranian . Explains links but no familiality between I-I, Armenian, Greek, ; links between Indic and Slavic to exclusion of Iranian
Matt will know what I’m referring to
@coldmountains
"Sure some of it may come from Buddhist era Indic settlers but the fact that some R1a-L657 was even found in Iron Age samples with a Saka-like profile and zero connection to South Asia (C3316, Ili Region in Xinjiang) makes your claims of all R1a-L657 coming from India ridiculous."
Really, R1a people should not be propagating their favourite R1a theories, and this point of yours proves it.
First, there is enough indic ancestry in these 100bce iron age Xinjiang samples. That specific sample is irrelevant, autosomal ancstry dilutes all the time.
Second, 100bce sample is irrelevant to the discussion.
Third, you do not understand ancient DNA damage. Or, you ignore it when it suits your theories. Your favourite example which idiots on Anthrogenica paraded as Y3+ - I6561, Alexandria - is NOT CLASSIFIED As Y3 on FTDNA. It's simply Z93, as I had always said. It's because they're scientific and they ignore single read C->T and G->A transitions like any sane scientist should. Anyone who has called ancient sample bam files for HG will know how many false C->T and G->A calls are present in those.
Check for yourself. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z93/tree
For C3316, there is just 1 G->A call at L657. There are 50-100 or maybe more false C->T and G->A calls at other positions like I, J, G, D, E, R1b etc in this sample. How do you know it's really L657+ or if it's damage? There's no way to know. So this sample should just be classified as Y27+. Check the .bam calls.
C3316 Yleaf calls
@VasiSTha said...” Davidski,It's nice when you curse, then I know you're losing it.”
"The claim was that Fatyanovo Z93 lineages have been wiped out from Moscow to Baltic. That is 100% a false claim. You of course cannot prove that all of these are Sarmatian, tatars, bashkirs etc. And even if they are, so what? Clearly their Y hg is local to that region since long."
Fatyanovo in Russia and Z93 come from here, from the forefield of the Carpathians; according to Saag et al.2020
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/fatjanowo-lud.jpg
Their descendants dispersed through Bashkortostan mainly in Central Asia and headed for India and Iran, Palestine and China...
And one lineage returned from Asia and took over centuries of power... in Hungary :D
@Vara
"The source of steppe ancestry in these groups are different. The only real link all of these groups share is "Turan" related ancestry and lineages (eg. J2a1h2 in Taldysay) and the only link they have with the rest of the Indo-Europeans is the "West Asian'' related ancestry."
100%
@Matt
"Or is it the case that the limitations of capture dna, even within the numbers of available Steppe_MLBA male samples, prevents us saying one way or the other at all?"
That's not the case. I'm analyze the bam files which have much more reads that what the 1240k array provides. L657 really is absent in ancient steppe. The coverage does not miss out on the important SNPs which define these lineages, even 1240k does not miss those. FTDNA has done a good job by adding 5000 ancients in their Y tree, much more than Yfull I believe. Their classifications are accurate.
"Also, if we were talking about an extremely rapid radiation of L657 that arrived in India around or slightly earlier than ~2000 BCE, and then diversified there, uncoupled from Steppe_MLBA ancestry, isn't that possibly closer to the sort of Asko Parpola idea of very early IA language expansion into South Asia, with actual autosomal ancestry coming later ~1400 BCE, and nothing to do with language? Rather than anything else."
Now this moves the discussion forward. Question which arises then is how did 100-1000 odd initial 'elites' manage to overturn the languages of 10 million+ population of Northern part of indian subcontinent. And all the associated problems which come with it, including no mention of such a migration, no (or minimal) non IE toponym in RigVeda, miniscule substrate in RV and max 2-4% non IE loanwords.
@Matt
(Apologise to David for being out of topic and thanks very much for the Gaulish G25 from Fischer's study.)
Sorry to bother you, but could you check this sample from Narbone's area:
FRA_La_Clape_LN_EBA_Veraza_oSteppe:TORTF__BC_1911__Cov_63.40%,0.129758,0.147252,0.062602,0.016473,0.054779,0.004462,-0.00094,0.005077,0.026179,0.039181,0.003735,0.019033,-0.026313,-0.021607,0.013165,0.006364,0.007171,-0.006081,0.00729,0.000625,0.013351,0.00643,-0.009244,-0.004458,0.000599
It come out as an almost pure proto-Basque-like sample. Can you tell me if it is just random similarity or if there is some kind of continuity, etc?
@Vasishta
There is no basal Z2124 in far western Russia, in the area where the Fatyanovo genomes come from. There are examples in the caucasus and in the east closer to the Urals, in Chuvashia, but there are actually none in the area where early Fatyanovo in Russia comes from. I went to check, you can be assured of this.
So it is in fact the case that basal R1a-Z94 and Z94 are not found in the area where Fatyanovo expanded in, even though we know from ancient DNA that it definitely expanded from there. Except for the two R1a-Y3 > Y2 > F1417 in Bashkiria, there is no evidence that Y2 or Y3 was even present in Russia, even though we know it was present there significantly and may even have expanded from there because 50% of the Abashevo genomes people are talking about have these lineages. So we already know that lots of clades went extinct, and that is pretty compatible with the traditional theory.
@Vasistha
R1a-Y2/Y27 and R1a-L657 are estimated to have almost the same TRMCA as each other. This means that R1a-L657 appeared almost immediately in a small group of R1a-Y2/Y27 men after the Y2/Y27 group appeared. It would be strange if Y2/Y27 appeared in Eastern Europe, and then L657 appeared almost immediately in India after that, isn't it? But this is not an issue in the AMT theory with the subsequent extinction of almost all basal R1a-Z93/Z94 in the area where it first expanded, which we do in fact know happened in far western Russia, and also happened for Y3-related lineages in European Russia generally (except for two lone R1a-F1417 men in Bashkiria), despite the fact that basal Z93 and Z94 appeared first in western Russia in Fatyanovo and even Y2 and Y3 appeared in Abashevo. The modern data is even consistent with total extinction of Z93 and 94 in Russia, and then the Z2124 currently present in Russia was reintroduced later by Sarmatians and Sakas, because the lines in people in Russia today, including in Uralic people, are closely related to or directly under the Iranic lines from further south (except for the Bashkiria men under F1417 of course).
You also claim that there is no evidence of BMAC and Steppe mixing until super late, but this isn't true, is it? We have the well woman from Alalakh at about 3500BP, and the two ancestries are well-mixed in her. Here are the results you posted:
Target: Levant_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019
Distance: 0.7724% / 0.00772408
64.8 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA
14.2 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
9.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
6.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
2.2 UZB_Bustan_BA
1.8 UZB_Bustan_En
0.4 UZB_Dzharkutan1_BA
Target: Levant_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019
Distance: 2.4057% / 0.02405669
47.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
32.0 UZB_Bustan_BA
15.8 KAZ_Zevakinskiy_MLBA
4.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
Sappali Tepe and Bustan are BMAC sites, and so here we have a woman with BMAC and Sintashta ancestry, already mixed and diluted to a low level, so the admixture is already quite old, at 3500BP. It takes at least four generations for an ancestry to get diluted to around 6%, which is the level of Sintashta ancestry she has, so the lower bound for admixture between BMAC and Steppe_MLBA is actually at least 3400BP, assuming Steppe ancestry came in only once, which is unlikely to be true. The absence of Steppe ancestry in the BMAC cities is not evidence that no Sintashta ancestry admixed with BMAC ancestry anywhere, and the Alalakh woman proves that in fact such admixture occurred quite early. She shares IBD with I12987 : Pakistan_Loebanr_IA. This IBD connection strengthens the case that she is an actual Mitanni, and her ancestry shows that Steppe-BMAC admixture existed already in her 3400BP and likely much older.
About the cope thing--people were discussing how Swat contained both cremated and inhumated people, and so aDNA from only the inhumated people can give skewed results, even before the results came out. And the most important point is not that it was male-biased, it's just that steppe ancestry was present at all, which did turn out to be the case, isn't it? Of course you can choose to argue with the most extreme and weakest version of AMT, that the impact must be massive everywhere and male-biased everywhere even at the beginning of Aryan entry into India, but that's just fighting a straw man, isn't it? So it's not so much cope as just pointing out that other interpretations of the data, that are consistent with AMT and that are equally or even more reasonable, especially now that the genetic evidence is leaning in the direction of AMT. In fact there's a question of who is coping here.
@Matt
The basal R1a-Z93 and Z94 in Fatyanovo is real (many of them were high-coverage shotgun genomes not from the Reich lab), but the lack of R1a-L657 may boil down to low coverage since most of the areas relevant are sampled by Reich.
@ Davidski
Srubnaya is not Indo-Iranian, certainly not Fatyanovo
No way in 2500 bc, minutes after splitting from CWC, would they be speaking Indo-Iranian
These were still late dialectical IE
Maybe some of the late regional varieties of Andronovo contributed to
Needless to say, alleged early loans to FU are highly dubious constructs by linguists who weren’t aware the FU homeland is up in the Lena basin
@vAsiSTha
Show us how Polish Jews are derived from Fatyanovo.
Dumbass.
@Vara
Are you claiming that Z93 arrived in Central Asia, Iran and India with different types of populations, rather than Sintashta-related groups?
If so, obviously this is bullshit.
The first aspect of what Vara said is correct, that there is R1b-Z2103 / Catacomb related ancestry in NW Iran and Sontastha-Andronovo on the eastern side of things
The back up sentence 'the only real link all of these groups share is "Turan" related ancestry and lineages (eg. J2a1h2 in Taldysay) and the only link they have with the rest of the Indo-Europeans is the "West Asian'' related ancestry" doesn't really hold because there is no monolithic "Turan' ancestry & the comment strangely ignores the Pontic related ancestry component evidence across 'nuclear IE' groups.
The presence of J2a1h in Taldysay is very interesting but fleeting, as Gonur-related ancestry in the central steppe only grows later, during the classic Sarmatian period (it's even low in early 'Sauromatian" samples like DA202 dating to c. 700 BC)
..and there's no Turan-related ancestry in central-western Anatolia.
As most people know, there was a migration from the southern Caucasus lowlands & eastern Anatolia to Turan during the Chalcolithic.
@vasistha
C3316 is not from the Tarim Basin nor from any region with documented Buddhist (before Oirats) or Indic presence so nice try. And C3316 is definitely more relevant to my point of L657 predating the Buddhist era in Central Asia than that Irula-like R1a-L657 sample from Medieval India you claimed is proving R1a-L657 came from AASI lol.
Your copes would be funny if they were not part of a disgusting hindutva fascist ideology.
ANI Excavator: "The basal R1a-Z93 and Z94 in Fatyanovo is real (many of them were high-coverage shotgun genomes not from the Reich lab), but the lack of R1a-L657 may boil down to low coverage since most of the areas relevant are sampled by Reich."
coldmountains: "What we have for now from Steppe MLBA and Andronovo are either low-coverage samples, basal Z2124 or clades specific for later Steppe_IA and Iranics."
There is an argument, then, for either shotgun or targeted capture higher coverage resequencing for these samples.
vASIstha: "Now this moves the discussion forward. Question which arises then is how did 100-1000 odd initial 'elites' manage to overturn the languages of 10 million+ population of Northern part of indian subcontinent."
Purely genetically and leaving language aside for now, if we were assuming that such an enormous population was continuous (with no large declines in size) then it would be extraordinary (almost completely improbable) for the y-dna of 10-100 individuals to replace their other male line ancestors to a large degree!
coldmountains: "How else should Jatts/Ror with something like 30% R1a-L657 and zero amounts of Saka or even Iranic Y-DNA end with 30-35% Steppe MLBA?"
Exactly the same amount of R1a-L657 as Steppe_MLBA ancestry seems kind of low in that specific case (although from what I could tell, the Kalash had less?), given the general levels of the haplogroup across South Asia compared to Steppe_MLBA ancestry. But I think the general point stands that these both correlate together geographically and within population structure, and that its more complicated (although not impossible) for these to have become so by subsequent events.
I'm not sure which suggestion here I find funnier, that Indian buddhists supposedly migrated to the Ili valley and assimilated into Saka populations or Srubnaya not being Indo-Iranian. Both are jokes.
"Needless to say, alleged early loans to FU are highly dubious constructs by linguists who weren’t aware the FU homeland is up in the Lena basin"
Indo-Iranians lived where Kra001 was found (iirc it was found in a Karasuk context but predated it) and Uralic people continued to move westwards so they'd naturally come across more Indo-Iranian speakers with the Uralic branches in Europe and west-Siberia also have significant additional Proto-Iranian influences. Iron age Iranian (Scythian) influence lacks in Finnic and Saami. There is noyhing dubious about early Indo-Kranian loanwords into Uralic, that linguistic layer abundantly clear.
ANI Excavator: "Target: Levant_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019, Distance: 0.7724% / 0.00772408
64.8 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA
14.2 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
9.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
6.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
2.2 UZB_Bustan_BA
1.8 UZB_Bustan_En
0.4 UZB_Dzharkutan1_BA"
Kind of getting off topic but this model (specifically the presence of more Sintashta_MLBA_o1 than Sintashta, both low) kind of reminds me of how the TJK_Tutkaul neolithic sample oddly (to me) came up closest to those Sintashta_o1 outliers found all the way up north in Kamenyi Ambar.
When I model them (G25 Vahaduo), Sintashta_o1, too, allowing free-choice of every ancient sample, they both get a good chunk of TJK_Tutkaul, so it doesn't seem purely a coincidence of "Well, they have ANE ancestry and a little CHG like ancestry via Steppe".
Our perception of those two in 2023 should probably be quite different from initial ideas of them being Khvalynsk survivors.
Although amending that slightly, it was the Sintashta_o3 samples that were identified as being Khvalynsk survivors!
@Davidski
"Are you claiming that Z93 arrived in Central Asia, Iran and India with different types of populations, rather than Sintashta-related groups?"
Nope its source is most likely Sintashta related groups and their descendants. My claim is Z93 post dates the appearance of Indo-Iranians and shouldn't be seen as the I-I indicator.
R1a is missing in western Iran where based on linguistic analysis Iranians were the largest group even in non-IE kingdoms except in Zamua and Elam so even the dilution argument doesn't work. Dilawer Khan made a great post on it which was surprising because I thought he disagreed with me when he commented here.
https://eurasiandna.com/post-iron-age-introduction-of-y-dna-r1a-r-z94-and-east-asian-ancestry-into-kurdistan-north-iran-and-turkey-with-the-parthians-and-scythians/
@Vara
There is no concrete evidence anyone in Hasanlu was Indo-Iranian so what is the point? This region in NW Iran was only later colonized by Iranics. Indo-Aryans like the Maryannu in Mitanni would not be the majority from Iran to Central Asia in 1000-1500 B.C and mainly populate pockets along some rivers and trade routes.
Also there is enough R1a-Z93 in Kurdistan and West Iran which can be linked to early Iranics so the idea that Iranics arrived without R1a-Z93 is again nonsense. Neither is there evidence for this Z93 being brought by Saka.
@Coldmountains
"There is no concrete evidence anyone in Hasanlu was Indo-Iranian so what is the point?"
Except the Hasanlu Bowl, toponyms..etc. See Dumezil, Kuzmina, Franfcort, Parpola..etc. But I could also say there is no concrete evidence anyone in Sintashta was Indo-Iranian so what's the point?
Hasanlu itself isn't far from the Iranian kingdom of Parsua which is attested 850 BCE.
Zadok (2002): "The Iranians were the largest group in all of the seven Median regions (1-7). Only in Kurdistan (excluding Zamua) were the Hurro-Urartianns (with various degrees of plausibility) the largest group... The Hurro-Urartian toponymy prevails in Mannea and Northwestern Media (10.95-2.43% and 22.63-3.77% respectively) which bordered on Urartu. In both regions the Iranian toponymy is the second-largest group"
On the other hand there is clear evidence of BMAC related ancestry in some samples. So what did they speak?
"Also there is enough R1a-Z93 in Kurdistan and West Iran which can be linked to early Iranics so the idea that Iranics arrived without R1a-Z93 is again nonsense."
Well, it's missing from west Iran at the time Iranians are attested.
@ Copper Axe
''Indo-Iranians lived where Kra001 was found (iirc it was found in a Karasuk context but predated it) and Uralic people continued to move westwards so they'd naturally come across more Indo-Iranian speakers with the Uralic branches in Europe and west-Siberia also have significant additional Proto-Iranian influences. Iron age Iranian (Scythian) influence lacks in Finnic and Saami. There is noyhing dubious about early Indo-Kranian loanwords into Uralic, that linguistic layer abundantly clear.''
as per above, the FU population homeland was in the Lena basin, there were no Indo-Iranians
there
''and funnier... Srubnaya not being Indo-Iranian. Both are jokes.'''
So the R1a-Z93 rich guys in MLBA Thrace were 'Indo-Iranians' and Thracians came with E-V13 from Crete. Not convincing
Hasanlu is pretty much where Gilzanu should have been and its right next to Mannea, a realm in which the main population population wasnt Indo-Iranian. Iranian names at that time were only sparsely attested which points to an iranification between 800 and 600 bc in Mannea, Hasanlu being even further northwest than that. This contrasts significantly with lets say Eastern Media. Its not like all those simple inhumation burials into the dirt at Hasanlu are very indicative of a Zoroastrian tradition either and it is well established that the Iranians which migrated into Iran brought this religion with them. Hasanlu was also destroyed during the Urartian conquests with many of the bodies mutilated and evidence of mass executions, which is why I find it funny when people hedge their larps on this site in particular.
@Rob
"as per above, the FU population homeland was in the Lena basin, there were no Indo-Iranians
there"
And how did you determine the location Proto-Uralic split off from one another exactly? If it is based on the genetics of the late neolithic Lena populations, that doesnt tell you where Proto-Uralic was spoken and split, just where their ancestors may have come from. Kra001 certainly indicates that the Pre-Proto-Uralic peoples were not simply co foned to the Lena Basin at that stage, and the sample slightly predates Indo-Iranian presence in the area.
"So the R1a-Z93 rich guys in MLBA Thrace were 'Indo-Iranians' and Thracians came with E-V13 from Crete. Not convincing"
Makes a lot more sense than Thracian being spoken in Bashkiria and Thracians migrating to southern Central Asia together with Alakul groups, like Srubnaya did.
There was a clear Srubnaya related expansion which formed the Noua-Sabatinovka culture and if those guys were present in Romania its not much of a jump for some guys to also end up in Bulgaria, especially if they were equestrians and all. We dont really have anything that points to a significant movement towards Bulgaria either, just like one or two samples with such a profile during the LBA and a Thracian sample with Z93 during the iron age.
In any case by the early iron age you see nothing of that earlier eastern cultural complex and most definitely not amongst Daco-Thracian peoples whose customs are far more akin to Urnfield-derived populations. What exactly is "Srubnaya" about these peoples? Very little to no material and culturalconnection, not much of an autosomal connection and not a particularly strong y-dna connection either. What points towards their language coming from Srubnaya, which originates significantly to the east from a fairly homogenous population circa 2100 BC, whose descendants all were Indo-Iranian?
@coldmountains
"Your copes would be funny if they were not part of a disgusting hindutva fascist ideology."
Ad hominems lol. Peeved that your cabal cant block people who disagree with you like you can on Anthrogenica?
Why don't you and your cabal accept that you were wrong for labeling I6561 as R-Y3 for 4+ years. He was Z93. Be a man and admit it. Remember, I can't be banned here like on Anthrogenica. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z93/tree
Similarly, admit first that C3316 may not be L657 as it is + only due to a single G->A read. I have shared the results file with you.
@Copperaxe
"I'm not sure which suggestion here I find funnier, that Indian buddhists supposedly migrated to the Ili valley and assimilated into Saka populations"
There are minor india related contacts seen in these xinjiang IA samples, even in the Ili region.
From Vikas Kumar et al
"The IA also shows an increase in the frequency of BMAC ancestry in the f4-statistics comparisons (figs. S19 and S20) (21). Seven IA populations were found to contain BMAC ancestry (30 to 47%), and we observed four IA populations that could also be modeled using Indus periphery ancestry sources SPGT and two with Gonur_2BA (18 to 37%) (Fig. 3A and tables S9 and S10). The increase in the appearance of BMAC ancestry suggests a substantial movement of people from either BMAC- or Indus periphery–derived populations into the Xinjiang region during the IA (Fig. 3A), most likely through the IAMC route over the Pamir and Tianshan Mountains."
G25 of sample C1368, 300bce, Jirentaigoukou, Nileke County, Yili Region
Target: CHN_Jirentaigoukou_IA2:C1368
Distance: 1.3021% / 0.01302101
36.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
18.6 TKM_Gonur1_BA
15.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe
10.2 PAK_Katelai_IA
6.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
3.8 TKM_IA
2.8 RUS_Afanasievo
2.6 MNG_Afanasievo_2
2.0 CHN_Tarim_EMBA1
1.8 KAZ_Saka_TianShan_IA
0.0 CHN_Afanasievo_Ayituohan_BA
0.0 CHN_Afanasievo_Gongnaisi_BA1
0.0 CHN_Afanasievo_Gongnaisi_BA2
0.0 CHN_Afanasievo_Gongnaisi_BA3
0.0 CHN_Tarim_EMBA2
0.0 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
0.0 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
0.0 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
0.0 CHN_Yellow_River_LN
0.0 CHN_Yellow_River_MN
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.0 MNG_Afanasievo_1
0.0 MNG_Afanasievo_1_contam
0.0 PAK_Katelai_LBA
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o1
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o2
0.0 Saka_Tian_Shan
0.0 Saka_Tian_Shan_o
0.0 UZB_Bustan_BA
Also from Nileke County, Yili Region
Target: CHN_Gongnaisi_IA1:C3325
Distance: 0.9866% / 0.00986584
34.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
30.2 Saka_Tian_Shan
9.4 Saka_Kazakh_steppe
7.0 PAK_Katelai_IA
6.2 MNG_Afanasievo_2
4.6 CHN_Tarim_EMBA1
3.8 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
2.6 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
1.4 UZB_Bustan_BA
0.0 CHN_Afanasievo_Ayituohan_BA
0.0 CHN_Afanasievo_Gongnaisi_BA1
0.0 CHN_Afanasievo_Gongnaisi_BA2
0.0 CHN_Afanasievo_Gongnaisi_BA3
0.0 CHN_Tarim_EMBA2
0.0 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
0.0 CHN_Yellow_River_LN
0.0 CHN_Yellow_River_MN
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.0 KAZ_Saka_TianShan_IA
0.0 MNG_Afanasievo_1
0.0 MNG_Afanasievo_1_contam
0.0 PAK_Katelai_LBA
0.0 RUS_Afanasievo
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o1
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o2
0.0 Saka_Tian_Shan_o
0.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA
0.0 TKM_IA
Wrt the Alalakh outlier, she has no steppe ancestry. What she has is elevated ANE ancestry from Aigyrzhal like wshg heavy sample.
Target: TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019
Distance: 1.5072% / 0.01507196
46.6 TKM_Gonur1_BA
21.6 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_BA
17.0 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA
6.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
4.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
3.8 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
0.4 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.0 ARM_MBA
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B
0.0 KAZ_Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 UZB_Kokcha_BA
0.0 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA_o
0.0 UZB_Sappali_Tepe2_BA
I have analyzed ALA019 via rotting qpAdm models. https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/09/alalakh-well-lady.html
I am sorry to say she has nothing to do with steppe mlba ancestry, just another evidence of BMAC ancestry moving west during Mitanni times.
@ Copper Axe
''And how did you determine the location Proto-Uralic split off from one another exactly? If it is based on the genetics of the late neolithic Lena populations, that doesnt tell you where Proto-Uralic was spoken and split, just where their ancestors may have come from. Kra001 certainly indicates that the Pre-Proto-Uralic peoples were not simply co foned to the Lena Basin at that stage, and the sample slightly predates Indo-Iranian presence in the area.''
Kra_1 is a southwestern geographic outlier, the main population pool from where he derives formed and dispersed from further northeast. This population is ~ 2-way mix of Baikal_N & Kolyma_mes type populations.
This dispersal point is rationalised by multiple lines of evidence, including (1) the location of Samoyeds (2) the appearance of BOO in Kola peninsula c. 1500 BC (3) the dearth of BMAC & Andronovo-related ancestry in proto-FUs (4) Yamyiakhtakh ceramics as far west as Kola (5) the distribution of other sub-0lineages of Y-hg N in other ethno-linguistc entities (6) the relation and putative loan trajectories (e.g. with Yukhaghir) (7) the prevalence of Y-hg Q, by contrast, in Yeneseians
continued ..
''Makes a lot more sense than Thracian being spoken in Bashkiria and Thracians migrating to southern Central Asia together with Alakul groups, like Srubnaya did.''
Don't be silly, nobody said Thracian was spoken in Bashkirostan. The point being made was that a form of late dialectical IE was spoken in Fatyanovo-like groups and that language was not yet Indo-iranian whilst also contributing to the development of Thracian
You appear to be confusing "cultural package' with glottogenesis. So whilst many of the cultural features of reconstructed Indo-Iranians draw from Fatyanovo & Sintastha, the final development only occurred further down in the centraal-southern steppe & in contact with BMAC & IAMC populations. And this is where the final emergence of recognisable I-A speakers emerged also, after the necessary cultural loans and language contacts episodes occurred.
Moreover, the isoglossig bundles which Iranic shares with Armenian & Greek is supported by the possible presence of R1b-Z2103 related IE dialects in NW Iran.
So I reject the simplist views R1a-Z93 can only be Indo-Aryan and indo-Aryan can only be assoc. with Z93. It's simplistic haplo-daddy meets primordial language-trees methodology.
We have clear example from Germanic drawing on at least 2 IE vectors and then emerging locally, same with Mycenean Greeks drawing the prot-Greek yamnaya and Cetina-realted impact in the Peloponessus, and emerging locally after drawaing in Aegean vocabulary.
''There was a clear Srubnaya related expansion which formed the Noua-Sabatinovka culture and if those guys were present in Romania its not much of a jump for some guys to also end up in Bulgaria, especially if they were equestrians and all. We dont really have anything that points to a significant movement towards Bulgaria either, just like one or two samples with such a profile during the LBA and a Thracian sample with Z93 during the iron age. In any case by the early iron age you see nothing of that earlier eastern cultural complex and most definitely not amongst Daco-Thracian peoples whose customs are far more akin to Urnfield-derived populations. What exactly is "Srubnaya" about these peoples? Very little to no material and culturalconnection, not much of an autosomal connection and not a particularly strong y-dna connection either. What points towards their language coming from Srubnaya, which originates significantly to the east from a fairly homogenous population circa 2100 BC, whose descendants all were Indo-Iranian?''
Look at the ratios: the handful of Bulgarian MLBA and Sabatinivka have high % of R1a-Z93.
The frequency of R1a-Z93 might have taken a dive during the Iron Age, and eventually even virtually disappeared due to the regular demographic flux the east Balkans experienced, but we've seen similar phenomena already with the massive decline of Magyar-related Y-hg Nc-TAT (so much so that scholars used the Hungarians as an argument against 'genetic anthropology', and of course Carlos' famous CWC=FU theory).
The case of Thracian coming from E-V13 Urnfield doesn't make any sense, unless you think PIE emerged from Alpine Farmers. Eastern urnfield in fact seems to have harboured a lot of pre-IE groups, and lets not overexegerrate the influnece of Urnfield on Thrace when there are clear KMK, Sabatinovka, Noua-Cosgleni influences.
I'd wait until more data come from Bulgaria and southern Romania as most of the I.A. samples currently come from down near the present Turksih border.
and as I said, the most rational explanation of shared affinities observewd between Thracian & Balto-Slavic is the deep affinities and subsequent geographic proximity between Slavic and western R1a-Z93 (pre-proto-Thracian). This boundary ran across Poland / Ukraine, respectively.
@vAsiSTha
This is really getting pathetic. Even if all Y3+ in Ukraine_MBA, Abashevo and Iron Age IAMC turns out to be wrong calls or from India (chance for this is 0%) it zero means for the origin of R1a-Y3. R1a-Z94 is not significantly older than 4500 years and no Z94 was found in BMAC, Shar-I-Sokhta, Hasanlu and Central Asia before 2000 B.C so what is your point again? How is the L1c in Hasanlu, H1a7J2 in Shar-i-Sokhta and J2/E/L1c in BMAC/Post-BMAC more related to R1a-L657 than the R1a-Z94 in Sintashta? You love to mention that there is no R1a-Y3 in Sintashta but how this proves that R1a-L657 is from AASI or Iran Neolithic lol. Yeah i know you use a medieval sample from North India with R1a-L657 and an Irula-like profile as argument but this is like claiming R1b is from Mexico because some native guy with 95% native ancestry has Spanish R1b. Please first find some R1a-Z94 before 2000 B.C south of Siberia/Urals or find another topic to cope about.
@coldmountains
Don't be a fool, i never said L657 is from iranN or aasi. Stop strawmanning me with idiotic made up positions.
I have said preZ93 Z93 z94 are from the steppe and reached India not via later mass immigration, but via an early small and autosomally undetectable migration, unrelated to language owing to its small nature and then expanding locally.
I know that I did not slip up in making this clear because Matt understood what I was saying. Or maybe Matt is just much more smart than you are.
@coldmountains
So apart from not acknowledging and correcting your false claims of Alexandria I6561 as R-Y3 for 4 years, you have now forced 2 claims on me which I never made.
1. That Fatyanovo Z93 was from India, and
2. That L657 is from AASI or IranN
Show evidence that I ever said such a thing or stfu.
@Rob
"It's simplistic haplo-daddy meets primordial language-trees methodology."
Nice one lol
@Vara "The source of steppe ancestry in these groups are different. (...) the only link they have with the rest of the Indo-Europeans is the "West Asian'' related ancestry."
Yeah that's what I see too. For some reason I made a non-sequitur to link Iranian (with Yamnaya ancestry and haplos) to Indian but it doesn't look like that now.
@Vas Any argument about elites requires cultural dominance and we don't see any of that wrt Indian (or I-Ir as a whole) when it comes to the steppe. At the same time we see BMAC influence. Where Indian R1a originated and whatnot seems like a massive red herring and non-sequitur since linguistics, archaeology and now admixture dates and IBD (as well as autosomal and yDna in Mittani) support an I-Ir origin unrelated to Sintashta/Andronovo, with no actual evidence to the contrary corroborating any of the assumptions thrown around.
@Davidski Srubnaya isn't some kind of isolated population and underwent (in the case they spoke IE in the first place) the specific agricultural shift that all CWC and Yamnaya languages also underwent (see Kroonen 2023, in case you forgot it). I-Ir does not have this shift and its split is placed around the time Tocharian splits as well for this same reason.
A steppe origin would now require a culture that was unrelated to CWC and post-3000 BCE Yamnaya, and is itself older than 3000 BCE, migrating eastward. This would fit into the linguistic requirements (DNA traces would have to be found too of course).
To my knowledge such a culture does not exist.
There's additional stuff from Mallory on that, might post later.
@Orpheus
How do you explain the presence of Corded Ware (Fatyanovo > Sintashta) ancestry and R1a-Z93 in both West and East Iranians and Indo-Aryans?
Do you believe that there were non-Indo-Iranian migrations from the steppe into India and Iran?
If so, what Corded Ware language did these Sintashta-related people speak, and, considering the massive impact of their male lineages in India, did this language leave any trace there? If not, why not?
By the way, the movement of R1a-Z93 into Central and South Asia predates the Turkic expansion, so don't say Turkic.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/an-early-iranian-obviously.html
@orpheus
"Any argument about elites requires cultural dominance and we don't see any of that wrt Indian (or I-Ir as a whole) when it comes to the steppe. At the same time we see BMAC influence."
The words of CC Lamberg Karlovsky are apt here.
"There is absolutely NO archaeological evidence for any variant of the
Andronovo culture either reaching or influencing the cultures of Iran or
northern India in the second millennium. Not a single artifact of
identifiable Andronovo type has been recovered from the Iranian Plateau, northern India, or Pakistan."
Apparently the Andronovo folks changed everything in the subcontinent, just not in the things that we can see. Even BMAC material influence is limited to Baluchistan and Swat.
@Davidski
"If so, what Corded Ware language did these Sintashta-related people speak, and, considering the massive impact of their male lineages in India, did this language leave any trace there? If not, why not?"
The steppe ancestry in Indian subcontinent is via Yaghnobi/tkm_ia like iron age iranic speakers. So they brought iranian languages, which can be seen in the place names mentioned by Panini. Names ending with -anta/antha, like Tashkent, Samarkand. These are Iranic suffixes (he lived in Gandhara, ~550bce).
900bce Yaz (Iranic) pottery is also seen in Punjab.
From: The Achaemenid Expansion to the Indus and Alexander’s Invasion
of North-West South Asia. Cameron A. Petrie,*& Peter Magee
"The Bannu Archaeological Project excavations at the sites of Ter Kala Dheri and Akra between 1995 and 2001 revealed evidence for a regionally distinct
cultural assemblage marked by what has been referred to as Bannu Black on Red Ware, which has been dated to the early-mid 1st millennium BC, thus
making it pre-Achaemenid (c. 900-600 BC; Khan et al. 2000c: 81-100; Magee et al. 2005; Magee and Petrie 2010). It is estimated that the settlement
at Akra was nearly 30 hectares in size during this timeframe (Magee et al. 2005; Magee and Petrie 2010). The two most characteristic ceramics are
Bannu Black on Red Ware and globular spouted vessels (labelled Assemblage 2). Neither of these ware types has been reported elsewhere in the western borderlands of the subcontinent, and the closest technological, morphological and stylistic parallels for Bannu Black on Red Ware are to be
found in the early Iron Age (Yaz Depe I) cultures of south-west Central Asia (Magee et al. 2005; Magee and Petrie 2010)."
@vAsiSTha
The steppe ancestry in Indian subcontinent is via Yaghnobi/tkm_ia like iron age iranic speakers.
That's impossible, because these Iranians had very high levels of BMAC ancestry.
Anther problem is the Abashevo Y3 link. This is the Indo-Aryan link, and nothing to do with Iranians.
@Davidski
How much BMAC do current South Asians (North Indians, NW Pakistani Punjabis) display?
There's very little BMAC ancestry in India, except in parts of the north (and in Pakistan).
But even this might not actually be BMAC ancestry, because we know from ancient DNA that BMAC-like populations existed in the region.
So Orpheus' idiotic suggestion that BMAC explains the spread of Indo-Iranian languages can't work.
It also can't work because there's no way to link the Indo-European speakers of Europe and India with BMAC. We can only do it with Corded Ware.
@Matt
I'm still working on updating the G25 datasheet with all of the samples released recently.
I've been doing a bit each day. It'll be done soon.
"So Orpheus' idiotic suggestion that BMAC explains the spread of Indo-Iranian languages can't work."
This is correct, BMAC did not spread Indo-Iranian languages, only Iranian languages (alalakh outlier, dinkha, hasanlu etc).
"It also can't work because there's no way to link the Indo-European speakers of Europe and India with BMAC. We can only do it with Corded Ware."
Mostly correct. However, the connection of India, BMAC and Europe goes to a time before bronze age BMAC. The connection is the Iran_N ancestry and the Armenia_N ancestry. 6200BCE Tajikistan was 80% Siberian, but 3600bce Sarazm was 65% Iran_N along with 15% Armenia_N ancestry from the Iranian plateau.
A massive migration is seen, likely post 5000bce (DATES).
A similar event happened in IVC around a similar time. Massive migration from the Iranian plateau along with minor Armenia_N like ancestry. Dates admixture time is ~4500bce between IranN & Onge in Indus periphery.
This connection can be seen by the Y hg of I8728 (IVC, high aasi) and 2 Swat_IA samples which are subclades of Armenia_Aknashen_N J-PF5174.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-PF5174/tree
This 4500-4000bce migration is what brought the IE languages to India.
How much ANF is distributed among SC and S Asia?
Most Indians only have a few per cent of ANF ancestry, which is basically the ratio that comes along with their Sintashta-related ancestry.
Of course, this ancestry peaks in Indo-Aryan and upper caste speaking Indians, while it's often missing altogether in Dravidian and tribal groups.
So it's clear that Indo-Aryan languages arrived in India with Sintashta-related ancestry, and their rapid spread mirrors the rapid spread of the Sintashta-related R1a-Z93 Y-DNA lineages in India.
BMAC can't explain anything in India.
BMAC also doesn't explain the spread of Iranian languages, because if BMAC was Iranian speaking, then we'd expect BMAC or BMAC-related ancestry to be relevant in India.
The only way to explain the spread of Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages is via Sintashta-related groups rich in R1a-Z93.
@Preachy
"How much ANF is distributed among SC and S Asia?"
SC Asian chalcolithic 4000-3000bce (sarazm, anau, parkhai, namazga, geoksyur) have 10-20% Turkey_N ancestry. Indus periphery has 5-7%. Indus periphery also has 11% Siberian ancestry from SC Asia.
"Most Indians only have a few per cent of ANF ancestry, which is basically the ratio that comes along with their Sintashta-related ancestry."
Incorrect, steppe less dravidian tribes also have anatolian ancestry, which is why they can be perfectly modeled with Namazga as source (damgaard et al).
"BMAC can't explain anything in India.
BMAC also doesn't explain the spread of Iranian languages, because if BMAC was Iranian speaking, then we'd expect BMAC or BMAC-related ancestry to be relevant in India."
Yes, BMAC cant, but 4000bce sc asia/iranian plateau can.
"The only way to explain the spread of Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages is via Sintashta-related groups rich in R1a-Z93."
Good luck explaining that without a single Andronovo shard found in India, pakistan or iran.
@vAsiSTha
C1368 is an outlier with clear excess SC asian ancestry relative to the nomadic populations of the region, probably one parent of sc Asian origin which then carried some South Asian ancestry.
Target: CHN_Jirentaigoukou_IA2:C1368
Distance: 2.2797% / 0.02279703
49.8 TKM_IA
40.0 Saka_Tian_Shan
10.2 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H
0.0 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
Target: CHN_Jirentaigoukou_IA2:C1368
Distance: 2.2702% / 0.02270165
43.4 TKM_IA
35.0 Saka_Tian_Shan
11.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H
10.6 KAZ_Kangju
Not exactly a great argument for Indian buddhist missionaries moving to Xinjiang and paternally contributing to Saka tribes in the Ili valley. No such thing happened around 300 BC anyways, the missionaries were later in the third century BC onwards, even later for the Tarim Basin and no presence in the steppes obviously.
Given that the L657 of this sample is not downstream of any South Asian clades, being negative for M605 and upstream Y3 has been found in several samples from Europe and Central Asia with no South Asian ancestry, the direction seems obvious.
C3325 needs no South Asian when you don't apply a convoluted mess as a model:
Target: CHN_Gongnaisi_IA1:C3325
Distance: 2.9387% / 0.02938674
65.4 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
34.6 TKM_IA
0.0 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H
Target: CHN_Gongnaisi_IA1:C3325
Distance: 2.6599% / 0.02659855
89.6 Saka_Tian_Shan
9.4 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
1.0 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H
0.0 TKM_IA
C3316 also doesnt need any obviously:
Target: CHN_Guanjingtai_IA:C3316
Distance: 2.3856% / 0.02385593
99.8 Saka_Tian_Shan
0.2 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H
0.0 TKM_IA
@vAsiSTha
Good luck explaining that without a single Andronovo shard found in India, pakistan or iran.
No one gives a shit about any shards.
Ancient DNA has just backed up what most people already knew generations ago, which is that Indo-Iranian languages had their origins in Corded Ware-derived peoples.
Haha.
@Rob
There are a bunch of samples like Kra001 from other sites in Siberia west of the Lena basin in a time period where Indo-Iranians were roaming as far northeast as the Minusinsk basin. I dont think linguistic contact is necessitated by geneflows either, but pretty much all Uralic branches ended up with some form of steppe_mlba eventually. Although this doesn't have to be directly mediated for some groups, particularly Samoyedic. Why is BMAC in Finno-Ugric speakers a necessity at all? We have iron age samples in the Siberian steppes with next to no BMAC ancestry, and plenty of bronze age samples without them.
The rest of your "linguistic" arguments about Yamnaya Z2103 bringing Iranian-Armenian-Greek prallels and the other things to me just strike as a misunderstanding of linguistics in general, in addition to trying to explain linguistics by genetics rather than explaining linguistics by linguistics. The Armenian parallels with Greek and Indo-Iranian are not Iranian specific, but Indo-Iranian as a whole. Graeco-Aryan is primarily based on Mycenaean-Sanskrit similarities, which are most likely due to archaic nature of both, being fairly similar to PIE still. Armenian has tons of West-Iranian influence too. Speaking of linguistics, Thracian lacks the ruki sound law found in Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic and (partially in) Armenian.
@Davidski, thanks for that update. There's a lot of samples, I know and no urgency.
@Preachy, I'll add an "...akshully" annoying coda to Davidski's comment, based on the recent paper - "On the limits of fitting complex models of population history to f-statistics" - https://elifesciences.org/articles/85492 (Maier 2023)
They have a comment that, in contrast to Shinde's paper and Narasimhan's in 2019, they find that working graphs that violate the idea that "Iranian farmer-related ancestry in the Indus Periphery group is not derived from the Hajji Firuz Neolithic or Tepe Hissar Chalcolithic groups."
Or, put another way, models work were Indus Periphery has ancestry from groups that have both Iran_N and ANF ancestry.
To explain why this is the case they state:
"Why did the Shinde et al. 2019 AG analysis find support for the IP (Indus-Periphery) Iranian-related lineage being the first to split, while our findGraphs analysis did not? The Shinde et al. 2019 study sought to carry out a systematic exploration of the AG space in the same spirit as findGraphs—one of only a few papers in the literature where there has been an attempt to do so—and thus this qualitative difference in findings is notable. We hypothesize that the inconsistency reflects the fact that the deeply-diverging WSHG-related ancestry (Narasimhan et al. 2019) present in the IP genetic grouping at a level of ca.10% was not taken into account explicitly neither in the AG analysis nor in the admixture-corrected f4-symmetry tests also reported in Shinde et al. (2019)."
Effectively, they argue that ANE related ancestry - which I would suggest is more likely to be related to the recent Tajikistan TTK (Tutkaulian) sample than the WSHG - may wipe the contribution of ANF.
So this being the case, although what Davidski says around ANF is true, it may also be the case that there is additional ANF from prior layers than the Steppe_MLBA contribution (probably not greatly from BMAC but we don't have many samples to represent ancient Southern Asia) which is present too, under some models.
(I think this possibility raised by Maier 2023, is roughly in line with what vAsiSTha suggests around ANF ancestry among Indus_Periphery).
(It's also IMO not certain if Indus_Periphery are 100% unadmixed representatives of populations in India at the time, being as they were found in other places).
Yes, Central Asian ancestry dampens the ANF signal in Central and South Asians. I pointed this out a while ago here.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/03/how-shirenzigou-nomads-became-proto.html
And like I said, there is minor excess ANF ancestry in India over what we would expect from just Sintashta-related ancestry.
But from what I've seen, it's mostly found in north India. Also, I don't believe that this is actually BMAC ancestry, but rather something pre-BMAC.
@ Copper Axe
''There are a bunch of samples like Kra001 from other sites in Siberia west of the Lena basin in a time period where Indo-Iranians were roaming as far northeast as the Minusinsk basin. I dont think linguistic contact is necessitated by geneflows either, but pretty much all Uralic branches ended up with some form of steppe_mlba eventually. Although this doesn't have to be directly mediated for some groups, particularly Samoyedic.''
There were contact between MLBA steppe groups and FU, no issue there, I just don;t think viewing the entire Surbnaja-Anrdonovo horizone as mono-dialectical is reflective of prehistoric reality.
'The rest of your "linguistic" arguments about Yamnaya Z2103 bringing Iranian-Armenian-Greek prallels and the other things to me just strike as a misunderstanding of linguistics in general, in addition to trying to explain linguistics by genetics rather than explaining linguistics by linguistics.''
Except that link is clearly there. I think that populations in contact would obviously impart linguistic influences on each other.
''Speaking of linguistics, Thracian lacks the ruki sound law found in Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic and (partially in) Armenian.''
The Ruki sound law is yet another isoglossic bundle which permeated (unevenly) across certain language 'families' which post-dated early Balto-Slavic. It might have been
the influence of Indo-Iranian 'back-mirgations' (e.g. historical nomad tribes) or an indpendent development, depending on who one reads.
"And like I said, there is minor excess ANF ancestry in India over what we would expect from just Sintashta-related ancestry."
Correct. There maybe 'minor' anatolian ancestry, but proximally that translates to a large SC Asian ancestry since SCA has max 20% Anatolian. That is likely also how part Siberian ancestry came to indus periphery.
"But from what I've seen, it's mostly found in north India. Also, I don't believe that this is actually BMAC ancestry, but rather something pre-BMAC."
Yes its pre BMAC. But it's not just in north India or Indus periphery. Most dravidian steppe-less tribal groups can only be modeled with SC asian sources but not Iran_N.
@Matt
Maier also finds 7.7% Anatolian ancestry in Indus periphery by qpAdm.
"A model “Indus Periphery = Ganj Dareh Neolithic + Onge (ASI)” was strongly rejected for the Indus Periphery group of 10 individuals with a p-value = 2 × 10-15, and a model that was shown to be fitting for all Indus Periphery individuals modeled one by one by Narasimhan et al. (Ganj Dareh Neolithic + Onge (ASI) + West Siberian hunter-gatherers (WSHG)) was rejected for the grouped individuals with a p-value = 0.0044. In contrast, a model “Indus Periphery = Ganj Dareh Neolithic + Onge (ASI) + WSHG + Anatolia Neolithic” was not rejected based on the p>0.01 threshold used in Narasimhan et al. (p-value was marginal but passing at 0.03) and produced plausible admixture proportions for all four sources that are confidently above zero: 53.2 ± 5.3%, 28.7 ± 2.1%, 10.5 ± 1.3%, 7.7 ± 2.9%, respectively.
Koptekin et al 2023 have this model for SiS_BA2 in table S4
p=0.063
Iran_GanjDareh_N: 48.40%
Anatolia_Buyukkaya_EC: 11.90%
West_Siberian_HG: 11.20%
Andamanese_HG: 28.50%
I find that between Turkey_N, Caucasus_N (aknashen, masis_blur and Azer_N together) and Hajji_N, Caucasus_N is the best source for IVCp in distal qpAdm models. In proximal models it translates to around 50% Sarazm like ancestry ie. Half of Sarazm's siberian (11% vs 22%) and caucasus_N (9% vs 15%) ancestry present in IVCp.
The work done by Narasimhan et al, and Shinde et al (genetics part done by Harvard) has made some major blunders wrt Indian subcontinent imo. I intend to correct it.
@Rob
If you read Holopainen's thesis, the chronology can be seen as following:
1. Proto-Indo-Iranian > Proto-Uralic: All Uralic languages or all Uralic languages except Pre-Samoyedic (Samoyedic retained almost zero corresponding Proto-Uralic lexicon)
2. Proto-Iranian > Uralic: All European and Ugric
3. Old Iranian > All European Uralic languages except Finnic and Saami: Komi, Udmurt, Mari etc. as well as Ugric (particularly Hungarian)
Suggested locations (by me):
1. Altai-Sayan region via early Fedorovo groups. Inbetween 2000-1600 BC.
2. Far eastern Europe/West Siberia with the Ural mts. as a centre point via Alakul and Srubnaya-Alakul groups. Inbetween 1600-1000 BC.
3. Iron age Scytho-Siberian horizon. After 1000 BC.
For Indo-Iranian everything matches here to be honest. What is more complex/troubling is Pre-Tocharian ordeals but even this is technically possible since there is some Chemurchek-like stuff in Tuva. We have an early and fairly significant presence of Indo-Iranians in the Minusinsk basin, and Kra001-like ancestry pops up in the vicinity circa 2100 BC onwards (although sporadically, and not natively to the area). Alakul has a direct correlation with LBA/iron age cultures ancestral to Iranian speaking peoples (Yaz, Karasuk etc.) and was present on both sides of the Urals, although west of the Urals can be seen as a syncretic variant with Srubnaya. Given that western Uralic people pop up on the eastern baltic shore in the iron age it makes sense they lack Old Iranian linguistic influences.
"Except that link is clearly there"
Between Greek and Armenian maybe but Indo-Iranian? Even from a genetic perspective those Yamnaya derived populations in Northwestern Iran are only relevant for a portion of West-Iranian speakers, not Iranian speakers as a whole. You could argue a link between Greek and Armenian based on that, but definitely not for Indo-Iranian languages.
Am I the only that that feels that the big labs have answered the "big picture" questions related to the peopling of Europe, but have been mandated to go to other geographies without answering the detailed questions about Europe? There were many abstracts from the past couple of years that have not produced any published papers.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-indo-european-puzzle-revisited/25D6C8E56082964A6133D70925ADFE29
"The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited - Integrating Archaeology, Genetics, and Linguistic"
"Online publication date: April 2023. Print publication year: 2023 "
@ Copper Axe
''Between Greek and Armenian maybe but Indo-Iranian?''
These stem to c. 3000 BC when Yamnaya ''propper'' expanded and further diversified pre-existing dialectical diversity
''Even from a genetic perspective those Yamnaya derived populations in Northwestern Iran are only relevant for a portion of West-Iranian speakers, not Iranian speakers as a whole. You could argue a link between Greek and Armenian based on that, but definitely not for Indo-Iranian languages.''
Yes even from the northwest corner of Iran such contacts could be mediated back through the rest of Indo-Iranian speech community. All that is required is some body of "influential" people engaged in contact with exogenous dialects and then the ongoing contact and cultures *within* a language area will do the rest. But i agree with your point some of it could also be archaic/ retentions, that is the nature of linguistic evidence. Hence its important to look to the evidence of people themselves.
''Suggested locations (by me):''
I have nothing against that proposal however might point is that the main FU expansion was further north in the boreal and subacrtic zone, i think this is fairly clear now. It's difficult to see the Sayan-Altai area as a focus of Fino-Uralic speakers given its role in forming 'Altai Scythians' & Pazyryk people with a rather different genetic make-up, apart from perhaps episodic appearance
But whatever the case, all that is required is some groups of post-Samoyedic FU speakers contacting Indo-Iranic speakers and this would diffuse said loans throught the rest of their broad language community. Also, in pre-literate socieites without a state enforced language stadardization, language change was variable and hence daughter languages would preserve apparently archaic *proto- forms . So this doesnt mean that I-A and FU were in direct contact ~ 3000 bc
''What is more complex/troubling is Pre-Tocharian ''
Still remains a bit of a mystery. I was initially doubtful of the Afansievo link but I now think it played a prominent role. However, i again perceive a multithetic glottogenesis - with input from Afansieov, WSHG/ Altai natives, some of the northeast Andronovans, etc..
@Matt
Haha.
They think Yamnaya comes from the "Russian" Pontic steppe.
Someone should tell the Ukrainians that the Pontic steppe is in Russia, because they're fighting for nothing.
@ Copper Axe and re:"1. Altai-Sayan region via early Fedorovo groups. Inbetween 2000-1600 BC." Why early Fedorovo, if I may ask?
Pontic steppe covers Ukraine as well.
@Davidski "How do you explain the presence of Corded Ware (Fatyanovo > Sintashta) ancestry and R1a-Z93 in both West and East Iranians and Indo-Aryans?"
How do you explain the absence of anything vedic-related in Sintashta, the late admixture dates, the absence of R1a and CWC-related ancestry in Mittani? You'll have to link the genes to the language (preferably culture too, given the timeline) otherwise it's a non-sequitur, and with the same line of thinking Etruscans and Basques spoke IE, and Mycenaeans didn't.
There are also Yamnaya haplos and Neolithic/J haplos spread throughout Europe and West Asia in CWC-speakers and non-IE speakers. Non-sequitur.
"Do you believe that there were non-Indo-Iranian migrations from the steppe into India and Iran?"
Throughout the years and without specifying the population? Yes of course. If you refer to Sintashta/Andronovo, I can't obviously tell for sure what they spoke. The evidence simply points at it not being Indo-Iranian. It could be a now-extinct IE language, a non-IE language, or an IE language they picked along the way which would make it undetected (eg Armenian). We don't really go by "what language X spoke" but by "there are high chances X speak Y language" or "there are high chances X didn't speak Y language", given the various data we have (including the requirements for X to be a plausible Y language speaker).
"If so, what Corded Ware language did these Sintashta-related people speak, and, considering the massive impact of their male lineages in India, did this language leave any trace there? If not, why not?"
We don't even know if it was a CWC (or IE in general) language in the first place. As I said it could be a now-extinct IE dialect, a non-IE dialect, some other IE dialect that went undetected that they picked up along the way, or even Tocharian if they came from a part of CWC that retained the language. Indo-Iranian actually splits earlier than Tocharian does (Kroonen 2022).
As for the lineages, it's all about the timeline. You'll have to find a big impact (autosomal and/or haplos) in early Indo-Iranian or Vedic or Avestan times. So far we don't see anything like that, in fact we see the opposite (late impact). And once again autosomal and haplo impact is not always carrying a language (see N lineages in the Baltics and Russia, which are accompanied by autosmal ancestry too. Or Etruscans, Basques etc, or various R1b haplos in CWC-speaking populations in modern Europe, and so on).
1/2 (just for good measure)
2/2
As you can see I'm not dismissing a Sintashta/Andronovo origin of Indo-Iranian. I'm simply saying that, given the current data and state of research, it is highly unlikely that they are the source. This can of course change in the future.
You can see Kortland (2016), Kroonen (2022), Kummel (2022), Pronk (2022), accompanied by Ryabogina & Ivanon (2011), Epimakhov (2010), Anthony et al (2005), Anthony & Brown (2007), Ruhl et al 2014, Hanks et al 2018. Sintashta/Andronovo fail the linguistic requirements (total lack of agriculture in contrast with the cereal agriculture required as well as other agricultural terms, most of which are cognates with Hittite, Greek, Armenian, and other IE languages like Celtic and Italic. Shared archaisms), timeline (too late for the split), linguistic family (if they spoke IE it was probably a CWC one and Indo-Iranian does not have a clear next relative), and there's additional genetic and archaeological data that are not in Sintashta/Andronovo's favor.
It's not one study that leads away from Sintashta but multiple. At the same time there's currently no comeback to any of these from what I know.
"By the way, the movement of R1a-Z93 into Central and South Asia predates the Turkic expansion, so don't say Turkic."
Why would I say Turkic lmao
@Vas Ah yes I had forgotten about that paper (Lamber-Karlovsky 2005).
@Davidski I didn't mention anything about BMAC's language. They're credited as Iranian due to their excavations (and good chunks of ancestry in Mittani, without any Sintashta). The point here was mostly about the culture and how it's nowhere to be found on the steppe though. Linguistic change, in the case that it occurs through a large impact (either conquest or mass migration) is also traceable culturally. The exception is if a large substratum of a language-speaking population was assimilated by non-speakers of that language, with the language of the substratum remaining, but this didn't occur in the case of Sintashta/Andronovo (it's always a large sudden impact proposed).
To put it more plainly, BMAC influence is seen whereas Sintashta/Andronovo isn't. BMAC influence is also seen genetically, and it fits the timeline. Regardless of what language BMAC spoke, BMAC being a vector of Indo-Iranian languages into India is far more plausible than Sintashta/Andronovo being the vector, because they simply meet the requirements better (again, regardless of whether they did or not. This is illustrating the weakness of the MLBA steppe as the I-Ir origin).
@Davidski "It also can't work because there's no way to link the Indo-European speakers of Europe and India with BMAC. We can only do it with Corded Ware."
We can't connect anything Indo-Iranian to Corded Ware, especially MLBA CWC-derived cultures. The linguistic data don't fit, the archaeological data don't fit, and currently the genetic data don't fit either. BMAC is linked with elements of Vedic culture and Mittani so there's a stronger link there. It also fits the linguistic timeline in all four suggested sources of Indo-Iranian spreading eastward (Steppe > Central Asia, or Steppe > West Asia > Central Asia and South Asia, or West Asia > Central Asia and South Asia, or West Asia > Steppe > Central Asia and South Asia).
Once again the point isn't whether BMAC was Indo-Iranian. It's that they're better candidates than Sintashta/Andronovo. And as Vas said it's not BMAC itself, BMAC isn't considered a legitimate candidate for Indo-Iranian (that's not my argument as you can tell). And yet it is currently a better candidate than Sintashta/Andronovo because it meets the criteria better than Sintashta/Andronovo does.
@Preachy Allentoft et al 2022 has ancestry % maps for ANF and other ancestries.
@Orpheus
You're not making any sense.
It's easy to explain the spread of Indo-Iranian languages via Corded Ware derived cultures.
This is the academic consensus.
So your personal assumptions about linguistics and archeology are wrong.
By the way, there are some likely Mittani-related samples from Isreal, and they do have R1a-Z93.
It is strange that Kroonen's work (2022) is cited as an example of a refutation of the classical theory, although, in fact, it only confirms the classical theory: “ Consequently, we may conclude that the evidence presented here is more consistent with Schrader’s scenario than with that of Hirt. While it cannot be excluded that Indo-Iranian lost some vocabulary, the data strongly suggest that the relative dearth of inherited agricultural terminology in this branch is due to a comparatively limited involvement in the lexical innovations that characterize the European branches. At the same time, it is clear that some vocabulary was lost in Indo-Iranian. As the root *h2erh3- is also attested with the meaning ‘plow’ in Tocharian, which is widely held to have split off second, Indo-Iranian probably once possessed this verb, something that also follows from the preservation of the formation *h2rh3-ur/n- ‘(arable) field’ in this branch. It thus appears that both Schrader and Hirt were partially right. On the one hand, Indo-Iranian participated in the initial core Indo-European shift from a pastoralist to an agro-pastoralist economy, of which some elements later were lost. On the other hand, Indo-Iranian was peripheral to the more recent and more radical shift towards a farming economy, as reflected in the vocabularies of the European branches (cf. Fig 2).”
A truly revolutionary thought in this work is the refutation of both Lazaridis' hypothesis about the origin of Indo-Anatolian in the farming Middle East and in the farming region west of the Dnieper. They also deny the occurrence of this phase on the Volga, as Anthony claimed. The most logical conclusion from this would be the location of this Indo-Anatolian phase in the Lower Don region, followed by the disintegration of the Anatolians in the Kuban region and the rest of the Indo-Europeans north of the Manych River. And the migration through the Caucasus, which Lazaridis calls the migration of Armenians, was actually the migration of Anatolians.
The Corded Ware link between the Indo-European speaking Europeans, Iranians and Indians is now so clear, that only a total nutjob would argue against it.
"Mitanni sample without sintashta" dont tell me we're calling a random woman who got thrown in a well "mitanni" now....
So far the only genetic link to the Mitanni rulers is Amenhotep III, who also happens to have mtdna H2b.
"By the way, there are some likely Mittani-related samples from Isreal, and they do have R1a-Z93."
Firstly, the Megiddo male is low quality with Z93 SNP absent. Its R-M417, Z93 status unknown. Confirmed by FTDNA https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-M417/tree
Just because one of the outliers there has R1a does not make them a Mitanni. The R1a in Megiddo is via the Balkans from Corded Ware, not Sintashta.
1700BCE Bulgaria_MLBA is R-Z93, so is I11913 from bronze age Romania. There isn't a Sintashta connection here, rather they are connected to the Alexandria Z93 sample and CW complex in general. See Merichleri2 and Glăvăneşti 11913 on the FTDNA tree below.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z93/tree
@vAsiSTha
There's an obvious Central Asian influence in the Bronze Age Levant.
So the Megiddo R1a is from Central Asia, and it'll turn out Z93 when it's re-sequenced.
@Davidski, @Orpheus et @al
Already in 2014, the analysis of the DNA structure of the Dravidians (Tamil) and IE Indians (Gujarati) showed their relationship to the basic populations of Europe (CEU and TSI).
See: Mohammad Ali "Characterizing the genetic differences between two distinct migrant groups from Indo-European and Dravidian speaking populations in India"
Both Indian populations exchanged pieces of their DNA (red) with European CEUs and TSIs, although the Dravidians and Aryans separately, in their own way:
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/india-ie-dr-europe-ceu-tsi.jpg
.
This is confirmed in the work of E.Kaj 2021 "Thausand Polish genomes", figure S-8A.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MNMdiagnostics/NaszeGenomy/main/admixture/World.jpg
The time and routes of their migration of IE and BR were different, but generally similar, which was revealed in the PCA G. Chaubey (albeit unwittingly) Reconstructing the population history… 2017 https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2016198 . Figure 1a.
and in the Pathak 2018 research - already fully consciously:
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/ie-dr-migration-pca.jpg
@StP
I was one of the first people who argued and proved with genetic data that Indo-Aryan languages came to India from Europe via Andronovo-related groups.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/05/indian-genetic-history-in-three-simple.html
But Dravidians have nothing to do with Europe.
If you insist on pushing your unusual agenda that they do, then I'll have to start deleting your posts.
“The comparative analyses of autosomal markers from 19 samples and previously published data uncovered similarities between Abashevo men from Pepkino mound (the haplogroup R1a (Z93>Z94)) with the Fatyanovo people, as well as with some representatives of the Unetice culture. These results are suggestive of the genetic continuity in the Russian Plain.”
https://www.e-anthropology.com/English/Catalog/Archaeology/STM_DWL_SVzM_UWAioXgp9UKG.aspx
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370414570_Ancient_DNA_of_the_Bearers_of_the_Fatyanovo_and_Abashevo_Cultures_Concerning_Migrations_of_the_Bronze_Age_people_in_the_Forest_Belt_on_the_Russian_Plain
Genetic continuity from Poland to Ural in the Bronze Age suggests also cultural and linguistic continuity. From Unetice/Nitra to Abashevo/Sintashta Indo-Slavonic dialects were spoken. Indo-Iranians emerged later when in the Central Asia Andronovo tribes migrating south started to mix with local population. Andronovo was probably also Indo-Slavonic which would explain links between Tocharian and Slavic and many Slavic influences in proto-Turkic.
@David, 'There's an obvious Central Asian influence in the Bronze Age Levant.'
Vraiment, it is quite obvious, there is new Indo Aryan polity deriving from Northern Central Asia, it is vividly clear from these 2 individuals.
Target: Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o2:I10100
Distance: 2.4428% / 0.02442786 | R3P
50.6 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA
26.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
23.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA_o
Target: TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019
Distance: 1.4924% / 0.01492436 | R3P
89.6 TKM_Gonur1_BA
7.4 KAZ_Kyzlbulak_MLBA2
3.0 RUS_Shamanka_N
"Indeed, dental morphology of the Well Lady shows shoveling of I2 [242], a feature which is passed down genetically and is shared by three other individuals– 42.10.130, buried in the Royal Precinct...it is possible, therefore, that the former three individuals, which show pronounced I2 shoveling, may also be genetic outliers, similar to the Well Lady.
@Davidski It isn't, and I don't have any assumptions of my own. If I had to make an assumption I could easily assume that Sintashta/Andronovo did in fact speak Indo-Aryan, but were not the origin of Indo-Iranian.
I'm simply mentioning the most recent papers (all abandoning Sintashta for different reasons, not just one). The mainstream has shifted away from your preferred position, while I'm fine with either scenario personally (Sintashta being the source of I-Ir or not being).
If a more recent paper comes out supporting your opinion make sure to link it
@Copper Axe Nah I'm not talking about the well sample. More samples are required for sure though
@Vladimir Kroonen is relevant to Indo-Iranian here, as are Kortland, Kummel, Pronk etc. We aren't discussing PIA atm.
He also does abandon the classical theory which is Yamnaya/Khvalynsk areas as PIA and has been the consensus of the steppe theory for decades and continues until today. He (alongside Anthony) is explicitly suggesting Sredny Stog as the homeland now. OTOH Kristiansen still considers Khvalynsk's area as the source.
Even if one believes in paleolexis (it's a little bit of vodoo imo), the findings of Kroonen et al imply that Anatolian split off earlier. Their location could very well have been the northwest pontic reigon. Even parts of the east Balkans adopted agriculture only after 5000 bc
Vlad's suggestion that the proto-Armenian Markopti-Bedeni kurgans are not Armenians only leaves an unsatisfactory answer to anyone familiar with the evidence :
1. how did Armenian speakers vaporise in the Caucasus, if not with those KMK/ post-Catacomb migrations
2. how is it that I2c and R1b-Z2103 found in above are still found in modern Aremanians
3. why does western Anatolia evidence an intrusion of people from southeast Europe c. 4000
@Orpheus
You're out of your depth here, mostly because you can't interpret the DNA data correctly.
For instance, you claim that the admixture date is too late. But what you don't realize is that these sorts of dates represent the mixture process that is well under way, and not when the migrants first arrived in the region.
The time lag between the two processes might be several hundred years, or even a couple of thousand years in extreme cases.
And you actually think that vAsiSTha is making sense, but, in fact, this individual is clearly mentally unstable.
So you really need to get a clue before trying to bring down a hypothesis that is now even more widely accepted than it was before ancient DNA.
@Orpheus
"@Copper Axe Nah I'm not talking about the well sample. More samples are required for sure though"
Which Mitanni samples with BMAC and without Steppe_MLBA were you talking about then? Hasanlu/Dinkha Tepe? Not exactly a strong association with the Mitanni aside from them being speakers of a language related to Hurrian, which was also the main population of the Mitanni state, which even at their max extent never reached Urmia as far as I know. Oh and one bowl found at Tepe Hasanlu...
For the peeps posting G25 models of that woman thrown into a well, keep in mind Central Asia wasn't just Steppe_MLBA and BMAC.
Target: TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Distance: 2.4674% / 0.02467358
88.2 TKM_Gonur1_BA
9.8 KAZ_Dali_EBA
2.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
That 2% seems just noise and goes away when adding something with more ANF:
Target: TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Distance: 2.4217% / 0.02421651
83.8 TKM_Gonur1_BA
11.6 KAZ_Dali_EBA
4.6 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Think about it too, she died because she was thrown into a well. What link does she have to the rulers of a Hurrian state?
Models where those Megiddo outliers are just steppe_mlba don't make a lot of sense if they are to be linked to the Mitanni, as these would have been in the Near East for about two centuries by then. Considering Megiddo at that time has quite the attestation of both Indo-Aryan and Hurrian names at the time, those samples should be mixed with populations carrying some Steppe_EBA too I think. Unless if these were recent arrivals, which would be interesting but then the notion that all Indo-Iranians/Indo-Aryans in the Bronze age Near East were "Mitanni" might not hold up if multiple of such groups migrated westwards.
@Orpheus
Just what is the latest genetic evidence connecting Sredny Stog-Corded Ware-Fatyanovo ydna/IBD with Anatolian-Tocharian ydna/IBD?
"which even at their max extent never reached Urmia as far as I know"
You don't know much then. The Mitanni reaching Urmia before migrating to Syro-Anatolia has been the consensus for decades now.
Burrows (1973): "An indication of their presence in the neighbouring region of Persian Azerbaidjan is perhaps indicated by the name of Lake Urmiya (now Rezaiyeh). Although this name does not occur before the Islamic period it is thought to be much more ancient because of the mention in an Assyrian source of a place called Urmieate in its vicinity. Since the Proto-Indoaryans must have been in north-western Iran in order to reach the Mitanni country, it will not be unreasonable to suggest an Indo-Aryan etymology for this name, if one is available. Such an etymology is available if we compare Skt. urmi- "wave" and urmya- "undulating, wavy", which would provide a suitable descriptive name for the lake. This is a case where the phonology of Indo-Aryan and Iranian have diverged quite widely (cf. Av. vardmi- "wave") and it is interesting that the name of this lake, if the above etymology is correct, should go so clearly with Indo-Aryan"
Diakonnof (1993): "The dynastic name is perhaps connected with Herodotus' Matieni, a tribe living somewhere in the neighbourhood of Lake Urmiyah—a likely place for the origin of the dynasty, and as a place of contacts between Hurrians and Indo-Iranians"
Eidem (2014): "To turn finally to the reason for the title of this paper I would suggest that inspiration for the formation of the Mittani kingdom may have included memory of the Turukkean exodus, which for a short period linked Hurrian groups in the Zagros and the Khabur, and for which Samsı-Adad was primarily responsible. Another inspiration could have come from the very imperial triangle which Samsı-Adad had created by placing his sons in corners of its base and himself at the apex in the Khabur. Early Mittani kings, perhaps deriving from mountains in the east, may likewise have found it expedient – and prestigious – to build their capital in this strategic region"
Yoffee (2014): " Eidem suggested at the conference that it may have been the proximity of East Hurrians, who lived in Urmia Basin, to Indo-European speakers, who were just to the north of this area, which accounted for the Indo-European names and terms at Alalakh and in Bog˘azköy"
It's not like the Greater Khorasan Road is right next to Hasanlu.
"Oh and one bowl found at Tepe Hasanlu.."
Oh yeah, this is terrible! I wish it was found in Sintashta then we wouldn't hear the end of it.
@Davidski Did you miss the part where I said that future papers can very well change the current image we're getting? Both in terms of qpAdm and DATES.
The assumption you make can very well be correct, we simply don't know yet and I have no reason to make up my mind yet (imagine being so invested in a hobby). I simply look at the most recent papers, all of which do not support (and some explicitly reject) Sintashta/Andronovo as the origin of Indo-Iranian. But this doesn't even mean that they weren't speaking Indian or Iranian as I mentioned earlier, even if they weren't the origin of those languages.
You're a bit too quick to cope, probably because you're used to others being explicitly against you. I'm on the fence on this one and don't consider the issue settled (same with PIA). If you're right then in time it will be proven.
@Copper Axe And still it's stronger evidence than what we got for Sintashta/Andronovo, actually. Not that you're wrong, the association isn't particularly strong.
"but then the notion that all Indo-Iranians/Indo-Aryans in the Bronze age Near East were "Mitanni" might not hold up if multiple of such groups migrated westwards."
I guess it's up to the timeline and archaeology. Maybe Vara has some insight on that.
@a Huh? I don't think there are any studies on Sredny/Anatolia and CWC/Tocharian connections besides the studies on post-EBA Tarim Basin samples. What are you referring to?
@copper axe,
The model for well lady you have shown does not need Chalcolithic Iranian or such ancestry from the Levant, but she certainly has arrived with Maryamannu-Mitanni polity , on F4 stats , Sarazm is preferred but she requires a Shamanka signale , but there is minute Andronovo ancestry , as trace amount of WHG is present.
The other Megiddo individual need not require any Steppe EBA-Catacomb in fact adding it on left group harms the model and is detrimental, so your assumption here again is incorrect. This sample also prefers Sarazm,Gonur_o but with large quantity of Andronovo. So David is correct here.
@Orpheus
Did you miss the part where I pointed out that you don't know how to interpret these types of analyses?
In pixie land where Orpheus exists, he’s Boss level analyst
@Huck Finn
"Why early Fedorovo, if I may ask?"
Sorry missed your comment earlier. Early Fedorovo because these were the first Andronovo populations in that region and remained so until the formation of the Karasuk culture, spurred on by Alakul newcomers.
@Rob
Regarding F-U earlier, my point was not that they were native to the Altai-Sayan region or that their ethnogenesis happened in that particular spot. I'm very skeptical of a Proto-Samoyedic origin around the Sayan and have been for quite a while for example.
The region is important because it is the area from which several great Siberian rivers flow, rivers and boats playing a significant part in mobility and trade of the hunter-gatherers in those areas. Since Indo-Iranians lived in the areas close to the source, it is not a stretch to imagine trade connections with populations further upstream of one of those rivers. Given the way how almost all of these rivers connect to one another via various tributaries it is far from a stretch to imagine contacts between Late Proto-Indo-Iranians and Proto/Early Uralic speakers, who definitely had a presence somewhat in the vicinity of the Altai-Sayan and Minusinsk basin during the bronze age, even if it was only temporary and perhaps not all too significant.
@ Copper Axe
Agree with all that. The specific chronology & 'cultural groups' involved needs further elucidation, imo.
@vAsiSTha
"Just because one of the outliers there has R1a does not make them a Mitanni."
Ok..
"The R1a in Megiddo is via the Balkans from Corded Ware, not Sintashta."
Not it isn't. Provide even the tiniest modicum of proof of that statement.
"1700BCE Bulgaria_MLBA is R-Z93, so is I11913 from bronze age Romania. There isn't a Sintashta connection here, rather they are connected to the Alexandria Z93 sample and CW complex in general. See Merichleri2 and Glăvăneşti 11913 on the FTDNA tree below."
Based on two Bronze age Z93 samples from the Balkans, you've concluded that "R1a in Megiddo is via the Balkans". Genius...
Also,
"so is I11913 from bronze age Romania"
This is a Scythian/Sarmatian from the Iron Age that wasn't carbon dated and was given a very loose age estimate of 5,450-3,050 ybp.
https://i.imgur.com/jEXBt7U.png
"rather they are connected to the Alexandria Z93 sample and CW complex"
I6561 is also Y3+, not just Z93, unlike Bulgaria_MLBA and the misdated Glăveneşti sample.
"Alexandria Z93 sample and CW complex"
Given that I6561 is Y3+, Y3 can be connected to " the CW complex in general", based on what you wrote yourself in the post I'm quoting...
"The R1a in Megiddo is via the Balkans from Corded Ware, not Sintashta."
Meggido outliers have admixture from Central Asia in the form of BMAC/Steppe_EMBA/WSHG ancestry alongside Steppe_MLBA. Nothing Balkan though...
https://i.imgur.com/hz9wKtZ.png
"Not even worth responding to."
Your comments? Yeah, complete drivel and a waste of internet space. Go touch some grass.
I actually thought it was common knowledge that the Megiddo samples had Central Asian/Sintashta ancestry.
And then out of nowhere vAsiSTha comes out with the Balkans idea.
Haha.
What a tool.
@ Vara
I know we've been taking the piss, but (seriously) how do you account for the expansion of Hitties & Luwians in Anatolia ?
@Davidski
Did my other comment not come through (about nine hours ago)? It was quite a lengthy one. LMK if you dont see anything and then I guess I will redo the comment.
I approved everything, so I'm not sure where it went.
Sometimes when comments are too long or written in a certain repetitive format they disappear somewhere.
@Davidski
Weird, I'll try posting another attempt. I had some major issues getting my latest blog entry up and running too so maybe something is a bit off with the servers of the site.
@altvred
"Not it isn't. Provide even the tiniest modicum of proof of that statement."
Read the rotating qpAdm outputs here. https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/09/alalakh-well-lady.html.
No model with Sintashta works for the higher quality sister I2200.
What you need to do is prove your case with proper qpAdm models, not G25.
"Based on two Bronze age Z93 samples from the Balkans, you've concluded that "R1a in Megiddo is via the Balkans". Genius...
Balkans are much closer to Israel than Central asia, at least 1000km closer by road. There is direct sea access from the balkans to israel as well. Sea trade was thriving in the bronze age in the region.
"I6561 is also Y3+, not just Z93, unlike Bulgaria_MLBA and the misdated Glăveneşti sample."
Lol. It is not. Just because idiots on Anthrogenica believe so does not make it true. Learn about C->T deamination errors in half UDG treated samples.
Btw, here is proof from ftdna that it is not R-Y3+. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z93/tree
"Meggido outliers have admixture from Central Asia in the form of BMAC/Steppe_EMBA/WSHG ancestry alongside Steppe_MLBA. Nothing Balkan though..."
Prove it via qpAdm rotating models with proper competition.
@Davidski
"I actually thought it was common knowledge that the Megiddo samples had Central Asian/Sintashta ancestry."
Oh is it? The authors certainly don't believe so. They label it simply as outliers with additional caucasus ancestry. But you are a slav ethnochauvinist, why would you care about such things.
"The reason these individuals are distinct from the rest is that their Caucasus- or Zagros-related genetic component is much higher, reflecting ongoing gene flow into the region from the northeast (Table S2; Figure S2B). The Neolithic Levant component is 22%–27% in I2200, and 9%–26% in I10100. These individuals are unlikely to be first generation migrants, as strontium isotope analysis on the two outlier siblings (I2189 and I2200) (Methods S1A) suggests that they were raised locally. This implies that the Megiddo outliers might be descendants of people who arrived in recent generations. Direct support for this hypothesis comes from the fact that in sensitive qpAdm modeling (including closely related sets of outgroups), the only working northeast source population for these two individuals is the contemporaneous Armenia_MLBA, whereas the earlier Iran_ChL and Armenia_EBA do not fit (Table S2). The addition of Iran_ChL to the set of outgroups does not change this result or cause model failure. Finally, no other Levantine group shows a similar admixture pattern (Table S2). This shows that some level of gene flow into the Levant took place during the later phases of the Bronze Age and suggests that the source of this gene flow was the Caucasus.
Altogether, our analyses show that gene flow into the Levant from people related to those in the Caucasus or Zagros was already occurring by the Intermediate Bronze Age, and that it lingered, episodically or continuously, at least in inland sites, during the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age."
I'm guessing my comment dissapeared into the Abyss again, I'll try dividing it into pieces, could you approve these? (if it didn't just disregard these)
"@Orpheus
You went from this:
"as well as autosomal and yDna in Mittani"
"How do you explain the absence of anything vedic-related in Sintashta, the late admixture dates, the absence of R1a and CWC-related ancestry in Mittani?"
"and good chunks of ancestry in Mittani, without any Sintashta"
To this:
"And still it's stronger evidence than what we got for Sintashta/Andronovo, actually. Not that you're wrong, the association isn't particularly strong."
Backpedalling?
Instead of random women being thrown into a well or the cousins of the people under the dominion of the Mitanni rulers which everyone here seems to base their narratives of, lets look at people who actually may have been derived from the Mitanni rulers.
One potential individual is Amenhotep III, whose mother Mutemwiya has long been suspected to be the daughter of Mitanni king Artatama I. We know through one of the Amarna letters that Thutmose IV did marry one of Artatama's daughters, attested by Tushratta. Another propositon was that she was the sister of Yuya.
We have haplogroup STR predictions for some of these invididuals. I'm not a big fan of STR (see the Xiaohe R1a fiasco for ex.) but in this case we can compare DNA to known geneaologies and it all matches up. From this we know we can rule out the scenario where Yuya's sister is the mother of Amenhotep III as Yuya had mtdna K whereas Amenhotep III had mtdna H2b. H2b of course is a steppe_mlba lineage, having popped up in quite some Sintashta/Andronovo samples already.
Egyptian historical figure with potentially Mitanni mother > has a mtdna clade found in Sintashta/Andronovo populations.
Much stronger evidence than some evidence for BMAC geneflow into Hasanlu and a bowl."
@David, "I actually thought it was common knowledge that the Megiddo samples had Central Asian/Sintashta ancestry."
Vraiment, it is rather strange for Vashiste to argue an origin of Balkans or Iranien for such samples. Quel Dommage! The most Steppe enriched samples of Nord Indie,show identical melange of ancestry as the Megiddo individual, from a region which was coeur of the Vedic Sansrkit speaking sphere.
Target: Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o2:I10100
Distance: 2.3501% / 0.02350070 | R4P
45.6 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA
29.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
17.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA
7.6 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
Target: Jat_Uttar_Pradesh
Distance: 0.7034% / 0.00703427 | R4P
48.8 Vellalar
26.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
15.6 TKM_Gonur1_BA
9.0 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
The Megiddo outlier sample is rather ancient, older than the other two
1688-1535 calBCE (3338±21 BP, RTK-7899)
Are there samples of the recent Abashevo paper which you process for G25 David? Merci
@Vara
Nice copy paste job smartypants, but what you posted is an iron age kingdom in Northwestern Iran with a vaguely similar name to Mitanni (Funnily enough names such as Hurri and Hanigalbat were more commonly used in later sources by Assyrians and Hittites), as well as some speculations about the potential route Mitanni Aryans may have took. Do you not notice the amounts of mays/coulds/potentiallys etc?
Nothing here proves that said area was under Mitanni control circa 1600-1200, which is why I brought that up because most of the BA samples of Hasanlu fall in the period of the Mitanni state existing. Given how Hurrian documents regularly appear in territories under Mitanni dominion it shouldn't be too hard to prove that the area was under Mitanni control.
If you "knew much" you wouldn't need to reach so hard and would post something concrete, such as as the Mitanni seals at Bayazi Abad. Unfortunately this doesn't prove that either (because the articles also mention local seals, and these were different) but it is far closer to anything you posted.
@Kouros
Trade and human mobility between Central Asia and West Asia far predates the Mitanni period. It is quite likely that the reason why the Mitanni ended up where they did is precisely due to an already existing trade roude due to the bronze age tin trade. So there is no "certainty" about this woman being involved in the Mitanni complex. Her presence in Alalakh (1650-1550 bc) predates Alalakh being a Mitanni vassal by a century, and she was not a first generation migrant indicated by her isotopes. Marymannu is not the correct term, you're thinking of Maryannu.
As far as genetics go, given her date a "minute" amount of Andronovo ancestry would require a single admixture event around 1900-1700 BC depending on how much Andronovo ancestry you get. Having 1.5% would be over two centuries already. Given that date I find it unlikely she actually has steppe_mlba ancestry, which I don't even get when using G25 and G25 is robust enough to distinguish steppe_mlba from WSHG-rich pops. That small WHG you mentioned was also present in many Siberian/Central Asian populations through EHG mediaries. Its literally just some central asian sample.
Regarding the Megiddo outliers, their quality isn't great and those samples can be modeled in a myriad of ways. You can also get fairly good results on qpadm without steppe_mlba for instance. The fact is that in Megiddo the Indo-Aryan names appear side-by-side with Hurrian names and by this time they would be in West Asia for nearly two centuries, and unless there was some hardcore caste system within Mitanni they should have such ancestry.
"So David is correct here."
I haven't seen Davidski make the claim that these samples are purely Central Asian/Levantine and do not have any ancestry from Upper Mesopotamia or NW Iran.
Hello Kouros
There is no Sintashta ancestry in this sample. The yamnaya is from the caucasus. This is why the authors of the paper detect Caucasus ancestry here.
Target: Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o2:I10100
Distance: 2.2772% / 0.02277158
31.6 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
19.0 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA
13.8 Corded_Ware_CZE_early
10.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
10.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
9.2 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o
3.2 Corded_Ware_POL
2.6 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
0.0 ARM_MBA
0.0 ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA
0.0 BGR_MalakPreslavets_N
0.0 BGR_Middle_C
0.0 BGR_MLBA
0.0 BGR_MP_N
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
0.0 Corded_Ware_CHE
0.0 Corded_Ware_CHE_o
0.0 Corded_Ware_CZE
0.0 Corded_Ware_CZE_late
0.0 Corded_Ware_CZE_noSteppe
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU
0.0 Corded_Ware_DEU_o
0.0 Corded_Ware_POL_early
0.0 Corded_Ware_Proto-Unetice_POL
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Karagash
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.0 Yamnaya_SRB
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o
@Vashishta you did not include any WSHG enriched source and that is extremely over fitted, you can try on qpAdm , this individual requires lot of Central Asian ancestry + Andronovo, you have excluded that and added Alalakh but this child was born and raised in Megiddo, her mother was local woman, she is not migrant but of mixed Central Asian parentage, qpAdm and F stats favors Megiddo as Levantine source. The other samples do show some Catacomb admixing likely from Western Iran site which complicates signal but this individual shows none even on your result.
Target: Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o2:I10100
Distance: 2.2932% / 0.02293245
48.6 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA
14.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
14.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA
14.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.6 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
3.0 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
Target: Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o2:I10100
Distance: 2.2835% / 0.02283488 | R5P
35.6 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA
18.2 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
18.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA_o
14.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
14.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Even after Yamnaya it does not move anything, Rather utilizing Alalakh divides Steppe MLBA signale (as it is 70% Yamnaya like) but the Central Asian ancestry remains which is very important, surely these people are not from Europe. The same ancestry and proportion is very present in that Steppe rich Nord Indien,after almost four millenia?
There are new ancient samples with Sorbonne-CNRS research team from Bashman, Tila Burak and few other places and let me tell you now, your engaging in a very futile effort with David and others on this blog. Quel Dommage! Hopefully you come to senses and see truth.
@David , Merci !
What was the Y-DNA/MtDNA for 1 and 2?
R1a-Z94. No idea about the mtDNA.
@Kouros
G25 is unfortunately no proof for anything, show working qpadm models.
From Josephson Hesse · 2008 (Late bronze age trade in the mediterannean), wrt a wrecked ship carrying BMAC related ingots. A lot of nationalities were involved in the bronze age sea trade, including Balkans.
"A thorough investigation made by Pulak indicates that they “acted as emissaries or envoys, accompanying a cargo of reciprocated ‘gift exchange’ to the Aegean”, and probably represented Mycenaean palatial interests returning from a diplomatic mission rather than itinerant merchants on a foreign ship. These emissaries might have been accompanied by a protecting mercenary from Balkan, suggested by the remains of a set of weapons and personal items from this region.225 The international and multicultural character of maritime commerce (both gift exchange and trade) is further testified to by documents from Ugarit. “The tablets include lists of merchandise, commercial contracts, bills of lading, and lists of residents, sailors and merchants of diverse origins (Tyre, Akko, Byblos, Alashiya, etc)”.226 Cline as well points out that a “wide variety of people, of varying nationalities” were involved in the Mediterranean Bronze Age trade."
Your claim about Megiddo is the same claim made by some for Hasanlu. That it contains BMAC + sintashta ancestries. We know that the claim is false.
The steppe ancestry there is from Yamnaya via caucasus. A simple proof is the Hajji_BA sample with elevated Yamnaya ancestry, sample predates the Sintashta culture.
There are some agreeable statements made by CopperAxe just above. You need to listen and understand.
"So there is no "certainty" about this woman being involved in the Mitanni complex. Her presence in Alalakh (1650-1550 bc) predates Alalakh being a Mitanni vassal by a century, and she was not a first generation migrant indicated by her isotopes."
This is correct. There's nothing really to connect that murdered woman to a Mitanni, even though her being a Mitanni would make my hypothesis bulletproof.
"Its literally just some central asian sample."
This is also correct. She had no sintashta ancestry.
"Regarding the Megiddo outliers, their quality isn't great and those samples can be modeled in a myriad of ways. You can also get fairly good results on qpadm without steppe_mlba for instance."
This is also correct. I'll add here, the sister of the R1a boy, I2200, cannot be modeled with Sintashta or related mlba source in a proper rotating setup.
"whereas Amenhotep III had mtdna H2b. H2b of course is a steppe_mlba lineage, having popped up in quite some Sintashta/Andronovo samples already."
This though, is not agreeable. H2b has also been found at Yamnaya, the source of the Sintashta H2b. Amenhotep III himself was R1b (from Yamnaya likely). So both R1b and H2b from Yamnaya/Caucasus is more parsimonious, Sintashta connection is not needed.
"but what you posted is an iron age kingdom in Northwestern Iran with a vaguely similar name to Mitanni"
Nice so it turns out you can't read.
"as well as some speculations about the potential route"
Haha the stupidest comment of the year. There are only 3 routes because flight services weren't available. 1 is Elamite so it's easily excluded. 2 the greater Zagros region aka the Kassite route which also shows some Aryan influence. 3 NW Iran the obvious one.
I didn't post the archaeology stuff because it's well known but idk about you.
My turn now. Show me something concrete in Sintashta that isn't red ochre or hunting chariots or whatever. Any Hasanlu bowl found over there?
I love how Hasanlu doesn't have II presence anymore because R1a is missing. Oh no the Hasanlu bowl hahaha.
@Rob
The prehistoric groups?
"Lol. It is not. Just because idiots on Anthrogenica believe so does not make it true. Learn about C->T deamination errors in half UDG treated sample"
Im aware of deamination in aDNA, you however should learn about Y3 being defined by T->C not C -> T genius...
Some models for the Steppe-admixed outliers from MLBA Levant.
Target: Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o1:I2189__BC_1550__Cov_11.40%
Distance: 3.7808% / 0.03780787 | R4P
38.2 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA:I8187__BC_1725__Cov_36.26%
31.8 RUS_Afanasievo:I3950__BC_2757__Cov_65.41%
26.6 TUR_Camlibel_Tarlasi_LC:CBT001__BC_3496__Cov_53.23%
3.4 TKM_Parkhai_MBA:I6674__BC_2198__Cov_68.77%
Target: Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o1:I2200__BC_1550__Cov_53.10%
Distance: 1.1470% / 0.01146988 | R4P
34.6 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA:ALA123__BC_1600__Cov_59.31%
32.0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA:ALA136__BC_1600__Cov_24.41%
25.0 RUS_Poltavka:I0418__BC_1934__Cov_66.18%
8.4 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA:I4285__BC_1735__Cov_27.04%
Target: Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o2:I10100__BC_1598__Cov_21.20%
Distance: 2.1947% / 0.02194724 | R4P
47.4 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA:ALA123__BC_1600__Cov_59.31%
35.6 Corded_Ware_CZE_early:TRM003__BC_2670__Cov_68.35%
14.6 TKM_Geoksyur_En:I12485__BC_3100__Cov_65.85%
2.4 AUS_Willandra_Lakes_4000BP:WLH4__BC_2000__Cov_unknown
Target: TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019__BC_1564__Cov_63.81%
Distance: 1.5136% / 0.01513564 | R4P
50.4 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA:I7416__BC_1874__Cov_77.47%
31.8 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA:I7492__BC_1903__Cov_77.69%
11.8 CHN_Tarim_EMBA1:GMGM1__BC_2009__Cov_20.27%
6.0 ARM_Kura-Araxes_Kalavan:I1635__BC_2526__Cov_69.55%
Steppe_MLBA admixed groups all have a lot of IBD with each other and even with other groups that are only admixed with Steppe_MLBA. For example, the Swat samples, even though they only have a low level of Steppe_MLBA ancestry, all have quite a bit of IBD with Steppe_MLBA groups, and with other groups that received admixture from Steppe_MLBA. And even though the Alalakh woman had a low level of Steppe_MLBA ancestry, even she has IBD connections with a group that received admixture from Steppe_MLBA (Swat_IA).
The three Megiddo outliers don't have such connections as far as I've checked. Their patterns are much more ambiguous, with connections with Steppe_EMBA (Yamnaya) and Central Europe and the Balkans (Europe_LNBA). So their origin is a lot more mysterious. The Megiddo outliers coming from Steppe_MLBA doesn't add much to the AMT argument however, because the Alalakh woman, even if she is not a Mitanni, already shows that admixture between BMAC or BMAC-related ancestry and Steppe_MLBA ancestry took place early, and that these groups could travel on the route that the later Mitannis took from east to west.
Wonder where the gutians and Kassites came from based on the genetic data....
@ vara. Yes, the putative linguistic speakers
The Megiddo outlier does seem to be Yamnaya related, in fact best fit with Catacomb C.
So this is just an extension of the Catacomb-related 'conquest' of the southern Caucasus, known locally as the Martkopi-Bedeni-Trialeti-Vanadzor horizon.
The Alalakh outlier is a 2-way mix of BMAC + Dali_EBA, just like one group of BMAC-outliers.
https://justpaste.it/bs4z8
the alalakh_O result doesnt seem to have pasted
best coefficients: 0.896 0.104
Jackknife mean: 0.895342251 0.104657749
std. errors: 0.022 0.022
tail prob 0.399033
@ Rob this is not the siblings sample but it is known Catacomb does not harbor r1a so utilizing Steppe EBA is illogical in that regard, wrt to the archaic outlier , it is certain it is of mixed Central Asian parentage.
Israel_Megiddo_MLBA_I10100
Israel_Megiddo_MLBA 0.601954 0.0331964
Kazakhstan_Kyzlbulak_MLBA_I4784 0.398046 0.0331964
Tail: 0.54
Elegant two way model but very robust as well.
Kazakhstan_Kyzlbulak_MLBA_I4784
Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA 0.231624 0.0439337
Kazakhstan_Dali_EBA 0.320757 0.0295097
Sintashta_MLBA 0.447619 0.0506881
Tail: 0.15
@altvred
"Im aware of deamination in aDNA, you however should learn about Y3 being defined by T->C not C -> T genius.."
Lol, its not. You are out of your depth here.
Here is the Yleaf output from I6561 bam
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tmeZTIe8lEtylWD_A4y42rsYehk5XQJ7p49PQZSjxnY/edit?usp=sharing
chry 21610995 Y26 R-Y3 C->T C T 1 100 T Derived
chry 8439885 Y27 R-Y2 T->A T A 2 100 T Ancestral
Again, as proof. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z93/tree
I6561 is R-Z93 terminal as per ftdna.
@ Copper Axe: the idea of Fedorovo related Proto Indo Iranic-Proto Uralic contact based on a model, where the Uralic speakers would have lived somewhere north of Fedorovo does not seem too convincing to me. For example: the kra001 related genetic root seems to point to the areas east of Fedorovo, not north of that. Also, should we assume that the formation of Seyma Turbino was a part of the process, the role of jade i.e. nephrite supports an eastern, not northern point of origin. Besides, the features of the expansion phase of Seyma Turbino seem to be based on a quite sizeable groups, as for instance mentioned by Kuzmina:”The end of the Abashevo culture is
associated with the emergence of the Seyma-Turbino cultural group in Eastern Europe. The
confrontation between the Abashevo and Seyma-Turbino military units led to the withdrawal
of the Abashevo culture from traditional territory. ” The well established Abashevo groups should most probably have been able to defend themselves from the pressure of some marginal northern HG group, whereas a Avar style migration, maybe even from Trans Baikal area, would have been a different issue. Because of genetics, - and nephrite, we however apparently have to assume a stop over somewhere near Vitim, before the Sayan area. This being said, a Fedorovo related contact as such is of course a possibility.
@ Kouros
What are your pRight pops ?
There were R1a-Z93 in KMK by the way, as I’ve pointed out above
@ Huck Finn
The S-T scenario doesn’t work either, for several reasons
What were seeing is some undescribed phenomenon, maybe some Russian scholars have touched on it, but of course it needs the nuanced touch
@vAsiSTha
"This though, is not agreeable. H2b has also been found at Yamnaya, the source of the Sintashta H2b. Amenhotep III himself was R1b (from Yamnaya likely). So both R1b and H2b from Yamnaya/Caucasus is more parsimonious, Sintashta connection is not needed."
The mtdna and y-dna in this dynasty are highly unlikely to be from the same (recent) source given the known family tree of the 18th dynasty, which was an extension of the 17th. Weirdly enough the STR values on those R1bs point towards P312 rather than Z2103 but no 100% certainty on clades beyond M269 iirc. If legit it might be some north african connection via distant Beaker ancestry. A Z2103 route would involve an Asiatic route which given the history between the Hyksos and the 17th dynasty seems unlikely for a patrilineal source. But perhaps not impossible.
Genuine question since I don't know, how many H2bs do we have in Upper Transcaucasia, Upper Mesopotamia, NW Iran during the bronze and iron age?
@Vara
You still havent posted evidence that when the Mitanni state was ongoing, the future mutilated corpses and male lovers of Hasanlu were under Mitanni dominion, let alone being the Mitanni themselves. Just a waste of words really, clowns are supposed to be funny.
@copperaxe
These are all the H2b samples from Harvard anno file
3010-2623 calBCE Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
2874-2628 calBCE Czech_CordedWare
2140-1780 calBCE Czech_EBA_Unetice
2050-1700 BCE Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
2050-1700 BCE Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
1928-1751 calBCE Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
1891-1743 calBCE Russia_MLBA_Sintashta_brother.I1053
1850-1600 BCE Russia_Srubnaya
1612-1465 calBCE Russia_MLBA_Krasnoyarsk
1607-1450 calBCE Russia_MLBA_Krasnoyarsk
755-412 calBCE Kazakhstan_Tasmola_EIA
789-202 calBCE China_Xinjiang_Abusanteer_IA_oEastAsian
360-320 BCE France_GrandEst_IA2.SG
541 calBCE - 61 calCE China_Xinjiang_Zhagunluke_IA
84-239 calCE China_Xinjiang_Shanpula_Historical_Sampula
1290-1395 calCE Pakistan_Barikot_H
@ Rob: For several reasons, such as?
@ Huck Finn
For a start, hunter-gatherers from the Sayan-Altai region just morphed from fish-bone technology to master metallurgists who steam-rolled over Abashevo doesn't seem credible. Moreover, this technology was introduced by western steppe herders themselves (CAX thinks that lost-wax casting was a central Asian addition).
Thirdly, S-T is a genetically diverse trans-cultural phenomenon.
The kra_1 related expansion occurred from the northeast periphery of S-T, and they only partially / fleetingly partook in its metallurgical uptake.
And what really led to the demographic reshuffle in the this part of northern Eurasia (western Russia - central Siberia) was the 1200 bc phenomena, not the ''S-T expansion''
@ Rob: If I'm reading the Allentoft et al preprint in a proper way, the shared eastern genetic root of the Uralic speakers was not native to the Sayan area. They were immigrants from some place further east, maybe even much further east. This group may very well have loaned lots of bronze technology from other groups they met and most probably they also did. Hopefully the new paper Tambets et al are working on will shed some light on the timing issues, for instance regading the role of the 1200 BCE phenomena. Upper reaches of Irtysh and Ob were BTW definitely not northeast periphery of ST, even if upper reaches of Jenisei perhaps were.
@ Huck Finn
''Upper reaches of Irtysh and Ob were BTW definitely not northeast periphery of ST, even if upper reaches of Jenisei perhaps were.''
The group we're focussing on isnt at the centre of S-T phenomenon, and they only moved into the Ob-Irt, region later. Originally its was populated by WSHG types.
Thought thought was common knowledge by now
It's absolutely stunning the inaccuracies about I6561 that exist in this thread. There should be a higher standard for the statement and word choices. It would help with the reputation of the site and assist those with a lesser understanding.
Y3 absolutely is a T>C mutation. So saying that Y3 is a C>T mutation is absolutely false.
However, there is no result for Y3 in the BAM for I6561. So Y3 is actually has a no-call for I6561.
I6561 is positive for Y26 which is a phylogenetic equivalent to Y3. It is a C>T mutation but not all C>T results are due to deamination. It is only a possibility that is happened due to deamination. If that were the case then all bases that are normally cytosine in ancient samples would be thymine bases and there would be a huge number of mutation with the opposite result that is expected. That does not happen with these ancient samples. There is somewhere around 2727 ancestral reads for C>T mutations. Meaning, they had a cytosine base as expected. There is a very small number of derived C>T mutations that are out of place so they are either from deamination or novel mutations. The likelihood that the C>T mutations are due to deamination as opposed to actually being real mutations is somewhere around 0.3%. Think about that vAsiSTha. That means you have less than a 1% chance of being right that the derived result for Y26 in the BAM for I6561 is due to a false positive caused by deamination. Conversely, there is more than a 99% chance that I6561 really is derived for Y26. This is compounded by the fact that I6561 is also derived for Z95 which also has a greater than 99% chance of a true derived result and is also derived for Z93 and many upstream SNPs.
C>T results are inconclusive when used on their own but not so much when the BAM is properly analyzed and there are a lot of upstream derived SNPs that aren't possibly caused by deamination or another type of false positives.
The FTDNA story site is not proof of anything other than what they decided was the most downstream derived read that they felt was reliable. Just because they don't report a more downstream SNP doesn't mean it isn't real when others look at the BAM file. FTDNA refuses to share their findings on specific SNPs for any of the ancient samples for proprietary reasons. This is ridiculous. Any self respecting scientist should be open to scrutiny.
@Dospaises
There should be a higher standard for the statement and word choices. It would help with the reputation of the site and assist those with a lesser understanding.
Please keep in mind that the comment section is not part of the blog. Anyone can post their opinions here, and unless they break the rules they can post anything they want.
That's how free speech works.
@ Rob and re: "Originally its was populated by WSHG types." Exactly, it seems that the common genetic root of the Uralic speakers was coming from some place much further east. I'm toying with an idea that the root can fex be connected to the area between Hulunbuir and Tsita. Vitim river nearby connects the area with Lena river, which would quite nicely explain the Ymyakhtakh connection, however in my opinion the Ymyakhtakh expansion is a parallel expansion vs. the early Uralic one. That being said, it is far from certain that the language of this N-rich group was Uralic already at that stage.
@dospaises
"It's absolutely stunning the inaccuracies about I6561 that exist in this thread. There should be a higher standard for the statement and word choices. It would help with the reputation of the site and assist those with a lesser understanding.
Y3 absolutely is a T>C mutation. So saying that Y3 is a C>T mutation is absolutely false.
However, there is no result for Y3 in the BAM for I6561. So Y3 is actually has a no-call for I6561."
No inaccuracy from my side. I was talking about R-Y3 as it relates to I6561. Which is Y26, one of the 2 equivalent SNPs that define R-Y3. Y3 itself of course is absent. Altvred brought in Y3 for discussion (i assumed he knew enough about I6561 and meant Y26).
"The likelihood that the C>T mutations are due to deamination as opposed to actually being real mutations is somewhere around 0.3%. Think about that vAsiSTha. That means you have less than a 1% chance of being right that the derived result for Y26 in the BAM for I6561 is due to a false positive caused by deamination."
This is absolute bollocks. Here I have attached the calls for I6561 and Nau001 (Fatyanovo Z93), including separate sheets for CT GA transitions, and false positives.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tmeZTIe8lEtylWD_A4y42rsYehk5XQJ7p49PQZSjxnY/edit?usp=sharing
I6561 has a total of 221 derived C/T or G/A calls, of which 26-28 are guaranteed false. They include G,J,N,I,Q,C,E etc. That makes it >10% error rate.
For Nau001, there are a total of 662 C/T or G/A derived calls. Of these, 163 are guaranteed false and do not lie on the path from A0-T to R-Z93. That's an error rate of 25%.
"The FTDNA story site is not proof of anything other than what they decided was the most downstream derived read that they felt was reliable."
Yes, and error rates of 10-25% are not reliable. Which is why they correctly ignore the transitions.
@dospaises
If you filter further for transition SNPs with just single reads (I6561 has a single read in the bam for Y26), it is even more damning. for I6561, 27/137 are false, ie 20% error rate.
For nau001, its 155/377, ie 40% error rate.
You can check this yourself by filtering the various sheets in my link above.
Similarly, for C3316 from Xinjiang with a single G->A supposed R-L657+ read,
there are 53 false c/t and g/a derived calls which don't fall on the A0-T > R-Y2 path, out of 141 c/t g/a calls in total with a single read.
That's a 37% error rate. So that sample should not be classified as L657+.
@vAsiSTha
Quite entertaining again but tell me how this proves R1a-L657 in India around 2000-2500 B.C? Yeah I know blah blah modern frequency and blah blah Vedic Hasanlu bowl. All this freakish obsession with proving that Steppe MLBA in South Asians came entirely from females in people like Jatts/Ror and Brahmins is really creepy and sounds like it comes from some weird inferiority complex. How do you think a confirmed Fatyanovo lineage arrived in South Asia without leaving any autosomal trace? When in the Bronze Age something like this happened in such a short time frame and don't come with R1b-V88 in Africans or some R1a-L657 in medieval Indians with no steppe. I am talking about how R1a-Z93 in Fatyanovo around 2500 B.C ends up in India around 2000-2500 B.C without having any autosomal impact or are you suggesting Z93 is from IVC too?
@copper axe
I laid down an intellectual beatdown that put you in the denial stage. Now you run away. I am amazing.
And yes clowns are funny. That "potential route" cope and iron age Itabalhum cracked me up. Also, no Iranians in 700BCE Hasanlu but iron age Matiene at the same time hahahaha.
@coldmountains.
First reply to this, don't be shy.
"@coldmountains
So apart from not acknowledging and correcting your false claims of Alexandria I6561 as R-Y3 for 4 years, you have now forced 2 claims on me which I never made.
1. That Fatyanovo Z93 was from India, and
2. That L657 is from AASI or IranN
Show evidence that I ever said such a thing or stfu."
"All this freakish obsession with proving that Steppe MLBA in South Asians came entirely from females in people like Jatts/Ror and Brahmins is really creepy and sounds like it comes from some weird inferiority complex."
I never said it came entirely from females you absolute nutbag. Seriously, were you lobotomized, or were you born like this? Z2124+ sublineages in Indian subcontinent (5%-10% frequency) are clearly from Sintashta males. So is the Z93/Z94 found in swat. But there is a large % of steppe mtdna as well in many groups which can't be discounted. Especially, T1a, U2e, H2a, U4a1 etc.. eg Kalash > 60% steppe mtdna. You do know about the female mediated steppe ancestry in Swat. It of course does not mean that 0 steppe males were involved.
" I am talking about how R1a-Z93 in Fatyanovo around 2500 B.C ends up in India around 2000-2500 B.C without having any autosomal impact or are you suggesting Z93 is from IVC too?"
Had already answered this on this post itself, but since you are lobotomized I will answer once again. Read very closely.
This is ART038 from Arslantepe. Mr. ART038 was R1b-V1636. Now, V1636 was found much earlier in Khvalynsk and Progress, so it's a steppe lineage. Here is proof. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-V1636/tree
But oh no, ART038 has no EHG or steppe autosomal ancestry. Where did it go? What a mystery. How can Y haplogroups spread without autosomal ancestry, Coldmountains said it is against the law of genetics..
Surely some foul play involved here, we must investigate the geneticists involved.
Target: TUR_Arslantepe_LC:ART038
Distance: 3.1358% / 0.03135810
47.6 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_N
29.2 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
16.4 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
6.8 Levant_PPNB
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN
0.0 Levant_PPNB_contam
0.0 Levant_PPNC
0.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.0 RUS_Progress_En
0.0 TUR_Boncuklu_N
0.0 TUR_Buyukkaya_EC
0.0 TUR_SE_Mardin_PPN
External autosomal ancestry can dilute away in 5-6 generations (50>25>12>6>3>1.5), needs a lot of people to admix to sustain it, or needs strict endogamy so it doesn't dilute away. But just one foreign man is sufficient to introduce a new Y lineage to a population and given enough great grandsons, that lineage will never die.
@vAsiSTha
You have absolutely no idea how to determine what defines an SNP. Y3 is defined by a T>C mutation at position 17801058 in hg19/hg37 and position 15689178 in hg38. You can check it at Ybrowse, YFull, ISOGG, Yseq or the Yleaf positions.txt file. I doubt you will check since you don't seem to want to admit your errors.
Both of you were inaccurate when talking about Y3 when not specifying Y26 is the SNP that has a result and has the C>T mutation but Y3 has no result and is defined by a T>C mutation.
There are somewhere around 2727 ancestral reads for C>T mutations in I6561. Read that again. There are somewhere around 2727 ancestral reads for C>T mutations in I6561. That means that C>T mutations due to deamination are far less likely to appear in the results due to deamination than due to a true mutation. Most of those did not have an error. Is this sinking into your brain yet. That also means that number has to be included in the count of possible mutations that did not have an error.
To properly calculate the max error rate of the mutations you have to divide by the total possible points of deamination. There are about 2376 possible points of C>T deamination since that is about the number of positions that could have a C>T mutation. So you aren't even calculating the rate correctly. You didn't include the total count of possible mutations without errors. You only include the count of possible mutations that did mutate and possibly had errors.
If I use your own Yleaf output and count the total number of possible C>T and G>A mutations there is a total of 8405 of which the vast majority have no error. Of the 27 that you think are false that means the error rate is still around 0.3%. That is without disputing which of the supposed false mutations are real due to novel mutations in the sample. I'm not even sure that you understand that recurrent mutations and back mutations can exist.
FTDNA used extreme caution. That does not mean that the Y26 and Z94 results are from deamination especially when less than 0.3% of possible deamination base positions actually had mutations.
@Rob
My comment on Anatolia didn't go through for some reason.
@vAsiSTha
Do you not see that hundreds if not thousands of people reading this comment section are laughing about you? What are you even trying to say? First where is the ancient Z93, Y3 or L657 south of the Urals before 2000 B.C.? Second what has Arslantepe to do with my question? This R1b clade formed around 4500 B.C but the Arslantepe sample is dated to around 3300 B.C so there are more than 1000 years between the TMRCA and low steppe sample, what is enough for any Steppe admix being diluted to zero. But explain how Z93 in Fatyanovo around 2600 B.C teleported to India or South Central Asia in 2300-2500 B.C to become L657 with zero steppe? Not even a single BMAC or Post-BMAC sample around 1800-2200 B.C had R1a and not a single IAMC sample around 2500 B.C so how is R1a-Y3 going to be present in India.
@dospaises
" I doubt you will check since you don't seem to want to admit your errors."
I made no errors, since I explicitly pasted this and it shows Y26 C/T. Check it.
chry 21610995 Y26 R-Y3 C->T C T 1 100 T Derived
"To properly calculate the max error rate of the mutations you have to divide by the total possible points of deamination. There are about 2376 possible points of C>T deamination since that is about the number of positions that could have a C>T mutation. So you aren't even calculating the rate correctly. You didn't include the total count of possible mutations without errors. You only include the count of possible mutations that did mutate and possibly had errors."
Yes, and mine is the correct way to do it. It's called conditional probability. It answers this practical question perfectly.
'Given a derived transition call, what is the chance that it is a false call?'
Ans = false derived transitions/ all derived transitions = 20-50% for single reads.
Your answers tell me that you probably have not worked with any Y assignment tool. Otherwise you would have known how many false assignments occur due to deamination. Below I will give you some relevant sections from Martiniano 2022, on pathPhynder tool.
"The highly degraded nature of aDNA data, including short fragment size, post-mortem deamination, and high fractions of missing genotypes (Hofreiter et al. 2001; Poinar et al. 2006; Dabney et al. 2013), can lead to errors in variant calling and to incorrect placement of aDNA sequences within a phylogeny"
"Then three further filtering modes are available: “no-filter,” where all remaining calls are retained; “default,” in which singleton T calls at C/T sites and singleton A calls at G/A sites are removed to account for possible deamination, and finally, “transversions,” which excludes all transition (C/T and G/A) SNP sites from analysis."
From supplement
"The default parameter is appropriate for most applications, effectively removing deaminated bases, which usually (but not always) do not exceed a single read per SNP site. This parameter is particularly useful for
non-UDG treated samples, which contain higher rates of deamination, or even partial UDG treated samples, where some deamination persists at the ends of reads. The transversions parameter provides the most stringent type of filtering, removing all transitions from analysis, and can be used as a sanity check to ensure that the sample assignment is not being affected by deamination in non-enzymatically treated samples. The no-filter mode is most appropriate for cases where deamination is not a concern, such as UDG treated samples and present-day individuals."
"FTDNA used extreme caution. That does not mean that the Y26 and Z94 results are from deamination especially when less than 0.3% of possible deamination base positions actually had mutations."
Everyone except you uses appropriate caution when dealing with deamination knowing it often leads to false assignments. You for some reason are telling people to ignore deamination for half and nonUDG treated ancient samples.
@Copper Axe You missed the comment where I recognized my Mittani-modern Indians (and Swat) association as non-sequitur. Mittani is unrelated to Sintashta from what we have, but not Indians. Just because steppe ancestry in Indians can be modeled as Yamnaya does not apparently mean that it is indeed from Yamnaya, like in Mittani.
"may"
lmao, truly a midwit. Thanks for conceding that there's zero concrete evidence linking Sintashta to Mittani though, and shilling for a (alleged) female-mediated influence now that it suits you, with an initial source in Yamnaya at that (so nothing is clear).
As with David, time might prove you right. So far it's proving you wrong, though.
Post a Comment